The virtue of humor is the art of putting any aspect of life in perspective. In Sponville's words, "The best and most profound humor plays on meaning that touches important areas of our lives, drawing into its wake and shaking up larger fields of significance, our beliefs, values, illusions - in short, our seriousness" (219). Sponville mentions that humor "leads to humility" by lightening the "serious-mindedness" of people. By being serious, one is thinking in terms of extremes and importances. Thinking one's own actions are extremely important leads to arrogance while believing that they are completely unimportant leads to self-ridicule. However, humor takes out the seriousness, so that one does not think too much about his or her actions, lightening faults and toning down success. I also think that humor is a servant for other virtues, such as compassion and mercy. A joke might lighten one's burdens in a way that a long speech cannot. As Sponville says, "…the laughter it [humor] provokes or in the smiles - sometimes bittersweet - that it [humor] inspires" (215). In fact, I think some very depressing or tough situations can only turn joyful through humor - humor is like a quick jolt of joy. Indeed, Sponville says,"One can joke about anything - failure, war, death, love, disase, torture" (215).
However, humor is not always virtuous. I think that Sponville makes a couple of good distinctions. The first is between humor and irony - humor lifts people up and irony beats them down. I think it is interesting that Sponville says that there is a time and place for irony and satire, and he is right, for evils and injustices can be fought against using those devices of spite. Just as good faith must be subordinate to love and justice, so must humor. "When it comes to evils that one can prevent or combat, one must not content oneself with making jokes" (215). This point is very important because sometimes humor can be almost too effective. Because it tends to lighten just about anything, sometimes it will lighten situations that just need to be serious, such as death, disease, torture, or evil. While humor can actually help a person in those same situations, it is vital that someone prudently discern whether or not humor will help or hinder a person. If a person grieving the death of loved one, for example, sometimes humor lifts them up, but sometimes, just being silent or talking seriously to that person is the right thing to do. Sponville also points out, "Humor is no substitute for action" (215). That same person who is suffering can use your humor in the short-term, but humor as virtue should really just complement ones' compassion, mercy, and love.
Humor is perhaps the simplest of the virtues, and it is this simplicity that makes it so inherently virtuous. I must admit, however, that I didn’t necessarily assume this before reading Comte-Sponville’s account of humor. He begins the chapter by stating, “That humor is a virtue ought not to surprise us” (211). This is where I must pose my first question: do you agree? Out of all the virtues, I think I was initially the most surprised at the inclusion of humor— specifically because, in my mind, it is a quality that relates directly to pleasure, and seeking pleasure is oftentimes the opposite of virtuous. Much to my surprise, however, this is precisely what makes humor so honorable.
To take oneself too seriously is to lack humor, and to lack humor is to lack humility. According to C-S, it is also possible to take the virtues themselves too seriously. This is an exciting tenant—for once, he isn’t asserting that all other virtues stem from the chapter’s focus! (I figured you guys would appreciate this). Rather, he is saying that other virtues are inherently deficient if we take them too seriously—“Humorless virtue thinks much of itself and is thereby deficient in virtue” (211). Humor does much more, however, than serve humility and the other virtues. As I stated before, humor is directly related to pleasure; in fact, it is perhaps the only quality that we can utilize to turn sadness into joy. And what could be more innately good, more genuinely pleasurable than something that alleviates sorrow? Even the worst of situations can be made acceptable, if not joyous, by refusing to cry and letting ourselves laugh. But how can this be accomplished? We “must accept, laughingly, reality as it truly is and will always remain” (217). I particularly enjoyed Freud’s example of the criminal on his way to the gallows who remarks, “Well, the week’s beginning nicely!” I will pose another question: is it always possible to make light of such bad situations?
My favorite part of this chapter is Montaigne’s discussion of humor, which can be found on page 213. To answer my own question, I feel that it is definitely always possible to make light of even the worst situations. Why? Because even the most terrible circumstances are never so terrible as we make them out to be. To quote Montaigne: “I do not think that we have so much ill fortune as inconstancy, or so much bad purpose as folly, we are not so full of evil as we are of inanity; we are not so wretched as we are base… Our peculiar condition is as ridiculous as risible.” Toward the end of the chapter, C-S sums this concept up when he says that, “This inherent senseless and valuelessness of life is what humor expresses but finds amusing rather than laughable” (220). This is certainly a more negative view of humor than I was expecting to encounter, but I enjoy it nonetheless. Thoughts?
The chapter on humor is, in my opinion one of the most thought provoking and interesting ones. Like Andrea, I find it interesting that humor was included and I disagree with its inclusion. All virtuous thus far seem to be only virtuous if they are motivated by good and can be done in an evil way. Evil fidelity is still fidelity, but loyalty to something that is not virtuous, such as the Nazi Party is not virtue. Humor is not an exception to this and is more frequently used to harm than the other virtues.
To answer Andrea’s question, I personally do not agree that humor is a virtuous trait. There are countless examples of great moral leaders who were definitely truly virtuous people but lacked humor. While I cannot know for sure, I find it highly unlikely that Mother Theresa was a funny person, and I believe that she placed the suffering of others before herself and probably took life pretty seriously. It’s a fine line between humor and frivolity.
I understand the argument that C-S is making, “To lack humor is to lack humility, lucidity, and lightness; the humorless person is too full of himself, too self-deceived, too aggressive, and thus lacks generosity, gentleness and mercy” (211). Fair enough. But I think that all too frequently, humor is aggressive and a humorous person can be full of themselves, it is through being funny and putting others down that they are able to build themselves up. C-S states that irony is not a virtue but a weapon and that it is only humor that is virtuous. And it is in this argument that I agree, I just believe that humor in of itself, can also be used as a weapon.
This semester, I am taking an English course called “Comedy Tonight” and I think that the blog is the appropriate time to share what I have learned, as many of these things help to build my argument that humor is hardly virtuous. First, as C-S makes a point of himself and Andrea has already commented on, Humor and Tragedy are closely related. Much humor comes directly from tragedy, and tragedy directly from humor. For example in the Shakespeare play Comedy of Errors the humor of reunited twins comes from a ship wreck that separated a family that is only reunited when the father is about to be put to death. Second, just think about what it is that we find funny? Frequently, the answer is degradation, sex, physical pain (who hasn’t laughed at the Three Stooges?), cultural stereotypes. Poking fun at these things is not virtuous in the least, and these days, clean humor is hardly existent. In today's society, in my opinion, humor is not a virtue but a weapon of anger, fear and hate.
To counter Holly's argument, C-S does bring up the point that many heroes were not humorous. You could argue, however, that every "hero" need not portray every virtue; in fact, I would argue that it is simply impossible for any individual to practice all of the virtues--especially not all of the time.
Let's assume that, like Holly said, Mother Theresa was not humorous. She is still a moral leader, but wouldn't she be all the more virtuous if she could learn to laugh, thus making herself and the people around her all the happier? To practice humor isn't to practice folly; it is simply the avoidance of taking life too seriously.
Just an aside--C-S also discusses the fact that humor does, in fact, have an evil adversary in irony.
I must agree with Holly in the sense that I would never have thought of humor as a virtue until reading this treatise. I think C-S makes some valid points, though, and I am inclined to think there is potential there for humor being virtuous. I think, like C-S states, humor can be virtuous in the sense that we must not take ourselves seriously, and it is through humor that we can be prevented from doing so. I think this is crucial because I do believe that humor has the potential to lead to humility, and hence it is necessary to be included among the virtues. Not only does it lead to humility, but also joy, and I feel that humor in this sense is very important. I also believe like Andrea and Holly were discussing, that humor is not necessarily crucial to being a virtuous person. It is possible for someone to be humble, yet lack humor, and still be an upstanding, moral individual. I think humor can help us become more virtuous, but I don't think its required to have EVERY virtue included in this book in order to be considered virtuous. The whole point, I think, of learning about these virtues is to work on better ourselves in these areas in order to become overall virtuous individuals.
Now for my point of contention. I am inclined to agree with both Andrea and Holly on their points of humor's negative side. I must admit that when reading this section, I kept thinking of instances of humor in my life that I frequently encounter, and usually these instances include instances of insults or belittling others. I agree with Holly that in today's society, humor is more associated with sarcastic remarks that usually are making fun of others than being able to laugh at oneself. Not that such remarks are not considered humorous and result in laughter, but the point to emphasize is that someone is being hurt by said comments. We have all been on the receiving end of this type of humor. I know from person experience that I find such comments funny, even if I am the "butt" of the joke, yet sometimes people can either take it too far or say it often enough that it can lead to bad feelings. The reality of it is that this type of humor truly is putting other people down. I don't think that this is a reason not to include humor as a virtue, but I think that it is important to emphasize the differences that C-S includes in this chapter. There is a different between humor and irony (or sarcasm). Humor is not taking yourself too seriously and being humble, where as irony is usually taking yourself seriously and attempting to draw other people's attention. The difference is essential to note in order to accept humor as a virtue, in my opinion.
I know personally that this chapter for me has been very thought-provoking because I never really thought about the differences before. I know that we all have probably fallen into both categories, but it is important to know that we must use humor in order to become more virtuous individuals and be sure not to put others down in the process. We cannot put others down in order to build ourselves up through humor, doing so would clearly take away the virtue aspect.
After reading about Comte-Sponville's view on humor as a virtue, I can appreciate and understand his opinion. I think that the way that we see humor may be another case of the language barrier between english and french. The way that Comte-Sponville mentions humor seems always as a good thing, something that only ever uplifts, makes things lighter, or helps instill humility within us. Although we see humor as something that can very often bring hurt and harm to others, I don't think that's how Comte-Sponville sees it. I think that he refers to any kind of "making fun" or negative kind of laughter as irony which he states is definitely a weapon rather than a virtue. "Irony is merciless, humor merciful. Irony is humiliating, humor humble" (216).
While I love to laugh and make jokes in the traditional "humorous" sense, I feel that my humor, as Comte-Sponville describes it, could use a little work. I do tend to take life, myself, and various situations more seriously than I need to. I find great interest in this chapter because it is teaching me that being able to laugh and have joy in even troublesome situations is not irresponsible or "bad," but quite beautiful. "Freud offers the example of the criminal who, as he is led to the gallows on a Monday, remarks: 'Well, the week's beginning nicely!' In humor there is courage, as well as nobility and generosity. Humor frees the ego from itself" (217). I find this both amazing and disturbing. On the one hand, I feel that this person contains some extreme, immense courage that I can't even imagine myself having in the same situation. However, on the other hand, I feel that this person isn't completely in touch with reality. Perhaps if he did take his situation more seriously, he could work out some way to escape his situation or say some meaningful last goodbyes to his loved ones. But who am I to say that he would be more open to these ideas in a "serious" state of mind. Perhaps by being able to have humor in such a situation, this person has profoundly transcended the horrific, looming mindset that mind overcome and bog down most of us, and has freed his mind from the severity, allowing himself to break free from those binding chains and think above what is happening. If I really think about it, what I would probably be doing in a time like that is worrying about the pain of dying and feeling sad about leaving my loved ones and the world behind. Even though I believe I am going to Heaven when I die, I can't imagine that I wouldn't be worried and sad in some capacity. But what good would feeling those two feelings do to me? Absolutely nothing. If I could have the courage to transcend those feelings and find humor, or freedom of thought above my situation, I could probably do a lot better things and have a lot better experience out of my last hours alive. I say all of this hypothetically, though, because I don't know if I could ever have that kind of courage in the face of death. I mean, in all seriousness, if I know I have to get a shot I can hardly enjoy myself for a while before it actually happens. But if I did, somehow, find a way to have humor and experience happiness during these seemingly "awful" times, I would consider it complete transcendence above my situation, putting my own life experience and actions above (or in a more important place than) the horrific or severe life situation that I might be facing. To me, that seems like one of the most amazing, powerful things I've ever heard of.
Like mentioned by others multiple times above, I was quite shocked to learn that Comte-Sponville included humor as one of these important virtues within his book. I always saw humor as more of a characteristic than a virtue, something natural; an innate ability to be funny. However, when taken in the light through which C-S describes it, humor can definitely be seen as a virtue.
"To lack humor is to lack humility, lucidity, and lightness; the humorless person is too full of himself, too self-deceived, too severe, or too aggressive and thus lacks generosity, gentleness, and mercy." (211) Wow! When thought of in this way, humor becomes an essential virtue. Humor, C-S seems to suggest, has a direct correlation with humility. Humor is the ability to laugh at ourselves and not take ourselves too seriously. Humor is realizing that we have a lot to laugh about within ourselves.
As Kelsey suggests, however, I, too, feel that it is important to emphasize the difference between C-S's definitions of "humor" and "irony." In today's world, humor can often be vulgar and harmful—far from virtuous. If we stick to C-S's definition of humor only, humor is definitely a virtue, but the language gap fails to recognize that what we often refer to as humor is quite the opposite. Perhaps if C-S had elaborated on this difference more fully, his argument would have been more powerful.
If we limit humor to his definition, humor becomes such an important virtue. Humor brings light to difficult situations and makes life more enjoyable overall. After all, isn't that what we are here for? What's the point in living a miserable life? Humor enables us to feel more carefree, keeping us from getting bogged down by life's woes. I also believe that humor is a great expression of love. Laughing and making others laugh exudes love. Laughter makes others feel included and appreciated. Genuine laughter at C-S's "humor" makes everyone feel comfortable and relaxed. Humor gets us back to the root of life—love.
I don't know if humor is really a virtue. Okay, it's a desirable trait, sometimes, but it seems completely independent of virtue. Take courage. Bad people can be courageous, but I would say that all good people are too. At least, if someone is a coward, that represents a moral failing. And since courage is usually, I think, based on a duty to others, it ties in with virtues such as fidelity and truthfulness. Can bad people have these virtues? Yes. But do ALL moral people have them? (At least if truly moral) Yes.
Humor, on the other hand, is completely independent of other virtues. First, while C-S seems to think humor is a way of not taking oneself too seriously, this does not seem to be borne out in real life. Ricky Gervais's humor is very self-deprecating, and in real life he seems to be a very, very self-important person. So are many other comedians. Even me--am I funny? Sort of, at least I try to be. Am I full of myself? I will let the reader decide, but there are definitely those who think so. So basically, humor is not a guarantee of humility. At least, I don't think so.
What other virtues does humor require? I guess courage, sometimes, like in the case of "gallows humor," and generosity, sometimes, as when we make jokes for the entertainment of other people. But it is possible to have no sense of humor at all and be a totally moral person, and have a great sense of humor and be a terrible person. While the latter case is true of many of the virtues, the former really isn't.
Also, humor always has a target. Sometimes, the target doesn't mind, and okay, we're all cool with that. But even if the target is okay with the joke, even if the target is the teller, there is still a target. Watch a standup comedian, and try to find the target, with the possibility of hurt,in his jokes.
I think humor's value lies in making horrible things seem a little less horrible. (Or more horrible, sometimes). It can make things seem just a little better, and that is a good thing. Just maybe not enough of a good thing to elevate humor to a virtue.
I cannot help but agree with D.Ruwe; I'm not so sure Humor in and of itself is a virtue. I feel like, while a nice quality, it really has nothing to do with morals. Sure, it does lighten moods, allow for you to "be generous" and entertain people (as Daniel said), lend itself to increasing one's courage at times and the growth of humility. But that's just the thing, it's a vehicle towards the other virtues and thus seems superfluous.
On the note of sarcasm and irony being less than virtuous due to their implicitly malicious nature (as C-S implies) due to their need for a target, I feel as if, once again, I have to agree with Dan. All humor has a target; you're laughing at something. While self-deprecating humor may allow you to grow more humble, you're still being the target of your own jokes, and the last time I checked, being the butt of a joke was never really something that builds people up. Ergo, it would follow that humor should just not be made so as to protect everyone from being targeted, and in no way was that sentence sarcastic... If you (general) must see humor as a targeting system, at least then view it as a chance to be courageous, accept your jibes and know/understand that it is all jest/for fun and playfulness.
I still don't think Humor should be a virtue. A pleasing quality, yes. A strong quality to have socially, yes, it makes you and others happy. But a virtue, amongst the ranks of justice, compassion, mercy, etc.? I don't think so. I cannot think of any singular instance in which there is a particular tenant to the major religious systems that involves the need for humor (Religion being the basis for morality through out most societies; besides, if they are to be believed and the god they worship is the true, all knowing god, I feel like they'd have mentioned everything they specifically were looking for in us, considering everything else they've noted. 11th commandment: be funny, or else... get it?! ;P I think not, Moses.)
“Taking oneself completely seriously is always a fault” (211). This may be the first thing CS has ever said that I COMPLETELY agree with. When we get bogged down in work and when we take life and ourselves too seriously, we get sad, depressed and we usually end up getting sick. But when we laugh a little and try to see the positives in life, we cheer up a little and end up enjoying life more and actually having more success. “Humor prevents us from doing so [taking oneself too seriously that is] and, beyond the pleasure it affords us” (211). So CS agrees with me that the laughter in our lives prevents us from taking ourselves too seriously and getting bogged down in the stressful things of life.
I think that there is an important distinction between humor and laughter. And CS makes this clear. “Irony is not a virtue but a weapon, one that is almost invariably turned against others. Irony is bad laughter, sarcastic and destructive, mocking and wounding; it is the laugher of hatred and conflict, a laughter that can kill” (213). I do not agree that irony is bad, but I do agree that all irony is destructive. One can be sarcastic without attacking others. I find myself being sarcastic quite often, but I don’t think that most people feel attacked by my sarcasm or violated by it.
CS mentions something that I have never thought about before. He says, “… humor leads to humility. Arrogance requires serious-mindedness, and serious-mindedness a certain arrogance. Humor is the nemesis of both; it undermines the former by deflating the latter” (215). I never thought that humor lead to humility, but it makes sense. If you can laugh at yourself and get joy out of the little things in life, then you are much less likely to always be serious. And when I think about the people who are very serious in my life, they are quiet often the ones that are the most arrogant and vice-versa just as CS says. If you can see the subtle joy in things, you are more likely to be humble and not think of yourself as the best in the world. This makes sense because you can laugh at the little mistakes you make in life which help you to realize your imperfections. Thus I agree with CS’s statement in some situations.
I think that CS ends this chapter perfectly. He says, “Humor is a form of joyful disillusionment. This is why it is doubly virtuous or can be: as disillusionment, it verges on lucidity (hence on good faith); as joy, it verges on love and is all-embracing” (221). Humor is fantastic. As CS says, it allows us to have good faith and love and embrace. It allows us to believe in truth. It allows us to love the little things in life. It allows us to embrace those things that we cannot sometimes stand. Humor is the connection for things we don’t always trust.
Humor allows us to keep living. It keeps us sane. It allows us to not dig ourselves so deep into darkness that we get lost. We get to smile and laugh and be happy. Without humor, I doubt that we could ever be completely happy.
I think that it is possible to be virtuous and have a lousy sense of humor. C-S bothers me with how often he uses absolutes. While humor may help to make you a better person, it isn't necessary to become a good person. There are different ways to not take yourself too seriously besides humor, such as humility, or simplicity. We “must accept, laughingly, reality as it truly is and will always remain” (217). Well, if you want to laugh at reality, go ahead. But I think that often reality sucks, and laughing at it is not a good or appropriate response. As to the criminal making cracks about it being a good week, I think taking it humorously is probably not a great way to be. He could try being humble or contrite about whatever crime he committed. Reality often isn't funny, and when reality is lousy, I think humor is often in bad taste. I love jokes and laughing and humor as much as the next person, but I definitely don't see it as a virtue. JJ Ruwe
The virtue of humor is the art of putting any aspect of life in perspective. In Sponville's words, "The best and most profound humor plays on meaning that touches important areas of our lives, drawing into its wake and shaking up larger fields of significance, our beliefs, values, illusions - in short, our seriousness" (219). Sponville mentions that humor "leads to humility" by lightening the "serious-mindedness" of people. By being serious, one is thinking in terms of extremes and importances. Thinking one's own actions are extremely important leads to arrogance while believing that they are completely unimportant leads to self-ridicule. However, humor takes out the seriousness, so that one does not think too much about his or her actions, lightening faults and toning down success. I also think that humor is a servant for other virtues, such as compassion and mercy. A joke might lighten one's burdens in a way that a long speech cannot. As Sponville says, "…the laughter it [humor] provokes or in the smiles - sometimes bittersweet - that it [humor] inspires" (215). In fact, I think some very depressing or tough situations can only turn joyful through humor - humor is like a quick jolt of joy. Indeed, Sponville says,"One can joke about anything - failure, war, death, love, disase, torture" (215).
ReplyDeleteHowever, humor is not always virtuous. I think that Sponville makes a couple of good distinctions. The first is between humor and irony - humor lifts people up and irony beats them down. I think it is interesting that Sponville says that there is a time and place for irony and satire, and he is right, for evils and injustices can be fought against using those devices of spite. Just as good faith must be subordinate to love and justice, so must humor. "When it comes to evils that one can prevent or combat, one must not content oneself with making jokes" (215). This point is very important because sometimes humor can be almost too effective. Because it tends to lighten just about anything, sometimes it will lighten situations that just need to be serious, such as death, disease, torture, or evil. While humor can actually help a person in those same situations, it is vital that someone prudently discern whether or not humor will help or hinder a person. If a person grieving the death of loved one, for example, sometimes humor lifts them up, but sometimes, just being silent or talking seriously to that person is the right thing to do. Sponville also points out, "Humor is no substitute for action" (215). That same person who is suffering can use your humor in the short-term, but humor as virtue should really just complement ones' compassion, mercy, and love.
Humor is perhaps the simplest of the virtues, and it is this simplicity that makes it so inherently virtuous. I must admit, however, that I didn’t necessarily assume this before reading Comte-Sponville’s account of humor. He begins the chapter by stating, “That humor is a virtue ought not to surprise us” (211). This is where I must pose my first question: do you agree? Out of all the virtues, I think I was initially the most surprised at the inclusion of humor— specifically because, in my mind, it is a quality that relates directly to pleasure, and seeking pleasure is oftentimes the opposite of virtuous. Much to my surprise, however, this is precisely what makes humor so honorable.
ReplyDeleteTo take oneself too seriously is to lack humor, and to lack humor is to lack humility.
According to C-S, it is also possible to take the virtues themselves too seriously. This is an exciting tenant—for once, he isn’t asserting that all other virtues stem from the chapter’s focus! (I figured you guys would appreciate this). Rather, he is saying that other virtues are inherently deficient if we take them too seriously—“Humorless virtue thinks much of itself and is thereby deficient in virtue” (211). Humor does much more, however, than serve humility and the other virtues. As I stated before, humor is directly related to pleasure; in fact, it is perhaps the only quality that we can utilize to turn sadness into joy. And what could be more innately good, more genuinely pleasurable than something that alleviates sorrow? Even the worst of situations can be made acceptable, if not joyous, by refusing to cry and letting ourselves laugh. But how can this be accomplished? We “must accept, laughingly, reality as it truly is and will always remain” (217). I particularly enjoyed Freud’s example of the criminal on his way to the gallows who remarks, “Well, the week’s beginning nicely!” I will pose another question: is it always possible to make light of such bad situations?
My favorite part of this chapter is Montaigne’s discussion of humor, which can be found on page 213. To answer my own question, I feel that it is definitely always possible to make light of even the worst situations. Why? Because even the most terrible circumstances are never so terrible as we make them out to be. To quote Montaigne: “I do not think that we have so much ill fortune as inconstancy, or so much bad purpose as folly, we are not so full of evil as we are of inanity; we are not so wretched as we are base… Our peculiar condition is as ridiculous as risible.” Toward the end of the chapter, C-S sums this concept up when he says that, “This inherent senseless and valuelessness of life is what humor expresses but finds amusing rather than laughable” (220). This is certainly a more negative view of humor than I was expecting to encounter, but I enjoy it nonetheless. Thoughts?
The chapter on humor is, in my opinion one of the most thought provoking and interesting ones. Like Andrea, I find it interesting that humor was included and I disagree with its inclusion. All virtuous thus far seem to be only virtuous if they are motivated by good and can be done in an evil way. Evil fidelity is still fidelity, but loyalty to something that is not virtuous, such as the Nazi Party is not virtue. Humor is not an exception to this and is more frequently used to harm than the other virtues.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Andrea’s question, I personally do not agree that humor is a virtuous trait. There are countless examples of great moral leaders who were definitely truly virtuous people but lacked humor. While I cannot know for sure, I find it highly unlikely that Mother Theresa was a funny person, and I believe that she placed the suffering of others before herself and probably took life pretty seriously. It’s a fine line between humor and frivolity.
I understand the argument that C-S is making, “To lack humor is to lack humility, lucidity, and lightness; the humorless person is too full of himself, too self-deceived, too aggressive, and thus lacks generosity, gentleness and mercy” (211). Fair enough. But I think that all too frequently, humor is aggressive and a humorous person can be full of themselves, it is through being funny and putting others down that they are able to build themselves up. C-S states that irony is not a virtue but a weapon and that it is only humor that is virtuous. And it is in this argument that I agree, I just believe that humor in of itself, can also be used as a weapon.
This semester, I am taking an English course called “Comedy Tonight” and I think that the blog is the appropriate time to share what I have learned, as many of these things help to build my argument that humor is hardly virtuous. First, as C-S makes a point of himself and Andrea has already commented on, Humor and Tragedy are closely related. Much humor comes directly from tragedy, and tragedy directly from humor. For example in the Shakespeare play Comedy of Errors the humor of reunited twins comes from a ship wreck that separated a family that is only reunited when the father is about to be put to death. Second, just think about what it is that we find funny? Frequently, the answer is degradation, sex, physical pain (who hasn’t laughed at the Three Stooges?), cultural stereotypes. Poking fun at these things is not virtuous in the least, and these days, clean humor is hardly existent.
In today's society, in my opinion, humor is not a virtue but a weapon of anger, fear and hate.
To counter Holly's argument, C-S does bring up the point that many heroes were not humorous. You could argue, however, that every "hero" need not portray every virtue; in fact, I would argue that it is simply impossible for any individual to practice all of the virtues--especially not all of the time.
ReplyDeleteLet's assume that, like Holly said, Mother Theresa was not humorous. She is still a moral leader, but wouldn't she be all the more virtuous if she could learn to laugh, thus making herself and the people around her all the happier? To practice humor isn't to practice folly; it is simply the avoidance of taking life too seriously.
Just an aside--C-S also discusses the fact that humor does, in fact, have an evil adversary in irony.
I must agree with Holly in the sense that I would never have thought of humor as a virtue until reading this treatise. I think C-S makes some valid points, though, and I am inclined to think there is potential there for humor being virtuous. I think, like C-S states, humor can be virtuous in the sense that we must not take ourselves seriously, and it is through humor that we can be prevented from doing so. I think this is crucial because I do believe that humor has the potential to lead to humility, and hence it is necessary to be included among the virtues. Not only does it lead to humility, but also joy, and I feel that humor in this sense is very important. I also believe like Andrea and Holly were discussing, that humor is not necessarily crucial to being a virtuous person. It is possible for someone to be humble, yet lack humor, and still be an upstanding, moral individual. I think humor can help us become more virtuous, but I don't think its required to have EVERY virtue included in this book in order to be considered virtuous. The whole point, I think, of learning about these virtues is to work on better ourselves in these areas in order to become overall virtuous individuals.
ReplyDeleteNow for my point of contention. I am inclined to agree with both Andrea and Holly on their points of humor's negative side. I must admit that when reading this section, I kept thinking of instances of humor in my life that I frequently encounter, and usually these instances include instances of insults or belittling others. I agree with Holly that in today's society, humor is more associated with sarcastic remarks that usually are making fun of others than being able to laugh at oneself. Not that such remarks are not considered humorous and result in laughter, but the point to emphasize is that someone is being hurt by said comments. We have all been on the receiving end of this type of humor. I know from person experience that I find such comments funny, even if I am the "butt" of the joke, yet sometimes people can either take it too far or say it often enough that it can lead to bad feelings. The reality of it is that this type of humor truly is putting other people down. I don't think that this is a reason not to include humor as a virtue, but I think that it is important to emphasize the differences that C-S includes in this chapter. There is a different between humor and irony (or sarcasm). Humor is not taking yourself too seriously and being humble, where as irony is usually taking yourself seriously and attempting to draw other people's attention. The difference is essential to note in order to accept humor as a virtue, in my opinion.
I know personally that this chapter for me has been very thought-provoking because I never really thought about the differences before. I know that we all have probably fallen into both categories, but it is important to know that we must use humor in order to become more virtuous individuals and be sure not to put others down in the process. We cannot put others down in order to build ourselves up through humor, doing so would clearly take away the virtue aspect.
After reading about Comte-Sponville's view on humor as a virtue, I can appreciate and understand his opinion. I think that the way that we see humor may be another case of the language barrier between english and french. The way that Comte-Sponville mentions humor seems always as a good thing, something that only ever uplifts, makes things lighter, or helps instill humility within us. Although we see humor as something that can very often bring hurt and harm to others, I don't think that's how Comte-Sponville sees it. I think that he refers to any kind of "making fun" or negative kind of laughter as irony which he states is definitely a weapon rather than a virtue. "Irony is merciless, humor merciful. Irony is humiliating, humor humble" (216).
ReplyDeleteWhile I love to laugh and make jokes in the traditional "humorous" sense, I feel that my humor, as Comte-Sponville describes it, could use a little work. I do tend to take life, myself, and various situations more seriously than I need to. I find great interest in this chapter because it is teaching me that being able to laugh and have joy in even troublesome situations is not irresponsible or "bad," but quite beautiful. "Freud offers the example of the criminal who, as he is led to the gallows on a Monday, remarks: 'Well, the week's beginning nicely!' In humor there is courage, as well as nobility and generosity. Humor frees the ego from itself" (217). I find this both amazing and disturbing. On the one hand, I feel that this person contains some extreme, immense courage that I can't even imagine myself having in the same situation. However, on the other hand, I feel that this person isn't completely in touch with reality. Perhaps if he did take his situation more seriously, he could work out some way to escape his situation or say some meaningful last goodbyes to his loved ones. But who am I to say that he would be more open to these ideas in a "serious" state of mind. Perhaps by being able to have humor in such a situation, this person has profoundly transcended the horrific, looming mindset that mind overcome and bog down most of us, and has freed his mind from the severity, allowing himself to break free from those binding chains and think above what is happening. If I really think about it, what I would probably be doing in a time like that is worrying about the pain of dying and feeling sad about leaving my loved ones and the world behind. Even though I believe I am going to Heaven when I die, I can't imagine that I wouldn't be worried and sad in some capacity. But what good would feeling those two feelings do to me? Absolutely nothing. If I could have the courage to transcend those feelings and find humor, or freedom of thought above my situation, I could probably do a lot better things and have a lot better experience out of my last hours alive. I say all of this hypothetically, though, because I don't know if I could ever have that kind of courage in the face of death. I mean, in all seriousness, if I know I have to get a shot I can hardly enjoy myself for a while before it actually happens. But if I did, somehow, find a way to have humor and experience happiness during these seemingly "awful" times, I would consider it complete transcendence above my situation, putting my own life experience and actions above (or in a more important place than) the horrific or severe life situation that I might be facing. To me, that seems like one of the most amazing, powerful things I've ever heard of.
Like mentioned by others multiple times above, I was quite shocked to learn that Comte-Sponville included humor as one of these important virtues within his book. I always saw humor as more of a characteristic than a virtue, something natural; an innate ability to be funny. However, when taken in the light through which C-S describes it, humor can definitely be seen as a virtue.
ReplyDelete"To lack humor is to lack humility, lucidity, and lightness; the humorless person is too full of himself, too self-deceived, too severe, or too aggressive and thus lacks generosity, gentleness, and mercy." (211) Wow! When thought of in this way, humor becomes an essential virtue. Humor, C-S seems to suggest, has a direct correlation with humility. Humor is the ability to laugh at ourselves and not take ourselves too seriously. Humor is realizing that we have a lot to laugh about within ourselves.
As Kelsey suggests, however, I, too, feel that it is important to emphasize the difference between C-S's definitions of "humor" and "irony." In today's world, humor can often be vulgar and harmful—far from virtuous. If we stick to C-S's definition of humor only, humor is definitely a virtue, but the language gap fails to recognize that what we often refer to as humor is quite the opposite. Perhaps if C-S had elaborated on this difference more fully, his argument would have been more powerful.
If we limit humor to his definition, humor becomes such an important virtue. Humor brings light to difficult situations and makes life more enjoyable overall. After all, isn't that what we are here for? What's the point in living a miserable life? Humor enables us to feel more carefree, keeping us from getting bogged down by life's woes. I also believe that humor is a great expression of love. Laughing and making others laugh exudes love. Laughter makes others feel included and appreciated. Genuine laughter at C-S's "humor" makes everyone feel comfortable and relaxed. Humor gets us back to the root of life—love.
fair enough, Andrea, fair enough
ReplyDeleteI don't know if humor is really a virtue. Okay, it's a desirable trait, sometimes, but it seems completely independent of virtue. Take courage. Bad people can be courageous, but I would say that all good people are too. At least, if someone is a coward, that represents a moral failing. And since courage is usually, I think, based on a duty to others, it ties in with virtues such as fidelity and truthfulness. Can bad people have these virtues? Yes. But do ALL moral people have them? (At least if truly moral) Yes.
ReplyDeleteHumor, on the other hand, is completely independent of other virtues. First, while C-S seems to think humor is a way of not taking oneself too seriously, this does not seem to be borne out in real life. Ricky Gervais's humor is very self-deprecating, and in real life he seems to be a very, very self-important person. So are many other comedians. Even me--am I funny? Sort of, at least I try to be. Am I full of myself? I will let the reader decide, but there are definitely those who think so. So basically, humor is not a guarantee of humility. At least, I don't think so.
What other virtues does humor require? I guess courage, sometimes, like in the case of "gallows humor," and generosity, sometimes, as when we make jokes for the entertainment of other people. But it is possible to have no sense of humor at all and be a totally moral person, and have a great sense of humor and be a terrible person. While the latter case is true of many of the virtues, the former really isn't.
Also, humor always has a target. Sometimes, the target doesn't mind, and okay, we're all cool with that. But even if the target is okay with the joke, even if the target is the teller, there is still a target. Watch a standup comedian, and try to find the target, with the possibility of hurt,in his jokes.
I think humor's value lies in making horrible things seem a little less horrible. (Or more horrible, sometimes). It can make things seem just a little better, and that is a good thing. Just maybe not enough of a good thing to elevate humor to a virtue.
I cannot help but agree with D.Ruwe; I'm not so sure Humor in and of itself is a virtue. I feel like, while a nice quality, it really has nothing to do with morals. Sure, it does lighten moods, allow for you to "be generous" and entertain people (as Daniel said), lend itself to increasing one's courage at times and the growth of humility. But that's just the thing, it's a vehicle towards the other virtues and thus seems superfluous.
ReplyDeleteOn the note of sarcasm and irony being less than virtuous due to their implicitly malicious nature (as C-S implies) due to their need for a target, I feel as if, once again, I have to agree with Dan. All humor has a target; you're laughing at something. While self-deprecating humor may allow you to grow more humble, you're still being the target of your own jokes, and the last time I checked, being the butt of a joke was never really something that builds people up. Ergo, it would follow that humor should just not be made so as to protect everyone from being targeted, and in no way was that sentence sarcastic... If you (general) must see humor as a targeting system, at least then view it as a chance to be courageous, accept your jibes and know/understand that it is all jest/for fun and playfulness.
I still don't think Humor should be a virtue. A pleasing quality, yes. A strong quality to have socially, yes, it makes you and others happy. But a virtue, amongst the ranks of justice, compassion, mercy, etc.? I don't think so. I cannot think of any singular instance in which there is a particular tenant to the major religious systems that involves the need for humor (Religion being the basis for morality through out most societies; besides, if they are to be believed and the god they worship is the true, all knowing god, I feel like they'd have mentioned everything they specifically were looking for in us, considering everything else they've noted. 11th commandment: be funny, or else... get it?! ;P I think not, Moses.)
“Taking oneself completely seriously is always a fault” (211). This may be the first thing CS has ever said that I COMPLETELY agree with. When we get bogged down in work and when we take life and ourselves too seriously, we get sad, depressed and we usually end up getting sick. But when we laugh a little and try to see the positives in life, we cheer up a little and end up enjoying life more and actually having more success. “Humor prevents us from doing so [taking oneself too seriously that is] and, beyond the pleasure it affords us” (211). So CS agrees with me that the laughter in our lives prevents us from taking ourselves too seriously and getting bogged down in the stressful things of life.
ReplyDeleteI think that there is an important distinction between humor and laughter. And CS makes this clear. “Irony is not a virtue but a weapon, one that is almost invariably turned against others. Irony is bad laughter, sarcastic and destructive, mocking and wounding; it is the laugher of hatred and conflict, a laughter that can kill” (213). I do not agree that irony is bad, but I do agree that all irony is destructive. One can be sarcastic without attacking others. I find myself being sarcastic quite often, but I don’t think that most people feel attacked by my sarcasm or violated by it.
CS mentions something that I have never thought about before. He says, “… humor leads to humility. Arrogance requires serious-mindedness, and serious-mindedness a certain arrogance. Humor is the nemesis of both; it undermines the former by deflating the latter” (215). I never thought that humor lead to humility, but it makes sense. If you can laugh at yourself and get joy out of the little things in life, then you are much less likely to always be serious. And when I think about the people who are very serious in my life, they are quiet often the ones that are the most arrogant and vice-versa just as CS says. If you can see the subtle joy in things, you are more likely to be humble and not think of yourself as the best in the world. This makes sense because you can laugh at the little mistakes you make in life which help you to realize your imperfections. Thus I agree with CS’s statement in some situations.
I think that CS ends this chapter perfectly. He says, “Humor is a form of joyful disillusionment. This is why it is doubly virtuous or can be: as disillusionment, it verges on lucidity (hence on good faith); as joy, it verges on love and is all-embracing” (221). Humor is fantastic. As CS says, it allows us to have good faith and love and embrace. It allows us to believe in truth. It allows us to love the little things in life. It allows us to embrace those things that we cannot sometimes stand. Humor is the connection for things we don’t always trust.
Humor allows us to keep living. It keeps us sane. It allows us to not dig ourselves so deep into darkness that we get lost. We get to smile and laugh and be happy. Without humor, I doubt that we could ever be completely happy.
I think that it is possible to be virtuous and have a lousy sense of humor. C-S bothers me with how often he uses absolutes. While humor may help to make you a better person, it isn't necessary to become a good person. There are different ways to not take yourself too seriously besides humor, such as humility, or simplicity. We “must accept, laughingly, reality as it truly is and will always remain” (217). Well, if you want to laugh at reality, go ahead. But I think that often reality sucks, and laughing at it is not a good or appropriate response. As to the criminal making cracks about it being a good week, I think taking it humorously is probably not a great way to be. He could try being humble or contrite about whatever crime he committed. Reality often isn't funny, and when reality is lousy, I think humor is often in bad taste. I love jokes and laughing and humor as much as the next person, but I definitely don't see it as a virtue.
ReplyDeleteJJ Ruwe