Descartes, Spenser, & Freud

            In contrast to Plato and Hobbes, I found that the readings for today—selections from Descartes, Spenser, and Freud—took a distinctly more scientific and even psychological approach in their discussions of the underlying reasons we find different subjects humorous, or not. Both Descartes and Spenser went so far as to examine humor through laughter specifically, a physical reaction that they attempt to explain through biological terms. Freud, meanwhile, in his usual manner, discussed humor in relation to his own theory of the ego, speaking in terms of suppressed desires and feelings, often centered on sex and violence.

            I can’t say I found that any of these discussions of humor particularly aligned with my own feelings on the subject. Descartes, for one, continues Hobbes’s tradition of maliciously intended laughter, graciously expanding his definition to include not only hatred as a source of comedy, but scorn and ridicule as well. How generous. While he acknowledges that laughter can be found in times of happiness, he immediately curbs the notion, saying, “joy cannot cause [laughter] except when it is moderate and has some wonder or hate mingled with it” (Descartes 22). The source of this logic is biological, as he explains that “in great joys the lung is always so full of blood that it cannot be further inflated by repeated gushes” (Descartes 22). I can only hope that this definition of laughter’s sources is wrong, given that I’ve been on the receiving end of laughter in joyful and meaningful situations multiple times. When I ask what the other person finds so funny, the response is clear: “I’m just happy.” In part, I’m choosing to disagree with Descartes for the sake of my own self-esteem.

            Freud, on the other hand, took a psychological approach to his discussion of humor, which I wasn’t entirely happy with either, to be honest. There was a lot about the ego and the superego, and parents and fathers. Whenever I read Freud, I can’t shake the notion that he is merely speaking about his own experiences and projecting them onto everyone else to some extent. When I joke about my cat being a lazy freeloader, for instance, I can honestly say that none of my humor is coming from a place of suppressed violent or sexual desire. I do think he had some good points about laughter being a release of tension, in instances where one expects fear or rejection and does not receive it. Laughter can be a great way to release tension during an important interview, or after a difficult test. On the whole, though, I definitely found Spenser to be the most agreeable reading to my own tastes out of the three. I thought his discussion of incongruity humor and when it is and isn’t funny to be interesting food for thought.