Suchergebnisse

Abstract
This article offers a pragmatist approach to concentration camp humor, in particular, to Viktor Frankl's and Primo Levi's conceptualizations of humor. They both show how humor does not vanish even in the worst imaginable circumstances. Despite this similarity, it will be argued that their intellectual positions on humor differ significantly. The main difference between the two authors is that according to Frankl, humor is elevating in the middle of suffering, and according to Levi, humor expresses the absurdity of the idea of concentration camps, but this is not necessarily a noble reaction. Through a critical synthesis based on pragmatist philosophy, it will be claimed that humor in concentration camps expresses the human condition in the entirely twisted situation. This phenomenon cannot be understood without considering forms of life, how drastic the changes from the past were, and what people expected from the future, if anything.

This paper examines certain practices of humour, especially self-ridicule, as a kind of social pathology, drawing on the work of Erich Fromm. The paper starts with the observation that laughing at oneself is typically considered to be a positive trait. In general, self-ridicule reveals that the joker does not consider him- or herself to occupy a high ground, to be above ridicule. This kind of affirmative attitude towards laughing at oneself is also present in many philosophers' thinking. Morally, it is stated, it is better to laugh at oneself than at others. The paper challenges some of these general ideas. Not every kind of self-ridiculing is positive. Laughing at oneself can eventually be problematic in relation to recognizing oneself and others (this is not unrelated to the forms of pathology discussed by Honneth as pathologies of legal and moral freedom – they provide a protected 'leave' from the social world, which is important, but can turn pathological if it turns into an obstacle to ordinary participation in the social world. The same goes for excessive self-irony as a form of distancing oneself not only from the social world, but from one's own orientation in life). The critique is based on Erich Fromm's social philosophy, especially contemporary versions of Fromm's notion of 'social character.'

Abstract
This article discusses four ways of understanding the concept of humor: 1) in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions, as 2) a cluster concept, 3) an interpretive concept, and 4) a dual character concept. We peruse both historical and contemporary research on humor, but instead of asking "What is humor?," we draw conclusions regarding what humor research tells us of the ways to conceptualize humor. The main merits and shortcomings of different approaches are explicated. We suggest that the increased awareness of conceptual options will help the field of humor research to construct ever better theories on the elusive subject matter.

In this article we argue that freedom of speech should be understood as a social freedom. In the public discussion after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, it has often been understood as an absolute right to say anything – to offend, to make a fool of others and of oneself, and to express any opinion regardless of the consequences. We challenge this view and propose that advocating freedom of speech without understanding its social foundations is misleading and counterproductive. Based on the critical social theories of Erich Fromm, Charles Taylor and Axel Honneth, we show that there is an alternative tradition in which freedom is fundamentally rooted in social relations and therefore requires respect for others. We argue that interpreting freedom of speech as a social freedom avoids some of the problems apparent in current discussions. In addition, our position has significant practical consequences on how humour and insults should be understood.

This study aims to think about the relation between laughter and politics. In the midst of this love-hate battle, we all understand Humor as a complex subject with various derivations that inhabits the present moment in a gracious state. From movies to television, from Arts to Politics, being funny and having a sense of humor are a key factor to understand the historical momentum. Addressing specifically the event White House Correspondents' Dinner we aim to explore the phenomenological and political implications of this exemplary case-study. This means trying to understand the importance of having politicians laughing at themselves, among them and at each other, by them and by others. This sui generis event, anchored in both and simultaneous offense and defense rhetorical strategies, is undoubtedly one of the most incongruous and relevant events in the political order worldwide. We hope to highlight that singularity in this special cooking of comedy in the heart of the American political process. We also offer other political side dishes. The book was meant to be a collection of academic essays that would cover different areas and forms of access to the topic, in the attempt of showing the complexity of a phenomenon that has massive political implications and can uncover and reveal one of the oldest relations in politics: humor and power. So, it is that tensional relation that becomes the background of this study collection, which operates as a pretext and provocation.