Kierkegaard *insert comical finish here*

"Wherever there is life, there is contradiction, and wherever there is contradiction, the comical is present" (83).

To Kierkegaard, life is a big joke! Or at least it can be...there are two parts to life, the tragic, and the comical. And it seems to be, that Kierkegaard is saying that if you see a way out of a situation, any situation can be funny. And in my experience, that is the case...or at least the situation is not as bad as it once was. (I also feel that when looking back on a situation, even if it was bad, it's funny now)

The perfect example of this would be my Parent's Honeymoon. They decided that rather than flying somewhere exotic, they would drive from Milwaukee to somewhere in North Dakota (or maybe South Dakota, I haven't heard this story in a while, but I remember enough of it to get the point across). While driving, their car broke down in the middle of the high way. Since they were on their honeymoon, rather than one staying behind, they decide to both get out, and walk towards the next exit (which had a hotel and a couple gas stations). They decide to walk with their luggage not knowing if they could get back to their car that night. While walking, it starts to rain, not raid, so much as it was pouring down incredibly hard. So heavy that the road started to flood in parts.

Just like that...well...maybe less severe

So they get to the hotel, soaking wet, and they ended spending the rest of their honeymoon there (by choice, their car got fixed). Looking back on it, and everytime they tell the story, they can barely finish it they're laughing so hard. Then of course we all start laughing (perhaps due to superiority theory?) But they said that they would never change it if they could.

Cue footnote...an incredibly long footnote.

Think of it like this...only about 100 times bigger...

In the footnote, he gives a couple of examples of humor (which is stretching the word...greatly):

"If one were to say: 'I would stake my life that there is fully four shillings worth of gold in the binding of this book,' it would be comical. The contradiction is that between the highest pathos (to risk one's life) and the object; it is teasingly sharpened by the word fully, which keeps open the prospect of perhaps four and one-half shillings worth, as if that were less contradictory" (85).

That's funny? I would say that's just weird...and maybe a little stupid. But humor clearly changes over time.

If Kierkegaard got one thing right about laughter (and it appears to be timeless), it's that we enjoy laughing at the intoxicated...at least occasionally.

Schopenhauer, sans the Power

Arthur Schopenhauer adds to what Kant already wrote about. I like Schopenhauer much better than Kant, especially his theory.

While he agrees that there is an expectation of what is to come, and when it is not fulfilled, we laugh, Schopenhauer adds a part about the real object and the concept. See the example below..

Kayla: Ok...What's yours like?
Me: Mine holds junk
Kayla: Damn, I thought it was a cup
*Laughter Ensues*

This example actually happened, but I changed the name of the guesser, and I left out a lot of the previous clues that made her think it was a cup (i.e. holds liquid).

Another example, although in a mildly depressing (while hilarious) form comes from (yet again) my favorite comic strip Cyanide&Happiness!

While it is sad that the boy's parents get divorced, it's funny how it happens, and the fact that neither of the parents stopped to ask the boy what it was (or for them...what caused it).

There is a concept: the cup, or the drinking problem, and then there is the real object, a cup to protect a man, and a cup to drink out of; and a drinking problem with alcohol, and a mathematical drinking problem. What ensues is what Schopenhauer referes to as "ludicrous".

Kant, an Expectation Unfulfilled...

First of all, I really don't enjoy reading Kant. I think he's very boring, even if occasionally right. Perhaps it stems from a philosophy class I took freshmen year...regardless, I get bored out of my mind while reading him.

Enough of the aside, and onto Kant. First, Kant's major idea is that "laughter is an affection arising from the sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing" (47). Of all the online comics I've read, one Cyanide&Happiness is the one that I've noticed to be true in almost every case. While some are offensive, others show this case exactly.

This example is one of my favorite from this comic site. In the first frame we get an example of something we wouldn't expect; a father trying to sell his son. But throughout the strip, we also don't expect the son to be going along with this. (I will admit that I believe the imagery helps, that is to say the facial expressions of the characters).


Kant also says that laughter helps people feel healthier. He goes through the whole bodily process that results in laughter. This is hard to disagree with in by any means, since we know that laughing releases endorphins which elevate our mood.

While there is no punch-line to most Cyanide and Happiness comics (something which Kant emphasizes), they are funny nonetheless. While jokes with a punch line may be much easier to deliver, a punch-line joke is no longer necessary. Many comedians have switched to one-liners to get many points across quickly. Demetri Martin is a perfect example of this. I won't go into his skit, but if you're interested, look him up!

Aristotle - Boors and Buffoons!

In the first sentence of the required reading, we get what Aristotle believes about comedy, "comedy...is an imitation of people who are worse than average" (14).

Aristotle also wrote about what he called "buffoons" and "boors". Buffoons are those that "cannot resist any temptation to be funny, and spares neither himself nor others if he can get a laugh" (15). *this, to a point, is definitely me* The Boor "contributes nothing and takes offense at everything" (16). I don't even know how many people I know who fit these two categories. Although, I would argue that in society today, the "buffoons" are more conscientious about others' feelings than perhaps they were in his time.

Aristotle also addresses different types of humor from different types of people; educated and uneducated from well-bred and vulgar people.

Plato

So I failed, on one of the first assignments of the semester! I forgot to do a blog post on Plato, so I figure I'll do it now, regardless of what happens.

Plato:

Plato's work is created through dialogue between (often) two "characters", Socrates, and one other one. In this particular work, it happens to be Protarchus. The discussion between the two leads to the statement that "Ignorance...is an evil". From here, they discuss the three large incidents, if you will, of ignorance in people, ignorance of wealth, beauty, and wisdom. They also claim that the ignorance of wisdom is the most severe. But then they address something else. How through people we see, we gain pleasure from their ignorance of themselves (or at least for me, extreme ignorance of just about anything).

Plato and Protarchus argue that we get pleasure at other's pain (in some cases just their ignorance). I totally agree with this. Although this particular song does not refer to laughter, it's the same idea, that we get pleasure out of other people's pain and misfortune. Why? It makes us feel better about ourselves. Maynard, the vocalist and the lyricist of this song (Vicarious by Tool) hits exactly what Plato was trying to get at.

And "that's all I have to say about that."

First Entry: Working Definition of "Rhetoric"

In order to fully understand this blog, readers will have to have a basic understanding of what Rhetoric actually means. Prior to taking this class (and, heck, even a little today) I had no clue what Rhetoric was. And the average reader (anyone outside this class) may be in a similar boat. So to provide a background, this first post will be a basic definition for an understanding of what is to come.

Rhetoric, through history, has been defined as the art of persuasion. Arguably the most well-known name in the study of Rhetoric (although many may not know he wrote about it) is Aristotle. Aristotle, however, is not the end-all-be-all of the study of Rhetoric. Lloyd Bitzer and Richard Vatz (among others of course) have also studied (at length) Rhetoric.