April fool's jokes are interesting for philosophers of language.
Here are some conditions that an ideal April fool's joke meets:
1. The joke needs to be such that it becomes very clear from the context of April 1 that it must be a joke, i.e., implausible but not impossible ...
Here are some conditions that an ideal April fool's joke meets:
1. The joke needs to be such that it becomes very clear from the context of April 1 that it must be a joke, i.e., implausible but not impossible ...
So, e.g., "Magnus Carlsen has retired from chess" is wildly implausible. But not impossible. In the context of April 1, it becomes very clear it must be a joke.
2. The joke must not be nasty and hurt the victim
2. The joke must not be nasty and hurt the victim
It's also interesting to note how many different traditions there are. E.g., in Belgium it was customary to request something that was plainly impossible, such as a drinking bowl for fish, or the G-clef (clef and key is the same word in Dutch).
April Fool's jokes are also interesting from the perspective of social epistemology: imagine you had to be vigilant like this 365 days/year. I think it demonstrates a Reidian principle: we're usually fine to trust testimony, doing otherwise incurs significant costs.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
