Kant the Comedian

 As is typical in the Western philosophical tradition, the investigation of the concept of humor begins with Plato. Plato takes a negative view of humor and comedy and dismisses it entirely from the curriculum of education for the “Guardians” of his ideal society in The Republic. In this sense, Plato does not so much theorize about what humor is so much as he theorizes about what humor accomplishes and what its end is within individuals. Plato asserts that humor has no place in the education of upright individuals because it is identified with the “ridiculous,” which is “a certain kind of evil, specifically a vice” (Plato, Philebus 48-50). For Plato, ridiculousness is the cause of laughter and laughter is always a result of a feeling a maliciousness towards others, which has no place in the education of just leaders. Hobbes continues to interweave power with comedy in his writings on humor. Hobbes, like Plato, believes that humor and laughter result in us by the perception of some defect in others, but whereas for Plato this defect is ridiculousness, Hobbes takes a broader view. Hobbes asserts that when we perceive a defect of any kind in others which we lack, we feel a “sudden glory” as a result of our superiority and laugh. Hobbes also distains humor, because it is his belief that “For of great minds, one of the proper works is, to help and free others from scorn;” (Hobbes, Leviathan Part I, ch. 6) and so excessive laughter at the defects of others is improper. Kant and Kierkegaard arrive finally at the Incongruity Theory of humor, wherein “the comedic” is a result of the subversion of our expectations concerning a specific outcome. Kant states that “Laughter is an affection arising from the sudden transformation of a strained expectation into a nothing.” (Kant, Critique of Judgement Part I, Div 54, 1) and Kierkegaard asserts that humor throughout all the stages of our life, although taking on many different subject matters, is relatively the same in that it is a result of subversion of expectations. After reading the views of above four thinkers on comedy, I do not believe that any one of them is incorrect, but rather that they are speaking about two different types of comedy. Plato and Hobbes speak of comedy at the expense of others, which is the simpler form of comedy but can be harmful because it lends itself to bullying. Kant and Kierkegaard’s Incongruity Theory relies on the simple theory of subversion of expectations at its core but can develop into very complex forms of comedy and anti-comedy, such as dadaism, which I particularly enjoy.