LAUGHTER AND LOGOS
CAN A MAN THIS HANDSOME BE FUNNY
LOGOS
This essay/blog post/whatever started when I googled “logos and laughter philosophy.” I assumed this idea has been explored before, and it probably has, but the only thing I found (wasn’t gonna keep looking, most “philosophy” is absolute dogshit to read and if you’re gonna write about laughter or humor without making me at least crack a smile then I wanna hit you with a hammer (lovingly)) was some scholarly paper AKA commie gobbledygook. I read the term in the abstract “contemporary humor studies” and I thought about giant shredders for livestock carcasses and pushing an unfunny bitch into it as she opines about humor conceptually. It made me laugh.
The first appearance1, that I know of, of the concept of Logos comes from the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Heraclitus. For Heraclitus, Logos is unchanging in the ever-changing cosmos, it’s something like ever-changing change itself, it’s the rational harmony underlying the unyielding flow of everything. (Sounds kinda irrational2 to me, based.) Bro embraces paradoxes, says that they are literally real. I agree because life and everything good is paradoxical; you can zoom out infinitely or inward infinitely; the apparent flatness of space might be because we can only see a section of a larger curved geometry; Christ is both the center and periphery; accept the mystery or be a liar who lies about how much you lie.
Logos remained a central concept in Classical Greek philosophy3 and Western thought, so much so that the opening verse in the Gospel of John states, “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Obviously there’s a lot here in this single statement, you could probably spend your whole life thinking about it. Jordan Peterson4 elaborated on the concept to suggest that Logos manifests in men through the articulated word to try to reach Truth (I think he might say that this is made possible through Christ (the Word (Logos) being God and all) but Jordan does this weird thing where he says “I act as though God exists” when asked if he believes in God and I’m over that wordplay shit. If you’re a Christian shouldn’t you have no problem saying you believe in God? See my previous footnote about Apollonian excess, I think Jordan wanted to remain technically truthful to the modern man’s notion of objectivity (Apollo, rationality—Jordan is a clinical psychologist AKA secular priest so he can’t go full mystic (or Christian?)) but I dunno he calls himself a Christian so I can’t help but think he should have no problem whatsoever declaring belief in God and Christ. But then again I’m an actions speak louder than words kinda guy so maybe Jordan has a point. Eh fuck that if you’re a Christian you should act as though God exists and have no issue declaring your faith/belief/knowledge; massive L for Jordan.
LAUGHTER IN ANIMALS
Many animal species exhibit behavior analogous to human laughter. For the most part, this behavior has been observed during play—great apes make unique panting sounds while wrestling each other, rats emit a specific squeak when tickled. The evolutionary understanding of play is multifaceted—animals can compare their physical prowess to their peers, establish and maintain social relationships, hone survival skills through practice, and develop physical, mental, and social acuity. Children who engage in more rough-and-tumble play are better at regulating aggression5 and they are more physically (and I would argue mentally/emotionally) coordinated. Animals and humans laugh spontaneously during play. Laughing feels good and it immediately communicates goodness; it is embodied knowledge. Pain is another kind of embodied knowledge.
Laughter is pre-rational communication. It’s God declaring the Word (Logos) to be good (but also Logos is literally God). Existence is the funniest joke ever (laughing at itself).
LAUGHTER AS THE RESOLUTION OF PARADOX
A materialist or rationalist or God-denier observes a paradox and recoils; there are others who laugh :) (we understand God’s sense of humor). Where do you want to go insane? Do you believe in the Law of Noncontradiction or do you believe in God?6 Oh no, the principle of explosion! Imagine if everything exploded out of contradiction! Imagine if anything existed! (I don’t have to imagine, I experience, you dick head.) Existence is so mad about your little sand castle of logic! (Just kidding it’s laughing in your face.) “How can this contradictory thing exist?” is the same as asking “why not am I God?”
Man laughs during play in the same way as other animals but he also laughs at a joke. Logos is fundamental (Heraclitus) and men create a microcosm of it through rational discourse (interpreting Genesis), the apogee of which is a joke. A joke is rational discourse taken to its height, it requires a mastery of language, an implicit theory of mind, and, typically, a contradiction. And what happens at this peak of rational discourse, at the end of a joke? Man laughs. A totally non- or pre-rational communication sits at the apex of Logosic discourse. Being irrational is totally rational, being rational is irrational. You’re a philosopher? No I’m a comedian.
CLOWN WORLD IS NOT FUNNY
Have you noticed how fucking unfunny mainstream culture is? How it can’t abide humor, how it’s so fucking serious? When was the last time a good mainstream comedy movie released? They used to exist, I swear. The death of comedy is worth exploring in its own article, but I want to at least touch on it here to say bluntly, the death of comedy is the triumph of Satan or the exaltation of evil. One way to consider evil is distance from God—as culture falls further and further you are less free to laugh. The European Commission released an official document in 2021 condemning the “far-right’s” “use of humor.” No, I am not fucking with you, no this is not a joke. You aren’t funny, are you anon? You aren’t one of those Nazis, are you?
Here’s one of my favorite out of context jokes:
For the most part, I don’t think people have ideas, I think people discover them. This is clear for us moderns in the physical sciences with something like say, the discovery of electricity or the structure of DNA. (Most people accept electricity was discovered, not created by a mind.) I think for many it becomes less clear with ideas—typically we think of ideas as the product of a mind or group of minds who can further be reduced to material conditions or psychological states. People really don’t like to extend this logic to that which is considered “objective” (it used to be God lol) ie. observations of the physical sciences and this makes sense because you lose your footing, consciously or not, and you kinda lose your mind (or you lie about it). If your foundation is God or you’re agnostic I think you can at least be honest and humbly accept your position as fundamentally incapable of seeing “the full picture” (materialists are such fags, every “material” thing discovered uncovers more of the unknown, get the fuck outta here). If you’re a materialist then, to me, you’re just dumb or a liar. Cue argument with materialist on definitions of words, I don’t care and this essay/blog post/whatever is about laughter AKA pre-rational communication (but it’s also about Logos, FUCK). Ok, ok I have a tendency to be crass and bombastic, allow me to dial back my previous statement slightly. You as a person, being, whatever, are fundamentally finite. The universe, spiritually, materially, whatever, is at least potentially infinite. So you will, fundamentally, never fully comprehend or appreciate it—you can consider this a spiritual truth or a material truth, in my opinion, and this says more about your psychology (/biology/spirit, hehe) than the nature of the truth. The best philosophers, artists, scientists, retards, whatever, can consider both perspectives simultaneously and they make the best art (and are funny).
No it’s pre-rational! Bro I don’t care, I used the term in the previous footnote, sue me. (But maybe we come back to this concept, hehe, maybe we could be best friends, maybe we could Argue About Logos Manifesting Itself Through Our Argument About Its Nature. (I bet there would be music playing if we did that.))
It takes on somewhat different meanings for different guys and depending on context but for the most part it’s still something like the (IMO irrational) claim of a rational order. The level of resolution changes—Heraclitus sees (he SEES, hence RESOLUTION) Logos as fundamental rational order, Aristotle & Plato use the term more to describe rational discourse between men (the layer of the irrational claim of rationality changes, hence my term “resolution.” I like this term because as a being, you have evolved to literally see a certain level of resolution (literally what you see with your eyes) and you are embedded inside something with an infinitely higher resolution (I’m not talking about the spectrum of light, but even that serves as a lower resolution example to hammer my point, you see a tiny spectrum of visible light which is embedded in something far bigger (the electromagnetic spectrum) and that is embedded in something bigger (in fact, something infinite!)). (Side note: this issue of “resolution” is why you still have to solve CAPTCHAS and select all squares containing stop lights to prove you aren’t a robot—the universe has literally infinite resolution and in order to see anything (resolve anything) you need a resolution, otherwise there is too much detail and you are lost in chaotic infinity. Our resolving power is set by the rods and cones in our eyes which have evolved over millennia to resolve certain wavelengths of light thanks to natural selection (the sun emits most of its energy in visible and infrared wavelengths, hence what we consider “the visible spectrum.”) This process of “natural selection” to allow the computer to “see” is happening each time you solve a CAPTCHA.)
I know, I know, Jordan Peterson is Not Based anymore. One of the biggest falls from grace in our little corner of the internet. Weirdly enough I think he still serves as a sort of symbol of Apollonian excess. Do you remember when a guy asked him about Solzhenitsyn’s other work and Jordan said he literally couldn’t answer? lol. I believe Jordan when he says to always tell the truth, I think he tried, so for him to be rendered speechless was…something. Then he fried his fucking brain (/spirit?) with some shit prescribed by a psychiatrist (a secular priest), hence my consideration of Jordan as a living symbol of Apollonian excess; his daughter is the cherry on top and also a living refutation of so much of what he said. Cue Anton Chigur saying “If your philosophy brought you this bimbo tard daughter, then of what use was your philosophy?” Still I can’t help it, I have a little soft spot for Jordan.
This is in direct contrast to the unbalanced woman perspective in which we currently live. Risk mitigation, the avoidance of stuff that might hurt you, safety first, no competition, no rough play—these things, touted as “peaceful” and “good”, actually make people (boys especially) more aggressive and dysregulated. Women are retarded (it’s not their fault, they need a man and being a man is illegal.)
Thomas Aquinas and surely other pre-moderns can do both, but I am writing from the perspective of a modern, I can’t help it, I was raised and educated in a world in which “objective” basically means a scientific measurement (the problem with this is you still must act, so you need morality (or you can lie about it) and you can’t derive any moral judgments scientifically AKA “objectively.” If God is objective (a given for pre-moderns) you don’t run into this issue.)