Bergson

Hobbes makes a good point when he states that we tend to laugh at the “imperfections of other men” because we believe that we are more superior in some aspect. Bergson provides an example of this philosophy when he presents us with the instance of a man running down the street and suddenly falling. However, Hobbes tends to take a more cynical approach to laughter than I do. We do not always laugh because we feel superior to others or because we are pleased with our own self. I am inclined to relate more with Bergson’s case on why people laugh. Although we do laugh at the actions of others quite often, it is not always because we feel superior to that person. Bergson states that one reason why we laugh is due to the “mechanical inelasticity” of others. This happens when a victim of laughter gets caught up in the momentum of habit and does not adjust to new variables or continues “to perform the same movement when the circumstances of the case called for something else”. The involuntary accidents of others might cause us to chuckle yet it is not because we laugh at their failure but because we know that we too are capable of this absentmindedness. As Bergson points out, laughter is also social. In my humble opinion, laughter is not always the laughter of a group as he states, but often times this is the case. He provides the example of one listening in on the comedic conversation of a group and finding the chat to be humorous yet one does not laugh. This is because one does not have any connection with the group and therefore does not feel free to laugh. Bergson contends that laughter is not always as spontaneous as it seems because to laugh with someone implies that there is some type of comradeship and understanding between the laughers. All things considered, I believe that Hobbes and Bergson both make good points on why people laugh but I tend to agree more with Bergson’s kindly view rather than Hobbes more cynical approach.