This paper has two objectives. By addressing its principle concern, the secondary concern can be considered and taken up and partially resolved for my immediate purposes. Firstly, the essay demonstrates the gulf between the analytic and continental approaches to philosophy in general. This divide is made evident by exploring Michael Clark’s understanding of humour and incongruity in his 1970 essay of that title. This essay attracted responses from Roger Scruton and Michael W. Martin, each taking issue with Clark’s interpretation in a different way. These divergences each indicate a different mode of access to the topic of humour, and in this regard, I specify the ways in which they can be seen as distinctively ‘analytic’ or ‘continental’. Through examining Clark’s thesis and its attendant antitheses, we are able to identify the process by which these two approaches can be mutually beneficial for settling certain issues.
The full podcast of Shelley's paper is here: http://www.bppa-online.org/sites/bppa-online.org/files/symposium/humour.mp3
A pdf version of Shelley's paper is here: http://www.bppa-online.org/sites/bppa-online.org/files/symposium/humour.pdf
See the comments for Roxanna Lynch's response.