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

Funny vs. Not Funny

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

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.

I've a few posts under my belt that do the same thing. His handle sure does make it easy! :pirate:

I'm sure that it was unintentional, too, which makes it even better. Of course, Burgess' point is completely valid; let's not lose track of that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying that his "analysis" of humor is superior to Ayn Rand's? If so, why?

Would you say, for example, that he has done a superior job of identifying the essential distinguishing characteristics of humor?

[For anyone new to Objectivism: The Ayn Rand Lexicon has two excerpts from Ayn Rand's comments under "Humor."]

Scott Adams' analysis was simply a method of defining what specific things make a joke funny, not what a joke properly regards, what humor is for, etc.

His theory is that ONE of his categories isn't enough to make a joke, but two or more does the trick. Generally I've found this to be true, but I haven't devoted myself to studying humor so I couldn't say.

Inspector, I think he presents his theory in The Joy of Work, which is nominally about making your work more fun.

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.

I hope you won't be insulted if I say that I told you so. Personally, I had figured your statements were made in ignorance and not malice.

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.

Certainty of untruth is silly (and irrational).

Certainty of ANYTHING, if you consider certainty itself to be impossible because

there is no truth, is pathological.

So, to believe that certainty is possible, you must believe that truth exists,

otherwise certainty is always the pathological condition of anyone searching for

the truth, which they can never accept as the truth.

Therefore, to avoid being pathological, one must search for and find the truths

that one can, or give up the search for truth entirely, which is antithetical to being

a human.

( Humans literally 'eat' truth. Of course, so does all life,.. but we [can] do it with

volition..! )

-Iakeo

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.

NO..!!

Not only can you NOT retract what you said, but WHY would you want to..!?

If you now understand something that you previously didn't understand, that is a

TESTAMENT to your mind as a rational thing. A badge of honor, not a

condemnation that you "were once evil".

THIS IS NOT A WAR..! This is "enlightenment".

You don't get smacked for being rational. You get smacked for being irrational.

And the "smacks" will always take the form of "Look a bit deeper and don't evade

rationality, please! :pirate:"

-Iakeo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to make a point here that I think has been overlooked in the general scuffle. (Four pages since last night! Criminy!!!)

We do not always laugh at something because it is "humorous" or "funny". We laugh because it delights and entrances us. To assume that all laughter is the result of humor and thus that all laughter is derrogatory is an unacceptable package-deal. (I am here using Ayn Rand's definition of what constitutes humor, if you disagree with the definition this will, of course, make no sense to you.)

Simply, while humans have tremendous emotional breadth and depth, we still only have so many physical ways to respond/express our emotions. Ditto for language; there are a strictly limited number of phonemes, but they can express an unlimited number of possible ideas.

The confusion, I think, arises because the physical sensation is the same. But, if you recognize the essential differences between the mental processes going on, I think you will realize what the distinguishing factors are.

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.

What a revelation! :pirate:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(GWDS @ Mar 11 2005, 09:45 PM)

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

And what after reading one chapter out of one book on Objectivism you are now an expert. :pirate:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then, that is what you should have put in your original post, that I understand a bit more about a certain branch of the Philosophy know as Objectivisim. Basically you still have a long away to go before you understand Objectivism, that is if you ever will. So as such I don't see how you can retract any statements based on your understanding of Objectivism figuring you haven't figured it out yet. :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And what after reading one chapter out of one book on Objectivism you are now an expert.

Your ungrammatical sentence is difficult to interpret. Are you saying you think GWDS believes he is now an expert on Objectivism? If so, what is your evidence for saying that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
( Humans literally 'eat' truth. Of course, so does all life,.. but we [can] do it with

volition..! )

I can't make any sense out of this statement. Could you try explaining again?

In particular, what do you mean by the following?

"Humans literally 'eat' truth."

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.

Thank you GWDS. I have disagreed with many of your posts -- both in their content and in their expression -- but I think your retraction is both appropriate and courageous.

What I think you mean by "retract" is the same usage I find in my unabridged dictionary (The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd edition): "1. to withdraw (a statement, opinion, etc.) as inaccurate or unjustified, esp. formally or explicitly; take back."

If that is what you mean, then I offer congratulations. Learning a new philosophy is a long, long road. For many, it is a process of decades. I have been studying Objectivism, off and on, for 42 years. I consider myself to be still a student of Objectivism. The rewards are worth the effort and occasional embarrassment.

I do have a suggestion for method. Beginners in any field, I have seen, gain most when they ask questions, think about the answers, and sometimes tentatively offer their own understanding of the subject they are studying. The worst approach is to attempt to debate a subject one doesn't understand. Debate is for experts. Discussion is appropriate for those who have no answers initially or who have only partial answers initially.

Again, congratulations on your progress.

Edited by BurgessLau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would anyone think that "Oct 31 = Dec 25"..?

The octal number 31 (= 3 x 8 + 1) is equal to the decimal number 25 (= 2 x 10 + 5).

The falsity you laugh at is the equivocation on "Oct" (October vs. octal) and "Dec" (December vs. decimal).

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?

There are actually TWO things to laugh at in this joke:

1. The equivocation on "bar" ;

2. The idiocy of repeating a mistake you just saw another person make.

(I knew this joke as "Two men walk into a bar. You would think the second one would have ducked," which highlights the second man's foolishness even better.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Bwahahahaha! I didn't think of it that way and literally burst out laughing when I read your post. punk's choice of his handle is a perfect example of an irrational person enacting his own reductio ad absurdum. If you call yourself a punk, don't be surprised if people treat you like a punk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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"

Yes, that is what is meant by "reducing the problem to the one already solved." The mathematician replicates the initial situation he faced when he began his first assignment, and from then on he only needs to carry out the same steps he did during his first assignment.

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".

Actually, if he started from zero, he wouldn't make the mistake of reducing the problem to the previous one because he wouldn't be aware of his solution to the previous problem. His error is rather that he seeks to minimize the amount of thinking needed to arrive at the solution instead of minimizing the physical effort needed to carry out the solution. So, in the end, the joke is a dig at rationalism and intellectual laziness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your ungrammatical sentence is difficult to interpret. Are you saying you think GWDS believes he is now an expert on Objectivism? If so, what is your evidence for saying that?

My ungrammatical sentence as you so kindly pointed out is commonly called sarcasm. As far my my ungrammatical sentence goes, unfortuntately I am no expert at grammar and sentence structure and the only reason I am not a total invalid in grammar and sentences structure is due to my reading. I am taking steps to remedy this problem by reading Rex Barks and doing the excercises in said book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to make a point here that I think has been overlooked in the general scuffle. (Four pages since last night!  Criminy!!!)

We do not always laugh at something because it is "humorous" or "funny".  We laugh because it delights and entrances us.  To assume that all laughter is the result of humor and thus that all laughter is derrogatory is an unacceptable package-deal.  (I am here using Ayn Rand's definition of what constitutes humor, if you disagree with the definition this will, of course, make no sense to you.)

We also laugh to relieve stress of impending threat, as a signal to an "oppressor"

that we are "harmless" to them (as with a smile).

All of my statements regarding "humor" were about "humor" and not "laughter". I

still hold that "humor" as humor is "the recognition of irrationality (falsity/error)."

What is AR's definition of humor? I simply don't know that.

Simply, while humans have tremendous emotional breadth and depth, we still only have so many physical ways to respond/express our emotions.  Ditto for language; there are a strictly limited number of phonemes, but they can express an unlimited number of possible ideas.

The confusion, I think, arises because the physical sensation is the same.  But, if you recognize the essential differences between the mental processes going on, I think you will realize what the distinguishing factors are.

Laughter is a physical activity. Humor is a cognitive activity. Laughter is a result.

Humor is a trigger.

So I agree with you entirely. :D

-Iakeo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't make any sense out of this statement. Could you try explaining again?

In particular, what do you mean by the following?

"Humans literally 'eat' truth."

Sure..! :D

To survive, all life must "work" to gain sustenance from "reality". This is usually

called "food".

"Truth" is that part of reality that a living entity uses to gain "food", and that part

of reality that IS "food", because if this "food" were not (in truth) sustenance, it

wouldn't be sustenance.

In other words, "eating truth" means "getting sustenance from reality", while

trying to "eat non-truth" would be the evasion of "WISHING that non-sustenance

was sustenance", and therefore evil (not profitable in value).

Humans simply have a more "interesting" path to "eating truth", as they have to

use their minds to find "truths" to "eat" while most of life does it rather

instinctually.

-Iakeo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Humor is the denial of metaphysical importance to that which you laugh at.  The classic example: you see a very snooty, very well dressed dowager walking down the street, and then she slips on a banana peel . . . What's funny about it?  It's the contrast of the woman's pretensions to reality.  She acted very grand, but reality undercut it with a plain banana peel.  That's the denial of the metaphysical validity or importance of the pretensions of that woman.

Therefore, humor is a destructive element--which is quite all right, but its value and its morality depend on what it is that you are lauging at.  If what you are laughing at is the evil in the world (provided that you take it seriously, but occasionally you permit yourself to laugh at it), that's fine.  [To] laugh at that which is good, at heroes, at values, and above all at yourself [is] monstrous . . . The worst evil that you can do, psychologically, is to laugh at yourself.  That means spitting in your own face.

It's perfectly acceptable to laugh at one's flaws, one's failures, one's ommissions, denying THEM metaphysical importance. It is not acceptable to laugh at your SELF, to do so is to indicate that you, your very person, is unimportant, unworthy, and invalid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you GWDS. I have disagreed with many of your posts -- both in their content and in their expression -- but I think your retraction is both appropriate and courageous.

[...]

Again, congratulations on your progress.

Now it is my turn to retract. I retract any statement I have made that states or implies any support whatsoever for GWDS.

Non-Contradictor ("VOS Chapter 1" thread, post 30, March 12, 2005, 10:32 am) has pointed out that GWDS has publicly admitted stealing ("pirating") -- from the estate of Ayn Rand, I would add. See the "Visiting Leftists" thread, post 76, March 10, 2005, 4:03 pm. I have also begun looking at other posts by this entity who calls itself GWDS.

I am amazed that this Forum tolerates such members. OO.net's main competitor would have deleted his posts almost as soon as they had appeared and he would have been banned.

Edited by BurgessLau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also it is curious but GWDS must stand for something. I wonder what that something is. I am also against his pirating actions, it would seem that any disucussion of property rights goes over his head when he thinks that it is okay to pirate some one elses property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now it is my turn to retract. I retract any statement I have made that states or implies any support whatsoever for GWDS.

Non-Contradictor ("VOS Chapter 1" thread, post 30, March 12, 2005, 10:32 am) has pointed out that GWDS has publicly admitted stealing ("pirating") -- from the estate of Ayn Rand, I would add. See the "Visiting Leftists" thread, post 76, March 10, 2005, 4:03 pm. I have also begun looking at other posts by this entity who calls itself GWDS.

I am amazed that this Forum tolerates such members. OO.net's main competitor would have deleted his posts almost as soon as they had appeared and he would have been banned.

GWDS has shown signs of being honestly interested in Objectivism. He has not always followed the Forum Rules, for which he has been duly warned, but he has not committed any egregious violations that would warrant banning. He has been reminded to pay for his copy of VoS.

OO.net's main competitor

While I am not speaking for David, I think it is OK to mention other websites--even "competing" ones--by name, as long as it is a pertinent comment and not an advertisement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GWDS has shown signs of being honestly interested in Objectivism. He has not always followed the Forum Rules, for which he has been duly warned, but he has not committed any egregious violations that would warrant banning. He has been reminded to pay for his copy of VoS.

While I am not speaking for David, I think it is OK to mention other websites--even "competing" ones--by name, as long as it is a pertinent comment and not an advertisement.

I'd like to place an "ad" for "nationstates", as a place of extreme collectivist

insanity, and a beautiful counter-example to rationality and this forum.

Oh,.. no ads,.. OK,.. call it an "anti-ad", then,.. as that would NOT be an ad, and it

would be pertinent to the subject of this topic of "Funny vs. Not Funny".

I think they are funny,.. and they think they are NOT funny.

I am right, of course, as they are "left", and they are wrong, for the same reason.

-Iakeo

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...