What's the definition of comedy?
喜剧的定义是什么？
Thinkers and philosophers from Plato and Aristotle to Hobbes, Freud, and beyond,
从柏拉图、亚里士多德到霍布斯、佛洛伊德等等无数的哲学家、思想家，
including anyone misguided enough to try to explain a joke, have pondered it, and no one has settled it.
包括那些被误导而试图解释一则笑话的人，都思考过这个问题，但却没有人能替喜剧下定义。
You're lucky you found this video to sort it out.
幸运的是，本视频会帮你解决这个问题。
To define comedy, you should first ask why it seems comedy defies definition. The answer's simple.
要给喜剧下定义，你首先得知道为什么“喜剧”很难被定义？答案很简单。
Comedy is the defiance of definition because definitions sometimes need defiance. Consider definition itself.
喜剧是对定义的挑战，因为定义有时候恰恰是需要被挑战。思考一下“定义”一词本身。
When we define, we use language to set borders around a thing that we've perceived in the whirling chaos of existence.
当我们下定义的时候，我们通常用语言去给一个事物定下边界，使得它脱离一团糟的存在涡流。
We say what the thing means and fit that in a system of meanings. Chaos becomes cosmos.
我们说这个事物指的是什么，然后将它归到所属含义的范畴内。一团糟的存在由此变得秩序井然。
The universe is translated into a cosmological construct of knowledge.
整个宇宙都已被定义纳入一个宏观宇宙级别的知识框架当中。
And let's be honest, we need some logical cosmic order, otherwise we'd have pure chaos.
坦率来讲，我们需要建构一个宇宙论级别的逻辑秩序，否则我们将陷入完全的混乱。
Chaos can be rough, so we build a thing that we call reality.
混乱可能很糟糕，所以我们建立了一个叫现实的秩序。
Now think about logic and logos, that tight knot connecting a word and truth.
接着我们来思考一下逻辑和理性，正是它们使得词语和真实紧密结合。
And let's jump back to thinking about what's funny, because some people say it's real simple: truth is funny.
让我们回过头来，思考一下什么是滑稽，因为有人认为滑稽其实非常简单：真实很滑稽。
It's funny because it's true. But that's simplistic.
它的滑稽之处就在于它的真实。但这把复杂问题简单化了。
Plenty of lies are funny. Comedic fiction can be funny.
因为很多谎言可以是滑稽的。喜剧作品可以是滑稽的。
Made-up nonsense jibberish is frequently hilarious.
毫无意义的胡言乱语也同样经常逗人发笑。
For instance, florp -- hysterical! And plenty of truths aren't funny.
例如，florp--歇斯底里！而且很多真实也并不滑稽。
Two plus two truly equals four, but I'm not laughing just because that's the case.
二加二等于四，但我不觉好笑，因为事情本来就是这样。
You can tell a true anecdote, but your date may not laugh.
你可以说一个真实的趣闻轶事，但你的约会对象可能不会笑。
So, why are some untruths and only some truths funny?
所以，为什么只有一些谎言和一些真话好笑？
How do these laughable truths and untruths relate to that capital-T Truth, the cosmological reality of facts and definitions?
这些好笑的事实和谎言，是如何和那个真理(Truth，大写T)，也就是事实与定义的宇宙现实相关呢？
And what makes any of them funny?
是什么使得某些话那么好笑呢？
There's a Frenchman who can help, another thinker who didn't define comedy because he expressly didn't want to.
有一位法国人可以帮忙回答，他是一位没去定义喜剧的思想家，因为他明确表示不愿意这样做。
Henri Bergson's a French philosopher who prefaced his essay on laughter
亨利·博格森是位法国哲学家，他用笑话为他的文章开头，
by saying he wouldn't define 'the comic' because it's a living thing.
称他不会去定义喜剧，因为喜剧本身就是一个活着的实体。

He argued laughter has a social function to destroy mechanical inelasticity in people's attitudes and behavior.
他认为笑话具有社会性功能，它能摧毁那些机械化的僵硬，这些僵硬体现在人们的态度和行为中。
Someone doing the same thing over and over, or building up a false image of themself and the world,
有人反复做同样的事情，或树立自己及世界的虚假形象，
or not adapting to reality by just noticing the banana peel on the ground -- this is automatism,
或是不能顺应现实，而只注意地面上的香蕉皮--这就是一种机械化行为，
ignorance of one's own mindless rigidity, and it's dangerous but also laughable and comic ridicule helps correct it.
即对自己这种无意识的僵化一无所知，这很危险，但也很可笑，而喜剧的滑稽有助于纠正这种行为。
The comic is a kinetic, vital force, or elan vital, that helps us adapt.
喜剧是种生动且重要的力量，或者说是一种跃动的生命力，可以帮我们去适应。
Bergson elaborates on this idea to study what's funny about all sorts of things. But let's stay on this.
博格森详述了这一观念，以研究各种各样事物的滑稽之处在哪里。但我们目前知道这些就够了。
At the base of this concept of comedy is contradiction between vital, adaptive humanity and dehumanized automatism.
我们知道喜剧的这一概念建立在矛盾之上，即活力四射、适应力强的人性和非人性的机械化之间的矛盾。
A set system that claims to define reality might be one of those dehumanizing forces that comedy tends to destroy.
一个对现实下定义的系统，或许就属于这样一种非人性的力量，而这正是喜剧力图摧毁的。
Now, let's go back to Aristotle.
现在，让我们回到亚里士多德。
Not Poetics, where he drops a few thoughts on comedy, no, Metaphysics,
《诗学》中他的确对喜剧有一些思考，但《形而上学》才是我们关注的重点，
the fundamental law of non-contradiction, the bedrock of logic.
它阐述了不矛盾律的基本法则，即逻辑的根基。
Contradictory statements are not at the same time true.
两个相互矛盾的陈述绝不可能同时为真。
If A is an axiomatic statement, it can't be the case that A and the opposite of A are both true.
如果A是不证自明的公理，那么就不可能出现A和其相反叙述同时为真的这一情况。
Comedy seems to live here, to subsist on the illogic of logical contradiction and its derivatives.
喜剧似乎就存在于此，即以逻辑矛盾与其衍生物的非逻辑概念生存。
We laugh when the order we project on the world is disrupted and disproven,
当我们投射于世界的秩序被摧毁、被推翻时，我们放声大笑，
like when the way we all act contradicts truths we don't like talking about,
就像我们的一切行为模式与我们不喜欢谈论的事实抵触时，
or when strange observations we all make in the silent darkness of private thought are dragged into public by a good stand-up,
或者我们会在一片人人沉思的寂静黑暗中奇怪的观察到，被一个独自表演的喜剧演员请到公众眼前，
and when cats play piano, because cats that are also somehow humans disrupt our reality.
还有当猫弹钢琴时，因为某种程度上猫也具有人性，摧毁我们的现实。
So, we don't just laugh at truth, we laugh at the pleasurable, edifying revelation of flaws, incongruities, overlaps,
所以，我们不只是嘲笑真理，我们同样嘲笑那些令人愉快且有启发性的种种瑕疵、不一致、重复、
and outright conflicts in the supposedly ordered system of truths we use to define the world and ourselves.
彻底的冲突，这些都发生在公认有序的真实体系中，这种秩序定义了世界和我们自身。
When we think too highly of our thinking, when we think things are true just because we all say they're logos and stop adapting,
当我们对自己的思考期许太高，当我们认为事情属实时，只因为我们都说他们是理性而停止适应，
we become the butt of jokes played on us by that wacky little trickster, chaos.
我们就会因此成了被戏弄的笑柄，被混乱这一古灵精怪的骗子所嘲弄。
Comedy conveys that destructive, instructive playfulness,
喜剧传达的是具破坏性、有启发性的趣味，
but has no logical definition because it acts upon our logic paralogically from outside its finite borders.
但这没有一个合逻辑的定义，因为它作弄于逻辑之上，它颠三倒四，超越了定义营造的有限界限。
Far from having a definite definition, it has an infinite infinition.
喜剧并没有一个明确、有限的定义，因为它的定义是模糊、无限的。
And the infinition of comedy is that anything can be mined for comedy.
喜剧的无限就在于任何事物都可以成为喜剧的题材。
Thus, all definitions of reality, especially those that claim to be universal, logical, cosmic, capital-T Truth become laughable.
因此，所有现实中的定义，尤其是那些被宣称是普世性的、合乎逻辑的、宇宙级的、一切真实中最真实的，都变得可笑。