Comic Philosophies in Today's Lens

      This series of articles, thoughts, and perspectives from Plato, Hobbes, Kant, Sand Kierkegaard offers a new and deeper understanding of the aspects of comedy and what makes us, as humans beings, laugh. I thought of these perspectives in the way we discussed comedy and Samantha Irby’s text. I believe the way we described and analyzed Irby’s comical literature aligned similarly to Kierkegaard’s philosophy. He claims that the ‘tragic and the comic are in the same, in far as both are based on the contradiction; but the tragic is the suffering contradiction, the comical, the painless contradiction” (Kierkegaard, 83). Kierkegaard gives an example of this style of comedy he is referring to stating, 

“When a man seeks permission to establish himself as an innkeeper and is refused, it is not comical; but if the refusal is based on the fact there are so few innkeepers, then it is comical, because a reason is used as reason against” (86). 

This idea that comedy is found in contradiction is seen within our comedy today in 2021, in Irby’s essay ‘Into the Gross’ she directly contradicts her messy, chaotic life to one of a perfect beauty blogger. This direct contradiction, in which Kierkegaard is referring to, is what causes a sense of comic relief. 

    However, in Plato and Socrates’ narrative, we see a much different understanding of comedy. Socrates argues that comedy solely stems from a place of pain mixed with pleasure. Socrates guides us, and Plato, on this understanding that if we find pleasure in our enemies’ pain, yet we also find laughter “at what is ridiculous in our friends” (13). However, this mixture of finding pleasure within our friend’s pleasure and pleasure within our enemies’ pain appears to still be a strong mode of comedy today. The ABC television show, America's Funniest Home Videos along with the YouTube videos of people falling or slipping into a pool which led to millions of hits because people still find pleasure in other’s pain. We also see on shows like Saturday Night Live where they mock public figures—emphasizing their mishaps. 

Kant and Descartes's philosophies also offered a different insight, a brand of humor which we still see today Descartes broke comedy down into three many sections, “wonder, (mild) hatred, and joy” (21). I was most curious and interested in the idea that wonder is the main category for humor. Kent expands on this idea and states that for the comedy to begin one must have an interest “whether of vanity or of selfishness” (20). We once again see this in pop culture, humor is based on our main interests and fascinations. 

        Kant continues expanding on comedy and his philosophy goes a bit deeper into the human aspect of it. He focuses more on the comedic, rather than the average individual, the listener. This is different than the other philosophers we have read, as Kant applauds the Samantha Irby’s of the world for putting themselves on that platform. Kant states, “Humor in the good sense means the talent of being able voluntarily to put oneself into a certain mental disposition, in which everything is judged quite differently from the ordinary method (50). This way of recognizing and appreciating the comics' vulnerability aligns with our class discussion from last Monday where recognized that Samantha Irby is so funny because she is so open. 

        The way comedy was broken down and analyzed within these texts offered the peculiar way in which everyone has different senses of comedy. One person may align more with Samantha Irby, Kierkegaard, and Kant, while others may find people’s wipeouts to be pure comedy and agree more with Socrates's philosophy. Overall, these elements and philosophies on what and how brings us laughter has been seen and expanded throughout hundreds of years. It is wild and fascinating to see how much life has changed, yet one of the simple elements of human being, laughter, has continued to be painted, studied, and shared in a similar light.