Humour

            On Monday October 24^th, our lecture was on the topic of humour.

            Professor Russell showed two videos in split screen. One showed a bird living in an apartment as a human and the other showed a tyrannosaurus rex competing on a reality show. These are incongruous examples of humour. One can set up contrast with a punch line or set up incongruity with a punch line. But in geometry, two incongruous lines are not funny.

            Another image had the caption, “Three signs you need to revaluate your choices.” And the image consisted of a close-up of someone wearing crocs with white socks, cargo shorts and an ankle monitor.

            A video of a woman taking a photograph with the camera facing her and she doesn’t realize it even when the flash goes off in her face. This is not only funny in the sense of being Incongruous but also in the sense of Superiority the viewer feels at not being in the woman’s position.  When we get a joke we also feel superior over ourselves for getting it and if some other people don’t get it the humour is increased.

            He showed the image of a pretty woman with her hand over her mouth and played the sound of a fart.

            Why are social taboos such as fart jokes; swearing; crass, grotesque, offensive or sexual jokes funny? They are neither Incongruous, nor do they give us a sense of Superiority. These are the types of humour that come from the release of the tension of repressing social taboos. But not everything that releases tension, like yoga, is funny.

            All three theories are too broad though and all fail on “if” conditions.

            Someone asked about self-deprecating humour. Devlin said that the humour could come both from a sense of superiority and from the relief of tension.

            I asked if incongruity was what makes babies laugh because to their limited experience, everything is coming from left field.

            Each one of these theories explains an aspect of humour. Maybe we could combine them, except that they are not always all present. What they have in common though is Anomaly. Incongruity twists the ordinary. Superiority gives non-superiority a boost.

            Anomaly is any warping of reality or reality with a twist. But is anomaly necessary?

            Someone asked about anti-humour.

            Laughing at cuteness and the “Oh, that’s so true!” laugh may not be about humour.

            Devlin projected an image of the sign outside of the Springfield Dental Complex on the Simpsons that had the message, “No matter how you brush, you’re doing it wrong.”

            Given the failure of these theories, why do we need a philosophical theory? Isn’t humour more of a question for psychology?

            Directly after class, I went up to the Jackman Humanities Building to meet my TA for the first time and to show her what I had for my essay, so far. As I got to the corner of St George and Bloor, another cyclist, who recognized me from Aesthetics class, greeted me and asked if I was also going to meet the TA. He told me I could go before him. When we arrived in the lounge on the fourth floor that they pretentiously call “the Conversation Lab” there was already another student from our class waiting to talk with Melissa about his essay. The guy I’d met outside, I think he said his name was Geoff, and I chatted about my Canadian Poetry course. He said it sounded like the kind of course he’d like to take. Then Geoff and the other guy, with me hanging on the fringes, got into a conversation about the Aesthetics course. Geoff has a lot of nervous energy and he’s very intellectual and so he talks fast while weaving a complex web of ideas that I wasn’t entirely convinced that he understood himself. He’s also very good looking, with chiselled features that make me think he’s probably very photogenic, though with a touch of madness thrown in. The other guy had longish curly hair and a pair of white headphones around his neck. He started talking about beauty in relation to aesthetics but I pointed up that the word “beauty” hasn’t even entered into any of our lectures or readings about art. He corrected himself. Geoff argued that he didn’t think that there should be a philosophy of art and to analyze art in that way is counter to what art is all about. He didn’t like the analytical approach, but I told him that he was sounding pretty analytical to me.

            Our TA, Melissa Rees, arrived, and she talked to the guy with the headphones first. He didn’t have his essay with him, so he just asked a few questions about his ideas on how to approach his paper. Then a woman who’d come in after all three of us said, “Quick question!” and ended up talking to Melissa about her essay for ten minutes. Next it was my turn. It looked like I was the only one that actually brought something to show her. She read what I had so far and then told me that it was great writing and she loves to read writing like mine, but that unfortunately she has to mark it like a philosophy paper so I have to make it boring and pedantic. She gave me a few suggestions as to how I could switch things around and make it better. I found her to be very nice, or at least so diplomatic that she should work for the UN.

            When I’d finished, I noticed that Geoff had left.

            After that point I had to put aside my Aesthetics essay for a day or so, because my Canadian Poetry essay on Decadence was due the following evening and I really had to buckle down and get that done.

            After a siesta in the late afternoon, I spent the rest of the night on the English paper, even eating my dinner quickly while sitting at the computer.