He starts by saying that humour is essentially social. A landscape cannot be a source of laughter, and when humans make fun of animals, it is often because they recognize some human behaviour in them.
Hence the mind needs to break with fashion to revive and to note the comedy of the situation, not to create it, Bergson insists.
He says they are in fact acting in a mechanical way. It is the same with cartoonists, who exaggerate physical and natural features of people.
There is a really interesting point at which he says that humour must appeal to reason, and not the emotions. That is, I was expecting to be bored out of my mind.Now think of Falstaff. However, we tend to attribute these qualities to the body, we considerer it as flexible and ignore his resistance, its materiality. However, the comic is not only based upon unusual situations, but also upon characters and individuals. The social role of laughter Bergson now assumes that the comic requires the use of intelligence instead of sensibility, and he tries to determine what is the real role of intelligence in a comic situation. It is also available from Project Gutenberg. Think of Hamlet and three hundred years of psychological arguments about his endlessly complex character. Trying a different Web browser might help. It is their individuality that makes them tragic. Project Gutenberg believes the Court has no jurisdiction over the matter, but until the issue is resolved, it will comply.
His ambition is also to have a better knowledge of society, of the functioning of human imagination and of collective imagination, but also of art and life. Man is not only a being that can laugh, but also a being that is a source of laughter. Occasionally, the website mis-applies a block from a previous visitor.
This is why when we concentrate our attention on a particular gesture made by a speaker to better express his thinking, we automatically find it comic whereas this movement in itself is not comic.