Can a particular telling of a joke in a particular context be both funny and (morally) offensive? on one view–let’s call it COMPATIBILISM–some joke-tellings can be both offensive and also funny. Of course, the fact that such a joke-telling is offensive might provide overriding reason to stifle one’s laughter, or to refuse to repeat the joke to others, or to criticize the joke-teller for his offensive behavior; but still, on the COMPATIBILIST VIEW, the joke-telling might be funny even though it’s also offensive.
On another view– let’s call it INCOMPATIBILISM– if a particular joke-telling is offensive, then it can’t also be funny, since funniness is incompatible with offensiveness. Note that it’s perfectly coherent for an INCOMPATIBILIST to think that, though some particular joke-telling in some particular context is offensive and hence not funny, that very same joke-content would be funny (and hence not offensive) if it were told in a different manner or by someone else or in a different context. Do you think that the COMPATIBILIST or the INCOMPATIBILIST is right? Why?_____________________________________________________
That is the prompt (above). I would like to support the COMPATIBILIST view because that way I can add some of my thoughts to the paper.
It is not a page limit paper but a word limit. Therefore, I’ve selected 7 pages based on the word amount you guarantee.
This is for a Philosophy of Comedy class and is a final paper. So based on guidelines on how to write a philosophy paper, it has to be clear, needs to be concise but at the same time explain yourself fully.
One thing I mean by explain yourself fully is that, when you have a good point, you shouldn’t just toss it off in one sentence. Explain it; give an example; make it clear how the point helps your argument. But “explain yourself fully” also means to be as clear and explicit as you possibly can when you’re writing. Use plenty of examples and definitions. Pretend that your reader is lazy, stupid, and mean. He’s lazy in that he doesn’t want to figure out what your convoluted sentences are supposed to mean, and he doesn’t want to figure out what your argument is, if it’s not already obvious. He’s stupid, so you have to explain everything you say to him in simple, bite-sized pieces. And he’s mean, so he’s not going to read your paper charitably. (For example, if something you say admits of more than one interpretation, he’s going to assume you meant the less plausible thing.) If you understand the material you’re writing about, and if you aim your paper at such a reader, you’ll probably get an A.
The paper will be graded on three basic criteria:
How well do you understand the issues you’re writing about? (both points of view, Compatibilist and Incompatibilist, which I have never heard of until I read the prompt for this paper).
How good are the arguments you offer?
Is your writing clear and well-organized?
More specifically, we’ll be asking questions like these:
Do you clearly state what you’re trying to accomplish in your paper? Is it obvious to the reader what your main thesis is?
Do you offer supporting arguments for the claims you make? Is it obvious to the reader what these arguments are?
Is the structure of your paper clear? For instance, is it clear what parts of your paper are expository, and what parts are your own positive contribution?
***Is your prose simple, easy to read, and easy to understand?***
Do you illustrate your claims with good examples? Do you explain your central notions? Do you say exactly what you mean?
Do you present other philosophers’ views accurately and charitably?
Do not make the writing too fancy, simple is better.
You could also use sources like: theories of humor such as the superiority theory – Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Hobbes, Francis Hutcheson, Henri Bergson
**I will also upload some readings that you can use as sources.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.[order_calculator]