What Is Comedy's Purpose?

Aristotle speculated about his poetics matters in his dissertation on satire, according to him. He based his viewpoint on the ancient comedy of komos. This was a strange and unusual festival where men sang to entertain the crowds. The songs were followed by rolling around and jumping around the depictions of the enormous phallus (Cuddon, 2012). Aristotle's theory included a wide range of humor, and if it is right, it gives "stand-up routine" a whole new definition. The linking of the comedy to the ancient phallic rituals and festivals seem both appropriate and plausible even if the theory is accurate or not. The idea is justified since comedy has greatly evolved from the period of Aristophanes to Seinfeld to a high sprinted celebration of the triumph of eros and human sexuality (Duckworth, 2015). According to Aristotle, he came up with the rule that tragedy occurs in a place of great hall or on the battlefield and a more likely setting for comedy is a bathroom or a bedroom.

According to Aristotle, he stated that for a film or literary work to qualify as a comedy, it need ti involve sexual humor or even be funny. At the end of it all, a happy ending is an essential thing that everyone expects from the films (Niccol, 2009). As a matter of fact, since the period of Aristotle, comedy has a basic formula that had to do with more conviction and expectations of plot and characters. This was placed in consideration that for the cartoonish or jokes of the lewd. The purpose of the comedy then was to create a rise in the fortune of a central character out of sympathy. From the view on the purpose of comedy, he did not mean that the comic hero must in a classic sense a spotless hero. However, he stated that the comedy should be that soiomethi8ngt that can win and take completely the attention of the audience and gets the required approval and support.

The purpose of comedy can only be achieved by the comic hero. For comedy to be for its real purpose and relevance. The comic hero should have all the requi54red minimal level of personal charm or character worth that it is needed (Jacubus, 2008). The comical relevance of comedy will have no meaning with the rise in a completely worthless triumph or a person. Comedy should represent the dark satire or the gothic fable. Judging from the Aristotle view of the comic heroes, they should be able to leave the audience with no trouble in any case when pulling for the fun loving scamp or the likable rogue. Simply, comedy achieves its function by the work and qualities of comic Heros.

The theory of Aristotle suggests that comedy should be average or below average when viewed regarding moral characters (Livingston and Plantinga, 2008). He then creates a comparison with the witty servant and the wily servant who were the ancient characters in comedy. He suggested that comedy should be ridiculous and therefore only the ignoble and low features can strike an individual sense of comedy. The ridiculous characters are therefore are self-important and pompous instead of being truly noble. Thus is despite them being well-born. He again stated that comedy is for the sympathetic comic figure who are from a poor background, the plucky underdogs of men and women (Freudenburg, 2014). The character use comedy to pro0ve their main worth in respect ti the natural mobility that they possess. The characters tend to use the comedy to create their relevance through the story and play that they perform.

Aristotle then has it that comedy has the traditional purpose of addressing concerns nd exploring the ordinary people in the community. With this theory, the comic actors then tend to be the middle or average class people in the society. Comedy in this case, therefore, tend to be plain. The figure involved in the comedy according to Aristotle are the farmers, teachers, students, butchers, parents and children among other low-class people in the tradition. Aristotle then brings the meaning of tragedy in this content. He stated that queens, kings, heroes, heads of states and plutocrats from the dramatic personae of tragedy. Comedy meant the ordinary phenomenon faced by the low-class people in the society. The problems are addressed accordingly but create they comic outlook (Hopfl, 2009). The best types of ordinary lives that turn into comedy are such as winning a boyfriend, passing the examination, coping with a bad day, getting a job among others. Based on this theory, Aristotle again argued that the true meaning of comedy is not laughter. He then brings a new view of comedy as a feeling of satisfaction when people see other disserving people succeed. The difference between comedy and tragedy is, therefore, that, comedy shows the rise and success of a low-class person while tragedy symbolizes a downfall of a prominent man evoking pity and fear.

Nietzsche Theory of Comedy and Tragedy

In the light of understanding the meaning of comedy, Nietzsche is a great philosopher who explained the ninth of comedy bringing it purpose. According to his theory, Nietzsche had a world view of anthropology and how he recognized and accepted his metaphysical solace of tragedy (Rosso, et al..2009). Nietzsche states his theory by bringing his pessimist character and how he seek relief from his past suffering and the fulfillment of his life best desire in the tragedies tragic action. From the concept displayed by Nietzsche, it is evident that he loved tragedy. He believed that understanding comedy as a result of someone facing a very serious strategy in life when trying to achieve something worth. The moment one achieve something that is of value in life, despite the tragedy faced, it will result into comedy at the end of it all. Nietzsche argued that one must associate with tragedy to know the relevance of a comedy (Snyder, 2015). According to him, comedy is a relief on one personal conscience after going through a tough situation.

The love of tragedy as understood by Nietzsche makes him to end up in conflict with comedy. He developed a belief that tragedy is of many privileges in the life of human beings and it is the highest form of the treatise (Pecks, 2012). He classified comedy as a just one form of Attic comedy. Nietzsche argued that comedy can only rise as a result of the suicide of Attic Tragedy During the Hellenic world. According to him, art died by the death of Tragedy and poetry also lost its meaning away with the tragedy. The death of tragedy leads to the rise of epigones that are surviving on the left crumbs of the tragedy. Therefore, comedy has no meaning without the involvement of comedy. The argument continues that, the whole body of comedy is entirely a tragedy that once occurred but the situation has ended bringing relief to those who were involved.

Nietzsche explains that all those who Are behind comedy are the people who once faced the tragedy in some part of their life (Walton, 2015). When narrating the tragedy to the audience, it will not bring pity or fear but rather a happiness and joy full emotion. The reason for this is because the individual involved in the tragedy have already evolved and are now safe from perishing. The comedy that arises here is that people are now happy to see others come out of the tragedy successfully. The struggles that are undergone during the tragedy creates laughter and comic imaginations.

Nietzsche relates comedy to the writing of the Euripides. A spectator was brought on stage to show hi tragedies. This was viewed as of disastrous nature. The presentation was about the great and bold which on both the man smoothed over them and adopted the hope of that created a gateway over events beyond the life limits (Watson, 2015). The presentation was absorbed by the Dionysian chorus that was absorbed by the audience in its Apollonian drama and music that gave a releasing effect on the enthusiasm. Even though tragedy offered a belief in the immorality and ideal future, the presentation came up with Euripidean influence that made it sound a total mediocrity to the audience. The presenter on the stage was only brought as a common man who symbolized a painful true life during the tragedy. But no longer did the pain last on the presence of an audience that the effect of the drama uplifted and comforted the audience. At this point, the drama was no longer a common man but rather a subject that could also be judged by uneducated masses due to creativity that was involved.

Nietzsche used the death struggle tragedy to introduce a new farm of laughter. The comic nature of the theory is described with the extent by which the narrator addresses the issue. According to him, comedy is totally a justification to a successful passage from tragedy to the free world. Before creating the comic nature of the tragedy, the real life situation of pain should be generated in the tragedy to take the attention of the audience (Roche, 2007). An immediate turn of event to bring the tragedy into laughter should then follow to bring the comfort to the audience. At this stage, the relief of the past occurrence of the tragedy will not be a pain no more but a laughter (Karnick, and Jenkins, 2013). The straggles involved In overcoming the tragedy and the life lived during the tragedy are created in the life of the audience in the form of a comic. The purpose of comedy in this state is to provide relief to the audience. The audience is made to believe that tragedy can be overcome and that they are expected to live positively and forget about the past.

Hegel’s Theory of Comedy and Tragedy

Next to the Aristotle theory and account on the tragedy, here it is a German philosopher who borrowed the concept. Hegel gave an example of a hero who can courageously assert just a substantial position (Kline, 2013). But during the process, he may violate a contrary just position and ends up becoming a prey on the one side of the two just positions. This situation can be judged by guilt or greatness. Tragedy surfaces the argument by Hegel about the purpose of comedy. He raises the argument about comedy in his book of phenomenology of mind. Also, his lecture on philosophy and Aesthetic are arguable his three major works on comedy.

According to Hegel, tragedy is viewed into two perspectives. The ethical contexts and the unethical context (Stott, 2014). The tragedy occurs in both the sides and individual are then expected to act according to the perception they have on the tragedy. The theory of aesthetic literature aimed at creating positive cognition in the human brains. Different people will view a tragedy in different forms according to the psychology in their mid. The moral part of the tragedy is therefore the main part of the comedy. Individual will develop a positive mind according to the morality that is associated with tragedy (Blici, 2010). The morality is what creates an aesthetic environment in the minds of the Audience and this viewing it as a comedy.

Hegel put is that tragedy is the mother of comedy. The uncalled for things that happen in the life of people creates different impacts. Tragedy must not only create pity and fear. Hegel argues that, there are ethical components of tragedy that are positively welcomes by people. For instance, Hero may defend one community by being just and violates the principle of another community which believes in a different principle and policies (McGraw and Warren, 2010). This is a complete tragedy. The theoretical components in it are being just. Acting this dram, the perception of the audience will be different according to how they will view the circumstances. The ethical part will create the interesting part of the drama while the unethical part of being unjust to other community will create fear and pity. At this point tragedy has created comedy and pity at the same time.

Hegel theory was just a summary of what had been done by Aristotle but now in the broader perspective. He wanted to argue that tragedy does not only create fear and pity bit also that it is a part of comedy. Aristotle viewed fall of a hero or heroin as a tragedy. Hegel views it in the context of aesthetic and ethical concepts. The act of the hero has both positive implication on one side and negative impact on the other side (McGraw and Warren, 2010). Therefore, to understand the fear and pity in that is created in the minds of an individual, the tragedy needs to be analyzed. The positivity of the tragedy creates an interesting part of the tragedy that when presented results in comedy. The negative side result to fear and pity. Therefore the purpose of comedy in this context in to change the perception of people towards the view of tragedy. Hegel brings the positive and negative side of tragedy inform of comedy to change the perception of people that is focused in one direction of fear and pity. The laughter created by the ethical part of the tragedy changes the complete perception of the individual making them view tragedy as positive. This is the context of aesthetic according to the literature of Hegel.

Comparing and Contrasting the Theories

According to the contexts discuss in this theories. It is evident that tragedy is the main cause of comedy. Both the Hegel and Nietzsche argues that the death of tragedy is what leads to the birth of comedy. It comes in to bury the pity, fear and negative emotions that one when through. However, Aristotle brought in a different perception in the discussion of tragedy. He argued that tragedy can only be a comedy when the person being viewed a s a hero was a bad character in the society (Ferguson and Ford, 2008). He argued that people will be happy when a person of bad morals perish in the society. However, However, he id not classify this as a comedy. Therefore, the perception of the Aristotle and that of Hegel and Nietzsche different in the view of tragedy. He argued that tragedy causes fear and pity. On the same time, Hegel and Nietzsche argued that tragedy is the mother of comedy.

The view of tragedy also differs to some extent according to the view of Hegel and Nietzsche. The disparity comes regarding morals and ethic of the tragedy. According to Nietzsche, any tragedy has the potential of creating a comic effect in the minds of people (Comford, 2011). He argued that, provided one faces a tragedy and comes out of it successfully, then the narration of the tragedy is an automatic relief to the audience and a sign of laughter. On the other hand, Hegel claims that the ethical part of the tragedy is essential. In his discussion of ethics, he stated that the perception of the positive moral from the tragedy is what create laughter. The negativity from the tragedy only creates pity and fear.

Aristotle theory again contradicts that of Hegel and Nietzsche in the context of comic heroes. According to Aristotle, the comic characters are the ordinary people in the society who want to address their miserable lives in the form of comedy (Ferguson and Ford, 2008). On the other Hand, Hegel and Nietzsche bring the general group of people who have undergone tragedy as the heroes of comedy. Aristotle states that queens, states official, heroes, and kings can only create tragedy and not a comedy. On the contrary, Hegel and Nietzsche create comedy in the tragedy faced by these heroes.

Critic of the Theories

Aristotle placed his argument that the characters involved in the comedy are commonly the less fortunate people who want to express their painful life story. This is a being perception of comedy. Anything that can relieve a person is a comic act. Comedy is based on talent and imagination (Karnick and Jenkins, 2013). Anyone can come up with an imagined occurrence that he or his thinks can make people life and that will be a comic drama. It is not necessarily that the characters involved in the comedy be from poor and miserable background to give the comedy its meaning. In the modern world, even when the rich can narrate their wealthy lifestyle and bragging nature and turn it into comedy. Comedy is diverse and involves characters from all background (Karnick and Jenkins, 2013). The main provision is that one should have the ability ton create laughter in his imagined cat or real acts, then the pay graduates to comedy. The drams must not be in reality to show the relevance of comedy.

According to Nietzsche, a tragedy must die in order for comedy to be born. The assumption is not relevant in the modern world. Comedy is creation. The fact that comedy needed to relieve people from tragedy, the tragedy must not necessarily happen in order to make the comedy relevant (Roche, 2007). The comic characters cab create imagination that can create a picture in the minds of the audience. The laughter from the nation will be effective in sending the message whether the. The modern comedy is not all about the tragedy but laughter. The comic actors have the ability to create a tragedy in the minds of people that will subject them to fear and certainly create laughter to relieve them (Blici, 2010). The tragedy occurring must not only be happening to heroes and heroines but even to the ordinary people in the society. Provided the tragedy can create laughter and comfort to the audience, then it qualifies to be a comedy regardless of the tragedy the individuals involved in the tragedy.

Hegel view on comedy critiques the Aristotle theory to not only see the tragedy as that of pity and fear but also to see the positive side of the tragedy when making a comedy. In the modern world, critique should not only be in the form of negative tragedy. According to Hegel, the negative tragedy is viewed regarding negativity and positive sides to differentiate laughter and pity (Duckworth, 2015). However, it is right to believe that even positive events lead to comedy. For instance, if one goes to a war and wins when narrating the occurrences and the severe practices that he or she underwent when preparing for the war can be made into a comedy. It does not demand that the tragedy have a negative and positive sides of happening (Niccol, 2009). The humor can be creatively generated from nay occurrence. Comedy is about creativity and not all of occurrence of events.





Bibliography

Cuddon, J.A., 2012. Dictionary of literary terms and literary theory. John Wiley & Sons.

Duckworth, G.E., 2015. Nature of Roman comedy: A study in popular entertainment. Princeton University Press.

Nicoll, M.A., 2009. An introduction to dramatic theory. BiblioBazaar, LLC.

Jacobus, L.A., 2008. The Bedford introduction to drama. Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press.

Livingston, P. and Plantinga, C. eds., 2008. The Routledge companion to philosophy and film. Routledge.

Rosso, O.A., Craig, H. and Moscato, P., 2009. Shakespeare and other English Renaissance authors as characterized by Information Theory complexity quantifiers. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 388(6), pp.916-926.

Snyder, J., 2015. Prospects of power: Tragedy, satire, the essay, and the theory of genre. University Press of Kentucky.

Freudenburg, K., 2014. The walking muse: Horace on the theory of satire. Princeton University Press.

Hopfl, H., 2007. Humour and violation. Humour, work and organization, pp.33-45.

Perks, L.G., 2012. The ancient roots of humor theory. Humor, 25(2), pp.119-132.

Walton, J.M., 2015. The Greek Sense of Theatre: Tragedy and Comedy. Routledge.

Watson, C., 2015. A sociologist walks into a bar (and other academic challenges): Towards a methodology of humour. Sociology, 49(3), pp.407-421.

Karnick, K.B. and Jenkins, H. eds., 2013. Classical Hollywood Comedy. Routledge.

Roche, M.W., 2007. Introduction to Hegel's Theory of tragedy. PhaenEx, 1(2), pp.11-20.

Bilici, M., 2010. Muslim ethnic comedy: Inversions of Islamophobia. Islamophobia/Islamophilia: Beyond the politics of enemy and friend, pp.195-208.

Stott, A., 2014. Comedy. Routledge.

McGraw, A.P. and Warren, C., 2010. Benign violations: Making immoral behavior funny. Psychological Science, 21(8), pp.1141-1149.

Ferguson, M.A. and Ford, T.E., 2008. Disparagement humor: A theoretical and empirical review of psychoanalytic, superiority, and social identity theories. Humor-International Journal of Humor Research, 21(3), pp.283-312.

Kline, P., 2013. The psychoanalytic theory of humour and laughter. It's a funny thing, humour, pp.7-12.

Cornford, F.M., 2011. The origin of Attic comedy. Cambridge University Press.







Deadline is approaching?

Wait no more. Let us write you an essay from scratch

Receive Paper In 3 Hours
Calculate the Price
275 words
First order 15%
Total Price:
$38.07 $38.07
Calculating ellipsis
Hire an expert
This discount is valid only for orders of new customer and with the total more than 25$
This sample could have been used by your fellow student... Get your own unique essay on any topic and submit it by the deadline.

Find Out the Cost of Your Paper

Get Price