Is Laughter Pain or Pleasure?

 

            Philosophers Plato, Hobbes, Kant, and Kierkegaard attempt to discover the cause of laughter and humor in their respective texts. The most notable part of each work is their intersection and critique of the other writers. Specifically, both Kant and Kierkegaard challenge Plato´s and Hobbes´s theories, but agree that humor stems from shifted expectations. Their discussion allows the reader to think more critically about the origins of laughter in the body and why we perceive certain events as comical. Most importantly, the writers' varying viewpoints expand the readers' own perception of humor, helping them understand the world in a new way. 

           First, Kant offers a radically different theory of humor than his preceding authors, arguing that humor brings the body to a feeling of homeostatsis--not pain. To Kant, laughter is merely a bodily pleasure. He explicity challenges Hobbes´s theory of humor by suggesting we laugh at someone not because we deem ourselves better than them, but because our expectations are strained (47-48). The contrast between our own expectations and then the reality of the joke create humor. As a result, we feel sensory gratification that promotes feelings of good health. Kant´s theory is less cynical than Hobbes in the sense that he believes our laughter stems from a place of curiosity or surprise and not from comparison or degradation. Unlike Plato, Kant believes that their is no pain in pleasure because our laughter does not come from malicious intent. Additionally, Kant´s theory overlaps with Kierkegaard´s in their explanations of the ridiculous, where they both argue that we laugh because our strained expectations. By critiquing both Plato and Hobbes, Kant states that humor is an illusion that deceives our preconceptions, and that realization we see produces sensory gratification.

            Kierkegaard similarly challenges Plato´s and Hobbes´s theories of humor in his explanation of the contradiction. For example, if someone calmly stated that their house was on fire, we would laugh because we expect that person to panic. The contradiction lies between the person´s tone and the event. Like Kant, he believes this phenomenon is painless. He critiques the Aristoltean defintion of the ridiculous because it both ¨lacks reflection¨ and perceives the ludicrous as something instead of the result of a painless contradicition (85). I think the Aristoltean definition mirrors the Plato´s theory because Plato perceives the ridiculous as ignorance instead of recognizing the painless contradiction of the action. Because the ridiculous is ignorance, we laugh at the person because we find ourselves superior--similar to Hobbe´s theory. Because ignorance is evil, humor is therefore partly malicious and painful. Kierkegaard challenges Plato and Hobbes in the same way as Kant. We laugh at someone because our expectation of them turns into nothing or because their actions present a contradicition--not because of their ignorance. 

            Although these theories are different in nature, they all provide interesting and provable theories of humor. After reading, I found myself analyzing why I laughed at something on social media, wondering whether I found the person ignorant or if my expectations were challenged. From a more modern view, I think why someone laughs depends on their character or motive. Someone could laugh at someone because of their ridiculousness, finding themselves better than that person. That could stem from some insecurity or motive to prove themselves worthy. Contrarily, someone could laugh at the contradicition of a person´s tone and the event, which merely shows that their expectation was strained or redefined. This is not harmful to the person or the viewer. I personally agree with Kant and Kierkegaard more than Plato and Hobbes, but I think each theory is partly true and depends on the individual. Further, each philosopher defines humor based on a similar example--our perception of the person´s actions. So, someone could laugh because they think they are better or because of the contradiction between person and action. I do not think you can have one overarching definition of humor--especially in modern times--because people have different motives. We also have different ¨genres¨ of humor that elicit certain responses. However, reading each philosopher provides us with interesting theories to compare and contrast to our own experience. And even if we disagree, we may understand someone else´s perception of humor as a result and expand our worldview more.