Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Inspector

Funny vs. Not Funny

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Of course people aren't going to be like,"I'm a good person, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :(

They could, and do, constantly, as in stating their views, what they value,.. but if

they expect such behavior to be "funny", then they have a strange sense of what

humor is or is for.

that would just be silly.  However, my last example still stands.  There was no insult, no poking fun (in your definition of "mildly insulting").  Yet, I got a bad response back.  Maybe because humor is subjective and everyone has a different sense of humor (i.e. dry humor, toilet humor, etc etc.).
What do you mean by a "bad" response?

Humor is based on seeing the "falsity" in something in such a way that

the "laughter response" is activated within any particular individual.

The "falsity" being pointed out still has to be there (as perceived by the observer)

for there to BE any humor, regardless of the subjective state of the observer.

Just because a joke ain't funny to me (the "ain't" just written is an

embedded "joke" by the way) and IS funny to you means only that I don't see

what the "falsity" was that you saw.

The other example is when I refer to myself as a dumb drummer.  I don't ACTUALLY believe that I'm a dumb drummer, I'm actually quite intelligent (especially FOR a drummer  :P ), but I'm clearly (in my mind anyways) making fun of the stereotype that drummers are dumb, drooling creatures that bang things.  (Which, obviously, we are not).  I agree with Iakeo that the dogmatism is not within the philosophy, but within the person.  But, like anything, how people represent it, is how others will see it.

You value the intelligence of drummers. That's not a joke because it doesn't "poke

fun at" a "falsity of drummers".

When you joke about dumb drummers, you point out the falsity of thinking that

dummers are dumb, simply for being drummers, by making the drummer into a

chimpanzee. Any REAL drummer is more like the target audience of the joke than

a chimpanzee. But people laugh because of the absurdity of the image of an

actual chimpanzee drummer.

A racist makes a joke of a group by pointing out the falsity of his own claim of

superiority, thereby actually mocking his own "feelings".

The racist calls the hairy guy (his chosen inferior) an "ape", and points out the fact

that the hairy guy isn't actually an ape in the process. The other "hairy guy"

racists laugh, because they are conditioned to see this as a "put down" of the

hairy guy and if they don't laugh they are liable to get stomped, even while they

know (even as they evade that knowing) that it only "proves" that the hairy guy is

more like them than not like them.

Okay, you know what?  I'm not interested in making enemies here, nor angering anybody.  I apologize for such an upheaval of a trivial thing as a joke.

Dude..!!

Anytime you have something to say, that you value in other words, SAY IT..!!

That's what conversation, and places like these created specifically for

conversation, is all about.

You can't make enemies of people whom only wish to hear about your particular

view of reality, as long as it IS your view and you don't wish to force it on them,

and you wish to hear about their views, OR unless the people you're talking to are

IRRATIONAL.

And people here tend to think of themselves as VERY rational. :lol:

-Iakeo

Edited by Iakeo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your poor capitalization would seem to be evidence of the latter claim, at least in your case.

You are here espousing a doctrine antithetical to Objectivism. The last time I looked that violates forum rules.

Styles2112, with how much of Objectivism do you agree? Answering will help set a context for your envious comment above.

Somehow I don't think it will make a difference how much I agree with Objectivism to make this right. And, my poor capitilization is due to poor typing skills, not verbal skills.

To actually answer the question...well that's hard. I read "Anthem" and agreed with the principles placed out in there (living for ownself, egoism, etc). I read "Atlas Shrugged" and agreed with most ideas in that, and I'm just now starting (again) "The Virtue of Selfishness" (which, I imagine is a much better breakdown of those individual ideas). So as far as the very basic ideas, I agree wholeheartedly, as far as the broken down details, that remains to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really, it can just be funny. Have you ever watched Seinfeld or Father Ted? A lot of the humour in those shows isnt really 'directed' at anything, its just clever. The target is fairly arbitrary in a lot of jokes anyway; you could replace the 'lawyer' in lawyer jokes with various other professions without altering the structure of the joke, just as you could replace the 'irish' in "dumb irish" jokes with blondes or whatever.

And here's where we disagree.

Nothing is "JUST" anything. Everything has a reason for being, otherwise it

wouldn't "be".

Anything humorous is humorous because it is found to satisfy the conditions in

someone's thinking (mind) for "being funny".

The difficulty of "consciously" finding the qualities within the joke that satisfied

one's required conditions for it to be funny is merely a statement about one's

willingness to look hard enough for them.

Look a bit harder. That's what the universe SCREAMS at us constantly, if we're

trying to become better at what we do.

-Iakeo

Edited by Iakeo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And here's where we disagree.

Nothing is "JUST" anything. Everything has a reason for being, otherwise it

wouldn't "be".

Anything humorous is humorous because it is found to satisfy the conditions in

someone's thinking (mind) for "being funny".

Indeed, however this doesnt serve to justify your claim that all humour is 'directed' at something. A cursory examination of funny things seems to show that this is mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Humor is based on seeing the "falsity" in something in such a way that

the "laughter response" is activated within any particular individual.

The "falsity" being pointed out still has to be there (as perceived by the observer)

for there to BE any humor, regardless of the subjective state of the observer.

Two men walk into a bar, the third one ducks.

where's the falsity in that?

Just because a joke ain't funny to me (the "ain't" just written is an

embedded "joke" by the way) and IS funny to you means only that I don't see

what the "falsity" was that you saw.

I agree. Doesn't that make it subjective?

You value the intelligence of drummers. 

That's a stretch. :lol:

Anytime you have something to say, that you value in other words, SAY IT..!!

That's what conversation, and places like these created specifically for

conversation, is all about.

You can't make enemies of people whom only wish to hear about your particular

view of reality, as long as it IS your view and you don't wish to force it on them,

and you wish to hear about their views, OR unless the people you're talking to are

IRRATIONAL.

And people here tend to think of themselves as VERY rational.  :)

-Iakeo

I suppose it really depends on the conversation. I really don't like being in a conversation where I made to feel like a stupid idiot. I consider myself the type of person who does his best to look at everything from ALL sides, and sometimes, I feel like people will only look from one angle. There's many grey areas in life, I think humor is one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, however this doesnt serve to justify your claim that all humour is 'directed' at something. A cursory examination of funny things seems to show that this is mistaken.

Show me an example of, as you put it, humor not directed "at" something.

Since I don't know what you mean by "non directed at something" humor, I can't

make a cursory, or detailed, examination of any "funny things" that might show

me this "non-directed at something" humor that you claim to be able to find.

When you say "seems like", is that really just an excuse to not look any deeper

than makes you comfortable?

-Iakeo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Show me an example of, as you put it, humor not directed "at" something.

I already did; Seinfeld.

Or the following joke: "Why do mathematicians always mix up Christmas and Halloween? Because Oct 31 = Dec 25". Is that directed at (or mocking) mathematicians? The humour is obviously in the clever number play rather than the 'group' included in the joke; it would work equally well if a person said "I sometimes get Christmas and Halloween confused because Oct 31 = Dec 25".

Or consider: "Rene Descartes walks into a bar and orders a double whisky, which he drinks in one go. When he finishes, the bartender asks him if he wants another. 'I think not" replies Descartes, and disappears in a puff of smoke"

Is this directed at (or mocking) Descartes? Of course not; the humour lies in the wordplay. The same applies to puns and similar types of jokes ("What's brown and sticky? A stick!").

Edited by Hal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I already did; Seinfeld.

You're going to have to be more specific. That show is many seasons long.

Or the following joke: "Why do mathematicians always mix up Christmas and Halloween? Because Oct 31 = Dec 25". Is that directed at (or mocking) mathematicians?
No, it's directed at the english language vis a vis mathematical language.

Or consider: "Rene Descartes walks into a bar and orders a double whisky, which he drinks in one go. When he finishes, the bartender asks him if he wants another. 'I think not" replies Descartes, and disappears in a puff of smoke"

I'd say that IS directed at Descartes, since it shows how silly his ideas are. I know he didn't actually stop thinking, but still...

The same applies to puns and similar types of jokes ("What's brown and sticky? A stick!").

Again, the target is the english language.

But all this is pointless. The debate here is whether humor that mocks virtues or the virtuous qua virtue is funny. Making puns is not mocking virtues so it's tangental to the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it's directed at the english language

What does this even mean?

But all this is pointless. The debate here is whether humor that mocks virtues or the virtuous qua virtue is funny. Making puns is not mocking virtues so it's tangental to the issue.
I was trying to show that things can be funny/clever regardless of the target, since a target doesnt even have to exist. If someone makes a clever remark about something you value, it can still be found funny. Edited by Hal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was trying to show that things can be funny/clever regardless of the target, since a target doesnt even have to exist.

Even if you did show that, it would not prove that things can be funny regardless of the target.

If someone makes a clever remark about something you value, it can still be found funny.

Not by me, unless it makes me realize that I held that belief irrationally. There's simply nothing funny about something that is perfectly true, good, and rational. The "funny" is always in identifying an irrationality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two men walk into a bar, the third one ducks.

where's the falsity in that?

It is funny! :lol:

The falsity is that it's possible for 2 men to be 3 men. If one see's 3 men where

there are 2, or if two men thnk they are 3 men, one of whom can duck or not,

then something is HIGHLY AMISS here..!

Since it's not possible but, considering SOMEONE in this situation is probably

seriously plastered and might THINK they are experiencing this situation, it's funny

because it points out a negative value of being wasted, which is an INSULT to

drunkards, and a joke to any rational person.

I agree. Doesn't that make it subjective?

Yes (as YOU use the word subjective), but it, the joke, isn't "JUST FUNNY" for no

reason.

That's a stretch.

If you don't then you don't value yourself, which is one very good reason to

continue checking into objectivism.

I suppose it really depends on the conversation. I really don't like being in a conversation where I made to feel like a stupid idiot. I consider myself the type of person who does his best to look at everything from ALL sides, and sometimes, I feel like people will only look from one angle. There's many grey areas in life, I think humor is one of them.

First suggestion,.. look at things from YOUR side (with YOUR eyes) while moving

your eyes within your environment with your own legs.

I'm not just being flippant. Many people think that "looking at things from all sides"

means trying to use other people's eyes to see different perspectives. If you

simply say what you think, listen to what's being said, and converse with others in

a spirit of refining understanding, as opposed to combativeness and

defensiveness, your own "legs" (legwork) will give your "eyes" a comprehensive

view of reality.

You're only a "stupid idiot" is you accept the label "stupid idiot". I haven't seen any

evidence of your being a stupid idiot. Just be a rational you. If you can't be

a rational you, then this is probably a silly place for you to be.

"Gray areas of life" is an excuse to not bring those areas into "focus". Gray areas

are invariably those areas that it is simply too painful to explore.

"Gray" is not a color. It's a VERY huge range of colors. Don't substitute a thing

that is very narrowly defined (a particular color) with a thing that is very broadly

defined (gray), if your goal is to clarify and "narrow distinction".

Humor is a joy of fine distinctions.

-Iakeo

Edited by Iakeo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already did; Seinfeld.

"Seinfeld" qua "Seinfeld" (that in itself is a joke!) is not a joke.

I'll wait for an actual joke from you to illustrate your idea.

Or the following joke: "Why do mathematicians always mix up Christmas and Halloween? Because Oct 31 = Dec 25". Is that directed at (or mocking) mathematicians? The humour is obviously in the clever number play rather than the 'group' included in the joke; it would work equally well if a person said "I sometimes get Christmas and Halloween confused because Oct 31 = Dec 25".
That's NOT a joke to me. Why would anyone think that "Oct 31 = Dec 25"..?

If this is a joke to you, please explain.

Or consider: "Rene Descartes walks into a bar and orders a double whisky, which he drinks in one go. When he finishes, the bartender asks him if he wants another. 'I think not" replies Descartes, and disappears in a puff of smoke"

Is this directed at (or mocking) Descartes? Of course not; the humour lies in the wordplay. The same applies to puns and similar types of jokes ("What's brown and sticky? A stick!").

Without the inference to DesCarte, the "I think not" reference has no connection

with the idea of going "poof", as implied by the negative of "I think therefore I

am" from DESCARTE.

Does it mock DesCarte. Yes.

The "falsity" that it points at is that if "I think therefore I am" were a axiom in

reality, this sort of scenario could actually happen...

..which defies experience and reality, and insults the diehard "DesCartian"

philosopher.

The "wordplay" is contains no humor, per se,.. the words are not "JUST FUNNY",..

they are merely the medium of communication of a falsity that fits many people's

requirements for something that is funny.

"What's brown and sticky? A stick."

That is also NOT a joke, without massive internal reference to other information

on the audience's part.

-Iakeo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't get the "bar" joke, Iakeo. It relates to the double meaning of the word "bar" as either "a horizontal pole" or "an establishment that serves alcohol."

The math one relates to the fact that "Oct" and "Dec" are mathematical functions as well as abbreviations for months of the year.

They're both puns, which are really a separate type of humor from the one being discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You didn't get the "bar" joke, Iakeo. It relates to the double meaning of the word "bar" as either "a horizontal pole" or "an establishment that serves alcohol."

The math one relates to the fact that "Oct" and "Dec" are mathematical functions as well as abbreviations for months of the year.

They're both puns, which are really a separate type of humor from the one being discussed.

Oh..!! Very good..! :) "Steel track!" <- "George of the Jungle"

Though I still don't get the math one, I can appreciate that it COULD be funny if I

knew what those functions were and why a mathematician would consider that

equation to actaully be equivalent. Assuming that that is in fact true, it's freakin'

hilarious as it shows that even a "hyper intelligent mathematician" can forget the

context of things sometimes.

Which is a "negative value" (context dropping) and deserves to be mocked.

I also like MY interpretation of the the "bar" joke better, but that's neither here nor

there. :lol:

I still hold that all humor is essentially based on pointing out "negative values"

(un-reality/falsity) in some form or another.

Puns included. (which is a subset of "humor" in my mind)

-Iakeo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having seen this post -- whose theory of humor contradicts Ayn Rand's -- I wonder: With how much of Objectivism do you agree, Punk?

See, that's funny. It's like you're doing a Clint Eastwood, Dirty Harry, impersonation, but you're really just calling him by his handle.

Edited by Thales

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The insistence to not make fun of one's beleifs is a bad sign -

1. Unlike what many have said on this forum, it is possible to deride one's beleifs without doing the same to oneself. A person's beleif and a person's sense of worth and personality are two distinct things. They may be related in certain people in certain ways, it is not the rule for them to be connected.

A What beleifs someone hold conciously are often contradicted by there action - Catholic priests for example. While this definatly has to do with a value judgement against their beleifsa about the universe, it has nothing to do with their beleifs about heaven and hell etc.

B Many people will change there metaphysics, politics, and aesthetics over their lifespan while keeping their essential 'character'. Consider Orwell, he went through several intense beleifs over his life, but his basic questioning independant nature continued - even while he was a socialist Trotskyite.

2. There is a huge differance between what you hold to be true and how you hold it. No matter what one's beleif, it can be held as the center of their personality, as something to act simply as a guide, to be questioned or not to be questioned.

A Beleif in a deity can be backed up rationally without leaping to 'faith'. Aristotle did it, Descartes did it, Newton, who wrote more on the 'end times' then nature did it.

B Some scientists can assert veiws with extreme arrogance (I have solved the mysteries of the universe!!) others can be more conservative about the exact same veiws (it explains everything so far, but in time we will no doubt find new evidence).

3. The beleif that we have found, once and for all the answers to all of reality's great questions is infantile. Consider Ptomley, Descartes, Kant - all giants once infallible dethroned.

A Many of these beleifs are based on the 'Great Thinker' who was, ultimatly, a mere mortal. When we base all our thinking on one man, we inevetably also follow the same errors and have the same missing knowledge as these thinkers. No one today would follow Augustine for example - time has shown his releigion and history to be largely mistaken, but in his time he was a god.

B We have a tendency to ignore or misinterpret other opposing veiws. have you ever talked to a Christian? We begin to think that there is nothing that can disprove or contradict our ideas and cut ourselves off ultimatly from the stream of knowledge.

C We will, when totally basing our lives on an idea, interpret an opposing view as personal attack because of the amount of emotional material now staked on said beleif.

4. The best way to prevent this is to be humourous about one's ideas.

A It prevents us from taking on an antagonistic attitude to other beleifs. When one is directly challenged they are more likely to simply go into a 'fight or flight' mode and react as if under personal attack. Using humour done well, the first instinct will be to accept a veiw as something light and easier to think about.

Well, that should liven this thread up a little.

-Edited for getting emoticons in strange places

Edited by GWDS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whoa, I just caught this. You couldn't be more wrong!

I am advocating the derision of VICES. Bad ideas are a vice. Being of a certain race is NOT a vice (or a choice).

What I am advocating is making fun of racism, not being a racist.

By making that analogy are you meaning to imply that Objectivism is "just another" ideology and that one ideology making fun of another is like one race making fun of another? That's how I'm taking it, and that interpretation does not speak well of your character, so I think you'd better clarify.

Objectivism is NOT "just another" ideology. It is true. If I was Plato, I'd spell that with a capital "T," that's how true it is. We have every right to make fun of false ideas. In fact, I submit it is our responsibility to do so!

Who's with me?!?  :pirate:  :pimp:  B)  :lol:

Making fun racists because you loath them isn't terribly funny either.

I find that good humor comes out of a deep understanding of what is being made fun of together with a positive attitude and sympathy for that thing, whatever it is. Making fun of something you dont like is never really funny.

The interesting things is that so much negative humor is formulaic. As an example:

What do you call a bunch of *insert hated group here* falling from the sky?

-A start

No attempt is made to understand the group at all, nothing of substance is really brought out in the joke. Political humor is typically of this type, and most political jokes are easily adaptable to people of whatever beliefs.

Let's take a geeky physics joke:

A physicist and a mathematician are in a room. They are given instructions to go into the next room and get a glass of water. First the physicist goes in. He finds a sink with an empty glass to the side. He turns on the water, fills the glass and brings it out. The mathematician goes in sees the same setup and does the same. Now they are told to it again. The physicist goes in and finds a glass already filled with water. He brings it out. The mathematician goes in and finds the same situation. He pours out the water ...reducing the problem to one he has already solved. *badda bing*

Its geeky and it requires some knowledge of and respect for physics and mathematics to really be funny.

The fact is that all humor is really about PEOPLE. People are funny. People do funny things. Objectivists are people and they have their quirks. If you cannot laught at yourself and people like you, then you are really full of yourself and that's just sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does the "you" here refer only to Inspector or to Objectivists in general?

So, when Leftists tell jokes about President Bush, that is a sign of their respect for him?

Why would someone who holds the law and his profession as highest values choose to demean them?

Is this an order?

Having seen this post -- whose theory of humor contradicts Ayn Rand's -- I wonder: With how much of Objectivism do you agree, Punk?

I never found Rand's treatment of humor terribly enlightening. But then, of the various philosophers I've read, I've liked none of their treatments of humor. The strange thing is that whenever a philosopher wants to use philosophy to explain some everyday psychological issue, they almost invariably choose humor. I haven't seen a treatment (with some reasonable depth) of happiness, or sadness, or anger, or whatever. It is always humor. A book I read a while back called "Intuition" (I think) tackled this, and came to the conclusion that humor is just the easiest to talk about (most amenable to being put into words).

Humor doesn't demean anything. If anything it elevates and shows respect for the thing. It takes real understanding and respect of something to really be able to make a good joke about it. In fact I might be inclined to contend that the reason most objectivists don't seem to like humor about objectivism is that they don't really have any sort of deep understanding of it. They don't even know it well enough to begin to formulate a good joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(((Iakeo: I appear to have a problem with the quoting in this one.!! :pirate: )))

The insistence to not make fun of one's beleifs is a bad sign -

1. Unlike what many have said on this forum, it is possible to deride one's beleifs without doing the same to oneself. A person's beleif and a person's sense of worth and personality are two distinct things. They may be related in certain people in certain ways, it is not the rule for them to be connected.

You are simply coming up with rationalizations (without any reasoning) for your

belief that "it's possible to deride one's beliefs without doing the same to oneself",

whatever that (in the double-quotes) means.

I still haven't seen an example of what you state as your belief.

A What beleifs someone hold conciously are often contradicted by there action - Catholic priests for example. While this definatly has to do with a value judgement against their beleifsa about the universe, it has nothing to do with their beleifs about heaven and hell etc.

So what..? What is your point here?

B Many people will change there metaphysics, politics, and aesthetics over their lifespan while keeping their essential 'character'. Consider Orwell, he went through several intense beleifs over his life, but his basic questioning independant nature continued - even while he was a socialist Trotskyite.
Then they didn't discover a "stable" metaphysics, did they.

If you find something that you find "satisying", you don't need to change it.

Just because all previous holders of various phylosophies changed their

phylosophies from time to time doesn't mean that all philosophies will

naturally "go in and out of favor" at the whim of their practitioners.

2. There is a huge differance between what you hold to be true and how you hold it. No matter what one's beleif, it can be held as the center of their personality, as something to act simply as a guide, to be questioned or not to be questioned.

Now you're just playing word games. Come back and explain this one when you

understand what you're saying. Or, if you do understanding what you're saying,

say it such that the rest of us can understand it.

A Beleif in a deity can be backed up rationally without leaping to 'faith'. Aristotle did it, Descartes did it, Newton, who wrote more on the 'end times' then nature did it.
Show me. :pimp:

B Some scientists can assert veiws with extreme arrogance (I have solved the mysteries of the universe!!) others can be more conservative about the exact same veiws (it explains everything so far, but in time we will no doubt find new evidence).

Anyone can assert anything they like. It's called "free will". Whether it makes any

sense is a matter of testing it against reality. And each person has to do that for

themselves, or it's (yet another) thing taken "on faith".

What is your point here, again..?

3. The beleif that we have found, once and for all the answers to all of reality's great questions is infantile. Consider Ptomley, Descartes, Kant - all giants once infallible dethroned.
But what if a "philosophy" that simply states "go observe reality, test

your "philosophy" of what you find for yourself, and be REALLY honest"..?

That is objectivism (in my humble opinion).

A Many of these beleifs are based on the 'Great Thinker' who was, ultimatly, a mere mortal. When we base all our thinking on one man, we inevetably also follow the same errors and have the same missing knowledge as these thinkers. No one today would follow Augustine for example - time has shown his releigion and history to be largely mistaken, but in his time he was a god.

"Do your own work" is the prime directive of objectivism. You can't accept

ANYONE as a "god" under that stipulation.

B We have a tendency to ignore or misinterpret other opposing veiws. have you ever talked to a Christian? We begin to think that there is nothing that can disprove or contradict our ideas and cut ourselves off ultimatly from the stream of knowledge.
I love "opposing" views, and don't actually see them as "opposing",.. they are

merely fodder for discussion and ALWAYS point toward furthering my

understanding (clarification) of reality. This is NOT a war. This is finding the truth.

C We will, when totally basing our lives on an idea, interpret an opposing view as personal attack because of the amount of emotional material now staked on said beleif.

Which is why one is admonished to NOT DO THAT..!

Base EVERYTHING on rational exploration of reality.

4. The best way to prevent this is to be humourous about one's ideas.
When you say "being humorous about one's ideas" do you actually mean "allow

for the possibility that you don't (yet) know everything about everything..?

If that's what you mean, then humor is called for, as it points out the errors of

your thinking.

A It prevents us from taking on an antagonistic attitude to other beleifs. When one is directly challenged they are more likely to simply go into a 'fight or flight' mode and react as if under personal attack. Using humour done well, the first instinct will be to accept a veiw as something light and easier to think about.

You are proof that simply trying to explain what "we" believe (which is not

inherently antagonistic) can illicit the "fight or flight" response.

I, personally, will not be extorted into NOT speaking my mind by the possiblity

that I might "offend" someone.

Denigrading one's values for the sake of "appeasing a potential 'enemy'" is giving

up something I value for something I don't give a whit about.

I don't trade greater value (to me) for lesser value. No profit in that..!

Well, that should liven this thread up a little.

-Edited for getting emoticons in strange places

Hae ae ae..! :lol:

Are you just being provocative..!? Naughty naughty..!

-Iakeo

Edited by Iakeo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Making fun racists because you loath them isn't terribly funny either.

I find that good humor comes out of a deep understanding of what is being made fun of together with a positive attitude and sympathy for that thing, whatever it is.  Making fun of something you dont like is never really funny.

Why should I have sympathy toward a falsity in thinking..? You can ONLY make

fun of thngs you don't like.

If something is in error, such as racism, it SHOULD be actively "made fun of"

(pointed at as an error with the intent that others see that it IS an error).

The interesting things is that so much negative humor is formulaic.  As an example:

What do you call a bunch of *insert hated group here* falling from the sky?

    -A start

No attempt is made to understand the group at all, nothing of substance is really brought out in the joke.  Political humor is typically of this type, and most political jokes are easily adaptable to people of whatever beliefs.

The fact that a "formula" is applicable to humor with so many possible targets

means only that so many things about "being human" are worthy of being made

fun of in relatively the same way..!

What is your point hree?

Let's take a geeky physics joke:

A physicist and a mathematician are in a room.  They are given instructions to go into the next room and get a glass of water.  First the physicist goes in.  He finds a sink with an empty glass to the side.  He turns on the water, fills the glass and brings it out.  The mathematician goes in sees the same setup and does the same.  Now they are told to it again.  The physicist goes in and finds a glass already filled with water.  He brings it out.  The mathematician goes in and finds the same situation.  He pours out the water ...reducing the problem to one he has already solved. *badda bing*

Its geeky and it requires some knowledge of and respect for physics and mathematics to really be funny.

It's not actually a joke, as the both the physicist and the mathematician were

told "to get a glass of water".

The physicist does what was requested.

The mathematician does not do what was requested. Unless you meant "he pours

out the water, refills the glass, and brings it out", in which case it IS a joke, as it

points out the "habitual inefficient behavior of the mathematician who MUST start

from ground-zero regardless of the reason for the task".

This joke, no doubt, is told by physicists to point out a negative value (of theirs)

that they see in mathematicians.

Leaving out the punch line is usually a bad idea, if you're trying to tell a joke. :pirate:

The fact is that all humor is really about PEOPLE.  People are funny.  People do funny things.  Objectivists are people and they have their quirks.  If you cannot laught at yourself and people like you, then you are really full of yourself and that's just sad.

From what I've seen, objectivists laugh at the quirks of "mistaken views of

objectivism" quite a lot, as there are A LOT of mistaken views of objectivism.

But no one should have to devalue what they value, unjustly, to "appease"

anyone's sense of "you have no right to value your values more than mine", even

if they are actually, to them, of more value.

(( This gets to the whole question of if it's wrong to "value all 'cultures' equally,

regardless of any evidence that one is actually of more REAL value". The answer

is, of course that the market will decide which is "of more REAL value", and each

individual is free to agree or not with the market's decision. I, personally, will

always agree with the market. ))

-Iakeo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The insistence to not make fun of one's beleifs is a bad sign -

Absolutely everything that is after this in the post is based on the implicit premise that there is no such thing as truth, or fact. Sorry, but that belief is antithecal to Objectivism. We DO believe that there is such a thing as truth. If a person finds the truth, there is no need to "temper" his beliefs with falsehood.

Furthermore, another central tenet of Objectivism is to NOT live life like your standard idiot who is filled with contradictions. Such a person who is filled with contradictions might need to make fun of himself, but WE ARE NOT and thus we do not.

This will make a lot more sense to you after you have read some more, so I am gently suggesting that you stop putting your foot in your mouth. I know you seem to think that your last post would "lighten up" the thread, but it was actually a rabid attack on our central beliefs. I can forgive you because I'm sure you have no idea what you're talking about... or who you're talking to. So in short: put down that keyboard and READ THAT BOOK! :pirate:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inspector, my post did not have to do with truth, but certainty. There is a difference.

Anyway, I'll take your advice at this juncture and cease to post as I am currently halfway through TVOS and am puzzled by what I am finding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No attempt is made to understand the group at all,

The kind of "understanding" that you are calling for is not a virtue to Objectivists, so your pleas are falling on deaf ears. The whole cult of tolerance/understanding is patently irrational.

Objectivists are people and they have their quirks.  If you cannot laught at yourself and people like you, then you are really full of yourself and that's just sad.

I never said that Objectivists all perfectly practiced Objectivism at all times and therefore are never valid targets for humor.

How could you possibly have actually READ what I said:

If I accidentally do something stupid, I can mock it. It's a way of saying "that stupid thing is not essential to my personage. It was out of character. I can laugh at it and it cannot harm me." The thing that must never be mocked is the GOOD. I would not mock the things I consider essentail to myself. A lawyer can mock the FLAWS of the legal system or profession, but not the virtues.

The distinction you're not making is that the target of the humor is always some vice, some flaw. Objectivism does not have flaws. Of course, people trying to practice it do, which is why I've made vicious fun of you in the past, punk.

And still make a statement of that kind? I SAID it would be just fine to make fun of, say, a vice common to Objectivists. The POINT is that it is NOT okay to make fun of a person's VIRTUES.

When you say "if you cannot laugh at yourself," that could mean one of several things. WHICH ONE DO YOU MEAN?

If you mean that I should be able to laugh at the way I stop walking when I get lost in thought, and forget where I was walking to, then that's fine. If you mean I should laugh at the way I strive to uphold an unbreached rationality, then NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Upon reading Chapter one of VOS all statements previously made by myself are retracted on the grounds that I did not understand Objectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...