Note: This comment system was replaced with Disqus in May 2010.
Comment #1
Monday, November 28, 2005 at 12:39:37 mst
Name: Rodney Rawlings
URL: http://www3.sympatico.ca/rr.rawlings/home.frames.htm
Ayn Rand made many valid points about humor, but her ideas of the nature of humor are not nearly the whole story. They do not explain many important manifestations of it.
My own opinion is that ultimately comedy is rooted in obliquely indicating some truth. This relates to the oft-made observation "It's funny because it's true." That is why an impressionist cracks us up when he is dead-on.
Speaking of "gymnastics," that is what I think of when I read Objectivists trying to stretch Rand's principles or known statements to cover some reality, in order not to face the fact that she was wrong, partly wrong, or not talking as rigorously or definitively as they imagine she was. Mental gymnastics, that is. Such as in TIA's article "Ayn Rand Laughed," or in some of the PARC-spelled-backwards now extant on the Web.
Comment #2
Monday, November 28, 2005 at 13:56:47 mst
Name: Rodney Rawlings
URL: http://www3.sympatico.ca/rr.rawlings/home.frames.htm
I should add that the article “Ayn Rand Laughed” is good in many ways, and effectively points up the fact that, in her own sphere of concern, Ayn Rand was a humorist of the highest order--contrary to the stereotype.
The many delightful touches of humor in THE FOUNTAINHEAD and ATLAS SHRUGGED can only be appreciated by those who share some of her basic values. This is in contrast to professional comedians, who must assume certain very general evaluations, which are sometimes false so that we can only laugh at the clever obliqueness--or not at all.
Comment #3
Monday, November 28, 2005 at 14:41:16 mst
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Rodney --
I haven't read "Ayn Rand Laughed," so I have no opinion of it. However, I do have a high regard for Robert Mayhew's work, including his lecture course "Ayn Rand on Humor." From all that I've seen, he's a careful and diligent scholar.
You made a strong and serious charge against that article, accusing Mayhew of "mental gymnastics," i.e. trying to "stretch Rand's principles or known statements to cover some reality, in order not to face the fact that she was wrong, partly wrong, or not talking as rigorously or definitively as they imagine she was."
You offered no evidence for that accusation -- not even an example or two of the kind of claim that you find so objectionable. Until you do so, I can do nothing other than ignore the substance of your accusation, since it actually has no substance.
Diana.
P.S. You wrote: "Ayn Rand made many valid points about humor, but her ideas of the nature of humor are not nearly the whole story. They do not explain many important manifestations of it."
Has any reputable Objectivist scholar ever claimed otherwise?!? Next time, try knocking down something other than the strawmen of your own imagination.
Comment #4
Monday, November 28, 2005 at 18:49:34 mst
Name: Rodney Rawlings
URL: http://www3.sympatico.ca/rr.rawlings/home.frames.htm
I’m also a fan of the article, and my main beef with it is its uncritical acceptance of AR’s definition of humor: “Humor is the denial of metaphysical importance to that which you laugh at.” I didn’t mean the full brunt of the “mental gymnastics” comment to fall on Mayhew’s article (I had other things in mind also), which does not stray too far from the valid applications of the statement’s partial truth. But it would apply to anyone who tried valiantly to defend AR’s formulation as a definition of ALL HUMOR AS SUCH.
Her words are true in the sense that this is the EFFECT of comedy at times, and this sense was very relevant to some themes of THE FOUNTAINHEAD, but that is not enough for a definition. Reputable Objectivist scholars do seem to claim or imply that it is, however.
Diane, do you think it is a valid definition, and if so, how would it cover an impressionist’s act?
On another forum, a whole thread developed over AR’s comment that babies’ chief means of cognition is emotional vibrations, and whether this meant something mystical. Here is a case where more was read into her words than she clearly intended. There were a lot of mental gymnastics there.
Talk about synchronicity! My wife just called me over to see a recording of ELLEN, and she had a six-year-musical prodigy on. He told a joke: “Three notes, C, E flat, and G, go into a bar and order drinks. The bartender yells at them, ‘WE DON’T SERVE MINORS!’” How would Ayn Rand’s definition cover this example?
Comment #5
Monday, November 28, 2005 at 19:09:11 mst
Name: Rodney Rawlings
URL: http://www3.sympatico.ca/rr.rawlings/home.frames.htm
Sorry for calling you Diane, by the way.
Comment #6
Monday, November 28, 2005 at 22:16:19 mst
Name: R. Johnson
"my main beef with it is its uncritical acceptance of AR’s definition of humor"
When are you TOC people going to stop repeating the same tired mantra with all its code words; ie "uncritical acceptance", "Objectivists trying to stretch", etc.
You all sound like the same broken record. Hell Rodney, why even post any comments on Diana's blog at all? She respects Peikoff, Schwartz, ARI and doesn't buy into the "ARI folk are a bunch of duped sycophants" crap.
Spare us the banter please.
Comment #7
Monday, November 28, 2005 at 22:38:58 mst
Name: Mike Hardy
::is a distinctively modern phenomena
OK, time for Grammar-Nazism again.
Write "This phenomenon is..."
or "These phenomena are..."
But not "This phenomena is..."
Comment #8
Monday, November 28, 2005 at 23:27:42 mst
Name: Mike
URL: http://passingthoughts.blogsome.com
“Humor is the denial of metaphysical importance to that which you laugh at.”
Is this a definition? I read it as a description of a type of humor, not as a definition. Is the genus supposed to be "the denial of metaphysical importance" and the differentia "that which you laugh at?" Does Mayhew refer to it as a definition?
Comment #9
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 4:10:53 mst
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Rodney,
The statement "Humor is the denial of metaphysical importance to that which you laugh at" isn't a definition of humor at all. In fact, it's not even a quote from any of Ayn Rand's writings -- according to my searches of the CD-ROM. So exactly how is it Ayn Rand's definition?
More importantly, you still haven't offered any evidence to substantiate your serious charges against Robert Mayhew, as asked. To be crystal clear, you need to actually quote from Mayhew's article, including his supposed "uncritical" use of that comment as a definition and his resulting "mental gymnastics."
Until you do that, your proposed counter-examples of word play and impressions are utterly beside the point. Those examples only reveal some of your objections to the Objectivist view of humor (as you understand or misunderstand it). They do not show that Mayhew contorted himself into the shape of a dogmatic pretzel to defend Ayn Rand on humor, as you originally claimed (albeit not in those words). To establish that, you'd need to offer more than vague insinuations about Mayhew's claims and methods: you'd need to provide actual quotes from his article. And then you'd have to prove him not just wrong, but absurdly wrong. For that, you'd have to do more than raise doubts about forms of humor like impressions and word play: you'd have to show that they don't involve any denial of metaphysical importance whatsoever. If that sounds like a BIG CHORE, it's because you made a BIG ACCUSATION.
It goes without saying that the mere fact that you fail to see any denial of metaphysical importance in some kinds of humor doesn't mean that such does not exist. (In fact, I suspect that you are looking in all the wrong places.) Perhaps you ought to discuss the matter with an expert on Ayn Rand's view of humor -- like Robert Mayhew. That might have been possible if you had approached him in a respectful manner, rather than rushing to accuse him of dogmatic "mental gymnastics."
By such methods, you've also destroyed any interest that I might have in discussing the matter with you. I cannot trust you to be an honest and fair interlocutor. However, I will offer you one more opportunity to either put up (by proving your charges against Mayhew) or shut up (preferably with an apology to Mayhew).
Diana.
Comment #10
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 10:56:03 mst
Name: Dave Harrison
Diana,
For what it's worth, I found this on a Google search...
“Humor is the denial of metaphysical importance to that which you laugh at. The classic example: you see a very snooty, very well dressed dowager walking down the street, and then she slips on a banana peel. … What’s funny about it? It’s the contrast of the woman’s pretensions to reality. She acted very grand, but reality undercut it with a plain banana peel. That’s the denial of the metaphysical validity or importance of the pretensions of that woman.
“Therefore, humor is a destructive element - which is quite all right, but its value and its morality depend on what it is that you are laughing at. If what you are laughing at is the evil in the world (provided that you take it seriously, but occasionally you permit yourself to laugh at it), that’s fine. [To] laugh at that which is good, at heroes, at values, and above all at yourself [is] monstrous. … The worst evil that you can do, psychologically, is to laugh at yourself. That means spitting in your own face.”
Ayn Rand, question period following Lecture 11 of Leonard Peikoff’s series “The Philosophy of Objectivism” (1976).
Comment #11
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 13:12:33 mst
Name: Philip Coates
Dave, sometimes Ayn Rand makes a statement like the one you quote in a Q&A and it's not meant to be definitional or to include every possible case. I can see answering a question in context as "humor is the", but if one were pressed or wrote a formal article, one might amend it to say "humor often is" or "humor can be".
Rand is usually very good at off the cuff formulations in a question period, but just as you don't take people you know's words in conversation (or even email postings) as full, formal, official formulations, you don't do that even for a major intellectual figure.
Phil
Comment #12
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 13:42:02 mst
Name: Volens
I am not replying to Rodney Rawlings, but to others who might be interested in the issue.
"He told a joke: 'Three notes, C, E flat, and G, go into a bar and order drinks. The bartender yells at them, "WE DON’T SERVE MINORS!"' How would Ayn Rand’s definition cover this example?"
Ayn Rand's statement (not neccessarily her definition) about humor would obviously apply as follows: the fact that the same word "minor" is used for both musical notes and teenagers is an insignificant fact. To the bartender in the joke it is a significant one, prompting the listener to laugh to assert the metaphysical insignificance of both the fact and the bartender's attitude. This is in general what makes puns of that type funny.
It did not take long for me to see this, but some people prefer to stay frozen in their current state of knowledge.
Comment #13
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 13:57:30 mst
Name: Dave Harrison
"Dave, sometimes Ayn Rand makes a statement like the one you quote in a Q&A and it's not meant to be definitional or to include every possible case. I can see answering a question in context as "humor is the", but if one were pressed or wrote a formal article, one might amend it to say "humor often is" or "humor can be".
"Rand is usually very good at off the cuff formulations in a question period, but just as you don't take people you know's words in conversation (or even email postings) as full, formal, official formulations, you don't do that even for a major intellectual figure."
Phil, I just posted that because people were having trouble locating the source of the quote. I have no personal opinion on what Rand felt was proper humor, because I really don't care. I find certain things very funny and I've never cared to analyze why and have no plans to. I just enjoy and try, in the process, not to deliberately hurt or laugh at people who don't deserve it.
Dave
Comment #14
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 14:24:44 mst
Name: Philip Coates
> Phil, I just posted that because people were having trouble locating the source of the quote.
OK.
Comment #15
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 14:33:39 mst
Name: Ergo
Clearly, Rand wasn't right about everything she said or correctly knowledgeable about everything she tackled... and to believe she was or to attempt to show that she might have been, is simply a naive indulgence at best.
And I suppose, for Diane's sake I'll point out a specific example of where Rand went wrong in some of the things she said: in her Q & A about free verse in poetry, Rand says that free verse is apparently on a lower level than free lunches. No reason, explication, or argumentation is given to substantiate her personal dislike of free verse.
Rand also was incredibly notorious for not distinguishing clearly and distinctly between things she assessed based on her own PERSONAL likes and dislikes and things she assessed based on a philosophically objective value-standard. No wonder, many "Randriods" go around confusing optional values with objective values -- this effect is ofcourse, not a fault or responsibility of Ayn Rand though.
I fully agree with Dave's comment. Analyzing (or over-analyzing, for that matter) humor simple sucks out all of the joke's intended effects. As long as one avoids deliberate, intentional malice towards people or circumstances, it's fine to let jokes be. Ofcourse, the analysis that is required here is not of the jokes, but of its nature (as being malicious or not).
On a different, unrelated note: of all the comments I read on here... Diane's comments have this tone of such uncivil impudence and arrogance. It's plainly a turn-off, especially to someone like myself who is only now beginning to familiarize myself into Objectivist philosophy and Objectivist peoples.
I don't see why the practice of rationality and objectivity need to carry an impudent tone about itself?
Comment #16
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 15:07:53 mst
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Ergo,
Certainly, I have little tolerance for people toss off serious charges against careful scholars like Robert Mayhew without evidence. Should I instead be calm and quiet, perhaps not object at all, when the moral character of people that I like and admire and respect are unjustly attacked on my forum? Your rebuke of me -- with no objection to Rodney's unjust and arbitrary accusations -- leaves him free to spout whatever he pleases, while I must hold my tongue. That is unacceptable.
As a general point: I responded the way that I did to Rodney for a reason. Let me suggest that you consider the rightness or wrongness of those reasons, rather than focusing solely upon the mere sharpness of my tone, as you did in your admonishment of me. (Just so you know, I took no pleasure in this recent exchange. I much prefer friendly dialogue in the comments, but that's not always morally possible.)
If you personally dislike me, that's fine. We can go our merry ways. In any case, you certainly shouldn't judge Objectivism based upon your feelings about me -- or any other person.
Okay, now onto the easier parts of your comment:
You said: "Clearly, Rand wasn't right about everything she said or correctly knowledgeable about everything she tackled..." You're knocking down a strawman. No reasonable Objectivist -- certainly not me -- has ever claimed that Ayn Rand only uttered crystal clear, absolutely true, perfectly knowledgeable, and astonishingly insightful statements in the whole of her lifetime. (Okay, that was a bit overstated.) The point is that Objectivists defend her philosophy (i.e. the system of philosophic principles she espoused) as true, not everything that she said.
Also, the point of analyzing humor is to understand why you find funny what you find funny, not to make what you find funny more funny. If you don't enjoy the exercise, then feel free to eschew it. By adopting that path, I should note, a person cannot justly comment upon Ayn Rand's views about humor.
P.S. My name is Diana.
Comment #17
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 15:15:39 mst
Name: Rodney Rawlings
URL: http://www3.sympatico.ca/rr.rawlings/home.frames.htm
Diana, my did you miss this passage where I considerably qualified my statement?
“I’m also a fan of the article, and my main beef with it is its uncritical acceptance of AR’s definition of humor: “Humor is the denial of metaphysical importance to that which you laugh at.” I didn’t mean the full brunt of the “mental gymnastics” comment to fall on Mayhew’s article (I had other things in mind also), which [article] does not stray too far from the valid applications of the statement’s partial truth. But it would apply to anyone who tried valiantly to defend AR’s formulation as a definition of ALL HUMOR AS SUCH.”
I think Rand’s mistake here is in thinking all humor involves making fun of something in a destructive way. Look at the three statements she makes in the LEXICON, and you will see that this is what she mainly has in mind.
Those statements may not be attempts at formal definition, but they do definitely read like attempts to identify the essence of humor.
When you laugh at something, such as the cute antics of a kitten (you find them humorous), you are definitely drawing on your values (the kitten’s absurd actions speak to your valuing of intelligence and competence), but there is no destructive element to your sense of humor. You are indirectly affirming your values, of course, and thus indirectly negating disvalues, but to my mind a major part of the humor is simple delight in the truth--since there is no question of the kitten’s behaviour being important.
But to be funny, the truth has to be indicated in a certain way. You can ruin a joke by miswording it.
It is this involuntary explosion of sudden, intense delight in an apt representation of some truth involving our values--resulting in the mental/physical phenomenon of laughter--that I theorize is the essence of humor. A good account of comedy would have to include some such formulation.
Comment #18
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 15:29:42 mst
Name: Adrian Hester
Volens writes: "Ayn Rand's statement (not neccessarily her definition) about humor would obviously apply as follows: the fact that the same word "minor" is used for both musical notes and teenagers is an insignificant fact. To the bartender in the joke it is a significant one, prompting the listener to laugh to assert the metaphysical insignificance of both the fact and the bartender's attitude. This is in general what makes puns of that type funny."
That's a fine piece of rationalistic reasoning there. In general something is funny because there's an unexpected twist in it--a connection between dissimilar things or a sudden revelation that someone in the joke doesn't share the obvious context, etc. In puns you play with language by setting up one expectation and delivering something unexpected but linguistically similar, not necessarily by playing on an ambiguity in meaning. Trying to force that into a schema of metaphysically significant and insignificant is misguided: In any joke you'll have the background knowledge that supports the expectation being played on, which it's a stretch to call metaphysically insignificant (it's only insignificant in the context of a joke); and the punchline, or more generally the twist in expectations, which is significant by definition since it's the point of the joke. I don't find that the laughter is provoked by the need to reduce the twist to metaphysical insignificance but because of the gap between what is expected and what is delivered. For example, I find this pun much funnier than that one about the notes in the bar: "What did the yoga master say to the hotdog man? 'Make me one with everything.'" The reason it's funnier is not because of a greater degree of metaphysical significance of hotdogs or whatnot, but because it plays on a much subtler and interlocking bundle of ambiguities (direct versus indirect object, different senses of "one," and idiomatic versus basic meaning of "to make"). The way belittling humor works is by setting up expectations in accordance with a person's claims or beliefs or how he projects himself, and then delivering something contrary to expectations--puncturing those beliefs or illusions or projections of self. It's easy to see how the play of significance and insignificance in malicious humor follows from that; trying to make significance primary for all forms of humor is to force humor into a rationalistic mold.
Comment #19
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 15:47:15 mst
Name: Ergo
Diana, sorry about calling you "Diane"... I must say, I couldn't possibly dislike you personally... I would have to know you first, to dislike you, in any meaningful way.
I agree that you must not let any falsities or misinterpretations pass without making your attempts to rectify them. I agree with the substance of your response to Rodney... not the tone, however. In all discussions of philosophy, one must assume (I believe) that all engaged participants are motivated by their love for wisdom - hence they engage in philosophical discourse.
The proper response to a misinformed argument or a false assertion is not rebuke, nor a placid non-response.
If you believe that there is a certain morality in defending correct ideas, moral behavior, moral character and moral individuals, then there should also be a certain morality involved in the nature of your defense.
Immediately, and instantaneously responding with a harsh and uncivil tone -- especially given the context of a philosophical discussion -- is simply unwarranted and may also be argued to be immoral in itself.
The morality is not only in defending the truth, but also defending it with a rational and prudent temper.
Diane, I've read some of your papers. I admire some of your work. I don't mean to rebuke your character or person in any way. However, I think that instances of immediate, unrestrained and almost hostile temper merely works against the substantiveness of your argument.
I believe Rand's philosophy and its acceptance has mostly suffered because of this reason.
Comment #20
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 15:49:32 mst
Name: Ergo
OMG! I did it again! I'm so sorry! I called you Diane, again! I'm embarrased. Sorry!
Comment #21
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 15:51:57 mst
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Rodney, here's what your originally said:
"Speaking of 'gymnastics,' that is what I think of when I read Objectivists trying to stretch Rand's principles or known statements to cover some reality, in order not to face the fact that she was wrong, partly wrong, or not talking as rigorously or definitively as they imagine she was. Mental gymnastics, that is. Such as in TIA's article 'Ayn Rand Laughed,' or in some of the PARC-spelled-backwards now extant on the Web."
You were clearly accusing Robert Mayhew, the author of "Ayn Rand Laughed" of mental gymnastics for "trying to stretch Rand's principles or known statements to cover some reality, in order not to face the fact that she was wrong, partly wrong, or not talking as rigorously or definitively as they imagine she was." The fact that you think other Objectivist writings also qualify as mental gymnastics does not soften your charge against Mayhew. And your supposed qualification merely made the charge more specific, namely that of "uncritical acceptance of AR's definition of humor." (Perhaps some of your later comments were not directly aimed at Mayhew, but that's a minor detail.)
Since you can't seem to justify your own accusations, you should explicitly retract them. If you're not willing to do that -- if you're not willing to acknowledge that you crossed a line -- then you are no longer welcome to post. I'm sorry that it's come to that, but I am entirely unwilling to allow the NoodleFood comments to degenerate into a welcome forum for arbitrary and unjust attacks upon ARI scholars.
Comment #22
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 16:12:51 mst
Name: Diana Hsieh
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Ergo,
Thank you for making me laugh -- for the first time in this whole damn humor thread. I do sometimes need to be reminded to keep my temper in check, so I appreciate your comments on that score. However, I do somewhat disagree with your comment that:
"In all discussions of philosophy, one must assume (I believe) that all engaged participants are motivated by their love for wisdom - hence they engage in philosophical discourse."
Unfortunately, lots of people engage in philosophical discourse for less laudable reasons than love of wisdom. So while people always start off with a clean slate in my book, it doesn't stay that way long. Rodney's out-of-the-blue attack upon Robert Mayhew was unjust. Mayhew is perhaps the most careful and diligent scholar I know. So although I hadn't read the article in question, the idea that he engaged in anything like "mental gymnastics" for the sake of defending some Objectivist faith is absurd. Frankly, the accusation stunk of a pattern that I've seen all-too-often, namely that of using any possible pretext to level some vague and unjust accusation of dogmatism or the like against some ARI scholar. (When challenged, such people are unable to defend their claims, so they instead resort to all manner of rhetorical dirty tricks, including claiming that they never said what they obviously said.) Despite my concerns, I gave Rodney more than a few opportunities to justify his accusation -- or retract it. He hasn't done either yet. I think I've been more than fair, despite my (very obvious) annoyance and frustration.
Nonetheless, I'll work on being more calm and temperate, but just by a little bit. :-)
Comment #23
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 16:30:32 mst
Name: Rodney Rawlings
URL: http://www3.sympatico.ca/rr.rawlings/home.frames.htm
Since in his article Mayhew does keep close to the valid applications of AR’s statements as they apply to her work, I withdraw the implication of mental gymnastics in the article, but not the part about “uncritical acceptance of AR’s definition of humor.” That probably sounds worse than I mean it (I had wanted to soften my original statement in fact, but this Comments section has no edit function). It only means that Mayhew quotes her views as true with no criticism, as her “view of the role of humor in human life.” And in the rest of the article, he speaks in such a way that it’s clear he agrees with it.
So if, outside the article, he attempts to uphold AR’s view of the essence of humor, he would then have a very hard time, in my view.