Skip to main content

Humor: Some Thoughts

I'll probably over-analyze this, as is my way. I think humor is the unexpected juxtaposition of seemingly contrary things, which forms an absurdity. Another aspect of humor is the intentional breaking of taboos, usually coupled with self-mockery or self-parody.

Many people are perplexed by various types of crude humor, but I have realized that it's only actually funny as a contrast, perhaps to the way we're expected to behave in most places of our lives. Even the tolerance for that kind of thing is a matter of taste.

If we're crude all the time, crude humor doesn't shock or surprise. I think the unexpected is a key ingredient of humor. I still haven't watched a whole lot of the TV show Seinfeld. I know, I need to do that. That comedy works, because we have expectations about how decent people are supposed to conduct themselves. None of the erstwhile protagonists are flagrantly evil, in any sort of historic sense. Still, they consistently miss opportunities to do the little thing, which tends to mark beloved people out from the rest of us. I suppose in that way, the show can make us laugh, while teaching us about the good life. I remember seeing the final episode, and thinking it was quite funny. Then I had a fearful, self-accusing thought: I hope my particular judgment is not like the trial of those characters. We can laugh at it, because it was funny and none of the characters is real. Still, I have never wanted to be the guy everyone thinks is just okay, at best.

I continue to think about the interesting relationship between laughter, and sorrow. It sure seems like some of the funniest people who have ever lived are those who suffered greatly. Perhaps that is the appeal of nihilism, because one accepts the absurd as the steady-state of the universe. At that moment, you have two choices: despair or laughter. I never put much value in this so-called, "cheerful nihilism" that's going around. The point of laughing at the absurd is that the absurd is not actually the steady-state of the universe. How are you supposed to be cheerful, if there's no plan, and no point to anything?

Religion offers many opportunities for well-placed humor, but not of the kind that outsiders tend to think. Mocking God is always a bad idea, and mocking those in spiritual authority--human though they are--might even be worse. What's the saying? Always punch up, not down. And in that case, punching horizontally ends up a waste. I think the big part of humor in a religious context is the juxtaposition of faith, and the experience of the testing of that faith, with the awareness of all that is less than ideal. Strangely enough, this may also be the juxtaposition that produces a saint.

Lord, I'm trying not to laugh now, so I don't end up on the wrong end of one of your woes. There is a lot of sadness, isn't there? I hope it pays off, in the end.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un