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

Funny vs. Not Funny

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

"Mocking" to most people means, "saying anything negative about", where the

negative is defined by the mockee.

I don't think the negative is defined by the mockee, but by the mocker. In a philosophy class where the "pizza" substitution gag is used, the person making the joke is saying that whatever Peikoff was talking about was not to be taken seriously. It is not Peikoff who decides this, but the person making the joke.

The error lies in the equivocation between what the mocker thinks reality is, vs. reality itself. If the negative were defined by the mockee, it would be the mockee's error that enabled the joke to be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I would not be a happy person, if I took everything seriously (including my own beliefs).

I take my own beliefs seriously, and I am a happy person. I think that either you're not phrasing things right (i.e. I misunderstand), or you have some kind of trouble accepting your beliefs. Are you an Objectivist?

I don't think that any Objectivist should be unhappy because they take Objectivism seriously. There's something VERY wrong with that statement. (I don't mean to be insulting)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For instance, the other day I was discussing the so-called "father of psychology" with my sister. She accidentally referred to him as "fraud." Which was itself a "Freudian slip." Or would that be "Fraudian slip?"  :)

I just now stumbled onto this thread and would like to point out that Freud is the father of pscyhoanalysis, not psychology. Wilhelm Wundt is generally recognized as the father of psychology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just now stumbled onto this thread and would like to point out that Freud is the father of pscyhoanalysis, not psychology.  Wilhelm Wundt is generally recognized as the father of psychology.

Oh, right. My bad. I only put it that way so as to not reveal the punchline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take my own beliefs seriously, and I am a happy person. I think that either you're not phrasing things right (i.e. I misunderstand), or you have some kind of trouble accepting your beliefs. Are you an Objectivist?

I don't think that any Objectivist should be unhappy because they take Objectivism seriously. There's something VERY wrong with that statement. (I don't mean to be insulting)

You're right, that didn't come across, entirely, as I had intended it. I didn't mean that one should not be happy in their beliefs. I more just meant that I know many people who can't just take things for what they are, and sometimes, you just have to laugh. The world is a funny place filled with funny people.

I guess the real point is, that if you're offended by an intended joke, going all up in arms about it, doesn't really solve anything. Simply PM them, address why you were offended, and they should either apologize, explain a possible misunderstanding or both. I think there's no real need to take humor this seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're right, that didn't come across, entirely, as I had intended it.  I didn't mean that one should not be happy in their beliefs.  I more just meant that I know many people who can't just take things for what they are, and sometimes, you just have to laugh.  The world is a funny place filled with funny people.

I'm glad it's not what it looked like at first, but I still don't quite know what you mean. If you simply mean "don't get so angry at jokes," well, that depends on the joke. It's all about what is being targeted. I've heard jokes that suggest things like "rape and murder are funny." I'm going to get mad at a joke like that. But other stuff isn't going to necessarily get any more than a raised eyebrow. It all depends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the negative is defined by the mockee, but by the mocker. In a philosophy class where the "pizza" substitution gag is used, the person making the joke is saying that whatever Peikoff was talking about was not to be taken seriously. It is not Peikoff who decides this, but the person making the joke.

The error lies in the equivocation between what the mocker thinks reality is, vs. reality itself. If the negative were defined by the mockee, it would be the mockee's error that enabled the joke to be made.

If I say something that I see as a reality, such as "your hair is BIG today", and

you take my observation of reality as mocking you, then you (the mockee:

target/subject of "mock") have defined my observation as mocking you.

That's what I meant.

I, personally, am very difficult to "mock" or "insult", because I try to define/test

the "comment" (pre-defined-as-mock-statement) as an observation of reality on

the part of the commentor, and if it's not a reality, I point that fact out in as clever

a way as I can. And if the comment IS a reality, I deal with that as something to

think about, and usually laugh at in myself.

Actually, I think the pizza substitution joke is a great joke! It's funny because it

points out the silliness of arbitrariness.

-Iakeo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just now stumbled onto this thread and would like to point out that Freud is the father of pscyhoanalysis, not psychology. Wilhelm Wundt is generally recognized as the father of psychology.

But "FRAUD" is the father of psychoanalysis..!!

Let's all get THAT straight. ;) Hae ae ae

-Iakeo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad it's not what it looked like at first, but I still don't quite know what you mean. If you simply mean "don't get so angry at jokes," well, that depends on the joke. It's all about what is being targeted. I've heard jokes that suggest things like "rape and murder are funny." I'm going to get mad at a joke like that. But other stuff isn't going to necessarily get any more than a raised eyebrow. It all depends.

I completely agree. I really don't like those Dead baby jokes. I, personally, find them disgusting/revolting. However, I tend to make weird faces when I drum (because I'm focusing so much on what I'm doing), and if someone were to make fun of me for that, I'd probably laugh with them (especially if it were another drummer who made equally funny faces). The second example is not ground in any "Values" or in any "rational" or "Irrantional" thought. It's just something that happens, and even when I've seen video of myself drumming, I've had to laugh at the silly things I do. Some people don't have the ability to do this. But, then, some people think I'm weird because I don't think dead baby jokes are funny. It's about the audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I say something that I see as a reality, such as "your hair is BIG today", and

you take my observation of reality as mocking you, then you (the mockee:

target/subject of "mock") have defined my observation as mocking you.

That's what I meant.

I call that "miscommunication", not "definition".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I call that "miscommunication", not "definition".

Isn't that, often, the definition of miscommunication? When one person thinks one thing, and the other thinks another? Isn't that, in many ways, what's funny about it? Like the "two men walk into a bar" joke. Is the idea that you're INTENTIONALLY miscommunicating the idea of what a bar is? Hence the play on words?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that, often, the definition of miscommunication? When one person thinks one thing, and the other thinks another? Isn't that, in many ways, what's funny about it? Like the "two men walk into a bar" joke. Is the idea that you're INTENTIONALLY miscommunicating the idea of what a bar is? Hence the play on words?

It's not "miscommunication" because the intended words "your hair is BIG today"

were meant to be communicated exactly as stated.

The phase, though, was "misinterpreted", by which I mean "defined by the

reciever differently than the intention of the sender".

And, yes,.. it is funny. To either a third party who "gets the joke", or to the sender

of the words, after seeing that he'd been misinterpreted. In other words, he "got

the joke".

The receiver DOESN'T think it's funny, in this case, or it wouldn't be defined

as "mocking" by him.

-Iakeo

Edited by 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...