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'