The human ability to laugh has been the subject of many philosophical debates.
One of the great themes of philosophy is questioning. What makes us human?
A long philosophical tradition, which embraces all of Western antiquity up to the brilliant scholar Isidore of Seville (around 560-636), answers this question with the anthropophilosophical theory of homo laugh capax.
According to her, the unique and exclusive characteristic of the human being is the ability to laugh.
The Spanish philosopher expounds the theory in his main work, Etymologies. Isidore states that “man is a rational, mortal, terrestrial and bipedal animal” – and concludes:
“Finally, we incorporate something that is exclusive to him: his ability to laugh, since laughter is characteristic only of man.”
Theory in antiquity
The theory of homo laugh capax has its philosophical origins in Pythagoras of Samos (570 BC-490 BC).
According to the Greek philosopher Iamblichus (245-325), laughter, for Pythagoras, “in front of other living beings, is characteristic of man; some define him as a being prone to laughter.” This is because the ability to laugh is what marks its “distinction and differentiation”.
Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC) states in the same sense in his work Of the parts of animals that “the reason why only humans are ticklish is not only the thinness of their skin, but also because humans are the only animal capable of laughing.”
The theologian Clement of Alexandria (circa 150-215), in his work The Pedagogue (Ed. Ecclesiae, 2014), states that “just because man is a laughing animal does not mean that we should laugh at everything”. Accept the human being as laugh capable.
And the Syrian philosopher Porphyry (ca. 234-305) states in Isagoge (Ed. Attar, 2015) that “knowing how to laugh is a unique attribute of man”.
According to him, what is characteristic “is that which comes together to form one [espécie]for everyone and always, as well as, for man, the ability to laugh; because, even if he doesn’t always laugh, he is said to have this innate ability (…).”
Likewise, Augustine of Hippo (354-430), in About free will (Ed. Ecclesiae, 2019), claims that playing and laughing are “typical acts of man”, despite being two of “his smallest perfections”.
Philosophical censorship
The ability to laugh was also analyzed in ancient times from an ethical point of view.
Among his detractors the Pythagoreans themselves stand out, as the historian Diógenes Laércio (180-240) claims in the book Lives and doctrines of illustrious philosophers (Ed. Camelot, 2024). He states that one of the Pythagorean prescriptions was to “not let oneself be dominated by laughter”.
Iamblichus, quoted above, also states that one of the most secret Pythagorean commandments was “do not give in to irresistible laughter.” For Pythagoras, laughter “represents all passions”.
Plato (428 BC-347 BC), in The Republic (Ed. Edipro, 2019), states: “It is unacceptable that men of value appear dominated by laughter”.
And Aristotle, in Problemsclaims that “laughter is a kind of disorder and fraud.”
The philosophy developed by the priests of the Catholic Church also spoke out against laughter.
Authors such as Basil of Caesarea (around 330-379), Ambrose of Milan (around 340-397) and John Chrysostom (around 347-407), as well as Leander of Seville (around 534-600) and Augustine of Hippo , are some examples.
The latter, in the book Against academics (Ed. Vozes de Bolso, 2014), stated that “there is nothing more humiliating than laughter”.
Leander, in his treatise Of the institution of virgins and the contempt of the worldcomments on the “degrading spectacle of laughter”.
Somewhere in between we find the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (ca. 15 BC-50 AD), who argues that “God, without doubt, is the creator of virtuous laughter” and that “the purpose of wisdom is enjoyment and enjoyment”. .”laughter, not that practiced inconsiderately by the fool, but that of one who has become wise, not only due to age, but also due to his good reflections”.
In defense of laughter
In the third group we find philosophers who defend laughter.
Epicurus (341 BC-270 BC), in the book Vatican rulings (Ed. Loyola, 2014), states that “we must laugh at the same time we must philosophize”.
In other words, laughter should not only no longer be censored, but it is also as necessary as rationality.
Is it possible to write philosophy in a humorous way, trying to make the reader laugh? From an Epicurean point of view, yes. I tried to do that in my book too The Hispalense philosopher: hyperbolic biography of Saint Isidore of Seville (“The Sevillian philosopher: hyperbolic biography of Saint Isidore of Seville”, in free translation).
Cicero (106 BC-43 BC), a From the speakerstates that laughter promotes good mood in the public.
On the one hand, it causes admiration for the speaker’s intuition, demonstrating that he is a cultured, educated and experienced person. And, on the other hand, jokes and laughter resolve unpleasant situations or situations that are difficult to resolve with discussions.
But if there is a defender of laughter in ancient philosophy, it is Seneca (circa 4 BC-65 AD).
In Letters to Lucilius (Ed. Fund. Calouste Gulbenkian, 2014), maintains that those who “have not stopped laughing, even when their tormentors, irritated by this fact, have thrown all the resources of their cruelty away are strong and capable of triumphing in the face of pain against him.”
Therefore, laughter is as effective as reason in overcoming pain. “Will not pain overcome by laughter be overcome by reason?” you ask.
In From the tranquility of the soul (Ed. L&PM, 2009), Seneca recommends following the example of Democritus (around 460 BC-370 BC) and not that of Heraclitus (around 500 BC-450 BC). The latter was known for crying, but the former for laughing – for his laughing attitude in doing and thinking.
For Seneca it is more human to laugh at life than to complain – and those who laugh at life deserve more gratitude than those who cry about it.
Are there other animals capable of laughing?
In recent decades, research has been conducted to demonstrate that laughter is not exclusively human, but also common to other animals. But, to date, only behaviors similar to human laughter have been demonstrated, without it being possible to state with certainty that they have the same nature and implications.
Laughter may or may not be the characteristic and exclusive ability that defines our species. In any case, the history of philosophy demonstrates that laughter makes us human. Too human.
* Nolo Ruiz is a professor at the Department of Aesthetics and History of Philosophy at the University of Seville, Spain.
This article was originally published on the academic news website The conversation and republished under a Creative Commons license. Read the original Spanish version here.
Source: Terra
Rose James is a Gossipify movie and series reviewer known for her in-depth analysis and unique perspective on the latest releases. With a background in film studies, she provides engaging and informative reviews, and keeps readers up to date with industry trends and emerging talents.
