TWO PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS OF HUMOR
Aristotle’s Mean and Addison’s Extreme:
Two Philosophical Views of Humor
Humor is one of the fundamental aspects of human experiences; as such, it has been studied by many great philosophers. The use of language to produce a humorous effect is somewhat of a mystery, and its particularities could be thought of as unique to the human species. Thus, the definition and characterization of humor is not unequivocal, with different thinkers conceptualizing it in different manners. Aristotle and Joseph Addison are only two of the most remarkable philosophers to study this philosophical problem. Through the analysis of the former’s Book IV, Chapter 8 of his renowned Nicomachean Ethics and the latter’s “False and True Humour”, the present text will look to compare and contrast both of these authors’ conceptions of what humor means. While Aristotle believes that humor lies in the strict middle of different extremes, Addison posits that it lies on the side of Truth, opposing it to False Humor.
Aristotle was one of the most influential philosophers in Western civilization. A disciple of Plato and Socrates, he taught Alexander the Great and was of utmost important in both Catholicism and Islam. One of his most recurrent motifs was that of the golden mean, a proportionate and harmonious location between two extremes, where virtue is to lie. As such, excesses or deficiencies with respect to this ideal quantity would be held as relative deviances from what should be had. Aristotle’s conception of humor also lies in the middle of two extremes: vulgar buffoons and the boorish and unpolished. Tact and a ready-wit are characteristic of this golden mean and are gained by education and the relation to the law. When one strays from this middle, one turns into a buffoon or a boorish and unpolished person, leaving the state of humor.
On the other hand, Joseph Addison conceptualizes humor as being opposed to False Humor. First, this is different with respect to Aristotle, as it identifies True Humor has having just one possible opposite: False Humor. While Aristotle believed that humor was a mean and had two opposite extremes, Addison employs an almost binary separation to define it. However, he also sustains that reason and judgment must be taken into account at the time of evaluating humor. While this has a strong social component which will be emphasized further in the text, one may see that Addison also believes, like Aristotle, that there is an ideal, just and reasonable aspect of what constitutes humor.
This rational tact must be finely tuned to separate what actually constitutes humor from what does not, as they are easily confused for both philosophers. Aristotle claims that a buffoon may pass for a ready-witted person due to the attraction that the entertaining aspects of his jests allow. However, Addison’s False Humor only makes the teller rejoice, leaving the spectators indifferent or bewildered. While for Aristotle, others may also believe that a person is being humorous, for Addison only the person that is committing the would-be humorous act does. As such, while the deception that may be caused by humor is important to both thinkers, they sustain different positions on how others will react to this deception.
As one can see, Addison states that describing humor in and of itself is actually difficult, and resorts to both opposition and allegory to describe it. Aristotle’s definition of humor as having two opposite extremes has already been contrasted with Addison’s view that it only goes against one. Nevertheless, Aristotle is more interested in showing what he means by humor through examples of social intercourse, while Addison finds its definition so difficult that he recurs to a mythical genealogical tale to describe it. In it, he opposes falsehood and truth, characters that are completely separate and are as differentiated as an ape from a man.
Therefore, Addison believes that one of the fundamental differences between True and False humor is the degree of refinement, education and elegance that both of them entail. Aristotle is similarly interested in this subject and believes that tact is one of the components of humor, differentiating it from vulgarity of both buffoonish and boorish varieties. “To the middle state belongs also tact; it is the mark of a tactful man to say and listen to such things as befit a good and well-bred man; for there are some things that it befits such a man to say and to hear by way of jest, and the well-bred man's jesting differs from that of a vulgar man, and the joking of an educated man from that of an uneducated”. These characters are not skilled at social relations and thus neither listen to nor say that which a man of refinement would. The belittlement of others as a characteristic of non-humor is similarly conceptualized by both philosophers.
This emphasis on the social nature of humor is more prevalent in Aristotle’s view than in Addison’s. While both extremes that Aristotle separates from true humor can be thought of as social in nature, Addison differentiates from False Humor by more intellectual and individual functions. This may be one of the most important differences as Addison focuses on the individual while Aristotle focuses on social interaction. For Aristotle, humor must be sanctioned by others, while for Addison it may be objectively sanctioned by the use of reason and logic.
Finally, something that must be taken into account is that Aristotle believes that truth and beauty, virtues that both are related to humor, are absolute. Therefore, the difference that one may establish between the two extremes that Aristotle holds and the binary thought that Addison professes is not exact. Aristotle also sustains a type of binary code, but one of the elements is divided into two opposite extremes, while the other is absolute.
In conclusion, Aristotle and Addison share similar conceptualizations of humor, while each staying within their respective theories. Aristotle holds a view of virtue as a golden mean between two different extremes; therefore, any deviance away from the middle will lead to a non-virtuous place. This ideal is different than Addison’s position that True Humor is radically different than False Humor. One of the dissimilarities is the view that these two philosophers hold towards what constitutes non-humor: for Aristotle, it is when one person rejoices while others do not, while for Addison, reason and logic must be taken into account. Therefore, their views are essentially different, as Aristotle emphasizes social interactions even though Addison thinks that what is important is the individual characteristics of humor. Nevertheless, Aristotle’s golden mean theory holds two extremes that are actually opposed to an absolute virtue; in effect, both theories are similar in the sense that they both oppose an extreme to a different set of mental objects. In conclusion, while both theories are diverse, they have points in common. Humor is such an essential part of human nature that it deserves to be profoundly studied. Philosophical inquiry into such important subjects is primordial to the study of man.
Bibliography
Aristotle. “Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle: Book IV”, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, accessed March 12, 2014. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.4.iv.html
