Plato, Hobbes, and Samantha Irby
Nathan Galloway
2/1/2021
This week's readings deal with multiple philosopher's conceptions of where laughter comes from and the value of that laughter. The first two readings from Plato and Hobbes are--in my view--incorrect views of humor. They both look at humor as a stratification technique, with amusement coming from the failings of others and the realization that this makes us, the one laughing, appear superior to the fool we are laughing at. I understand where they are coming from when someone is laughing at someone else for their amusement. This is where Hobbes and Plato are correct. If someone misuses a word, trips over their shoelace, or unintentionally embarrasses themselves, laughter is an "evil" or a "vice".
However, I fundamentally disagree with Hobbes and Plato in the context of modern humor and professional comedy. When someone like Samantha Irby makes jokes about her life to get a message across to her viewership that transcends a moment of laughter, comedy moves from vice to virtue. The pain that Socrates explains to Protarchus is shared by the comedian and the audience and this leads to healing and a deeper understanding of oneself. After all, part of Aristotelian virtue is actively taking steps to improve your life. Comedy can be a Segway to conversations about taboos (aka “vices”).
Socrates says that one vice is being ignorant about your wisdom, beauty, or wealth (Plato, 12). To scoff at humor and disregard it as filled with vice rather than a vehicle for conversations about vice and about improving vice, is to act ignorantly about your human fallibility. If you were an immortal genius with no flaws, maybe humor would be pointless. However, every mortal has vices and through humor, these vices can be left unguarded by our egos. This allows for transformation to a more virtuous way of life.
Comments
Post a Comment