3

Laughter hasn't been much of a philosophical topic, historically, and yet isn't it quite a puzzling phenomenon? In fact, it has often been rejected by philosophers because It appears paradoxal, irrational.

Philosophers are serious folks. One rare quasi-philosopher who practiced comic literature was Rabelais:

« Mieulx est de ris que de larmes escripre, Pour ce que rire est le propre de l'homme. » (Gargantua) (Better laugh than cry, for laughter is unique to man)

There's a Bergson essay about laughter, which I found disappointing. Bergson speaks mainly of slapstick comedy, very much in fashion at the turn of the century, and what puzzles him is why do we laugh when someone is hurt? It seems cruel, or at least paradoxal. I guess it's one of the paradoxes with laughter, but to me the big mystery was always the way it overtakes you, even when it goes against your best interest in a given (say solemn) situation. The SEP article on Philosophy of Humor explains that:

In laughter, ... we lose muscle control in our torsos, arms, and legs. In extremely heavy laughter, we fall on the floor and wet our pants.

This is probably the only SEP entry where someone wets his pants...

The same article shares the insights of ethologists on apes, where something like a smile signals playfulness:

In the last century an early play theory of humor was developed by Max Eastman (1936), who found parallels to humor in the play of animals, particularly in the laughter of chimps during tickling. He argues that “we come into the world endowed with an instinctive tendency to laugh and have this feeling in response to pains presented playfully”....

In chimps and gorillas, as in other mammals, play usually takes the form of mock-aggression such as chasing, wrestling, biting, and tickling. .... In mock-aggressive play, it is critical that all participants are aware that the activity is not real aggression. Without a way to distinguish between being chased or bitten playfully and being attacked in earnest, an animal might respond with deadly force. .... Jan van Hooff (1972, 212–213) and others speculate that the first play signals in humans evolved from two facial displays in an ancestor of both humans and the great apes that are still found in gorillas and chimps. One was the “grin face” or “social grimace”: the corners of the mouth and the lips are retracted to expose the gums, the jaws are closed, there is no vocalization, body movement is inhibited, and the eyes are directed toward an interacting partner. This “silent bared-teeth display,” according to van Hooff (1972, 217), evolved into the human social smile of appeasement.

Similarly, laughter would come from tickling, as a play signal. So it has a social function.

The SEP article also highlights the psychological function of helping us take distance with annoying stuff. Better laugh than cry about it, as Rabelais put it...

Still, I can't understand why laughter overtakes us so powerfully at times. Where does its power come from? It's like some deamon taking control of our body.

Olivier5
  • 2,162
  • 1
  • 2
  • 20
  • This seems like a question for psychology, not philosophy on this site (Other than the typical disclaimer that philosophy deals with all topics). – tkruse Dec 11 '23 at 06:22
  • This is more of a biology or psychology question. Note that intense fear can make people wet their pants or soil themselves too. Uncontrollable crying, panic attacks, hyperventilation are a thing too. People who are panicking can find themselves unable to move or react, when running or fighting back would be their best strategy, etc... According to modern biology our bodies are the product of an aphazard random process of mutations filtered by natural selection, so it only makes sense that not all the features are perfectly tuned and we bug sometimes. – armand Dec 11 '23 at 07:02
  • 1
    @armand Laughter is a feature, not a bug. – Olivier5 Dec 11 '23 at 07:13
  • 1
    Replace "laughter" with "fear", "lust", "envy" or some other strong emotion in your boldface question. Is it really paradoxical that human emotions are irrational and can override reason? Our biological ancestors were wired for quick instinctive reactions for millions of years and our infatuation with rationality is skin deep in comparison. Laughter is, in particular, a pressure valve for relieving anxiety, keeping it in could lead to paralysis at a critical moment or worse. Emotions overtake without deliberating over best interest because they worked often enough. When it bursts it pours. – Conifold Dec 11 '23 at 07:13
  • @Conifold I was never "overcome by lust" or even by fear, but laughter almost got me killed... Beside, there's something attitudinal about it. It's not just an emotion, it's a life style. – Olivier5 Dec 11 '23 at 07:23
  • i never wetted my pants because of too much laughing but I would definitely see it as a bug (^_^; ) – armand Dec 11 '23 at 07:35
  • Anthropologically, I don't think there's any mystery. It links to the transmissible indicators of play behaviour. What triggers laughter can be mysterious, but the same with sneezes. Still, we know self-domestication & the extension of childhood & neuroplasticity have been key human traits to facilite learning & reduce conflict. See a related discussion: 'What are some arguments against insulting being illegal' https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/81070/what-are-some-arguments-against-insulting-being-illegal/81077#81077 – CriglCragl Dec 12 '23 at 00:16
  • 1
    @Conifold: “We should take a lighter view of things and bear them with an easy spirit, for it is more human to laugh at life than to lament it… one allows it a fair prospect of hope, while the other stupidly laments over things he cannot hope will be put right.” “Laughter expresses the gentlest of our feelings, and reckons that nothing is great or serious or even wretched in all the trappings of our existence.” -Seneca – CriglCragl Dec 12 '23 at 00:25
  • @CriglCragl Yes, there is wisdom in not taking oneself - or anything/anyone - too seriously. There is wisdom in laughter, but sometimes it can be cruel too. It's quite complex a phenomenon. – Olivier5 Dec 12 '23 at 06:22

2 Answers2

3

See Plessner, Laughing and Crying

Laughing (and crying) are borderline reactions when the person cannot integrate body and mind anymore, if you will: the bodily experience and sensations make it so that you simply do not know what to do (or cannot make your body to act anymore) within your social role.

Laughing is, in a sense, the "mind" part breaking down (not being able to make sense anymore), while crying is the bodily part breaking down (feelings getting so strong that you loose control over your own body).

That's a very simplified version of what Plessner has to say, of course.

Philip Klöcking
  • 13,815
  • 3
  • 40
  • 72
  • True that crying has the same effect. You can't control yourself. Very strange. – Olivier5 Dec 11 '23 at 06:35
  • @Olivier5 Exactly. Also, note that Plessner has also written extensively about playing, which is not a coincidence. – Philip Klöcking Dec 11 '23 at 06:38
  • Yes, the connection with play is very strong. Laughter allows for the co-creation of a virtual reality, a make-believe reality that is very close to the real reality but not quite. – Olivier5 Dec 11 '23 at 06:46
  • @Olivier5 In fact, play is integral to forming a person and a feeling of self in the first place. Only by mastering and failing to apply different social roles you begin to constitute yourself as a person in distance to yourself and your roles (pace Plessner) – Philip Klöcking Dec 11 '23 at 07:14
  • Thanks, I'll check Plessner. – Olivier5 Dec 11 '23 at 07:27
  • "Laughing (and crying) are borderline reactions...": remark that such is just one theory, there are multiple. – RodolfoAP Dec 11 '23 at 08:05
  • @RodolfoAP Sure, I thought it was clear that I presented but one philosophical theory here. – Philip Klöcking Dec 11 '23 at 09:07
  • 1
    I wonder whether to laugh or cry that a question thought worthwhile for answering by a mod is considered worth closing by users . You may find Gurdjieff's theory related to Plessner's. – Rushi Dec 11 '23 at 09:47
  • 1
    @Rushi Indeed, users rush to close those questions they don't like. But it doesn't matter: I have already collected two references to laughter in a philosophical context, thanks to you and Philip. So we beat them! – Olivier5 Dec 11 '23 at 12:11
0

We laugh when:

  1. We had an expectation of how things would go.
  2. The way things actually did go surprised us in a way that made partial but not complete sense.
  3. There was something bad, negative, embarrassing, or inappropriate about the way things went.

Based on that, some reasons for laughter suggest themselves.

Laughter could help us learn about problems we didn't expect. It would make sense that we would be better off remembering specifically surprising problems, because those are the ones we aren't prepared for. Laughing could help us remember so we won't be surprised next time.

Laughter could also help us indicate to others that they are doing things wrong. If someone inexperienced messes up in a way that sort-of makes sense (to them), we might laugh at their mistake. This would help them remember not to make that mistake.

Laughter could also help spread the knowledge of surprising mistakes to others. Because laughter is pleasant, we are motivated to tell others about things that made us laugh, so that they also learn about those things.

causative
  • 12,714
  • 1
  • 16
  • 50