| Popis: |
Autorka ispituje zašto su određenim piscima komedije, i uopšte onima koji se u svojim spisima služe humorom, ljubitelji mudrosti, jedna od omiljenih i lakih meta. Pored toga, ovaj ogled ima za cilj da pokaže da se stoici, interpretirajući smeh, delom nadovezuju i na Platonove uvide iz Države. Ispostavlja se kako ni Platon ni stoici nisu preterano naklonjeni smešnom, uprkos tome što se služe humorom u svojim delima. Filozofi, naime, prema Platonovom i stoičkom sudu, treba da budu dostojanstveni i iznad poroka. Osim toga, filozofi treba žive u skladu sa svojom filozofijom. Upitno je, međutim, da li filozofi mogu, i da li uspevaju sasvim (ako uopšte) da zadovolje ove kriterijume. Štaviše, doksografska tradicija, ali i drugi pisci, ubeđuju da to nije slučaj, tako što ukazuju na svojevrsni raskorak koji, makar iz njihove perspektive, postoji između teorijske pozicije koju filozofi zastupaju, i načina na koji oni žive. Taj raskorak, koji može da se razume i kao greška, podstiče, izaziva, stavlja u pitanje, a naposletku i (do)vodi do (pod)smeha. In this paper, the author examines why comedy writers, and in general those who use humor in their writings, perceive the philosophers as one of their favorite and easy targets. In addition, we aim to show that the Stoics partially follow Plato’s insights from the Republic in their interpretation of laughter. Neither Plato nor the Stoics have been overly fond of the funny or excessive laughter, even though they use humor and some of the characteristics of comedy in their works. According to Plato’s and the Stoic’ opinion, philosophers should be dignified and reluctant to vice. Moreover, the philosopher should live virtuously and follow their philosophy. However, it is questionable whether philosophers can and whether they succeed in meeting these criteria. The doxographical tradition, including the other writers, is convinced that this is not the case by pointing out a kind of discrepancy that, at least from their perspective, exists between the theoretical position that philosophers advocate and the way they live. This discrepancy can be understood as a mistake. However, this discrepancy could encourage, challenge, question, and ultimately lead to laughter. |
