Humor Theories and Wow, No Thank You

Philosophers from times past seemed to argue the foundation and reasoning behind laughter and “humor.” Plato argued that what we laughed at was “vice” and that we felt amusement towards people that were “inferior” to us, or in a position of less power. Thomas Hobbes had a similar outlook, he said that people usually laughed when they realized that they were superior to someone else. In addition, that someone laughed (felt humor) when they did better than someone else, when “the failure of our competitors is equivalent to our success” (19). Immanuel Kant seemed to focus more on the physical reaction behind humor and laughter, saying that the “animation of our intestines and internal organs,” (when people laugh) “and this bodily motion produces a feeling of health” (45). He also admits that people take pleasure in humor, however, not as much pleasure as in delight, beauty, and moral goodness. Soren Kierkegaard starts to combine humor and irony, and he interestingly merges humor with religion as well. Kierkegaard's general theory of humor involves “contradiction” as he states that “wherever there is contradiction, the comical is present” (83).

In her book, “Wow, No Thank You,” Samantha Irby seems to touch upon Plato’s theory of humor. Plato states that people usually laugh at others who are “relatively powerless,” and that people laughing at them can be seen as malice because they are in a more vulnerable position. This can somewhat be seen in Irby’s book, except that Irby pokes fun at herself, and invites the audience to laugh at her as well. Because she uses self-deprecating humor, in Irby’s case she is both the “powerless” and the “bully,” so to speak. Because of this, I wonder what Plato would think about Irby’s sense of humor. In an age of social media and facilitated connection, it has become more and more popular and normalized to make fun of yourself to appear or to be relatable. This is a new type of humor, and I wonder what these older philosophers would think of it.