Durham E-Theses Philosophical perspectives on humour and laughter Lippitt, John How to cite: Lippitt, John (1991) Philosophical perspectives on humour and laughter, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/6201/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk J. :___ Abstract 'Philosophical Perspectives on Humour and Laughter' by John Lippitt Dissertation submitted for the degree of M.Litt. in Philosophy, University of Durham, 1991. This dissertation looks at some of the most important theories of humour and laughter, and aims to consider how successful or otherwise those theories have been in explaining these complex phenomena. After a general introduction in Chapter One, each of Chapters Two to Four offers an analysis of one of the three main theoretical traditions: what have been labelled the incongruity, superiority and release theories. Key figures in these traditions are Schopenhauer (incongruity), Hobbes (superiority) and Freud (release). My analyses are lengthy, constituting the bulk of the dissertation, because of the need to consider each theory in more detail than has been the case in previous, often very superficial, reviews. Each of them is ultimately rejected as an inadequate general theory, but the desirability of looking for what is of value in each theory; what light each does shed on humour and laughter, is stressed. During the brief interim conclusion, Chapter Five, key reasons for the failure of previous theories are emphasised, and a suggestion is made as to why any gen­ eral, supposedly all-encompassing theory is likely to fail. The common temptation to offer yet another general theory is therefore resisted: after all, there are other interesting aspects of this subject to be considered. One such issue is taken up in Chapter Six. This final chapter explores the important connection between laugh­ ter, the sense of humour and individual freedom, by comparing and contrasting two views of the function of laughter: Bergson's theory of laughter as a social corrective, and Nietzsche's view that laughter is the appropriate response to the ultimate liberation of an individual. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. Philosophical Perspectives on Humour and Laughter by John Andrew Lippitt A dissertation submitted for the degree of Master of Letters Department of Philosophy University of Durham 1991 2 1 JU l 1992 Contents Abstract ....... 1 Acknowledgements 7 1 Introduction ..... 8 1.1 A preliminary point on terminology 9 1.2 The humourlessness of humour research 11 1.3 Dissertation outline 12 2 The incongruity tradition 14 2.1 Kant on laughter 14 2.2 Schopenhauer's formulation 17 2.3 Critique ........... 20 2.3.1 Types of 'incongruity' and range of usage 21 2.3.2 Inherent and perceived incongruities 30 2.3.3 Humour and laughter ......... 32 2.3.4 A further point on Schopenhauer 34 2.3.5 Incongruity, congruity and incongruity-resolution 35 2.3.6 Is incongruity the real root of funniness? 40 2.3.7 Bain's criticism, context and attitude . 42 2.4 Incongruity and the function of humour and laughter 45 2.5 Summary and conclusion 48 3 The superiority tradition ... 49 3.1 Thomas Hobbes and 'Sudden Glory' 50 3.2 Critique of Hobbes . 52 3.3 Further criticisms of Hobbes 56 3.3.1 Francis Hutcheson and parody 56 3.3.2 Hutcheson's second objection and the object of amusement 58 3.3.3 Hobbes's oversight as the opposite of Schopenhauer's . 60 3.4 Superiority as inessential: puns, nonsense and absurdity 61 3.4.1 Puns . 62 3.4.2 Nonsense and absurdity 70 3.4.3 Ludovici's explanation of nonsense, absurdity and incongruity 71 3 3.5 Laughing at oneself . 75 3.6 A pro-superiority point: being laughed at ......... 77 3.7 A new interpretation of 'superiority': the 'god's eye view' 78 3.8 Summary and conclusion 79 4 The release tradition . 80 4.1 Herbert Spencer and nervous energy 80 4.2 Critique of Spencer . 82 4.3 Sigmund Freud and psychical energy 87 4.3.1 'The Technique of Jokes' ... 88 4.3.2 'The Purposes of Jokes' 90 4.3.3 'The Mechanism of Pleasure' 93 4.3.4 Jokes, 'the comic' and humour 95 4.4 Critique of Freud 99 4.4.1 'The Purposes of Jokes' 100 4.4.2 'The Mechanism of Pleasure' 105 4.4.3 'The comic' and humour ... 109 4.5 The value of the release tradition 110 4.6 Summary and conclusion 112 5 A conclusion and its implications 115 5.1 A synthesis of theories? 115 5.2 Suggestions for future work on humour and laughter 117 5.3 An introduction to a 'smaller' question . 119 6 Two views of the function of laughter: social correction and individual liberation . 121 6.1 Henri Bergson and the social function of laughter 121 6.1.1 Laughter as a social entity 122 6.1.2 Mechanism, life, automatism and inelasticity 123 6.1.3 'The Comic in Character' . ... 125 6.1.4 Bergson's conclusions on laughter 126 6.1.5 Summary ..... 127 6.2 Critique of Bergson 128 6.2.1 'The laughter of a group' 128 6.2.2 The importance of playfulness 131 4 6.2.3 Serious and humorous attitudes . 132 6.3 Friedrich Nietzsche and the individual function of laughter 135 6.3.1 'The laughter of the herd' . 136 6.3.2 'The laughter of the height' 138 6.3.3 'Laughing lions' . 140 6.3.4 'The comedy of existence' . 143 6.3.5 The humorous attitude revisited . 145 6.3.6 Nietzsche, Nagel and the absurd ..... 147 6.4 What can we learn from Nietzsche on laughter? 149 Bibliography . ..... 154 5 No part of this material has previously been submitted for a degree in this or any other university. Copyright © 1991 by John Andrew Lippitt The copyright of this dissertation rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without John Andrew Lippitt's prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. 6 Acknowledgements Many people have helped in the preparation of this dissertation - some of them being more aware of the fact than others. Particular thanks are owed to Dr. David Whewell, my supervisor, and to the Philosophy Department of the Univer­ sity of Durham, for awarding me the Doreen Bretherton Postgraduate Studentship, without the support of which the completion of my research would probably have proved impossible. I am also grateful to many individuals for numerous reasons, such as for reading sections of my work, or for their helpful comments on papers I have presented both in Durham and elsewhere, such as at the Eighth Interna­ tional Conference on Humor, at the University of Sheffield in August 1990. More people have helped through their contribution to informal discussions than can be mentioned here. For their help in one or more of the above ways, I extend my thanks to, amongst others, Professor David E. Cooper, Mr. Martin Hughes, Dr. Barry Gower, Professor Peyton E. Richter, Dr. Lydia Amir, Dr. Bruce Longe­ necker, Dr. Simon Evans, Susan Southgate, Peter Lauber, Neil Allmark and Laura Donohue. Special mention should also be given to Professor John Morreall, for his 0 encouraging comments and kind hospitality on my research visit to the U.S.A.; to Dr.M.E.Orellana-Benado, for permission to consult his D.Phil. dissertation, 'A Philosophy of Humour'; and to the Inter-Library Loan staff at the University Li­ brary, Durham, whose most regular customer I must have been at the height of my research! Finally, special thanks is due to my parents, Pat and Ken, and my late aunt, Wendy, for their invaluable love and support. Much of the Chapter Six material appears, in an earlier form, in my 'Nietzsche, Zarathustra and the Status of Laughter', in the January 1992 issue of the British Journal of Aesthetics. 7 Chapter I Introduction The philosophy of humour and laughter is a very rarely studied field. This seems surprising for at least two reasons. Firstly, the list of thinkers who have considered these subjects worthy of discussion, even if their discussions have of­ ten been brief, is an impressive one: Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hobbes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Bergson and Freud are some of the names it includes. Secondly, if philosophy should concern itself with central aspects of human life, it certainly cannot afford to ignore humour and laughter. The posses­ sion of a sense of humour ranks very high on the list of desirable - even essential - personal attributes. Replies to questionnaires show it as one of the qualities re­ garded as most important in potential partners, and increasingly, phrases such as 'Must have a sense of humour!' are appearing in job advertisements.