There is no greater joy than the knowledge that you understand something completely
Posted by Wonky 11 years, 8 months ago to Philosophy
This is why good humor makes us laugh.
A polar bear walks into a bar and asks for a beer.
He hears a squeaky voice proclaim, "my, what beautiful fur you have".
Searching for the origin of the voice, he notices a bowl of nuts.
From that bowl of nuts another voice perks up, "look at those strong paws".
The polar bear asks the bartender, "what's up with these nuts?".
The bartender says, "they're complimentary nuts".
It's the knowledge that you understand that is a bit tricky. That requires an integrated epistemology-- a diligent study of knowledge itself. How do you know that you know?
A polar bear walks into a bar and asks for a beer.
He hears a squeaky voice proclaim, "my, what beautiful fur you have".
Searching for the origin of the voice, he notices a bowl of nuts.
From that bowl of nuts another voice perks up, "look at those strong paws".
The polar bear asks the bartender, "what's up with these nuts?".
The bartender says, "they're complimentary nuts".
It's the knowledge that you understand that is a bit tricky. That requires an integrated epistemology-- a diligent study of knowledge itself. How do you know that you know?
Incidentally, her favorite humorist was PROFESSOR IRWIN COREY (a committed leftist).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHlLmYVC...
I look to Arthur Koestler's theory of the intersection of two planes of meaning.
Rand would say it's immoral to laugh at the good and virtuous, but perfectly fine to laugh at evil elements occasionally as long as one comprehends the seriousness of the underlying evil. She did not condone laughing at oneself. I disagree and would say, there are times and it is appropriate to not take your self too seriously. Humor is a good release for all that steam we build up accomplishing what we need to accomplish but also the stresses and anxieties that go with the stuff we can't control and have to work around or find new solutions to.
I'm glad this was an essay question, I might not have gotten a multiple choice .
I claim the right to speak freely, whether it is granted to me or not.
The joke is fun (if not funny) because it is entirely comprehensible as a trivial mash up of two different definitions of the word complimentary. Every other word in the joke is meaningless. You understand it completely if you recognize that you understood that which might have otherwise confused you. You laugh if you are human. Read my other posts on emotion for context (or not if you don't particularly care-- no hard feelings).
I assert that this is a topic that is highly relevant to Objectivist epistemology. I further assert that it is a potential bridge to span the chasm between the philosophy of Objectivism and it's antagonists. Blow it off as nonsense, get lost in mystical intrigue, or see it for what it is. Your mind, your choice.
In case it isn't clear, I am a proponent of seeking alternatives to Galting.
do not turn out to be a socialist. that will really piss me off
I suppose if Rand had not led such a hard life, she might have left more room for silly fun. /sigh
Is the joke funny or isn't it? Did you laugh? Be honest.
That said, thanks for the other 2 references. I look forward to checking them out.