![one piece episode 337 discussion one piece episode 337 discussion](https://www.anime-jl.net/storage/episodes_tumbl/episode-337-cover-csicj.jpg)
In contrast, he is, like Bakhtin and Bergson, more concerned with the comprehensive theoretical and social foundations and functions of humour and laughter. Yet Eco’s views of humour cannot be classified in any of these ways. 1 For a thorough discussion see the edited volumes by Ruch (1998), McGhee/Goldstein (1983), and the c (.)Ĥ Today, modern theories of humour are usually classified into three groups (Morreall 1987): incongruity/contrast theories, hostility/superiority theories, and release/sublimination theories 1.This too was based on biblical sources, e.g., the risus paschalis of Easter or the sequences of messianic jubilation. Yet there was also an opposing argument that advocated the homo risibilis as a ‘man gifted with laughter’ (Le Goff 1997: 43). Thus the Rule of St Benedict forbade all vain and laughable chatter. Laughter was thought to be the most obscene way of breaking monastic silence. Broadly speaking, the denunciation of laughter (Kuschel 1994) was especially endorsed by monastic rules that drew on the authority of numerous Church Fathers like John Crysostomos, St Augustine, St Hieronymus, and on the example of Christ himself who was believed never to have laughed.
![one piece episode 337 discussion one piece episode 337 discussion](https://simkl.net/episodes/45/45753467911bcb33f_0.jpg)
Laughter and humour are fundamentally human faculties which distinguish mankind from the animals ( De Partibus Animalium, 673 a 8).ģ However, in the Christian Middle Ages these ancient roots were buried under a discussion between two lines of argumentation advanced by denigrators and supporters of humour. Additionally, Aristotle was the first to highlight the exclusive relation between humour and humans. Thus the former introduced the prototype of the ambivalence theory (humour comes from the perception of two contrasting feelings) as well as recognising the element of aggression in laughter, while the latter was the first to discuss the superiority which the scoffer enjoys over his victim. The influence of both Plato and Aristotle on modern humour theory cannot be exaggerated. Moreover, he understands humour as a means of recognizing the truth which can be consciously employed by the orator. Instead, although Aristotle condemns the excess of laughter, he sees humour not, like Plato, as an ‘overwhelming’ of the soul, but as ‘stimulation’ (Attardo 1994: 19-22). In brief, Aristotle’s attitude towards humour and laughter is more positive than that of his teacher Plato who lists both as parts of the field of the ‘ridiculous’ which belongs to the category of evil ( Philebus, Chilcott 1923). However, some related passages can be detected in his first book of Poetics, in the Rhetoric, and in the Nicomachean Ethics.
![one piece episode 337 discussion one piece episode 337 discussion](https://simkl.in/episodes/45/45753582fa681e97c_w.jpg)
Unfortunately, it is not possible to trace adequately the ancient theory of humour because of the loss of Aristotle’s second book of Poetics central to The Name of the Rose. HUMOUR AS A HUMAN FACULTYĢ Humour and laughter have been studied since antiquity. I show how they relate, on the one hand, to one traditional understanding of humour as the pivotal human differentia specifica and, on the other, to Eco’s semiotic writings on sign function, unlimited semiosis, and abduction. I begin, however, by setting Eco’s views of laughter and humour in context. The main focus of this article will be to trace how Eco’s theoretical views of laughter and humour are woven variously into his novels: The Name of the Rose (1980), Foucault’s Pendulum (1988), The Island of the Day Before (1994), and Baudolino (2000). As such they are present in four different aspects (Santoro-Brienza, 2002: 325-337): first, there are some scattered writings expressly devoted to the topic, second there is The Name of the Rose, third a large number of his texts, especially his columns, squibs, and parodies, are humorously written and produce a humorous effect (e.g., the Diario minimo ), and fourth, as Santoro-Brienza put it, all of his works are expressions of Eco’s humorous and playful disposition. However, it can equally be argued that humour and the comic are unifying themes in his writings (Farronato 2003). Since Eco is a highly prolific writer, it was not twenty but just five years later that he published The Name of the Rose, the novel which accounts for his fame beyond academic circles and which presents an erudite discussion of the ‘mysterious and metaphysical mechanism’ called laughter. Laughter is a mysterious and metaphysical mechanism’ (Eco in Capozzi 1989: 415). The last remaining difference is laughter. He justified this undertaking by arguing: ‘Signs and language are no longer attributes exclusive to man. 1 In an interview given in 1975 Umberto Eco announced that he was planning to publish, ‘in twenty years, maybe’, a book on the comic.