Argument from truth
- Thread starter Sapiens
- Start date
I agree reality exists independent of us experiencing it.
Hmm. Yes, your objection is interesting. I didn't see it like that. Truth is correspondance between you seeing the penny and the penny actually being there. Did that correspondance exist prior to you seeing it? Well, it depends how we see it. My understanding has always been that it transcends me, like it awaited my discovering it. Like reality was meant to be intelligible, to be known.
As if when I align my thoughts with that reality, I am walking a path set before me.
Upvote
0
zippy2006
Dragonsworn
Where I come from pranks are considered to be a kind of joke, but we can limit the discourse to non-pranks.
I disagree. There is equivocation but not deception. Particularly in this case there is no false/true progression, just two truths, two ways of viewing the sentence. There is a time when the listener is in a state of confusion and anticipation, and then a later time when that tension is resolved and they understand the pun, but the progression is not movement from deception to truth.
Hehe, at this point you're getting pretty picky about definitions of pranks and jokes. Even so, a comedian who is telling what you take to be a joke is not deceiving or lying to an audience at the comedy club. Proper deception requires an unawareness of the genre of humor. What happens at a comedy club is tension/confusion -> resolution, but not deception -> truth.
"Long term" then.
Here is a more internally tight argument: humor--excluding pranks--is meant to be funny to the listener who may be deceived in the process. Yet injurious deception is not funny to the deceived. Therefore humor which requires injurious deception is not licit. Therefore God's humor and deception would not be injurious.
The crux of my own belief on this matter is the Christian God's connection to truth (John 14:6). One might argue that prolonged falsehood and deception is not necessarily injurious, yet this argument would not stand in a Christian context. Falsehood is too problematic on Christianity, even as a means to an end.
I would say that my statement applies even when talking about God. There is a remote possibility (which accounts for your logic) but nothing more.
But then why is deception funny?
If deception qua deception is the funny-making ingredient, then deception itself must be funny. The only way around this would be to say that there are multiple necessary conditions for humor in certain jokes, and deception is one of them. So if you remove the deception the humor evaporates, even though more than deception is required for humor. Deception : humor:: hydrogen : water. ("Humor" in this analogy is only referring to the subset of humor that relies upon deception)
Upvote
0
gaara4158
Gen Alpha Dad
- Aug 18, 2007
- 6,437
- 2,685
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Is it really a delusion if it works? There may be no objective purpose to a person’s life, but if they devote themselves to a purpose that gives them subjective meaning, giving them the fulfillment they seek, where’s the delusion?
Upvote
0
Ahh, but that's not necessarily true. What if my "what ifs" come true? Human civilization goes on into the future infinitely, but you are dust in the wind. If your actions helped to guide human society in the direction of surviving and thriving and being happy, then your actions are not inconsequential. Hows the saying go... "I didn't do it alone, but I like to think they couldn't have done it without me".
Upvote
0
I don't have a problem with saying a prank is a joke, generally. But we've been talking about telling jokes. Pranks don't fit in that context.
Meh, I'll give that one to you too. Not all puns work on deception. My baby seal joke does because the goal is for you to believe the benign version of "club" and then be surprised by the violent version of "club". But I suppose I could see "intense" and "in tents" as being a mere equivocation. Like I said, examples of jokes that don't require deception don't dismantle my argument.
I don't think I'm being picky. If it doesn't have a punchline, then you weren't telling "a joke". You're still focusing on whether people believe the story is fictional or not. But you're ignoring the false assumptions that the joke tellers causes you to make. Jimmy Carr tells proper jokes. Setup, then punchline. Usually two sentences max. It doesn't matter that you don't believe the stories he tells about his girlfriend, you believe you understand aspects of what he's saying, but you find out you're wrong.
I told my girlfriend that my biggest fantasy was to be with two women at the same time, and she agreed! But then she was furious when she found out that she wasn't either one of them.
I get that we didn't believe that conversation actually happened. But, for a time, you believed that what he meant was for him and his girlfriend to invite another woman to bed with them. That was false, and causing that false assumption is deception.
"Long term" is pretty relative for an amount of time that stretches infinitely into the future.
This might be where our discussion breaks down to opinions. I would say that if genocide can be justified, then surely deception can be too.
How do you figure that possibility though? If reality would look exactly the same if there is a deceptive god as if there was an honest god, how do you figure that the likelihood of deception is low?
Deception causes a surprise. Being surprised makes people laugh. That's how seriously dark humor works; it's more like Shock-Rock than it is a cleverly crafted monologue. The deception only lies in the fact that you aren't expecting something awful to be said. I wouldn't ever give an example of that here though. But for some jokes, if you aren't deceived, then you aren't surprised. If you aren't surprised, then you don't laugh. If I'm telling you a joke, and you recognize the double meaning before the punchline, it isn't funny when you get "the big reveal!".
ETA I thought of the perfect way to demonstrate this. Tell someone a joke, but tell them the punchline first so that the setup doesn't deceive them. We'll be giving all the same information, just without any deception since we're doing the truth reveal first. Did they laugh?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
gaara4158
Gen Alpha Dad
- Aug 18, 2007
- 6,437
- 2,685
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
They could, but there’s no guarantee that other person’s purpose for them will serve them any better than the purpose they find themselves. I wouldn’t necessarily call someone else’s purpose for another’s life “objective” anyway.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
holo
former Christian
True, it won't be objective, but that can be seen as a beautiful thing rather than a problem. If there is some objective purpose, it's a real shame it's hidden from us. We all have some grand purpose, but for the life of us we can't figure out what it is and even start wars over it. That's just tragic IMO.
The beauty and wonderful potential is that there isn't some objective, external purpose to our existence. We aren't here for any particular "reason", we're just a product of all there is. Of all possible outcomes, of all possible universes, of all possible combinations of egg and sperm and history and accident, here we are. I think that's awesome.
Upvote
0
zippy2006
Dragonsworn
Okay. It just depends on whether we are talking about humor in general or "telling jokes" in particular. I see deceptive jokes as a particular instantiation of deceptive humor, and I see deceptive humor as a broader and more comprehensive argument against grounding truth in God. But again, we can just talk about jokes that are told.
Okay, sure, I just gave an example because you asked for one.
Everything revolves around the idea of belief, and in a comedy club the nature of belief is much weaker than in an everyday setting. Thus the nature of deception, if it exists at all, is much weaker than in an everyday setting. Further, the person who is not deceived can still find the jokes humorous. I understood your baby seal joke without being deceived, and yet I still found it amusing and funny.
Okay, sure. In this case a more subtle form of deception is introduced to account for the listener's suspension of belief.
Distinguishing joke-deception from standard deception on the basis of the duration of deception isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
First, I disagree. Second, the values of a party must be understood. If God declares himself for truth and justice, then the idea that he will not deceive but will mete out just deserts is quite intelligible.
Okay, you're right.
In reality what I do contest is the idea that perfect deceit is possible, or that there may be no correspondence between the human heart and the ground of reality. I don't think reality would look exactly the same. ...but this has to do with obscure Catholic theological doctrines such as the analogia entis which may not be suitable for such a thread. Voluntarists and Protestants would be more likely to agree to your logic than Catholics or Orthodox.
Yours is an interesting theory of humor but I don't fundamentally agree. I gave my understanding earlier in the thread, and I think that if deception or surprise elicit laughter then it is because they effect that paradoxical, absurd, or magical lens-shift. I would ground humor more in objective form than subjective emotion.
But there is an obvious hole in your theory. Being surprised doesn't always make people laugh. There must be something else to account for it.
As with your baby seal joke above, if the form is genuinely funny then you will laugh regardless of deception, although deception can elevate a joke by dialing up the contrast and involving more subjectivity and interiority. The problem with your demonstration is that it begs the question. Progression and timing are important to humor on both theories, albeit for different reasons. Demetri Martin's jokes require progression, timing, and order too.
You can be deceived and surprised without laughing, so what's the missing link?
Upvote
0
There are a lot of other ways that I can think of using deception in a way that is good, but I'm trying to keep it limited to the telling of jokes 1) so that we keep our discussion small, since you're trying to limit our time here, and b) because the more kinds of deception we talk about, the more ways there are for them to actually be harmful; telling jokes is the most benign form of deception.
Right, but "a long time" is a relative term. How long is a long time? A billion years after you've died and been in the glorious afterlife, are you going to look back and say, "Man, eighty years sure was a long time".
I think the missing link is what's missing: stakes. Some folks are offended by some subjects in jokes, but in general, the fact that it's a fictional story takes all the stakes out of deceiving someone. You aren't affecting them and their lives in any real way other than entertaining them.
Jokes can cause harm if you aren't careful though. I tell a lot of really awful jokes, so I have to be really careful who I tell them to. People like to say to me, "Tell me your most offensive joke" and I have to say "no". Most folks don't understand what that really entails, and I've learned from experience that complying, or even explaining what the subject matter of my most offensive jokes is, makes people hate me. No kidding, I've lost friends because they asked me to tell them my most offensive joke, and now they think I"m a monster. I usually tell people who ask me that, "You first, and I'll top it". Then I can get a gauge for how awful of a joke they're comfortable with. Not everyone can tell jokes though, so I have to work my way up the offensive-ladder with those folks.
A while back I had told one of my most offensive jokes to a group of guys at work. About a week later we were all having lunch together and a female coworker was joining us. One of the guys brought that joke up saying, "Man, I still can't believe that teddy bear joke you told me." We all laughed, but the woman asked, "What joke?"
I said, "No way am I telling you that joke." But she kept egging me on. I even tried to talk her out of it saying, "Look, he already mentioned the teddy bear, so he gave away the punchline. It wouldn't be funny even if I wanted to tell you." But she kept egging me on. I swear, I spent at least ten minutes trying to talk her out of it, but she wouldn't give up.
She says, "It's just a joke, right? What's the big deal? Not much offends me, I'm sure it will be fine". So I said, "If 'not much' offends you, then something offends you, and I know a joke about it. You don't want to hear this joke. You aren't going to laugh. It's going to upset you." But she kept egging me on. At a certain point I have to decide whether offending a person with a joke is worse than offending them by treating them like they're made of porcelain. So when my boss said, "We're all witnesses that she's asking to hear the joke. You're not going to get hauled down to HR on Monday over it." I gave in and told her the joke.
She didn't laugh. She didn't even smile. Her jaw dropped, and all the color went out from her cheeks as she stared at me for a moment. The whole room exploded into laughter except for her, sitting across from me with a blank stare on her face. After a really, really long uncomfortable pause, she finally said, "That'll do it".
Later, we're all hanging out outside and she comes walking by, so I said to her, "Let me know if you ever want to hear another joke!". And she says, "Anytime!" So we all laughed and she added, "You think I'm kidding you?" All cocky about how tough she is. Why do people think that being able to hear an offensive joke makes them cool? I find them hilarious, but I think that makes me a monster.
About a week later she comes walking by and I offered to tell her another joke. I had one locked and loaded that shouldn't offend most folks, but is still vulgar enough for her to feel tough about hearing it. I can't repeat that one either, but it involves the "C-word", which I know a lot of women don't like, but it's such a solid joke that women I tell it to still find it funny even if they have a personal problem with that word.
First she told me she wasn't in the mood for a joke, she was grumpy about work, so I egged her on saying that a good joke always makes me laugh even when I'm angry. After a while she gave in, all optimistic like I was about to brighten her day. But she didn't laugh. She didn't smile. She paused for an awkwardly long time, and then explained that she used to be in an abusive relationship and while her husband was beating her he would call her that word. I've since stopped telling really offensive jokes at work.
Not that that long story has anything to do with arguing for a deceptive god. But it's a fun story with a moral. That moral is, "Chicks hates jokes".
Last edited:
Upvote
0
zippy2006
Dragonsworn
Fair enough. The humor/joke topic is interesting enough to keep me engaged.
It is relative but I think my point is easy to understand. Jokes are temporary deception in the way of seconds.
Sure... I was more asking about the missing link of humor. If deception & surprise aren't sufficient to account for the essence of humor, then what is it?
Hahaha! I have similar stories, although I don't fully agree with your old Tosh quote that anything can be funny or that there can be no inappropriate jokes. I do sometimes receive the response, "That's not funny," or "All jokes have some truth to them," etc. As with your co-workers response, people who respond that way to a risky joke become an object of humor themselves, which is why it is fun to push the envelope just a little bit to draw people into that awkward space. But I've lost friends that way too so I am more careful about it these days.
Upvote
0
Well, It wouldn't be more than the product of our imagination, in a sense. I'm glad we agree it's a subjective experience. Illusory and hallucinatory in the sense that there is no intended purpose for our minds to align with. No particular way of thinking is right. We have an experience, and that's it. If we accept it's objectively meaningless, as you do, then it is nothing more than a subjective experience. Reality then is only whatever we conceive of it, not necessarily what we perceive. But if it is what we perceive and conceive, then an explanation for that is required. I think more plausible it is what we think it is. It's very counterintuitive to deny that.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
But it should make you want it to be true and thus open to reasons to believe so.
Moreover, I think the very counterintuitiveness of naturalism is a big big red flag. It has you deny everything fundamental about life, like ethics and truth. Without some objective standard for either, we are left with naturalism. And thus, you should do and believe whatever you want just because you want it. That's what makes me reject naturalism wholeheartedly and even feel disgust for it. I find it hard to think that I ever believed it.
It has you deny that life has any objective meaning or value as well. These are the 3 strongest reasons for which I reject naturalism.
Upvote
0
I agree with you and that is why I find anti-theists' preaching so absurd and repulsive. Why tell people they should rather believe they exist for nothing and are worth nothing, except to the fancies of imagination?
But notice they say it's to know truth for it's own sake. That they are the brave who face the harsh reality. What would they say about you? That your thinking is wishful?
How do you reconcile your view that truth is what corresponds with reality and that we can trust this phenomenon? Are you advocating self-deception? And claiming it is as or more real even than reality itself?
In this post you seem to be agreeing with me that we should rather believe God exists than not! Am I hallucinating or is this the actual state of reality?
Upvote
0
holo
former Christian
When you believed it, did you freely pick and choose what to believe? Did you believe stuff just because you wanted to?
I think the burden of proof is on those who claim life does have an objective meaning and value. The main reason I reject that idea is because nobody agrees on what that meaning even is - there's supposedly a grand purpose behind it all, but for some reason it's not apparent what it is. If it exists, why is it so darn hard to figure it out?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
holo
former Christian
Why? If there is no meaning then there is no real "should". That doesn't mean we all don't have this intuition of should/ought, it just means that "should" doesn't really exist. There is no should. There is the past, which is gone. There is the now, which is what it is. And there's the future, which is "can be." Should is nothing, it's an idea, a wish.
I like this take on it:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
