Hobbes vs. Bergson... I cannot make up my mind!

Both Hobbes and Bergson make compelling arguments about why people laugh, but which philosopher is more believable? Hobbes statement that laughter, “Is caused either by some sudden act of their own that pleaseth them; or by the apprehension of some deformed thing in another, by comparison whereof they suddenly applaud themselves,” really makes sense to me because it does seem like the most applicable foundation of laughter. So maybe I like Hobbes better, but I am not sure because I also enjoy Bergson’s view that the effect of laughter causes humans to, “At once endeavour to appear what we ought to be (Comedy, 71).” So Hobbes says we laugh because we see someone else do something that we know we would never do. Bergson says that if we were the person being laughed at, then we would want to correct whatever action elicited that laughter so we could be like all the normal people in the world. I have to agree with both arguments and say that I do not have a favorite at the moment.

Of Bergson and Hobbes, I believe that the best case for why people laugh is made by Bergson because he provides ample examples to support his argument that laughter is very social. Bergson says that, “Our laughter is always the laughter of a group,” and that when we hear other people laughing we do not laugh, but, “Had [we] been one of their company, [we] would have laughed like them, but as [we] were not, [we] has no desire whatever to do so (Comedy, 64). Therefore, we like to laugh when we are part of a group, but we almost feel alienated when we hear others laughing and wish we could join in their mirth.

On the basis of who has the more kindly and who has the more cynical view of human nature, I believe that Hobbes has the more kindly and Bergson the more cynical view. Hobbes is more kindly because he says that, “Sudden glory is the passion which maketh those grimaces called laughter.” The kindly part is that he says that glory causes the laughter. A cynical person would find fault in others actions, not glory and enjoyment. Bergson is more cynical because he believes that there is an “Absence of feeling that usually accompanies laughter (Comedy, 63).” How can a person be laughing if they are not feeling something? Some people must find some laughter in a situation that makes them cry so that they are able to stop crying. It is cynical to believe that a person has to abandon all other feeling on order to have laughter.