Watching Jacque Derrida try and interact with normal ass humans while growing more and more exasperated is still one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen.
nah i think this was an example of what he called an American question. Where they just expect you to just expound on a topic without doin any work on one's their end
I'm afraid I would watch endless re-runs of the worst episodes of Seinfeld before I ever sit down and torture myself with Derrida's garbled and pointless musings again, as I had to in college.
I feel like there was confusion between the traditional definition of 'deconstructing' (i.e. the breaking apart of an object or piece of media to investigate/analyse/satirise its constituent parts) and Derrida's deconstructive thought (i.e. the much broader theory of language/meaning as a decentralised relational system). Seinfeld is a deconstruction of the sitcom in one sense of the word, but wholly unrelated in the other. I think you can kinda see where the interviewer was coming from.
You say "much broader" to refer to the Derridean sense of "deconstruct," but I actually take his deconstruction to be a narrower application of the "traditional" definition of the term. He's also "breaking apart an object" to investigate it, but the only objects he cares about are texts imbued with the langauge of "traditional Western metaphysics"
@DaggerMan11 okay Derrida now we know you did it for Ulysses so can you do it for Seinfeld for all the Americans watching at home. We at the network that produces Seinfeld would really like it if you did that also so please philosophize!
It's really more the interviewer giving an interesting comment on Seinfeld, and Derrida responding more or less that he's never heard of it, and disparaging the idea of linking them lol
Obviously truncated. Pretty sure Derrida is just differentiating his philosophical method from the generalized and very popular usage of the word deconstruction, which is very very different from what Derrida was talking about. Notice Derrida’s not saying anything negative about sitcoms, which would be really out of character from his own thought, which was playful through and through, but rather trying to say if you want to understand what he means by ‘deconstruction’, actually do your homework. His concepts were widely misused and misrepresented (especially in America). And because of said misrepresentation, many people developed a derogatory caricature of Derrida and his ideas without cultivating an understanding of his influences or the lineage of philosophical thinkers against whom he establishes his thought.
inb4 wal of text. The truncated version is sufficient to understand why he responded as he did (adversarially I think would be a charitable description..). I would bet he interpreted the reporter as using Seinfeld as an example of deconstruction. Specifically, took issue with her 'putting forth' the claim that Seinfeld is a good example of his ideas using the attention to the significance of the details of the cupboard vs belief in god as an example of the show 'deconstructing' the minutia of life or being a jewish new yorker or whatever. So he is unimpressed with her implied, or at least posing a question with what he sees as an implied false definition of his views... most philosophers would be snappy at best. (like him) about that.
Derrida was among other things a philosophical jokester, a clown of sorts. You might even call him a "merry prankster." His saying, "Turn off the sitcom and do your homework" could be partly tongue-in-cheek. He would have appreciated this Seinfeld scene in any case: th-cam.com/video/BLXtHU_HGXs/w-d-xo.html (In French, 'dérider' is a verb meaning to cheer up or brighten up; 'ridērer' is Latin for laugh and 'deridēre' means to deride. In English we have 'deride', 'ridicule', and 'ridiculous'. Did Derrida regard his own name as a sign of his vocation as jester?)
I mean the do your homework seems to mean here "if you're going to interview a philosopher known for a particular concept, maybe read up a little bit on the guy instead of arriving with nothing except some pre-conception of his work you cooked in your head". Derrida was right, and tbh he could've taken it way more badly, exposing the interviewer with a snappy remark was awkward for the interviewer for sure, but I've seen people flatly walk out of interviews for stuff like this.
Would have preferred it if she’d shown him The Opposite and observed his reaction. Whether and where he laughed (or not) would tell me whether his perspective is valid or fraudulent.
the interviewer could have done a far better job of introducing the relevance of seinfeld television show. if she were to explain that it mocked and trivialized situation comedy while incorporating talmudic discussions about etiquette, this would have given derrida a couple of frameworks to lend his remarks to. if he had seen episodes of it, that would have helped immensely as well. i don't begrudge him for not watching television. i imagine it would have been an intolerable experience for an individual of his intellect.
Fair point, but I think it’s also important to point out that Seinfeld is not a bad show. Granted, Derrida’s life as a French intellectual probability made him see American TV as being lesser than himself. I get why he feels this way. But I don’t think he’s giving Seinfeld enough credit.
@@thejew1789 agreed--i am a huge fan of seinfeld and have studied derrida's work for a number of years; that television journalist blew a huge opportunity, as i see it.
@@somnambulanttilt I agree. Had she worded her question a bit better and assuming Derrida had seen a bit of Seinfeld, he could've given insight. Honestly, he probably hadn't seen much American TV and just assumed it to be rubbish from the little bit he had seen. And to be fair, American TV was mostly shit in those days. Seinfeld was the first show that was seriously good.
Deconstruction from where I'M standing doesn't produce anything other than chaos, misery and some interesting but ultimately worthless (on the level of viable societal structure) ideas.
Seinfeld deconsructed intellectual life. Why can't what you have in your cupboard be as important as questions about God? You can't eat God, yet food is real, and it's spectacular!
Watching Jacque Derrida try and interact with normal ass humans while growing more and more exasperated is still one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen.
He was the most dapper uber-nerd on the planet!
Can't even spell his name - OK, genius.
nah i think this was an example of what he called an American question. Where they just expect you to just expound on a topic without doin any work on one's their end
The visible look of disgust is perfect.
I'm afraid I would watch endless re-runs of the worst episodes of Seinfeld before I ever sit down and torture myself with Derrida's garbled and pointless musings again, as I had to in college.
I thought he was going to deconstruct the name: Seinfeld translates from German as "field of being." Derrida could have had fun with that.
wow
After a couple episodes of Seinfeld Derrida would be deconstructing his philosophy of deconstruction and discover he is Kramer’s doppelgänger.
I think she did an excellent job conceptualizing it for him.
These pretzels are making me thirsty.
i need someone to edit the sigma male music playing over derrida when he lays out the cold, hard truth
that would be hilarious
th-cam.com/video/4WWIfIKIODw/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
I feel like there was confusion between the traditional definition of 'deconstructing' (i.e. the breaking apart of an object or piece of media to investigate/analyse/satirise its constituent parts) and Derrida's deconstructive thought (i.e. the much broader theory of language/meaning as a decentralised relational system).
Seinfeld is a deconstruction of the sitcom in one sense of the word, but wholly unrelated in the other. I think you can kinda see where the interviewer was coming from.
You say "much broader" to refer to the Derridean sense of "deconstruct," but I actually take his deconstruction to be a narrower application of the "traditional" definition of the term. He's also "breaking apart an object" to investigate it, but the only objects he cares about are texts imbued with the langauge of "traditional Western metaphysics"
@DaggerMan11 okay Derrida now we know you did it for Ulysses so can you do it for Seinfeld for all the Americans watching at home. We at the network that produces Seinfeld would really like it if you did that also so please philosophize!
It's really more the interviewer giving an interesting comment on Seinfeld, and Derrida responding more or less that he's never heard of it, and disparaging the idea of linking them lol
*Insert laughtrack*
Insert slap bass jingle.
Obviously truncated. Pretty sure Derrida is just differentiating his philosophical method from the generalized and very popular usage of the word deconstruction, which is very very different from what Derrida was talking about. Notice Derrida’s not saying anything negative about sitcoms, which would be really out of character from his own thought, which was playful through and through, but rather trying to say if you want to understand what he means by ‘deconstruction’, actually do your homework. His concepts were widely misused and misrepresented (especially in America). And because of said misrepresentation, many people developed a derogatory caricature of Derrida and his ideas without cultivating an understanding of his influences or the lineage of philosophical thinkers against whom he establishes his thought.
inb4 wal of text. The truncated version is sufficient to understand why he responded as he did (adversarially I think would be a charitable description..). I would bet he interpreted the reporter as using Seinfeld as an example of deconstruction. Specifically, took issue with her 'putting forth' the claim that Seinfeld is a good example of his ideas using the attention to the significance of the details of the cupboard vs belief in god as an example of the show 'deconstructing' the minutia of life or being a jewish new yorker or whatever. So he is unimpressed with her implied, or at least posing a question with what he sees as an implied false definition of his views... most philosophers would be snappy at best. (like him) about that.
Derrida was among other things a philosophical jokester, a clown of sorts. You might even call him a "merry prankster." His saying, "Turn off the sitcom and do your homework" could be partly tongue-in-cheek. He would have appreciated this Seinfeld scene in any case:
th-cam.com/video/BLXtHU_HGXs/w-d-xo.html
(In French, 'dérider' is a verb meaning to cheer up or brighten up; 'ridērer' is Latin for laugh and 'deridēre' means to deride. In English we have 'deride', 'ridicule', and 'ridiculous'. Did Derrida regard his own name as a sign of his vocation as jester?)
I mean the do your homework seems to mean here "if you're going to interview a philosopher known for a particular concept, maybe read up a little bit on the guy instead of arriving with nothing except some pre-conception of his work you cooked in your head". Derrida was right, and tbh he could've taken it way more badly, exposing the interviewer with a snappy remark was awkward for the interviewer for sure, but I've seen people flatly walk out of interviews for stuff like this.
One of the best questions ever asked, got him fumbling
This situation gives me “Curb your enthusiasm” vibes rather than “Seinfeld”.
DJ play the piano song.
Larry David would profit anyway.
"Americans, your lack of Education is the joke of the world." Gore Vidal
Gore Vidal made light of male rape and was a p*do
Reporter: I have a real intelligent analysis regard Seinfeld to share with you.
Derrida: (feels IQ dropping points)
Deconstruction = Seinfeld
B-dew dew dew dew Bum badaa ba bum. bum. bum. badabada dew doop. Dananana!
Would have preferred it if she’d shown him The Opposite and observed his reaction. Whether and where he laughed (or not) would tell me whether his perspective is valid or fraudulent.
LOL in summary, "dont waste your time watching American sitcoms"
Heavy concepts
seinfeld's deconstruction = nike's reverse swoosh
I just realized... swoosh pronounced backwards is shoes.
People who read books are slow learners.
Mud sometimes gives the illusion of depth
Exactly what comes to mind when I read purposefully wankery from the likes of Derrida
I never knew he speak english
rekt
REKT indeed
….that really was a helluva
Thing when Spock died -
the interviewer could have done a far better job of introducing the relevance of seinfeld television show. if she were to explain that it mocked and trivialized situation comedy while incorporating talmudic discussions about etiquette, this would have given derrida a couple of frameworks to lend his remarks to. if he had seen episodes of it, that would have helped immensely as well. i don't begrudge him for not watching television. i imagine it would have been an intolerable experience for an individual of his intellect.
Fair point, but I think it’s also important to point out that Seinfeld is not a bad show. Granted, Derrida’s life as a French intellectual probability made him see American TV as being lesser than himself. I get why he feels this way. But I don’t think he’s giving Seinfeld enough credit.
@@thejew1789 agreed--i am a huge fan of seinfeld and have studied derrida's work for a number of years; that television journalist blew a huge opportunity, as i see it.
@@somnambulanttilt I agree. Had she worded her question a bit better and assuming Derrida had seen a bit of Seinfeld, he could've given insight. Honestly, he probably hadn't seen much American TV and just assumed it to be rubbish from the little bit he had seen. And to be fair, American TV was mostly shit in those days. Seinfeld was the first show that was seriously good.
lmao.
cue the music
Derrida also deconstructs the consequences of his own shit philosophy
what the actual fuck
"Stop watching shitcom..."
What a ridiculous and narcissistic question to a serious philosopher! Why did he put himself in such a ridiculous position?
Based
Deconstruction from where I'M standing doesn't produce anything other than chaos, misery and some interesting but ultimately worthless (on the level of viable societal structure) ideas.
Expected no less disconnect from the human condition in this humourless husk of a man called Derrida
(annoying Bass riff)
I heard Shitcom
Seinfeld deconsructed intellectual life. Why can't what you have in your cupboard be as important as questions about God? You can't eat God, yet food is real, and it's spectacular!
bloody hilarious, he's totally wrong of course!