Tuesday, September 1, 2015

My Perspective on Hobbes vs Hutchenson

While reading Hutchenson's criticism of Hobbes, a point that Hutchenson made stood out to me. He says, "If Mr. Hobbes be just, then, first there can be no laughter on any occasion where we machine comparison of ourselves to others, or of our present state to a worse state, or where we do not observe some superiority of ourselves above some other thing: and again, it must follow, that every sudden appearance of superiority over another must excite laughter, when we attend to it. If both these conclusions be false, the notion from whence they are drawn must be so too." (Reflections Upon Laughter 104) I really like the point Hutchenson makes here against Hobbes' theories about laughter and what people think is funny. Breaking down the paragraph, which I had to do to absorb most of the article, showed Hutchenson's skepticism of Hobbes superiority theory. He is basically saying that the theory of superiority is too broad, and at each instance where superiority is present aren't inherently funny (a point that Hobbes doesn't address). Also, he discounts the need for superiority in order for something to be funny. 

On the other hand, all three theories intertwine immensely from my experience. It is incongruous to relieve someone from superiority. Now, that statement is a stretch, but my point is this: it is ridiculously hard to determine the reason someone is laughing at any given situation, and all of these theories are representative of types of things that are funny and they interconnect. I think without the interconnectivity of the theories, comedy wouldn't flow the way it does in the genre. My sense of humor relies on the relationship between these theories. 

I've been thinking a lot about how important it is in sketch show comedy, especially today, for there to be reference to pop culture. I've found in the clips I've watched that I find it most funny when I understand the allusions because that's the reason they're there. It brings the audience in with familiarity and makes someone want to click on the clip when they see a celebrity they like in the sketch. This is slightly off-topic, but it goes along with the video below for sure.  


I used this clip in this blog post because it genuinely made me laugh out loud and it has evidence of the theories in it. 
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. Shane HerronSeptember 2, 2015 at 6:34 AM

    That's a great point that comedy seems obsessed with references to celebrities. This clip is great because it really does mock I think that obsession.

    SNL also at the same time engages in a sort of celebrity worship. I wonder at what point parody turns into an extension of mere celebrity worship. For example, the point of parody is not necessarily to be superior to something, but as Hutcheson notes certainly to pierce in some way that gravity or self-importance of the situation. When does parody turns into mere cameos, mere appearance of celebrities for its own sake? In these instances, the point is not simply to humanize celebrities, but to make them appear as even more human than we are: it's not just that celebrities are more talented, they are also in a sense better at being just "ordinary" human beings, playing the sorts of stupid games that we play with our friends.

    Any of that make sense?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)