Plato, Hobbes, Kent, and Kierkegaard Response

For Plato, humor has a malicious intent because we are finding pleasure in someone’s ignorance or weakness (12-13). Yet, It seems to be situational because he implies that finding humor in your enemy is okay, but not your friends. On the other hand, Hobbes states that we laugh when we succeed. Therefore, we are laughing at other misfortunes. He believes that people laugh because they are pleased to be deemed “better” in comparison to others (19). 

 On the contrary, while there are people who find humor in other misfortunes, I also believe people could laugh at individual success without laughing at other misfortunes. For example, laughing because you're in shock or because you're relieved to have succeeded. 

Additionally, Hobbes defines the distinction between laughing with or without offense. According to Hobbes, laughing without offense is everyone finding humor in absurdity and imperfections. While, laughing with offense occurs when a person is laughing on their own causing feelings of jealousy and insecurity (self-examination) to arise in others around them (20). While I agree that there is a boundary between offensive and inoffensive, even in a group setting the inoffensive can become offensive because people have different understanding for what makes something absurd or imperfect. Therefore, I think someone should acknowledge the personal boundaries of others or be conscious of these boundaries in a group setting. As a result, the possibility of offensive laughter can decrease or be avoided because it won’t lead to others feeling insecure or jealous.

            Furthermore, Kent defines humor as sensory gratification; a shocked reaction from (expectations not being met (45), aligns with my counter argument to Hobbes definition of humor. Kent does emphasize that gratification is a pleased sensation which is not equivalent to satisfaction (45).  Moreover, he explains that our interest in humor stems from vanity or selfishness, a change in sensation, or a change in the representation of judgment (46) I most agree with this definition of humor because I view humor as a tool that unites people despite any differences; that laughter could occur for various reasons. There are different types of humor; some of which may be intentionally harmful (Plato), unintentional (Hobbes), an initial reaction (Kent), or a sense of awareness (Kierkegaard). It can stem from vanity and selfishness, like Plato’s understanding of malicious intent. It can stem from the shock of a tragic event. For example, laughing at a funeral and crying afterwards or It can simply be from shock; laughing in disbelief. In categorizing the origins of laughter, Kent acknowledges that humor is diverse; to understand it someone must recognize the circumstance in which it arises to know its purpose and whether it’s intentional or unintentional. 

            Lastly, Kierkegaard, to my understanding, defines humor as a contradiction that causes a sense of awareness. Therefore, the contradiction and its context determine whether 

it’s tragic (painful) or comical (painless) (83-84). Like Kent, something can be humorous, but painful because it is associated with a tragedy. Unlike Kent since this entails a sense of awareness, tragic contradiction is like dark humor because it’s something that develops after an event. In other words, it causes humor after the fact; once an individual has grieved and processed the situation, rather than in the moment.