Ayn Rand joke
ginok
Rand movie?"
"You need 2-D glasses to watch it."
I was reading the Chambers review on the bus last night.
It turned out I also had the "reader comments". Not far
into them I came across the above. I laughed out loud,
causing much head turning. Of course, this is the first
Ayn Rand joke I've encountered. They could get old.
This little incident lead to some questions.
Would Ms. Rand have laughed? I only know her from seeing
her on TV twice, but my guess is she would have hit the
roof.
I am an admirer of Ayn Rand and also consider my reaction
perfectly normal, even qua mannish.
What would she think of my reaction?
I don't recall her addressing the topic of humor. It
probably falls in the area of psychology. Maybe Branden
addressed it in a recent work. I only have an impression
from the past (I can't provide any cites.) that he doesn't
think it has much of a positive roll.
So, what is the roll of humor, laughter, poking fun at,
and responding to it in the life of MQM? Or is this a
topic that doesn't fall under MQM?
And, also, was I the only one to laugh?
TIA,
GinoK
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mike Smith
>"Have you heard about the special effects in the new Ayn
>Rand movie?"
>
>"You need 2-D glasses to watch it."
I don't get it.
--
Mike Smith. No, the other one.
John Alway
> >"You need 2-D glasses to watch it."
> I don't get it.
There is this odd notion floating about that Ayn Rand's characters
are "one dimensional", so to enrich your enjoyment 2D glasses are
recommended. That's my take on it.
...John
MichaelAWilson
and ginok wrote:
:Would Ms. Rand have laughed? I only know her from seeing
:her on TV twice, but my guess is she would have hit the
:roof.
I didn't get it, either. If John's idea of the joke is correct, why
would ginok think Rand would find it funny?
Maybe ginok would like to explain.
Mike
David Friedman
I'm not ginok, but the obvious explanation is that he thinks Rand could
appreciate a funny joke, even if she thought the assumption underlying the
joke was wrong. My guess is that, if so, he is mistaken.
--
David Friedman
DD...@Best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
ginok
mawi...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> John Alway wrote:
> >
> > Mike Smith wrote:
> >
> > > >"You need 2-D glasses to watch it."
> >
> > > I don't get it.
> >
> > There is this odd notion floating about that Ayn Rand's characters
> > are "one dimensional", so to enrich your enjoyment 2D glasses are
> > recommended. That's my take on it.
> >
> > ...John
>
> and ginok wrote:
>
> :Would Ms. Rand have laughed? I only know her from seeing
> :her on TV twice, but my guess is she would have hit the
> :roof.
>
> I didn't get it, either. If John's idea of the joke is correct, why
> would ginok think Rand would find it funny?
>
> Maybe ginok would like to explain.
>
>
I retract the paragraph about whether Ms. Rand would
laugh. It wasn't thought through. I wouldn't expect her
to, just as I wouldn't laugh if someone made a joke about
a major aspect of my work.
There's still two topics I'm interested in if anyone would
care to comment.
1) Recall, I read the Chambers review. It was fresh in my mind what some
people think of Rand's style of characterization. I read the joke. I
laughed. My explanation for my reaction is: given the premise, the joke is
funny. The fact that this particular joke was about Ayn Rand is irrelevant.
My nervous system can generate a laugh in response to a joke even when I
don't agree with the premise(s).
Apparently, this is not the case with everyone.
I don't know why.
2. I enjoy being in the company of people who can laugh
at themselves. Most people I know consider this a
positive trait. Has Rand, Branden or anyone else in the
movement addressed this topic, or is it just beyond the
pale of MQM?
Btw, I've been told offline that the Ayn Rand Lexicon is a
source on the topic of humor. Thanks,
Andrew Jones
ginok wrote in message <7dgorq$b0u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>2. I enjoy being in the company of people who can laugh
>at themselves. Most people I know consider this a
>positive trait. Has Rand, Branden or anyone else in the
>movement addressed this topic, or is it just beyond the
>pale of MQM?
Humor is addressed (not in any great length and in a very narrow context) in
The Romantic Manifesto. Here is a short quote:
"Humor is not an unconditional virtue; its moral character depends on its
object. To laugh at the contemptible, is a virtue; to laugh at the good, is
a hideous vice."
-Andy.
Will Wilkinson
>
> 2. I enjoy being in the company of people who can laugh
> at themselves. Most people I know consider this a
> positive trait. Has Rand, Branden or anyone else in the
> movement addressed this topic, or is it just beyond the
> pale of MQM?
The topic at the 1998 Ayn Rand Society (at the American Philosophical
Society Meeting) was "Aristotle and Rand on Humor". Robert Mayhew, a
classicist from Seton Hall (I think) gave a very nice paper on Rand's
theory of humor, showing its affinities to Aristotle's. If you write Prof.
Mayhew, maybe he'll send you a copy.
Anyhow, we talked in the discussion about self-deprecating humor. It was
agreed that it is a bad thing to laugh at those aspects of yourself that
are especially valuable. But it is okay to laugh at one's own flaws and
foibles; indeed it is a way of expressing that these are not what is most
important about one's self.
I think that there are different *ways* of laughing at one's self. And
that if one's purpose in doing so not to be dismissive about one own self,
but rather to keep things light and happy, to demonstrate to others that
you are easy-going and not an insufferable tight-ass, it is all good.
-- Will
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Will Wilkinson
Department of Philosophy
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
wwil...@wam.umd.edu
tel: 301.405.5747
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~wwilkins/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"When words lose their meaning
people will lose their freedom."
-- Confucius
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ed Kiser
ginok <gi...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> I don't recall her addressing the topic of humor. It
> probably falls in the area of psychology. Maybe Branden
> addressed it in a recent work. I only have an impression
> from the past (I can't provide any cites.) that he doesn't
> think it has much of a positive [role].
She wrote briefly about it in The Romantic Manifesto, in
"Bootleg Romanticism." There she distinguishes between humor
and mockery. I don't know if that is where she says stuff
to the effect that "laughter is only appropriate at the
metaphysically insignificant," or if she says that
elsewhere. But you might want to read that essay.
You might also want to consider Ellsworth Toohey's big
speech to Keating toward the end of The Fountainhead; he
says something about laughter there, too.
Here's a better joke.
Q: What was Ayn Rand's favorite programming language?
A: Objective C.
Sorry, couldn't resist...
-- Ed Kiser
David Friedman
<edk...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Here's a better joke.
>
>Q: What was Ayn Rand's favorite programming language?
>A: Objective C.
And my favorite objectivist joke--because it encapsulates an argument:
"Mommy, what are we here on earth for?"
"To help other people, Johnny."
(long pause)
"Mommy, what are the other people here for?"
David Friedman
<gi...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>I retract the paragraph about whether Ms. Rand would
>laugh. It wasn't thought through. I wouldn't expect her
>to, just as I wouldn't laugh if someone made a joke about
>a major aspect of my work.
Why not?
I recognize that there are legitimate arguments to be made against my
positions, even though I don't ultimately find them convincing. If someone
sums up one of those arguments in an elegant and funny way, why shouldn't
I laugh?
To take a related real world example, consider the bumper sticker that reads:
"Wouldn't it be wonderful if the schools had all the money they needed and
the Airforce had to have a bake sale to pay for its new bombers?"
That is a funny, and clever, bumpersticker--despite the fact that its
argument is implicitly based on a false factual premise.
Betsy Speicher
> I am an admirer of Ayn Rand and also consider my reaction
> perfectly normal, even qua mannish.
>
> [...]
>
> I don't recall her addressing the topic of humor.
>
> [...]
> So, what is the roll of humor, laughter, poking fun at,
> and responding to it in the life of MQM?
The roll of humor is definitely the bagel, whereas the roll of
sophistication is the croissant or brioche.
But seriously, if you're interested in this particular long-time
Objectivist's theory of humor, check out my theory of humor web pages
at:
http://compbio.caltech.edu/~sjs/humor.htm
Betsy Speicher
You'll know Objectivism is winning when ... you read the CyberNet -- the
most complete and comprehensive e-mail news source about Objectivists,
their activities, and their victories. Request a sample issue at
cybe...@speicher.com or visit http://www.stauffercom.com/cybernet/
Iván Ordóñez
<andydjones...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Humor is addressed (not in any great length and in a very narrow context) in
>The Romantic Manifesto. Here is a short quote:
>
>"Humor is not an unconditional virtue; its moral character depends on its
>object. To laugh at the contemptible, is a virtue; to laugh at the good, is
>a hideous vice."
First error: this conflates humor and laughter.
Second error: it assumes that laughter can only mean derision.
Third error: it ignores the fact that typically one does not laught at the
good or at the "contemptible," but at the funny. And the funny is
sometimes good.
Fourth error: it ignores the fact that laughter is not necessarily a
reasoned response. Chimpanzees laugh. People laugh in social
circumstances, even when nothing funny is being said.
--
Iván Ordóñez
iord...@columbus.rr.com
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~iordonez
email is iordonez at columbus dot rr dot com
Andrew Taranto
ginok wrote in message <7dgorq$b0u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>2. I enjoy being in the company of people who can laugh
>at themselves. Most people I know consider this a
>positive trait. Has Rand, Branden or anyone else in the
>movement addressed this topic, or is it just beyond the
>pale of MQM?
In light of what's been added on the topic, I often find someone's laughing
at himself to be slightly embarassing, something like a comedian who is not
funny, or an "expert" at a subject obviously talking out of his ass.
Andrew Taranto
Robert J. Kolker
Betsy Speicher wrote:
>
> The roll of humor is definitely the bagel, whereas the roll of
> sophistication is the croissant or brioche.
Love that pun on "roll" vs "role"
>
>
> But seriously, if you're interested in this particular long-time
> Objectivist's theory of humor, check out my theory of humor web pages
> at:
You seem to take humor to mean puns and satire. That is close enough
The oldest theory of humor is the resolution of a contradiction between
two levels of abstraction or a conflation of contexts. Something that old
probably goes back to Aristotle.
My favorite Tom Swifty concerns the former Secretary of Labor
Robert Reich. I was at a gathering where he was to speak. The Secretary
was a bit late and the master of ceremonies annonced that Robert Reich
would be with us shortly. I nearly fell off my chair.
Bob Kolker
Iván Ordóñez
<bobk...@www2.email.com> wrote:
>The oldest theory of humor is the resolution of a contradiction between
>two levels of abstraction or a conflation of contexts. Something that old
>probably goes back to Aristotle.
How does slapstick fit in there?
Robert J. Kolker
"Iván Ordóñez" wrote:
> In article <36FCC8F1...@www2.email.com>, "Robert J. Kolker"
> <bobk...@www2.email.com> wrote:
>
> >The oldest theory of humor is the resolution of a contradiction between
> >two levels of abstraction or a conflation of contexts. Something that old
> >probably goes back to Aristotle.
>
> How does slapstick fit in there?
The contradiction is between the action Punch slapping Judy which is a hostile
move and the context which is entertainment. The resolution to the
contradiction
is (1) get up and walk away or (2) laugh. I prefer (1), because I don't think
it
is funny.
For children it is a cathartic. Imagine getting spanked and spanking back.
That
must amuse the kiddies no end. The contradiction is between what kids
can or are allowed to do and what they see.
Falling down? I am not sure where that fits in. Is it humor, or is it
cathartic. Better
he should fall down than me.
Bob Kolker
TymOgee
"In the other homes you might find a piece of fluff in a cubbyhole"
I'm going to hell for this aren't I?
Robert J. Kolker
TymOgee wrote:
I don't get it. Can you explain it?
Bob Kolker
Iván Ordóñez
<bobk...@www2.email.com> wrote about slapstick:
>The contradiction is between the action Punch slapping Judy which is a hostile
>
>move and the context which is entertainment. The resolution to the
>contradiction
>is (1) get up and walk away or (2) laugh. I prefer (1), because I don't think
>it
>is funny.
>
>For children it is a cathartic. Imagine getting spanked and spanking back.
>That
>must amuse the kiddies no end. The contradiction is between what kids
>can or are allowed to do and what they see.
>
>Falling down? I am not sure where that fits in. Is it humor, or is it
>cathartic. Better
>he should fall down than me.
Interesting. Personally I think many adults don't find slapstick funny
because we've seen it done to the death. However, it is still done on a
regular basis on TV and other media.
One theory I found about this is that laughter in these circumstances is a
sort of warning signal that tells that there is no danger (in an
apparently dangerous situation) and that we shouldn't worry. If we see a
man on the street trip on a rock and fall to the floor on his back, only
to hit his head in the sidewalk and die after bleeding profusely, we would
not laugh (unless we are rather sick). But if we see the man stand up,
unharmed, we would at least smile, or even laugh openly. By this, we are
saying ourselves, and others, that there's been no harm done. We can walk
down the stree safely.
--
Iván Ordóńez
TymOgee
Frank's was "Cubbyhole". It's pretty much an inside joke.
Seth David Johnson
Was that an intended pun? :)
-Seth
>
>
Mike Smith
>In article <7dgros$c15$1...@samsara0.mindspring.com>, Andrew Jones
><andydjones...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Humor is addressed (not in any great length and in a very narrow context)
in
>>The Romantic Manifesto. Here is a short quote:
>>
>>"Humor is not an unconditional virtue; its moral character depends on its
>>object. To laugh at the contemptible, is a virtue; to laugh at the good,
is
>>a hideous vice."
>
>First error: this conflates humor and laughter.
>
>Second error: it assumes that laughter can only mean derision.
>
>Third error: it ignores the fact that typically one does not laught at the
>good or at the "contemptible," but at the funny. And the funny is
>sometimes good.
Could you cite an example of this? In my experience, "funny" is generally
equivalent to poking fun at some aspect of existence that we find absurd or
annoying or otherwise undesirable. We laugh at things we find worthy of
derision. Rand isn't the only one to imply this, either. Heinlein
expresses a similar view in "Stranger In A Strange Land", for instance. In
that story, my namesake never figures out how to laugh properly until he
learns that laughter is our (humanity's) way of dealing with unpleasantness.
GRADinc
>Iván Ordóñez
>>Andrew Jones
>>> in The Romantic Manifesto. Here is a short quote:
>>>"Humor is not an unconditional virtue; its moral character depends on its
>>>object. To laugh at the contemptible, is a virtue; to laugh at the good,
>>>is a hideous vice."
>>Third error: it ignores the fact that typically one does not laught at the
>>good or at the "contemptible," but at the funny. And the funny is
>>sometimes good.
>Could you cite an example of this? In my experience, "funny" is generally
>equivalent to poking fun at some aspect of existence that we find absurd or
>annoying or otherwise undesirable.
I had a similar reaction to Ivan's to the Romantic Manifesto
quote.
To me contemptible has a overtone of being not worthy
of notice. Rand seems to be saying that humor should
only be applied to trivial matters.
But to Ivan and to me and also to Heinlein (to you?) humor
is a reaction to absurdities of life, or annoyances or ...
These things may be very important and not contemptible
at all, but nevertheless humor is an appropriate means of
dealing with them as the other Mike Smith found out.
Here is a nice web page full of aphorisms:
http://www.aphorismsgalore.com/category/
Many are humorous:
The chief danger in life is that you may take too may precautions.
Alfred Adler
Even the best of friends cannot attend each other's funeral.
Kehlog Albran
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils.
Hector Berlioz
Attack life, it's going to kill you anyway.
Steven Coallier
Etc.
All these deal with that least contemptible of subjects,
life and deat and all are humorous.
Tom Clarke
ginok
Andrew Taranto <atar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> In light of what's been added on the topic, I often find > someone's laughing
> at himself to be slightly embarassing, something like a > comedian who i
> s not
> funny, or an "expert" at a subject obviously talking out > of his ass.
>
> Andrew Taranto
>
I, too, can find it embarrassing at times. Off the top of my head I'd say
it's when the laughter doesn't represent genuine enjoyment, but is a defense
mechanism or something.
There are even times I find laughing irritating. It's those folks that
preface everything they say with a nervous giggle.
GinoK
Mike Smith
I think we're on the same page here. Humor is a way of dealing with things
we find undesirable or unpleasant. Some of these things may be sufficently
insignificant as to be contemptible; some may be worthy of more serious
consideration. We can have a sense of humor about either.
My argument with Mr. Ordonez's post is that he seems to be implying that it
is sometimes appropriate to laugh at things that we consider to be good. I
would have a hard time poking fun at someone or something I admire.
ginok
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> On 25 Mar 1999, ginok wrote:
> The roll of humor is definitely the bagel, whereas the >roll of
> sophistication is the croissant or brioche.
>
> Objectivist's theory of humor, check out my theory of >humor web pages
> at:
>
>
> Betsy Speicher
>
> You'll know Objectivism is winning when ... you read the CyberNet -- the
> most complete and comprehensive e-mail news source about Objectivists,
> their activities, and their victories. Request a sample issue at
> cybe...@speicher.com or visit http://www.stauffercom.com/cybernet/
>
LOL and the jokes on me. Based on the posts I've read so far I guess the
Objectivist view is that I don't have a problem except that I need a better
spellchecker.:)
Your material is in my evening read folder. Btw, either this page is a work
in progress or your links from "Parody" on down might be broken. I couldn't
click them.
GRADinc
>My argument with Mr. Ordonez's post is that he seems to be implying that it
>is sometimes appropriate to laugh at things that we consider to be good. I
>would have a hard time poking fun at someone or something I admire.
I guess that gets to the distinction between laughing at
and laughing with.
I have reacted with laughter to the solution of a problem.
The solution was good - it solved the problem - put
possibly something was unexpected in the solution or
the break in tension that came with the solution led to
laughter.
Laughing with joy is a phrase that comes to mind.
Of course there is weeping with joy too, again a tension
release I guess.
Tom Clarke
ginok
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@www2.email.com> wrote:
>
> The oldest theory of humor is the resolution of a >contradiction between
> two levels of abstraction or a conflation of contexts.
>
(chuckling) I shoulda seen it coming. Bob Kolker goes over my head in his
first freaking post on the topic. Well, let me see if I can climb up there
and work my way through this.
ginok
>
> Here's a better joke.
>
> Q: What was Ayn Rand's favorite programming language?
> A: Objective C.
>
> Sorry, couldn't resist...
>
> -- Ed Kiser
>
Well, now I'm the one that doesn't get it. Should a non-programmer be
laughing?
Chris Wolf
"Hell" is a place where bad people go.
Chris Wolf
cwo...@nwlink.com
Check out the World's Fastest Keyboard!
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/
What's REALLY wrong with Objectivism
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/
My Dinner With Andy
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/dinner.html
ginok
David Friedman <DD...@best.com> wrote:
> In article <7dgorq$b0u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ginok
> <gi...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> >I retract the paragraph about whether Ms. Rand would
> >laugh. It wasn't thought through. I wouldn't expect > >her
> >to, just as I wouldn't laugh if someone made a joke > >about
>
> Why not?
>
> I recognize that there are legitimate arguments to be > made against my
> positions, even though I don't ultimately find them > convincing. If
> someone
> sums up one of those arguments in an elegant and funny > way, why shouldn't
> I laugh?
>
I would replace shouldn't with wouldn't in the question. For shouldn't to
apply there would have to be a lot more going on in your mind than goes on in
mine between stimulus and response. So if you allow that change I would say
that you wouldn't laugh at a joke, no matter how clever, if it hurt your
feelings.(There might be other reasons, but this is the first to come to mind
and I stopped there.) And some humor does hurt. I guess this would be the
conventional wisdom, but I know from your work you won't let that sidetrack
you. So I'll take another step down this road. Feelings get hurt. Would you
say that's an indication of psychological problems?
Iván Ordóñez
<kld_m...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
>Iván Ordóńez wrote in message ...
[...]
>>Third error: it ignores the fact that typically one does not laught at the
>>good or at the "contemptible," but at the funny. And the funny is
>>sometimes good.
>
>
>Could you cite an example of this?
Of course. I have one fresh in my mind. In his wonderful book "Dave Barry
does Japan" the author writes a very entertaining, and very funny, account
of his travel to Japan, without even once deriding the Japanese (or anyone
else for that matter). His humor is based on the absurd, on free
associations, etc. When I finished the book, not only had I laughed almost
to the point of tears, but I had also found a deep sense of respect both
towards the Japanese culture and David Barry as a humorist.
> In my experience, "funny" is generally
>equivalent to poking fun at some aspect of existence that we find absurd or
>annoying or otherwise undesirable.
You should not place "absurd" in the same list as "annoying" and
"undesirable." Categorical error.
> We laugh at things we find worthy of
>derision.
Non-sequitur. Yes, sometimes we do that (shame on us). Most of the time we
laugh when we are happy.
> Rand isn't the only one to imply this, either. Heinlein
>expresses a similar view in "Stranger In A Strange Land", for instance. In
>that story, my namesake never figures out how to laugh properly until he
>learns that laughter is our (humanity's) way of dealing with unpleasantness.
Which has nothing to do with dersision. And which is false, by the way.
For a theory of laughter you should look at research in cog sciences, not
at the works of novelists, no matter how well-intentioned they are.
Iván Ordóñez
<kld_m...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
[...]
>My argument with Mr. Ordonez's post is that he seems to be implying that it
>is sometimes appropriate to laugh at things that we consider to be good. I
>would have a hard time poking fun at someone or something I admire.
But see, here you are making the same error as rand. To laugh is *not the
same* as poking fun. For example, I admire Einstein a lot. But there is a
picture of him with his tongue out, which I found very funny the first
time I saw it. I laughed. Not at Einstein, but at his joke. What he did
was neither annoying, nor contemptible, nor undesirable. What he did was
good. And funny. If anything, my respect for him increased.
--
Iván Ordóñez
Betsy Speicher
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> > On 25 Mar 1999, ginok wrote:
>
> LOL and the jokes on me. Based on the posts I've read so far I guess the
> Objectivist view is that I don't have a problem except that I need a better
> spellchecker.:)
>
> Your material is in my evening read folder. Btw, either this page is a work
> in progress or your links from "Parody" on down might be broken. I couldn't
> click them.
It's a work in progress.
Mike Smith
>Mike Smith
>
>>My argument with Mr. Ordonez's post is that he seems to be implying that
it
>>is sometimes appropriate to laugh at things that we consider to be good.
I
>>would have a hard time poking fun at someone or something I admire.
>
>and laughing with.
>
>I have reacted with laughter to the solution of a problem.
>The solution was good - it solved the problem - put
>possibly something was unexpected in the solution or
>the break in tension that came with the solution led to
>laughter.
Your biological reaction was laughter, and I guess it's for psychologists to
tell us why that happens. But were you laughing because you found the
situation *funny* (humorous) or for some other reason?
Maybe we're mincing words here. I know what I mean. I apologize if I'm not
getting it across properly.
GRADinc
>>>would have a hard time poking fun at
>>>someone or something I admire.
>>I guess that gets to the distinction between laughing at
>>and laughing with.
>Maybe we're mincing words here. I know what I mean.
>I apologize if I'm no getting it across properly.
Oh I think I get a glimmer of what you mean.
With regard to derisive laughter I agree. One does not
deride something one admires.
But there is more to humor and laughter than derision.
There is joy and life affirmation in laughter and humor.
[Betsy's incomplete we page goes in this direction, but
in light of the Rand quote, Betsy's page is ironically,
non-Objective.]
>>I have reacted with laughter to the solution of a problem.
>>The solution was good - it solved the problem - put
>>possibly something was unexpected in the solution or
>>the break in tension that came with the solution led to
>>laughter.
>Your biological reaction was laughter, and I guess it's for psychologists to
>tell us why that happens. But were you laughing because you found the
>situation *funny* (humorous) or for some other reason?
I might have been laughing at myself - hitting myself in
the head, so to speak, saying "boy was I dumb, why didn't
I see that sooner?"
Tom Clarke
Andrew Jones
Iván Ordóñez wrote in message ...
>Third error: it ignores the fact that typically one does not laught at the
>good or at the "contemptible," but at the funny. And the funny is
>sometimes good.
Good comments. I only had a qualm with the third... the "funny" is seems to
be to ambigious. I think Rand was trying to put humor in her Objective
framework... to place some sort of moral judgement behind what one finds to
be humorous.
We shouldn't take the quote too literaly as it was said in a specific
context. Sure, seeing people tourtured is "contemptable", but what would we
say of a person who found it "funny" seeing people tourtured? We would say
there is something wrong with their moral values! This is a case where you
would NOT laugh at the "contemptable". Again, I think Rand was attempting
to fit what one found to be humorous to their moral beliefs. And as you
pointed out, maybe some things that are funny really don't merit any moral
judgements.
-Andy.
GRADinc
> but what would we
>say of a person who found it "funny" seeing people tourtured?
Give them an Academy Award?
I haven't seen Roberto Begnini's Life is Beautiful yet,
but I understand it somehow has a humerous approach
to German concentration camps.
>We would say
>there is something wrong with their moral values! This is a case where you
>would NOT laugh at the "contemptable".
Yes, I am very skeptical of Begnini.
Tom Clarke
ginok
>
> The roll of humor is definitely the bagel, whereas the > roll of
> sophistication is the croissant or brioche.
>
> Betsy Speicher
>
I'm stopping back here because the first time through I didn't fully
appreciate this. It's quite a gem IMO. It goes from role to roll to bagel,
from humor to sophistication (I'm not sure they are both members of the same
category (awkwardly put), possibly some room for improvement here, but that's
a quibble.) and makes a good point.
Someone out there is collecting posts of the month. If there was a quips
corner I'd nominate this.
PAvery7056
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@www2.email.com> wrote:
>>
>> The oldest theory of humor is the resolution of a >contradiction between
>> two levels of abstraction or a conflation of contexts.
>>
>> Bob Kolker
Arthur Koestler makes a similar point in "The Act Of Creation," but also claims
that the theory explains not just humor but much about creativity in general.
Peter Avery
David Pittman
Twain. While he was a serious writer and often focused on moral
concerns the point of much of what he wrote was the laugh. He had a
knack for telling a story or describing an incident in a manner that
suprises and thus amuses the reader. Heinlein had the same ability,
ditto Steinbeck. It's not what they say but the way they say it that
makes me laugh.
ginok
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95q.99032...@rac3.wam.umd.edu>,
Will Wilkinson <wwil...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
> Mayhew, maybe he'll send you a copy.
>
> Anyhow, we talked in the di >self-deprecating humor. It >was
> agreed that it is a bad thing to laugh at those aspects >of yourself that
> are especially valuable. But it is okay to laugh at one's >own flaws and
> foibles; indeed it is a way of expressing that these are >not what is most
> important about one's self.
>
> I think that there are different *ways* of laughing at >one's self. And
> that if one's purpose in doing so not to be dismissive >about one own self,
> but rather to keep things light and happy, to demonstrate >to others that
> you are easy-going and not an insufferable tight-ass, it >is all good.
>
> -- Will
>
Thanks, I'll try to contact Mr. Mayhew.
Your discussion group came to what is roughly my position on the topic. Dam,
I'm delighted. Um...does that mean I can call myself a big-O?
Did the paper or discussion cover the material below which I pasted in from a
post by Andrew Jones? My take on it is that she's using "laugh at" which I
don't take as a synonym for "mock", but that's a tangent. Does this follow?
Ayn Rand's novels are good. The 2D joke mocks her novels. I laughed at the
joke. I committed a hideous vice. Um...can I still call myself a big-O?
_________________________________________________________
Humor is addressed (not in any great length and in a very narrow context) in
The Romantic Manifesto. Here is a short quote:
"Humor is not an unconditional virtue; its moral character depends on its
object. To laugh at the contemptible, is a virtue; to laugh at the good, is
a hideous vice."
___________________________________________________________
John Alway
Mark Twain was brilliant at humor. Perhaps his most famous line was
in response to the widely believed claim that he was dead when he was
very much alive: "Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated."
That is a very funny line. Of course, so many people have heard so
often that it has lost its edge for most, but, still, it's quite funny.
...John
The
bot
will
be
fed
binary
bits
blimey!
Iván Ordóñez
<gra...@aol.com> wrote:
>Andrew Jones
>
>> but what would we
>>say of a person who found it "funny" seeing people tourtured?
>
>Give them an Academy Award?
>I haven't seen Roberto Begnini's Life is Beautiful yet,
>but I understand it somehow has a humerous approach
>to German concentration camps.
You just have to see the movie. I can assure you it is absolutely not what
you imagine. You are thinking of Hogan's heroes. This is nothing like
that.
Betsy Speicher
> >>I guess that gets to the distinction between laughing at
> >>and laughing with.
>
> >Maybe we're mincing words here. I know what I mean.
> >I apologize if I'm no getting it across properly.
>
> Oh I think I get a glimmer of what you mean.
> With regard to derisive laughter I agree. One does not
> deride something one admires.
> But there is more to humor and laughter than derision.
> There is joy and life affirmation in laughter and humor.
> [Betsy's incomplete we page goes in this direction, but
> in light of the Rand quote, Betsy's page is ironically,
> non-Objective.]
I happen to agree with Ayn Rand completely within the context in which she
made her statements about humor. In the quote from the _Lexicon_ she was
talking about the "laughing AT" kind of humor which I call "ridicule." Of
course, humor is broader than that and includes all man-made stories,
situations, etc. created for the purpose of evoking the "laughing ABOUT"
response. Ridicule is only one type -- but a very common type -- of
humor.
Ayn Rand was aware of the "benevolent kind of humor" and discussed this in
her "Fiction Writing" course (available from Second Renaissance) when she
discussed the humor in Jean Kerr's _Please Don't Eat the Daisies_.
> >>I have reacted with laughter to the solution of a problem.
> >>The solution was good - it solved the problem - put
> >>possibly something was unexpected in the solution or
> >>the break in tension that came with the solution led to
> >>laughter.
Solving a problem suddenly and humor are similar in that they tap into the
same psychological operations.
You laugh when solving a problem the instant you make the mental
connection. Humor, in my theory, is always in the form "Setup, Punch
Line, therefore Conclusion." You laugh at humor the instant you make the
mental connection necessary to form the conclusion.
For rational beings, making a sudden mental connection is an intensely
pleasurable experience which, like all pleasures, has a life-promoting
function.
> >Your biological reaction was laughter, and I guess it's for psychologists to
> >tell us why that happens. But were you laughing because you found the
> >situation *funny* (humorous) or for some other reason?
Being able to make a mental connection is what makes humor funny. The
difference between the sudden discovery of a solution (Aha!) and humor
(HaHa!) is that Aha! happens when you make a mental connection as a means
to another end and HaHa! happens (and is meant to happen) as an end in
itself.
GregWeston
>I happen to agree with Ayn Rand completely...
Doesn't that go without saying?
Gregory Weston
Churl Beck
>Ayn Rand was aware of the "benevolent kind of humor" and discussed this in
>her "Fiction Writing" course....
>You laugh when solving a problem the instant you make the mental
>connection. Humor, in my theory, is always in the form "Setup, Punch
>Line, therefore Conclusion." You laugh at humor the instant you make the
>mental connection necessary to form the conclusion.
This is extremely interesting, but difficult for me to reconcile. I have
always been impressed (although somewhat bothered) by Aristotle's own
analysis, which theorized that the purpose of all comedy was to exaggerate
the worst in men (or more accurately, to "make people look worse than they
really are," if my memory is correct). Homer Simpson is a perfect
demonstration of Aristotelian humour, to borrow a pop culture icon.
I am wondering, can you offer an example of a joke or funny event which
cannot be interpreted as a belittlement of another? It would be very
helpful to me in understanding your position.
--CHuRL
Betsy Speicher
> This is extremely interesting, but difficult for me to reconcile. I
> have always been impressed (although somewhat bothered) by Aristotle's
> own analysis, which theorized that the purpose of all comedy was to
> exaggerate the worst in men (or more accurately, to "make people look
> worse than they really are," if my memory is correct). Homer Simpson is
> a perfect demonstration of Aristotelian humour, to borrow a pop culture
> icon.
>
> I am wondering, can you offer an example of a joke or funny event which
> cannot be interpreted as a belittlement of another? It would be very
> helpful to me in understanding your position.
Sure.
Most verbal humor, such as double-meaning humor and puns, involves making
a mental connection about word meanings or recognizing a familiar phrase
in mangled form. It often has nothing at all to do with belittling
anybody.
anth...@hotmail.com
> >
> > I am wondering, can you offer an example of a joke or funny event which
> > cannot be interpreted as a belittlement of another? It would be very
> > helpful to me in understanding your position.
>
> Sure.
>
> Most verbal humor, such as double-meaning humor and puns, involves making
> a mental connection about word meanings or recognizing a familiar phrase
> in mangled form. It often has nothing at all to do with belittling
> anybody.
>
>
Puns are also considered the _lowest_ form of humor which accounts for the
general groaning you usually hear in response to them.
Wrathbone
Kyle Haight
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>On 4 Apr 1999, Churl Beck wrote:
>
>> I am wondering, can you offer an example of a joke or funny event which
>> cannot be interpreted as a belittlement of another? It would be very
>> helpful to me in understanding your position.
>
>Sure.
>
>Most verbal humor, such as double-meaning humor and puns, involves making
>a mental connection about word meanings or recognizing a familiar phrase
>in mangled form. It often has nothing at all to do with belittling
>anybody.
Here are some concrete examples. These are proposed examples of greater
scientific truth in product warning labels. Note that they are
neither belittling, nor puns.
WARNING: This Product Warps Space and Time in Its Vicinity.
THIS IS A 100% MATTER PRODUCT: In the Unlikely Event That This
Merchandise Should Contact Antimatter in Any Form, a Catastrophic
Explosion Will Result.
PUBLIC NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY LAW: Any Use of This Product, in Any
Manner Whatsoever, Will Increase the Amount of Disorder in the
Universe. Although No Liability is Implied Herein, the Consumer Is
Warned That This Process Will Ultimately Lead to the Heat Death of the
Universe.
I could go on, but I think the point is established.
--
Kyle Haight
kha...@netcom.com
"Feeding on the blood of the working classes for fun and profit."
Amw
> I am wondering, can you offer an example of a joke or funny event which
> cannot be interpreted as a belittlement of another? It would be very
> helpful to me in understanding your position.
Guy is driving down the road out in the country when his car breaks down. He
pulls over to the side and lifts the hood. While looking at the engine, he
hears a voice say "Pssst... check the alternator." This startles him. He looks
around and the only other creature in sight is a cow, gently chewing its cud.
He stares at the cow for a moment, and the cow looks him in the eye, and says,
"Check the alternator." This surprises the man immensely, so much so that he
dashes up to the farm house.
Once he gets there he finds the farmer working the barn. Out of breath, the
excited man tells the farmer about his strange encounter with his livestock.
The farmer listens politely, then says, "Oh I wouldn't pay her no never mind.
She don't know nothing about cars."
It is the juxtaposition of the bizarre circumstances that make this funny. (In
my opinion. Your mileage may vary). It does not belittle anyone.
Ben
Jim Klein
writes:
>It is the juxtaposition of the bizarre circumstances that make this
>funny. (In my opinion. Your mileage may vary). It does not belittle
>anyone.
Nor does this one, and it even has (oblique) relevance to what Gordon
was trying to explain to Wolf in another thread...
A father decides to take his two boys, ages 12 and 8, out for breakfast
one morning. After they get seated at the table, the waitress comes
over and asks what they'd like to order.
The 12-year-old goes first---"Bring me some fuckin' ham and eggs!"
The father, incredulous, immediately stands up, reaches across the
table and slaps the kid a solid one, right across the cheek. "Now tell
the waitress what you'd like," he commands.
Stinging badly, the boy meekly replies, "I'll have some french toast
please, ma'am."
Then the father turns to the 8-year-old and says, "Now _you_ tell the
waitress what you'd like." The boy thinks for a second and then says,
"I don't know, but I sure don't want the fuckin' ham and eggs!"
jk
anth...@hotmail.com
Kyle Haight <kha...@netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <Pine.BSI.3.96.99040...@usr05.primenet.com>,
> Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I am wondering, can you offer an example of a joke or funny event which
> >> cannot be interpreted as a belittlement of another? It would be very
> >> helpful to me in understanding your position.
> >
> >
> >Most verbal humor, such as double-meaning humor and puns, involves making
> >a mental connection about word meanings or recognizing a familiar phrase
> >in mangled form. It often has nothing at all to do with belittling
> >anybody.
>
> Here are some concrete examples. These are proposed examples of greater
> scientific truth in product warning labels. Note that they are
> neither belittling, nor puns.
They're really not funny either :)
Kyle Haight
>
>They're really not funny either :)
Oh, I disagree. I laughed out loud when I read them. So did my wife.
They were in fact funny enough to make it into Brad Templeton's
TeleJokeBook, volume 4.
Different people find different things to be funny. I (and many
others) find those jokes to be funny. Are you saying we're wrong?
Churl Beck
>It is the juxtaposition of the bizarre circumstances that make this funny.
>(In my opinion. Your mileage may vary). It does not belittle anyone.
I can already see that this discussion is going to be fun.
I would argue that this joke does in fact belittle the stranded motorist.
It is the farmer's casual reaction that makes it funny, not the bizarre
circumstances surrounding it. The farmer's nonchalance implies that the
event is mundane, and hence leaves the driver in an embarrassing situation.
The conclusion (which can be generalized to similar real-world examples):
the driver's preconceived notions make him a fool.
Of course, the joke only works because it embarrasses the audience in tandem
(which unknowingly acquiesces to the situation). The resolution to the
"conflict" is the realization that it isn't a conflict at all.
--CHuRL
Churl Beck
>These are proposed examples of greater scientific truth in
>product warning labels. Note that they are neither belittling,
>nor puns.
These are profound scientific principles in the form of trite warning
labels. They are meant to express universe truths which therefore
(according to common folk theory) should be prima facie obvious. Thus they
are in large part belittling the abstract nature of science itself, while at
the same time criticizing society's exaggerated need for warning labels.
E.g.:
>WARNING: This Product Warps Space and Time in Its Vicinity.
This warning is so far removed from our everyday experience that it not only
mocks the soundness of Relativity, but also that of the label makers
themselves, who presumably would seek to label everything, dangerous or not.
--CHuRL
Churl Beck
>>[This joke] does not belittle anyone.
>
>Nor does this one...
I beg to differ. The premise here is that it is "bad" to use taboo words
and even "worse" if one is unable to learn from the mistakes of others. We
laugh at the eight-year-old boy because he is abysmally ignorant of both of
these lessons, and we laugh because the father is unable to teach them.
--CHuRL
anth...@hotmail.com
> >
> >They're really not funny either :)
>
> Oh, I disagree. I laughed out loud when I read them. So did my wife.
> They were in fact funny enough to make it into Brad Templeton's
> TeleJokeBook, volume 4.
>
> Different people find different things to be funny. I (and many
> others) find those jokes to be funny. Are you saying we're wrong?
Yes.
Amw
> Amw wrote:
>
> >It is the juxtaposition of the bizarre circumstances that make this funny.
> >(In my opinion. Your mileage may vary). It does not belittle anyone.
>
> I can already see that this discussion is going to be fun.
>
> I would argue that this joke does in fact belittle the stranded motorist.
> It is the farmer's casual reaction that makes it funny, not the bizarre
> circumstances surrounding it. The farmer's nonchalance implies that the
> event is mundane, and hence leaves the driver in an embarrassing situation.
> The conclusion (which can be generalized to similar real-world examples):
> the driver's preconceived notions make him a fool.
I had never thought of like that. However I would disagree. Talking cows are
uncommon enough that such a preconceived notion would be quite reasonable.
While
it may be common to the farmer, talking cows are rare enough in the real world
that such embarrassment is unwarranted.
Ben
(Of course the thought that the cow might know something about automotive
mechanics would be grounds for embarrassment. :) )
Kyle Haight
>In article <khaightF...@netcom.com>,
> Kyle Haight <kha...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> Different people find different things to be funny. I (and many
>> others) find those jokes to be funny. Are you saying we're wrong?
>
>Yes.
Now _that_ is both funny _and_ belittling.
Churl Beck
>Talking cows are uncommon enough that such a preconceived notion
>would be quite reasonable. While it may be common to the farmer,
>talking cows are rare enough in the real world that such
>embarrassment is unwarranted.
There is another way to look at it too. The cow, despite its magnificent
abilities, goes completely unappreciated by the farmer. This makes the
farmer look ignorant or incompetent.
--CHuRL
anth...@hotmail.com
Kyle Haight <kha...@netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <7ec769$6md$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <anth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <khaightF...@netcom.com>,
> > Kyle Haight <kha...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Different people find different things to be funny. I (and many
> >> others) find those jokes to be funny. Are you saying we're wrong?
> >
> >Yes.
>
> Now _that_ is both funny _and_ belittling.
Just playing with you big guy.
Amw
> There is another way to look at it too. The cow, despite its magnificent
> abilities, goes completely unappreciated by the farmer. This makes the
> farmer look ignorant or incompetent.
That is one possibility. Another is that the farmer recognizes that the cow's
mechanical aptitude is not of a high enough quality to be of value for him.
Her simple inability to grasp tools would be a major hindrance.
Another is the possiblity is that the farmer is so used to his talking
livestock that it does not surprise him that one would demostrate this
ability to a stranger. While the stranger may find it odd, the farmer finds
it common.
Ben
John Alway
[...]
> There is another way to look at it too. The cow, despite its magnificent
> abilities, goes completely unappreciated by the farmer. This makes the
> farmer look ignorant or incompetent.
This is what I would have pegged as the aspect of the joke that makes
it funny.
It could just as well have been two cows that could talk, with the
second cow taking the place of the farmer, in which case you'd be
laughing at the cows for their indifference to their abilities.
...John
John Alway
[...]
> Sure.
>
> Most verbal humor, such as double-meaning humor and puns, involves making
> a mental connection about word meanings or recognizing a familiar phrase
> in mangled form. It often has nothing at all to do with belittling
> anybody.
Here are a couple of examples.
There was a BC comic strip with this sort of humor. I'm going from
memory here, so the particulars will be off, but the gist is right.
It starts out with two (cave) people at a fish market (basically a
rock as a desk, with crates of fish behind it, and clerk selling the
fish). The first customer orders two crates of mackerel. The next
customer comes up and requests the same. The clerk says "sorry, we have
no more Mackerel left, I just sold the last one". Okay, says the second
customer, in that case I'll buy two crates of cod. Fine, says the
clerk, and the purchase is completed. Later that day the first
customer falls horribly ill. The second customers asks what
happened. He is told that he ate bad mackerel. The second customers
responds, while pointing to the first customer being dragged off on a
stretcher, "There but for the crates of cod go I!"
Another example: when Congress was determining whether or not to
finance the B2 bomber I recall a headline in a newspaper "B2 or not B2".
...John
John Alway
[...]
> That is one possibility. Another is that the farmer recognizes that the cow's
> mechanical aptitude is not of a high enough quality to be of value for him.
> Her simple inability to grasp tools would be a major hindrance.
>
> Another is the possiblity is that the farmer is so used to his talking
> livestock that it does not surprise him that one would demostrate this
> ability to a stranger. While the stranger may find it odd, the farmer finds
> it common.
Speaking of cow jokes. This is a *true* story told by Mickey Mantle
just before he died. He said it was true, so I believed him! It's easy
to philosophically analyze, but, hey, it's funny.
Mickey was best friends with Billy Martin. Both played for the
Yankees, probably in the 1950s. Mickey was from Oklahoma, and he and
Billy decided they were going to hunt there one year. They would do it
on the property of an old farmer that Mickey knew. Mickey went up to
the house to ask permission of the farmer. The farmer said "Fine, but
could I ask a favor of you?" Mickey says "Sure". "I have an old mule
that is sick and needs to be put out of its misery. I just don't have
the heart to shoot it, so could you do it for me?" says the farmer.
Mickey says that he'll do it. He goes out to the car where Billy has
been waiting and decides to play a little joke on him. He says "This
s*n of a b*tch won't let us hunt on his land, so I'm going to kill his
mule." Where upon he aims at and kills the mule. Just then Mickey
hears two gun shots behind him "blam, blam". Billy yells frantically
"I killed two of his cows, let's get out of here!"
...John
GregWeston
>Another example: when Congress was determining whether or not to
>finance the B2 bomber I recall a headline in a newspaper "B2 or not B2".
>"There but for the crates of cod go I!"
Why do you think that these puns are funny and others
just as clever are not?
For example, "Her magnificent voice sang the scale from C to shining C"
That pun is merely pretty, but not funny.
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
John Alway
[..]
> Why do you think that these puns are funny and others
> just as clever are not?
> For example, "Her magnificent voice sang the scale from C to shining C"
> That pun is merely pretty, but not funny.
I would say that it's mildly funny. Same as, for instance, "What's
big, red and eats rocks?" ans: "The big, red rock eater!" I think your
question amounts to "Why are some jokes funnier than others?" That is
a good question I haven't examined, but I'll bet the degree of
cleverness of the joke has something to do with it. One of the funniest
movies I've ever seen is "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". The movie
is absolutely outrageous from beginning to end. Perhaps the *level* of
absurdity is what makes it so funny to me, though I'm not sure. This is
something that I'd like to see the answer to myself!
...John
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou
be present to make something funny.
1) It had to be unusual. (old jokes also lose their impact, because they
become well known)
2) Absurd, or ridiculous.
The unusual allows one to be led to the absurd.
eg. The one liner: Take my wife; Please!
The sudden switch to the absurd, derails a thought pattern. That derailing
can only happen if the switch is unexpected, and somehow causes a sparking
in the synapses, leading to laughter.
eg. Two Gays are walking hand in hand down the street. As a stunning
redhead passes them in the opposite direction, Rodney hangs back, watching
her disappear. Then he turns to Cyril, and says."You know Cyril, sometimes I
wish I was a Lesbian"
--
"Reason" holds the answer.
A. Broese-van-Groenou.
bro...@ozemail.com.au
John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote in message
news:370C2AA1...@icsi.net...
mdhjwh
posts have to do with objectivism or Ayn Rand?
Am I missing something obvious to others?
JOHN H
GregWeston wrote:
> John Alway writes:
>
> >Another example: when Congress was determining whether or not to
> >finance the B2 bomber I recall a headline in a newspaper "B2 or not B2".
>
> >"There but for the crates of cod go I!"
>
> Why do you think that these puns are funny and others
> just as clever are not?
>
> For example, "Her magnificent voice sang the scale from C to shining C"
>
> That pun is merely pretty, but not funny.
>
> Gregory Weston
> http://members.aol.com/gregweston
GRADinc
>could anyone please indicate what the preceding
>posts have to do with objectivism or Ayn Rand?
Objectivism is a comprehensive philosophy.
It should be able to explain humor.
Tom Clarke
GregWeston
>could anyone please indicate what the preceding
>posts have to do with objectivism or Ayn Rand?
"He was like one of those annoying students who ask a
professor that is off on an interesting tangent 'this isn't in
the sylabus, will this be on the test?'" --- Florence King
.
.
.
.
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
Kyle Haight
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou <bro...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>Years ago, I came to the conclusion that at least one, of two factors had to
>be present to make something funny.
>1) It had to be unusual. (old jokes also lose their impact, because they
>become well known)
I'm not sure this is true. Some of the old Warner Brothers cartoons,
such as the one about the singing frog, still crack me up. I've seen
them many many times, sometimes I can even recite the dialog along
with them. But they're still very funny -- the familiarity hasn't
dulled their edge.
Other jokes do seem to exhibit the loss of impact you describe, but
it's by no means a universal characteristic of humor.
Kyle Haight
mdhjwh <mdh...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>could anyone please indicate what the preceding
>posts have to do with objectivism or Ayn Rand?
Well, the thread probably spawned from a discussion of Rand's claims
about the nature of humor, and is now continuing because it's fun and
thus life-enhancing.
Stephen Grossman
A Kantian and an Objectivist were in a lifeboat with food for one...
--
Reason is man's basic means of survival. AYN RAND
Elegant and prosperous Californians. DAVID GULBRAA
This here thing comes from this here seed. ARISTOTLE
------------------------------------------------------
Tracking Marxist dialectical revolution: ZigZag
Radically systematic radical metaphysics: Existence 2
http://home.att.net/~sdgross
-------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman Fairhaven, MA, USA sdg...@att.net
Mike Rael
Absolutely correct!
Besides, I like the think that Objectivists, as much as anyone
else, like to have fun playing with ideas:)
best wishes,
Mike
Kyle Haight (kha...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <370C9A65...@ozemail.com.au>,
: --
: Kyle Haight
: kha...@netcom.com
--
Mike Rael, MS, instructional technology
la...@netcom.com
listowner, self-esteem-self-help
owner, COACHING BY PHONE, the rapid way to raise reality-based self-esteem