Pubblicato in “Philosophy Compass”, Volume 5, Issue 2, pages 112–126, February 2010.
Abstract
Humor is a surprisingly understudied topic in philosophy. However, there has been a flurry of interest in the subject over the past few decades. This article outlines the major theories of humor. It argues for the need for more publications on humor by philosophers. More specifically, it suggests that humor may not be a well-understood phenomenon by questioning a widespread consensus in recent publications – namely, that humor can be detached from laughter. It is argued that this consensus relies on a cognitivist account of emotion, one that is open to debate, and that it becomes unclear what sorts of phenomena a theory of humor is supposed to explain when one questions this assumption.
1. Introduction
Humor is a surprisingly understudied topic in philosophy. Joke-telling customs exist across cultures. Comedies are among the best reviewed and highest grossing films. Comedy shows such as, in the United States, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Saturday Night Live play a key role not only in entertaining but shaping citizens’ perceptions of current events.1 Yet surprisingly, little has been written in philosophy on humor.2 This neglect is partly because of the difficulties involved in defining humor. It is surprisingly difficult to pin down a list of necessary or sufficient conditions for humor.3 The neglect of humor may also be a result of the fact that it seems to involve less momentous emotions than art forms such as tragedy or melodrama and less rarified esthetic experiences than the beautiful or the sublime. Elements of this bias can be traced back to Plato’sRepublic, where Socrates urges that the guardians should avoid laughter because it undermines rationality and self-control (Plato 58–9). Subsequent philosophers may have ignored humor because they took it to involve childish emotions that do not merit philosophic reflection.
Commenti recenti