One of the grad students in my department once argued that funniness is the correct normative standard, on the grounds that this would be the funniest normative standard.
Have you read 'Playfulness versus epistemic traps'? Lovely paper suggesting that playfulness is an intellectua virtue (and so humour-driven philosophy could be a good idea!)
I've been accused of a similar supposed epistemic vice by certain individuals—ahem, Mouthy Infidel—of choosing views merely for the sake of delivering amusingly polemical phrases. Naturally, this accusation is wholly unfounded. Such a charge is an affront to the various abstracta I champion: truth, goodness, beauty, and so forth.
I have noticed that it is actually pretty hard to combine humor with (analytic) philosophy. A few gifted writers like Dan Dennett can do it, but not many. My theory to explain this is that jokes usually are funny because of a presupposition of some kind (for example, my pen name "Hans Niemand" is only funny if you know about the chess player Hans Niemann, and that "Niemand" in German means "nobody"), but good analytic philosophy is about making all presuppositions as explicit as possible, so it's hard to tell a joke in philosophy without either ruining the joke or ruining the philosophy.
I find humor often consists of putting two disparate things together and laughing at the result. Yet sometimes, the combination actually works, or at least leads one to unexplored territory. Perhaps it also allows one to not take themselves too seriously.
The Ancient Egyptians were apparently quite fond of humor and satire, even in religious and legal matters. A Roman writer remarked how Egyptian jurists would crack jokes in the court, and the infamous Contendings of Horus and Set is considered by modern scholars to be a satire of the Gods.
One of the grad students in my department once argued that funniness is the correct normative standard, on the grounds that this would be the funniest normative standard.
Soooooooo based
True, maybe based-ness is the correct normative standard
Have you read 'Playfulness versus epistemic traps'? Lovely paper suggesting that playfulness is an intellectua virtue (and so humour-driven philosophy could be a good idea!)
I’ve listened to a podcast about it, but haven’t read yet!
My attempt at philosophy humor:
https://bryanfrances.substack.com/p/philosophy-humor
I've been accused of a similar supposed epistemic vice by certain individuals—ahem, Mouthy Infidel—of choosing views merely for the sake of delivering amusingly polemical phrases. Naturally, this accusation is wholly unfounded. Such a charge is an affront to the various abstracta I champion: truth, goodness, beauty, and so forth.
Mouthy Infidel is an immoral slanderer.
sorry to the haters and losers, but MY aesthetic sensibilities (e.g., elegance) ARE truth conducive.
Then why are you so inelegant in real life and why are your beliefs so implausible?
I have noticed that it is actually pretty hard to combine humor with (analytic) philosophy. A few gifted writers like Dan Dennett can do it, but not many. My theory to explain this is that jokes usually are funny because of a presupposition of some kind (for example, my pen name "Hans Niemand" is only funny if you know about the chess player Hans Niemann, and that "Niemand" in German means "nobody"), but good analytic philosophy is about making all presuppositions as explicit as possible, so it's hard to tell a joke in philosophy without either ruining the joke or ruining the philosophy.
I find humor often consists of putting two disparate things together and laughing at the result. Yet sometimes, the combination actually works, or at least leads one to unexplored territory. Perhaps it also allows one to not take themselves too seriously.
The Ancient Egyptians were apparently quite fond of humor and satire, even in religious and legal matters. A Roman writer remarked how Egyptian jurists would crack jokes in the court, and the infamous Contendings of Horus and Set is considered by modern scholars to be a satire of the Gods.