so I’ve been studying humor theory in literature and psychology, and it usually boils down to one of three things:
1. condescending/superiority theory (Bergman, Plato, Aristotle)
2. diffusion of tense energy or relief theory (this comes closer to what the author was saying but not quite, and is of course Freud)
3. comparison between two unlike things, incongruity theory (this is the most fruitful theory imo, Kierkegaard, Kant, others) the upshot is, humor has been theorized by a LOT of…
This is a good, quick, lit review. I’m more inclined to evaluate humor in the context of B. F. Skinner, rather than Freud. That is to say, humor as a learned and conditioned behavior. Which crosses all three strands depending on the initial stimuli.
Also, because I’m more interested in the reasons, than the outcome, I’m left with some amalgamation of Friedrich Nietzsche’s will to power, and Skinner. I doubt that was going to end up in your review.
To abuse the Mark Twain quote, at the moment, I don’t care about dissecting the frog, I’m more interested in where the damn thing came from.
In the future, I would encourage you to reblog, rather than simply commenting, because it makes responses like this easier, and because it protects your post from being eaten, the way it seems to have been. There’s clearly more worth reading here, but it ends on a ellipsis.