Whats the definition of comedy Banana. Addison Anderson

What’s the definition of comedy?

Thinkers and philosophers from Plato and Aristotle

to Hobbes, Freud, and beyond,

including anyone misguided enough

to try to explain a joke,

have pondered it,

and no one has settled it.

You’re lucky you found this video to sort it out.

To define comedy, you should first ask

why it seems comedy defies definition.

The answer’s simple.

Comedy is the defiance of definition

because definitions sometimes need defiance.

Consider definition itself.

When we define, we use language

to set borders around a thing

that we’ve perceived in the whirling chaos of existence.

We say what the thing means

and fit that in a system of meanings.

Chaos becomes cosmos.

The universe is translated

into a cosmological construct of knowledge.

And let’s be honest,

we need some logical cosmic order,

otherwise we’d have pure chaos.

Chaos can be rough,

so we build a thing that we call reality.

Now think about logic and logos,

that tight knot connecting a word and truth.

And let’s jump back to thinking about what’s funny,

because some people say it’s real simple:

truth is funny.

It’s funny because it’s true.

But that’s simplistic.

Plenty of lies are funny.

Comedic fiction can be funny.

Made-up nonsense jibberish is frequently hilarious.

For instance, florp –

hysterical!

And plenty of truths aren’t funny.

Two plus two truly equals four,

but I’m not laughing just because that’s the case.

You can tell a true anecdote,

but your date may not laugh.

So, why are some untruths and only some truths funny?

How do these laughable truths and untruths

relate to that capital-T Truth,

the cosmological reality of facts and definitions?

And what makes any of them funny?

There’s a Frenchman who can help,

another thinker who didn’t define comedy

because he expressly didn’t want to.

Henri Bergson’s a French philosopher

who prefaced his essay on laughter

by saying he wouldn’t define “the comic”

because it’s a living thing.

He argued laughter has a social function

to destroy mechanical inelasticity

in people’s attitudes and behavior.

Someone doing the same thing over and over,

or building up a false image of themself and the world,

or not adapting to reality

by just noticing the banana peel on the ground –

this is automatism,

ignorance of one’s own mindless rigidity,

and it’s dangerous

but also laughable

and comic ridicule helps correct it.

The comic is a kinetic, vital force,

or elan vital,

that helps us adapt.

Bergson elaborates on this idea

to study what’s funny about all sorts of things.

But let’s stay on this.

At the base of this concept of comedy is contradiction

between vital, adaptive humanity

and dehumanized automatism.

A set system that claims to define reality

might be one of those dehumanizing forces

that comedy tends to destroy.

Now, let’s go back to Aristotle.

Not Poetics, where he drops a few thoughts on comedy,

no, Metaphysics,

the fundamental law of non-contradiction,

the bedrock of logic.

Contradictory statements are not at the same time true.

If A is an axiomatic statement,

it can’t be the case

that A and the opposite of A are both true.

Comedy seems to live here,

to subsist on the illogic

of logical contradiction and its derivatives.

We laugh when the order we project on the world

is disrupted and disproven,

like when the way we all act

contradicts truths we don’t like talking about,

or when strange observations we all make

in the silent darkness of private thought

are dragged into public by a good stand-up,

and when cats play piano,

because cats that are also somehow humans

disrupt our reality.

So, we don’t just laugh at truth,

we laugh at the pleasurable, edifying revelation of flaws,

incongruities,

overlaps,

and outright conflicts

in the supposedly ordered system of truths

we use to define the world and ourselves.

When we think too highly of our thinking,

when we think things are true

just because we all say they’re logos and stop adapting,

we become the butt of jokes played on us

by that wacky little trickster, chaos.

Comedy conveys that destructive, instructive playfulness,

but has no logical definition

because it acts upon our logic

paralogically

from outside its finite borders.

Far from having a definite definition,

it has an infinite infinition.

And the infinition of comedy

is that anything can be mined for comedy.

Thus, all definitions of reality,

especially those that claim to be universal,

logical,

cosmic,

capital-T Truth

become laughable.

喜剧的定义是什么?

从柏拉图和亚里士多德

到霍布斯、弗洛伊德等思想家和哲学家,

包括任何被误导

到试图解释一个笑话的人,

都曾思考过它,但

没有人解决它。

你很幸运你找到了这个视频来整理它。

要定义喜剧,您应该首先问

为什么喜剧似乎无法定义。

答案很简单。

喜剧是对定义的蔑视,

因为定义有时需要蔑视。

考虑定义本身。

当我们定义时,我们使用语言

来围绕

我们在存在的旋转混乱中感知到的事物设置边界。

我们说事物的含义,

并将其放入含义系统中。

混沌变成了宇宙。

宇宙被转化

为知识的宇宙学结构。

老实说,

我们需要一些合乎逻辑的宇宙秩序,

否则我们就会有纯粹的混乱。

混乱可能很严重,

所以我们建造了一个我们称之为现实的东西。

现在想想逻辑和逻辑,

连接单词和真理的紧密结。

让我们回过头来思考什么是有趣的,

因为有些人说这很简单:

真相很有趣。

这很有趣,因为它是真实的。

但这很简单。

很多谎言都很有趣。

喜剧小说可以很有趣。

编造的胡说八道经常很搞笑。

例如,弗洛普——

歇斯底里!

很多事实并不好笑。

二加二确实等于四,

但我不是因为这样就笑了。

你可以讲述一个真实的轶事,

但你的约会对象可能不会笑。

那么,为什么有些谎言和只有一些真相很有趣呢?

这些可笑的真理和谎言

与那个大写的T真理,

即事实和定义的宇宙现实有什么关系?

是什么让他们中的任何一个变得有趣?

有一个法国人可以提供帮助,

另一个没有定义喜剧的思想家,

因为他明确地不想。

亨利·柏格森(Henri Bergson)是一位法国哲学家

,他在他关于笑的文章的开头

说他不会定义“喜剧”,

因为它是一个活物。

他认为笑声具有一种社会功能,

可以破坏

人们态度和行为的机械性无弹性。

一个人一遍又一遍地做同样的事情,

或者对自己和世界建立一个虚假的形象,

或者

仅仅注意到地上的香蕉皮就不能适应现实——

这是自动性,

对自己无意识的僵化的无知

,这是 危险

但也很可笑

和滑稽的嘲笑有助于纠正它。

漫画是一种动力、生命力

或活力,

可以帮助我们适应。

柏格森详细阐述了这个想法,

以研究各种事物的有趣之处。

但是,让我们坚持下去。

这种喜剧概念的基础是

生机勃勃、适应性强的人性

与非人性化的自动化之间的矛盾。

一个声称定义现实的固定系统

可能是喜剧倾向于摧毁的那些非人化力量

之一。

现在,让我们回到亚里士多德。

不是诗学,在那里他对喜剧有一些想法,

不,形而上学,

不矛盾的基本法则

,逻辑的基石。

矛盾的陈述并不同时是正确的。

如果 A 是一个公理陈述,

那么 A 和 A 的反面不可能都是真的。

喜剧似乎生活在这里,

逻辑矛盾及其衍生的不合逻辑为生。

当我们投射在世界上的秩序

被打乱和被证明时,我们会笑,

比如当我们所有人的行为方式

与我们不喜欢谈论的事实相矛盾

时,或者当我们所有人

在私人思想的沉默黑暗中做出的奇怪观察

被拖到公共场合时 通过一个好的站立

,当猫弹钢琴时,

因为猫在某种程度上也是人类,

扰乱了我们的现实。

因此,我们不只是嘲笑真理,

我们还嘲笑我们用来定义世界和我们自己的所谓有序真理体系中的缺陷、不协调、重叠和彻底冲突的令人愉快的、有启发性的揭示

当我们把自己的想法看得太高时,

当我们

仅仅因为我们都说它们是标志并且停止适应而认为事情是真实的时,

我们就会成为那个古怪的小骗子开我们的玩笑

,混乱。

喜剧传达了这种破坏性的、有启发性的趣味性,

但没有逻辑定义,

因为它

从其有限的边界之外以超逻辑的方式作用于我们的逻辑。

它远非一个明确的定义,

而是无限的无限。

喜剧的无限

可能是任何东西都可以被挖掘成喜剧。

因此,所有对现实的定义,

尤其是那些声称是普遍的、

逻辑的、

宇宙的、

大写 T 真理的定义都

变得可笑了。