How do they mix? it seems like the philosopher is always questioning why something is funny as opposed to the comedian who accepts reality for what it is and laughs at it. what is laughter and how does the philosopher define it. for if something is funny does it not quench a thirst for escapism from the tragic, mundane or controversial? the purest defense mechanism that connect people. the comedian can gather these connections and use them but the philosopher leans toward the subject matter of a joke rather than the escapism it brings for the comedian and the like.
George Carlin comes to mind. He told jokes about serious topics that made people laugh, while also making a philosophical point.
The philosopher takes a serious approach to answering the big questions life presents us with. Utilizing reason and rationality the mind as the experience giver relates all things to a conscious reality. The comedian, from what I understand, copes with these same big questions (Why are we here, where did we come from, what is the point to living life) yet takes a different approach at answering. Instead of serious inquiries the comedian battles depressing existence with seeking out laughter in others to remedy what cannot otherwise be solved. The deep mysteries that frighten most are the questions that every person must come to face at some point. The angle of how you take it, serious or not, determines the outlook of either the stoic philosopher or depressed comedian.
Bill Hicks. "Once again the powers of the herb open up the mind, seek deep inside and tell me what you find"
what about the masochist and the sadist? one of them lives off inflicting pain and the other lives off enduring pain. usually deemed an undesirable sensation both have learned to harness for what purpose? why is pain so crucial to some and completely avoided by most.
they dont derive pleasure from pain, they derive pleasure from the cessation of the pain being inflicted. but here you are bringing your own interpretation of the world around you; "it seems like the philosopher is always questioning why something is funny as opposed to the comedian who accepts reality for what it is and laughs at it." It is akin to saying if you are someone interested in philosophy you are not accepting of reality. Just because you explore a subject does not imply your strict adherence to a certain principle or guideline. isnt that only relative to your reality as you probably adhere to such a statement? you are giving your interpretation as to what a philosopher and a comedian is, your own expression of how you interpret the world. there are no barriers other from those imposed, why cant philosophy and comedy intertwine? do we not have something called the tragic comedy motif? i dont know how to expand on this currently
I think Shakespeare touched on what you are attempting to explain in his 7 plays. They all have elements of comedy and drama and mix the chaotic elements of interpersonal exchanges to drive out cultural conflicts and resolutions. The structural functionalism of plays underscores the pragmatic genius of such a playwright, drawing attention to the conflict theory of the time presented. Even though his works are centuries old, the symbolic interaction of using Shakespeare in any environment is still universally comprehended as a human triumph over the dramatic episodes life gives us.
Every wise spiritual person I have encountered, whether in their works or through their personality has had a great sense of humor about them. They tend to be humble, do not take themselves too seriously, and generally advise you to seek your own answers, instead of false teachers asking for your devotion/worship or money! Humor, wisdom and experience all go hand in hand. Realizing the absurd complexity of this existence makes it quite comical indeed to attempt to understand it completely, and instead let go of trying to 'know everything.' The humorous fool can learn more and live freer than the struggling, suffering scholar. Modern philosophy (and education/schooling in general) emphasizes too much on the intellect. One cannot realize or understand things through the mind only; in fact where is the mind? We can point to the brain but what about the mind? We learn by doing, and failing. Usually one fails at something until they start to grasp it. The fear of failure is ridiculous because we are almost guaranteed to fail, stumbling along as the learning process unfolds.