Tag: comedy

Categories
2021 Abstracts Stage 2

Why Did The Duck Cross The Line? An Exploration of Offensive Humour, Laughter as a Response, and DuBoisian ‘Double Consciousness’

This project aims to explore the nature of offensive humour, using readings of W.E.B Du Bois’ theory of ‘double consciousness’ (a duel perspective originally felt by black Americans) as well as the three laughter theories (as told by Hobbes, Kant and Freud) as a framework for presenting the main arguments regarding taboo topics within the comedic realm, these being 1.) in support of censorship within humour, with the exception of oppositional satire from the oppressed, and 2.) in support of a freedom within laughter and comedy, as per their supposed nature. I aim to ultimately offer a new perspective regarding this argument, expanding on ideas seen within my chosen concepts.

OBJECT: Offensive Humour and laughter as a response, and how this may link to censorship/freedom of speech

TERRITORY: Ethics. (Analysing whether offensive humour is ‘right’ to use)

CONCEPTS: Interpretations of DuBoisian ‘Double Consciousness’, laughter theories (as stated by Hobbes, Kant, Freud)

Categories
2014 Abstracts Stage 3

A Philosophical Discussion of Comedy and Laughter and an Analysis of the Potential Benefits They Offer Society

Thesis: Absolute freedom of comic expression is a prerequisite for a fair and functional society and can provide a form of abstract social mobility. Some forms of comic performances can be considered artistic.

Objective: To explain the philosophical theories concerning why we laugh, to demonstrate these theories through contemporary and historical comedy, and to determine the extent at which comedy is relevant today.

The Superiority Theory: Do we enjoy laughter because we enjoy the suffering of others? Is it just a method for self-elevation? Plato, Hobbes, and Descartes think so.

The Relief Theory: ‘laughter does in the nervous system what a pressure-relief valve does in a steam boiler.’ Nervous energy from insecurities can be released through laughter, according to Freud and Spencer.

The Incongruity Theory: When something seems out of the ordinary, or incongruous, we laugh. Aristotle, Kant and Kierkegaard agreed.

Categories
2008 Abstracts Stage 2

Offensive Humour and the Limits of Comedy

Territory – Comedy. Object – Offensive Humour. Concepts – Ethics, Liberty, Utilitarianism. Thinkers – Mill, Freud, Bakhtin. The Two Ways In Which Humour Can Be Evaluated: The aesthetical question concerns when it is fitting to laugh at something, and the ethical question, when is it morally wrong to laugh at something. For example if you claim that you should not laugh at sexist jokes, then in the aesthetic sense that means sexist jokes lack the features that something must have in order to be funny. If someone is amused by these jokes, then in this sense there has been an error of judgement, it’s not that they have done anything morally wrong, rather these kind of jokes fail as comedy. The ethical question, on the other hand, identifies something as morally wrong to laugh at. Linked to this is Ronald De Sousa’s account of how humour works. He claims that in order to be amused by something we have to endorse the attitudes of it. To take the previous example, according to him, some of us will find sexist jokes funny whereas others will not, the difference is in whether you support those attitudes. Therefore it would become immoral to be amused by this type of joke since to find it humorous is to be sexist. Main Objective: I intend to make a study into the area of humour, focusing upon looking into ethics surrounding amusement and attempting to find out whether it could ever be morally perverse or wrong to make jokes, or laugh about particular things. Utilitarian Concept: I shall engage with a utilitarian perspective when it comes to discovering whether finding humour in something could ever be morally wrong. Take for example the Dutch cartoon of Mohammed. Clearly this had a lot of negative consequences and upset a lot of people. Quite obviously blasphemous humour can be offensive. However no utilitarian evaluation is complete without looking at all the consequences, and it could be argued that there was some positive outcomes. It got people talking about religious views, and reflection and discussion are beneficial to individuals and society as a whole. A society with more discourse and exchanging of ideas is a happier society than one without. In that sense jokes such as these could be argued to be for the greater good. Change and Contrast: The historical contrast between the role of parody in the Medieval carnival and the limits of parody in modernity. Medieval Carnival: Generalised ethical permission under which parody, that would have amounted to blasphemy on any other occasion, was acceptable, under a particular kind of social occasion. Modern day there are restrictions on parody and what is acceptable or viewed as offensive. Could not conceive permission to create a parody of a war memorial for example.

Categories
2007 Abstracts Stage 3

Lenny Bruce a Philosopher or was he Obscene?

Lenny Bruce was a controversial American comedian in the 1960’s. He spoke about sex, religion and what it is to be obscene. It was not just the content of Lenny’s act that was thought to be obscene it was also the language he used. As a result of this he was charged with obscenity. This project looks at Lenny’s work and whether he was obscene or whether he was a moral philosopher. He claimed that had the court allowed him to see his work in context and allowed him to perform his act as evidence they would not find him obscene. His act was instead read out by a policeman or written down and used as evidence. However is there a distinction between speech and writing? Is context singular? Is what is obscene a fact or just an interpretation? Looking at the change in views on the binary opposition of speech and writing from Plato to Derrida this project will discuss whether had Lenny been allowed to perform his act in court would the decision of the court been different.