No, Not That One

Although I agree with his name, Arthur Shopenhauer, described the idea of the Ludicrous without such a colorful example. Okay seriously, Shopenhauer builds on Incongruity theory by picking up where Kant left off. He leave the physical aspects of laughter alone and describes the difference between wit and ludicrous. In a nut shell the idea is that wit is more of an art form. To use wit is to be in control of the source of the humor. To intentionally set an expected ending to a story, for example. Where as the ludicrous man misses the mark unknowingly.

I have a perfect example of this from my own life. My daughter is in 4K this year and comes home with the craziest stories. The other day she told me about a boy at school who was chewing on his sandals. She said that the teachers told him to stop, but he wasn't really listening. I responded: Oh gross! You don't do that right. And she said: Of course not, I wasn't wearing sandals. I almost had to pull the car over, I was laughing so hard. So I quickly redirected that chewing on shoes is gross and will make you sick... But her wit is not yet fine, she stuck to her literally meaning. In this case my daughter was ludicrous, although I did laugh at her. So I guess I'll be sure to keep her in her Converse at school.