Diotima: The Marist Undergraduate Philosophy Journal
Even if they grant receptivity, critics may suggest another argument against
the existence of necessary and sufficient conditions, especially the ones stated in
this paper. They do so by observing situations that may be classified as humor
under such conditions, but we are reluctant to believe should truly be called
humorous. For example, a sociopath may very well find it funny to commit serial
murders on his local college campus. In this scenario, the sociopath might meet all
the criteria: he might understand that what he is doing is a violation of norms, he
might perceive his actions as benign (thus his status as a sociopath), these
perceptions might occur simultaneously, and he might be in a mental state that
allows him to receive the situation as humor (again, sociopathy). Under these
condit ions, the sociopath’s situation seems to classify as humorous, yet we are
reluctant to admit it as such based on our own moral concerns in condoning such
behavior. To most, it is obvious that the situation is horrendous; it is anything but
funny. Critics may argue that such reluctance indicates that humor either has
limits beyond the necessary and sufficient conditions I have affirmed or is not truly
objective as I have claimed it to be. Neither of these is the case.
What this situation exemplifies very well is the notion of evaluative humor
versus descriptive humor. Both Weitz and Dickie discuss the difference between
these concepts to aid them in their own examinations of art. They note that the
phrase “work of art” can be employed descriptively or evaluat ively (as praise). Thus
far, I have been considering the definition of humor only in the descriptive sense,
that is, “to describe the conditions under which we employ the concept correctly . ” 21
When we reference our unwillingness to call something humor because of how far it
seems to deviate from some desired idea of what humor should be, we are thinking
of humor in the evaluative sense. Weitz writes, “for many, especially theorists, ’This
is a work of art’ does more than describe; it also praises. Its conditions of utterance,
therefore, include certain preferred properties or characteristics of art…the view
according to which to say of something that it is a work of art is to imply that it is a
21 Weitz, “The Role of Theory in Aesthetics,” 781.
Volume VI (2023)
13
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker