|
While there is only speculation about how humor developed in early humans, we know that by the late 6th century BCE the Greeks had institutionalized it in the ritual known as comedy, and that it was performed with a contrasting dramatic form known as tragedy. Both were based on the violation of mental patterns and expectations, and in both the world is a tangle of conflicting systems where humans live in the shadow of failure, folly, and death. Like tragedy, comedy represents life as full of tension, danger, and struggle, with success or failure often depending on chance factors. Where they differ is in the responses of the lead characters to life’s incongruities. Identifying with these characters, audiences at comedies and tragedies have contrasting responses to events in the dramas. And because these responses carry over to similar situations in life, comedy and tragedy embody contrasting responses to the incongruities in life.
Tragedy valorizes serious, emotional engagement with life’s problems, even struggle to the death. Along with epic, it is part of the Western heroic tradition that extols ideals, the willingness to fight for them, and honor. The tragic ethos is linked to patriarchy and militarism—many of its heroes are kings and conquerors—and it valorizes what Conrad Hyers (1996) calls Warrior Virtues—blind obedience, the willingness to kill or die on command, unquestioning loyalty, single-mindedness, resoluteness of purpose, and pride.
Comedy, by contrast, embodies an anti-heroic, pragmatic attitude toward life’s incongruities. From Aristophanes’ Lysistrata to Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, comedy has mocked the irrationality of militarism and blind respect for authority. Its own methods of handling conflict include deal-making, trickery, getting an enemy drunk, and running away. As the Irish saying goes, you’re only a coward for a moment, but you’re dead for the rest of your life. In place of Warrior Virtues, it extols critical thinking, cleverness, adaptability, and an appreciation of physical pleasures like eating, drinking, and sex.
Along with the idealism of tragedy goes elitism. The people who matter are kings, queens, and generals. In comedy there are more characters and more kinds of characters, women are more prominent, and many protagonists come from lower classes. Everybody counts for one. That shows in the language of comedy, which, unlike the elevated language of tragedy, is common speech. The basic unit in tragedy is the individual, in comedy it is the family, group of friends, or bunch of co-workers.
While tragic heroes are emotionally engaged with their problems, comic protagonists show emotional disengagement. They think, rather than feel, their way through difficulties. By presenting such characters as role models, comedy has implicitly valorized the benefits of humor that are now being empirically verified, such as that it is psychologically and physically healthy, it fosters mental flexibility, and it serves as a social lubricant. With a few exceptions like Aquinas, philosophers have ignored these benefits.
If philosophers wanted to undo the traditional prejudices against humor, they might consider the affinities between one contemporary genre of comedy—standup comedy—and philosophy itself. There are at least seven. First, standup comedy and philosophy are conversational: like the dialogue format that started with Plato, standup routines are interactive. Second, both reflect on familiar experiences, especially puzzling ones. We wake from a vivid dream, for example, not sure what has happened and what is happening. Third, like philosophers, standup comics often approach puzzling experiences with questions. “If I thought that dream was real, how do I know that I’m not dreaming right now?” The most basic starting point in both philosophy and standup comedy is “X—what’s up with that?” Fourth, as they think about familiar experiences, both philosophers and comics step back emotionally from them. Henri Bergson spoke of the “momentary anesthesia of the heart” in laughter. Emotional disengagement long ago became a meaning of “philosophical”—“rational, sensibly composed, calm, as in a difficult situation.” Fifth, philosophers and standup comics think critically. They ask whether familiar ideas make sense, and they refuse to defer to authority and tradition. It was for his critical thinking that Socrates was executed. So were cabaret comics in Germany who mocked the Third Reich. Sixth, in thinking critically, philosophers and standup comics pay careful attention to language. Attacking sloppy and illogical uses of words is standard in both, and so is finding exactly the right words to express an idea. Seventh, the pleasure of standup comedy is often like the pleasure of doing philosophy. In both we relish new ways of looking at things and delight in surprising thoughts. Cleverness is prized. William James said that philosophy “sees the familiar as if it were strange, and the strange as if it were familiar.” The same is true of standup comedy. Simon Critchley has written that both ask us to “look at things as if you had just landed from another planet”
Prompt
1. To what extent do you dis/agree with the author’s characterization of the distinction between comedy and tragedy? Articulate with a thorough example / How do you approach your life thorough comedic / tragic way?
2. Using the passage or others, analyze how the diagram can have comedic effects. Fill in the space of the diagram by composing your own lines or make your diagram of similar feature.
Answer:
According to the author, tragedy and comedy respectively elicit from people distinct responses to incongruities in life. The distinction between them, thus, can be elucidated by examining how each addresses affairs or dilemmas faced by humanity. Tragedy valorizes solemn and emotional engagement with life’s predicaments, putting precedence on such metaphysical values and patterns of thought as militarism or invariable loyalty to kings or queens. Comedy, in contrast, favors pragmatic thinking and down-to-earth solutions to life’s challenges, hence being considered as relevant to materialism or secularism. It is also noteworthy that comedy has similitudes to philosophy in some respects, which rectifies our common misconception that comedy is somewhat frivolous and not serious enough to discuss plights or miseries of life.
Overall, the author’s delineation of the two distinct concepts mostly sounds logical to me. However, some facets of it are inharmonious with my standpoints on them. To slightly point them out in the first place, tragedy cannot be seen to be void of practical solutions or ways of thought to incongruities in life; likewise, comedy cannot merely be equated to such nonchalant and unsentimental attitudes or approaches. Moreover, life should be subject to both tragic and comedic approaches, and none of them cannot single-handedly shoulder sufferings in the reality adaquately. Therefore, it is crucial to strike the balance between the two ideas in life.
To begin with, the author’s description of tragedy in the given paragraphs can mainly be summarized as this: tragedy valorizes metaphysical values. For example, patriarchism, militarism, or immutable loyalty to kings or queens are all derived from metaphysical values, such as that men are superior to women, military power serves as a key constituent of a successful country, or kings and queens are more important. The reason why these ideologies are metaphysical is that we cannot find in reality the evidence that supports the premises on which such ideologies are based. Biologically, men and women are different, but this does not mean that one surpasses the other in importance or ability, and the other should be excluded in governing a community or country. The same goes for militarism and loyalty to powerholders: there is no natural indication that military power should be prioritized in forming a prosperous country; kings or queens are not different from mundane citizens. Assigning inportance to individuals other than communities can be seen a derivative of this logic; metaphysically, one may regard oneself more important than extraneous existences—this cannot also be proven by solely consulting to existential beings. It is, hence, almost impossible to find the bridges that link metaphysical values and tangible conditions in the real world.
On this basis, we can now proceed to discuss the relation between tragedy and pragmatism. Appearing to be detached from existential concerns, tragedy doesn’t necessarily preclude pragmatism in addressing life’s difficulties. Those thoughts or ideologies that tragedy favors also harbor practical approaches to life’s incongruities. In a battlefield, blind obedience can function as a determining factor of victory. It quickens soldiers to operate as commanded by their superiors swiftly. Struggling to achieve ideals and solem engagement with life’s problems encourage a group of people to cooperate cordially, and elitism can expedite the processes of administrative, legislative, or judiciary works in governing a country, since fewer people participate in them.
The description of comedy that the author gives, on the other hand, seems to be derived from materialistic or existential perspectives. It precludes such metaphysical values in addressing predicaments in life as obedience, elitism, or patriarchism. Its value judgement is solely contingent on materials. To be more specific, kings and queens have no diffrenciating factors from ordinary people, except for the authorities they claim to be endowed by God. Trickery, getting an enemy drunk, or running away is allowed in handling conflicts because the world doesn’t indicate or stipulate that mankind is not supposed to do so. Ethics, Morality, or other metaphysical ideas like elitism come with no existential bases, hence having no authority to dictate attitudes or behaviors of human beings. The famous Irish proverb—you’re only a coward for a moment, but you’re dead for the rest of your life—sums up the abstract notion of comedy adaquately in this respect. Thus, comedy can be deemed to emphasize such materialistic viewpoints as critical thinking, cleverness, or physical pleasures.
However, that comedy is based on existential reasoning does not correspond to being apathetic. Comedic approaches to difficulties in life result from sympathy to those who oppressed by conventional metaphysical value judgement. That is the reason why women, lower classes, and figures from various backgrounds are lead characters in comedy other than kings or princesses. From existential perspectives, comedy takes the initiative to publisize the squalid living standards of lower classes. To be continued...
|
첫댓글 수고했다,,,홧팅,,,