Abstract I defend the Ubiquity of Humor thesis (UH), according to which every situation admits of a perspective from which its humorous features become visible. I argue that humor, on any plausible theory, attaches to relational features present in every actual situation, and that the perspectives required to perceive them are always available. Accepting this explains why we speak of humor as something one has a “sense” for, why a good sense of humor is an aesthetic accomplishment, why funniness connects unstably to truth, and why the capacity we admire in those who find adversity funny is the one we condemn in those amused when they shouldn’t. Alternatives to UH either fail to account for these things or are otherwise flawed. I also address the most pressing objections, including that UH implausibly classifies horrific or mundane cases as funny and that its reasoning overgeneralizes to all aesthetic value.
Connor K. Kianpour (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: