Why Do We Laugh or Cry
WHY DO WE LAUGH OR CRY?
(For Discussion Only, Not For Publication and Not for Quotation)
To be read before the UP Labyrinth on January 19, 2005, during the Philosophy Week
As Heidegger expressed it, and sometimes also attributable to Gabriel Marcel, man has been “cast” or “thrown” into the world without his knowledge, will, or consent, and is removed from it again without his will or consent. Between these two events man has to go through much suffering. In order to explain the mysteries of that intervening event, man invents answers, first in the forms of myth and religion, later in that of philosophic systems. Much of the theories about man have been contributed to our collection of theories not only by philosophy but also by science, the religions, and other systems of thought. We have some quite lucid discussion by David Hume in his Treatise of Human Nature, and lately, by Robert Nozick in his Philosophical Mediations and notably, too, Peter Singer’s best seller How Do We Live? Hence, let’s look at a theory of laughter and crying. There is a way by which we can philosophically analyze laughter and crying. In trying to answer the question, “Why do we laugh or cry?” there is no need to inquire into the psychological motives of people’s laughter and tears. The meaning of the question is: How can the psychological phenomena of laughing and crying be interpreted philosophically?” Are these typically human phenomena irrational? Laughter can be interpreted as a value judgment, an instinctive, negative value judgment concerning a mortification (putting down) of a value or values. The judgment is not expressed in words, but in the inarticulate sounds we call laughter. Laughter, however, is not only our reaction towards degradation of values. Sometimes it is also an action provoking a degradation of values, at least, trying to provoke it. When we laugh at a person, or a thing done by a person, although no value degradation can be found in them, we try
(For Discussion Only, Not For Publication and Not for Quotation)
To be read before the UP Labyrinth on January 19, 2005, during the Philosophy Week
As Heidegger expressed it, and sometimes also attributable to Gabriel Marcel, man has been “cast” or “thrown” into the world without his knowledge, will, or consent, and is removed from it again without his will or consent. Between these two events man has to go through much suffering. In order to explain the mysteries of that intervening event, man invents answers, first in the forms of myth and religion, later in that of philosophic systems. Much of the theories about man have been contributed to our collection of theories not only by philosophy but also by science, the religions, and other systems of thought. We have some quite lucid discussion by David Hume in his Treatise of Human Nature, and lately, by Robert Nozick in his Philosophical Mediations and notably, too, Peter Singer’s best seller How Do We Live? Hence, let’s look at a theory of laughter and crying. There is a way by which we can philosophically analyze laughter and crying. In trying to answer the question, “Why do we laugh or cry?” there is no need to inquire into the psychological motives of people’s laughter and tears. The meaning of the question is: How can the psychological phenomena of laughing and crying be interpreted philosophically?” Are these typically human phenomena irrational? Laughter can be interpreted as a value judgment, an instinctive, negative value judgment concerning a mortification (putting down) of a value or values. The judgment is not expressed in words, but in the inarticulate sounds we call laughter. Laughter, however, is not only our reaction towards degradation of values. Sometimes it is also an action provoking a degradation of values, at least, trying to provoke it. When we laugh at a person, or a thing done by a person, although no value degradation can be found in them, we try