Isn’t it not entirely rational to declare something so unequivocally, based on:
“Our best guess...”?
A. I’m not sure I agree that humor is simply unexpected pattern breaking. I’m sure there’s a link that elaborates that theory? There are many aspects of humor, and I think breaking it down to such a blanket statement is probably too simplistic. (I do agree that’s certainly part of it).
B. Even if your statement is correct, you are then also implying that it is purely objective what it funny, and thus purely objective what the patterns are and how they are to be broken. Patterns to you might not be patterns to me. Or we might see the same pattern, and you might not find breaking it funny, but I do. Or I might find breaking the pattern offensive while you find it neutral. Or you might expect it and I might not. Or you might understand it while I don’t.
Because of A and B, I think that “funny” is subjective. People can rationally discuss why they think something is funny...but I don’t think they can discuss it in the context of “that is ojectively unfunny”. You are implying that you know all the patterns, and can comment on whether the pattern was successfully borken in that instance.
Or rather: you can rationally analyze why that joke wasn’t funny TO YOU, but you can’t rationally analyze why it WAS NOT funny.
If I rephrase my bird issue: it’s like rationally analyzing that bird sounds are or are not pleasing. (you’re right that I phrased it sloppily).
As for
“The joke was definitely not “Descartes died thus stopped thinking”
I might misunderstand, but I thought that’s what you said:
“Rene Descartes died, therefore he stopped thinking” isn’t funny.
(although I’m not sure this aspect of it is important to the bigger issue of “funny”)
“Rene Descartes died, therefore he stopped thinking” isn’t funny.
In the right context, I find it to be. It’s so obvious and uninsightful that it causes an unexpected pattern break if you expect any sort of twist or clever input.
And there is why it seems not entirely rational to discuss what is and isn’t funny...Shokwave believes that he has rationally shown that “Rene Descartes died, therefore he stopped thinking” isn’t funny. You have used his same logic to demonstrate that it IS funny.
I personally don’t think it’s funny, as delivered. But, with the right delivery, it could be hilarious, I suppose.
I’m fascinated by the rational discussion of “the nature of funny”, by the way. I was opining on the discussion of “the objective funniness of a particular joke”.
Isn’t it not entirely rational to declare something so unequivocally, based on: “Our best guess...”?
Nope. That we can only guess means we don’t understand; what we don’t understand, we ought to analyse, rationally if at all possible.
“Rene Descartes died, therefore he stopped thinking” isn’t funny.
This section in quotes is the only conclusion you can draw from Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am”. Humans are familiar with the concept that death stops brain function, so the section outside the quotes is invariant over all subjective viewpoints. Therefore, someone trying to make a joke about Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” is almost certainly going to commit some form of logical fallacy, because the only non-fallacious route isn’t a joke. That is, “joke” strongly implies “fallacy”, because “correct” strongly implies “not funny” (implicit assumption that “funny” is a necessary condition for “joke”).
“What we don’t understand, we ought to rationally analyze....”
Absolutely.
And what “our best guess” imples to me is that we don’t fully understand “funny” or “joke” or “comedy” So we ought to rationally analyze that issue. What I feel you did there was you took your interpretation of “our best guess” as good enough and moved forward with unequivocated confidence to apply it to a joke that someone wrote. I feel like there is a procedural lapse there. You were anayzing The Joke At Hand, while admitting that we do not really understand “jokes in the abstract”.
Thus: we don’t understand what makes certain bird sounds pleasing to people, but I am going to make an unequivocated statement that this bird sound is objectively not pleasing, based on our best guess.
anyway...
“Rene Descartes died, therefore he stopped thinking” … is the only conclusion you can draw from Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am”.
You are assuming a causality that the “being” creates the “thinking”. One could also assume that the thinking creates the being, which is where the joke forms.
I personally think it’s neither: “thinking” is evidence of “being”, the causality being ambiguous.
“Nope”
Isn’t it not entirely rational to declare something so unequivocally, based on:
“Our best guess...”?
A. I’m not sure I agree that humor is simply unexpected pattern breaking. I’m sure there’s a link that elaborates that theory? There are many aspects of humor, and I think breaking it down to such a blanket statement is probably too simplistic. (I do agree that’s certainly part of it).
B. Even if your statement is correct, you are then also implying that it is purely objective what it funny, and thus purely objective what the patterns are and how they are to be broken. Patterns to you might not be patterns to me. Or we might see the same pattern, and you might not find breaking it funny, but I do. Or I might find breaking the pattern offensive while you find it neutral. Or you might expect it and I might not. Or you might understand it while I don’t.
Because of A and B, I think that “funny” is subjective. People can rationally discuss why they think something is funny...but I don’t think they can discuss it in the context of “that is ojectively unfunny”. You are implying that you know all the patterns, and can comment on whether the pattern was successfully borken in that instance.
Or rather: you can rationally analyze why that joke wasn’t funny TO YOU, but you can’t rationally analyze why it WAS NOT funny.
If I rephrase my bird issue: it’s like rationally analyzing that bird sounds are or are not pleasing. (you’re right that I phrased it sloppily).
As for
“The joke was definitely not “Descartes died thus stopped thinking”
I might misunderstand, but I thought that’s what you said:
“Rene Descartes died, therefore he stopped thinking” isn’t funny.
(although I’m not sure this aspect of it is important to the bigger issue of “funny”)
In the right context, I find it to be. It’s so obvious and uninsightful that it causes an unexpected pattern break if you expect any sort of twist or clever input.
And there is why it seems not entirely rational to discuss what is and isn’t funny...Shokwave believes that he has rationally shown that “Rene Descartes died, therefore he stopped thinking” isn’t funny. You have used his same logic to demonstrate that it IS funny.
I personally don’t think it’s funny, as delivered. But, with the right delivery, it could be hilarious, I suppose.
I’m fascinated by the rational discussion of “the nature of funny”, by the way. I was opining on the discussion of “the objective funniness of a particular joke”.
Nope. That we can only guess means we don’t understand; what we don’t understand, we ought to analyse, rationally if at all possible.
This section in quotes is the only conclusion you can draw from Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am”. Humans are familiar with the concept that death stops brain function, so the section outside the quotes is invariant over all subjective viewpoints. Therefore, someone trying to make a joke about Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” is almost certainly going to commit some form of logical fallacy, because the only non-fallacious route isn’t a joke. That is, “joke” strongly implies “fallacy”, because “correct” strongly implies “not funny” (implicit assumption that “funny” is a necessary condition for “joke”).
“What we don’t understand, we ought to rationally analyze....”
Absolutely. And what “our best guess” imples to me is that we don’t fully understand “funny” or “joke” or “comedy” So we ought to rationally analyze that issue. What I feel you did there was you took your interpretation of “our best guess” as good enough and moved forward with unequivocated confidence to apply it to a joke that someone wrote. I feel like there is a procedural lapse there. You were anayzing The Joke At Hand, while admitting that we do not really understand “jokes in the abstract”.
Thus: we don’t understand what makes certain bird sounds pleasing to people, but I am going to make an unequivocated statement that this bird sound is objectively not pleasing, based on our best guess.
anyway...
“Rene Descartes died, therefore he stopped thinking” … is the only conclusion you can draw from Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am”.
You are assuming a causality that the “being” creates the “thinking”. One could also assume that the thinking creates the being, which is where the joke forms.
I personally think it’s neither: “thinking” is evidence of “being”, the causality being ambiguous.