Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site columbia.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!columbia!ji From: ji@columbia.UUCP (ji) Newsgroups: net.jokes.d Subject: Re: Theories of Humour (Re: MATHEMATICS AND HUMOR by John Allen) Message-ID: <1125@columbia.UUCP> Date: Thu, 26-Sep-85 19:09:01 EDT Article-I.D.: columbia.1125 Posted: Thu Sep 26 19:09:01 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 1-Oct-85 10:09:52 EDT References: <1117@mtgzz.UUCP> <67700005@trsvax> <424@looking.UUCP> Organization: Columbia University Lines: 26 Summary: For another view... In article <424@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > Everybody's advocating their ideas about what humour is and what makes us > laugh, but all of these theories can't be complete because while they claim > to have discovered a necessary condition for laughter, they haven't come > anywhere near a sufficient one. > > If humour is a subtle philosophical point, why don't I chortle at Descartes? > In general there are lots of examples of the kind of thing noted in this book > that aren't funny. > > The same is true for changes in structure, viewing danger while safe, > viewing something bad, status switch and every other theory I have > heard. > > After all, if you really had a solid theory, you would be headlining in Vegas. > > There are many questions to answer. Why do we laugh most at extreme cleverness? > What about puns? Why do different cultures have different preferences? > > Some of the posted theories cover these points, but none cover them all. > They all have merit, but they can't all be right, or can they? > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 For a very interesting view on the origin of humor, read 'Jokester' by Isaac Asimov, in his collection 'Earth Is Room Enough'