1 definition by Philopolemos
1)A persuasive definition used by midwits and halfwits against the rational speech of their interlocutor who is showing superior analytical intelligence both in the decompositional sense of breaking down a concept into simpler parts and the regressive sense of working back to find more fundamental principles or reasons for assertions.
2)A persuasive definition used by individuals who are not good thinkers, and thus think in terms of overly broad principles that lack any nuance or detail against individuals applying the Socratic method against them.
2)A persuasive definition used by individuals who are not good thinkers, and thus think in terms of overly broad principles that lack any nuance or detail against individuals applying the Socratic method against them.
John: Good humor is whatever people around you say is funny
Tim: What if you are around a bunch of sadists who get glee out of seeing the suffering of small children with cancer, and you make a cruel joke about their horrible condition, and the people laugh, does that make it good humor.
John: Ahh
Tim: Okay, what if you are around a bunch of small children, and you tell a fart joke and they laugh, is that good humor
John: You are sperging
Tim: No, I am not "sperging", I just have an attention to detail and nuance. Your original statement about what is good humor is seriously flawed, and you have shown that you have not thought about this very well. I have just shown that humor can't be overly hateful in the example of laughing about the cruel fate that these small children with cancer have, and I am also showing that good humor must have some degree of intelligence because schoolyard children laughing at a fart joke is clearly not good humor. If you let this method proceed we can get to a more sophisticated concept of humor like that defined by Aristotle as "educated insolence". With your line of thinking we would always be stuck thinking that water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit, because we never go to "higher altitudes" to get a breadth and depth of perspective which causes us to get better explanations like boiling occurring when atmospheric pressure equals vapor pressure.
Tim: What if you are around a bunch of sadists who get glee out of seeing the suffering of small children with cancer, and you make a cruel joke about their horrible condition, and the people laugh, does that make it good humor.
John: Ahh
Tim: Okay, what if you are around a bunch of small children, and you tell a fart joke and they laugh, is that good humor
John: You are sperging
Tim: No, I am not "sperging", I just have an attention to detail and nuance. Your original statement about what is good humor is seriously flawed, and you have shown that you have not thought about this very well. I have just shown that humor can't be overly hateful in the example of laughing about the cruel fate that these small children with cancer have, and I am also showing that good humor must have some degree of intelligence because schoolyard children laughing at a fart joke is clearly not good humor. If you let this method proceed we can get to a more sophisticated concept of humor like that defined by Aristotle as "educated insolence". With your line of thinking we would always be stuck thinking that water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit, because we never go to "higher altitudes" to get a breadth and depth of perspective which causes us to get better explanations like boiling occurring when atmospheric pressure equals vapor pressure.
by Philopolemos July 8, 2022