He actually has a point. When in knowledge about something (or not even being in knowledge but having accumulated a lot in a certain area of thought), it is always funny when those who have not done so, the uninitiated, imagine that you can just give them the gist of it in half a sentence.People are too accustumed to getting answers. I say it's because the journalist level of popular sicence what answers any question in headlines. Who cares if it is not true, it' s an answer.
@HubertTheBeardless However anyone wants to frame this, it's still a repetitious appeal to a fascist one-sided discussion. The fact is that this video clearly shows that he does not like losing control of the narrative and prefers to bunker down into the hidden cave-like nook of an authoritarian platform where his obscurities can flourish like weeds. There is no excuse for this, except cult-like admiration.
Wow this guy is completely insane. I remember reading some of his work in university and I thought to myself "wow, this is so cool . . . so modern art". Now that I see him explain his ridiculous opinions I laugh. This man is no different than a rambling piss soaked street corner vagrant. But the quackademics and pseudo-intellectuals LOVE it and pay 50,000 dollars a pop to "study" this tripe. Gawd!
Derridouche simply held a bigoted view of America, the stereotypical "French" view to be sure, though if he had bothered to take a good look around him he would soon have realized that America has never had any monopoly over utilitarian louts and anti-intellectuals.
He could also ... do not give an interview... but then all those poor American "intellectuals" would have an item less to buy on amazon.... blolololol.
I mean postmodernist is a pile of bullshit in a blender, and american culture is a plain pile of bullshit, so somehow they go along...
when someone come into my house suddenly and say anythings, I would suppose he knock on the door, introducing himself, first then he can say the what can I help him ... :)
@NiHuWi He is an Expert Troll Derrida, as well as as one of the only noteworthy French philosophers ever. The fact is that he can be so well known and respected in some literature groups, and yet troll like an anonymous genius, shows that even "seriously" important people can act as jesters. It is far better than arrogance.
Derrida should be glad he died before having the chance to see the hideous mass of intellectual troglodytes and posers claiming to either praise or bury him gathered here.
As an American I know this phenomenon very well, it's called intellectual laziness. Instead of honoring the mind of the giant before you with a bangin' question and subsequent dialog, you ask him to poop out all of his knowledge on call. WTF. Do everyone a favor: do some thinking, formulate a question, and put it to him. She was asking him for a Deconstruction-in-60-seconds. Instead, think about how one might consider you, should you be like: deconstruction, GO!
@xiuxiu12 I don't have the slightest idea how this video or your comment clarified why it is "lazy" or "American" to give a professor a topic and ask them to speak about it. In fact, if this actually is American, and I don't think that questioning blatant obscurity is exclusively American in any way, it's not lazy...it's an attempt to effectively communicate. It's a mutual exchange. What you and Derrida seem to be arguing for is a one-sided cult-like fascist conversation. Fuck that.
@kiittenwolf I suppose the point is that a "mutual" exchange can't happen if you're not at least somewhat familiar with the arguments and the major points at stake. Asking a philosopher to explain their "famous" theoretical stance in such a short time is, I think, on one hand very utilitarian from a pedagogical standpoint, but also it undervalues the problems inherent in a quick summation. A quick summation, among other things is something which Derrida's philosophy actively questions.
@xiuxiu12 He was literally criticizing the process of 'elaboration', and he even said this in English. The only possible way what you are saying could be true is if he did not know what he was saying in English and meant 'summarize'. Honestly, if he had said summarized I would be in complete agreement with you, but he didn't. He said 'elaborate' which connotes clarification not summary. So he seems to be criticizing the social dynamic of being interrogated in my opinion.
@kiittenwolf I can see the issue of Derrida-worship. Derrida's appearance attracts all kinds of ignoramuses(i?), but I don't think at its core it is something fascistic or dishonest or manipulative. It is a kind of philosophy that takes in account its ethical standpoint (that of doing), and questions through action. Of course, some people might say that this is in effect, doing nothing. But Derrida is not the only philosopher from whom I get enjoyment.
@xiuxiu12 I've read practically everything by Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Foucault and although they were difficult to understand I got it and learned from it all. With Derrida I find just a lot of fluff which never really adds up to anything except what appears to be a philosophical cargo-cult. It seems to me that wherever I see depraved and utterly preposterous claims they have intellectual roots with Derrida. His philosophy is just shady.
Derrida obviously is trying to say that philosophy is more of a discussion through which the arguments are formed rather than a ready made discourse...
@GnomesAmok Why? Why hate a genius with a good soul? Is deconstruction troubling and irritating at times? Sure...but come one; he's done more good than harm.
She was on her back, all comfy on the bed, and her knees were bent as she rested her feet on the mattress. She made herself really comfortable. I crawled up between her knees, and slid my pickle into her wet, smooth cunt hole. There was this 'shlurp' sound as it went in.
It felt good, like "aaaahhhhhh....."
Then I pumped my Johnson in and out of her Love Canal until I blasted cum on her cervix.
@hjgfweuryfgwuyegfuyw come to think about it... it is thanks to people like you that Charlatans like Derrida make their living. Maybe you are the one who should go away, so that everyone could be rid of the likes of Derrida. no offense...
@jyozeff I understand you mate. As William Blake says:" The tree that the wise and fool see is not same". Just people like you and people like Derrida. That's why I dont blame you
Pause and look at his face at 0:03. That is the face of someone who's trying to give the impression of incredibly deep thought. It's not just his work, it's the entire persona. It is one great package supposed to give the appearance of profoundness.
@zanderstuud Instead of analyzing people's facial expressions for evidence a grand plot against you, you could pay attention to what they say. Strange idea, I know, but try it.
Nice straw man, that thing about the plot. Amazing insight too, how you deducted from one youtube comment that someone has never read Derrida. Although next time stay ontopic and try to attack someone's point head on, okay?.
I'm not the first person suggesting that Derrida might be a bit of a fraud. If you won't take it from me, and you don't have to since I'm just some nobody, I suggest you look into those other people.
@zanderstuud What Derrida says in this video is so straightforward a child could understand it. He's debunking the whole idea of an "deep thinker" ready to comment on anything and everything. So to choose this video to rant that he's putting on some "deep thought persona" is ironic.
Nice evade, once again. Although by doing it you just flat out admitted what has always been my point to begin with. Most things the guy says can be understood by a child, yet most of the time it is hidden beneath an amazingly dizzying obscure jargon filled language that just isn't necessary, EVEN when you consider his philosophical position, which, when you get down to it, isn't as difficult as he tries to make it seem.
@zanderstuud here's one quick remark about what u wrote here without reading what u posted before: derrida has no 'philosophical position', and if you still wanted to force one on him, and you'd definitely have to use force in order to do that, he would, if he could, probably ask you something like: what is a 'philosophical position'? is it where you stand, how you stand, what you stand under...? Or perhaps you could be lying (Nietzsche talks about 'lying in judgment')? Or maybe even stooping?..
If he, or you for that matter claims to "have no philosophical position", that in itself is a philosophical position whether you like it or not. "Having no position" is a position intentionally designed to be able to criticise everyone else while easily evading criticism from the outside.
@jxhensley Neither him nor foucault are against deep thinking. What they were against is "the intellectual" who is able to speak on behalf of the people and ready to..
..comment on any subject. The irony though is that even when you watch just a few of his youtube video's, he turns out to be commenting on anything and everything. Atheism, the economy, animals, legal matters. Any subject that's handed to him, he's got something to say about it.
Hmm, i don't know whether or not derrida has ever claimed to have or hold any 'philosophical position', but what i tried to say is that he would probably not so easily take up, or understand, or affirm this language of 'philosophical claims' and 'positions'. And it was you in the end who made a comment about 'his philosophical position', and hence it was you who in a way were trying to force this particular language onto him. And so i would....
When I first said "philosophical position", I thought I was using these two words to refer to Derrida's way of philosophizing and the claims that he makes, if not explicitly, then surely implicitly through his method. That is what we might call a philosophical position. And indeed it would come as no surprise that Derrida would contest such a thing, because if one has a position, then arguments can be made against that position. If one has none, then you are in the fortunate..
@zanderstuud ...And also, from what i've heard, derrida never called himself a philosopher; and so, as a non-philosopher would he be able to produce or claim philosophical positions? (this relates back to the question of what a philosophical position really is). And even if you answer Yes to this, isn't it still you who would in the end have to actually read these philosophical positions into his speech?
Surely you must be clowning around. Are you trying to suggest that if I never claim to be human, I would not be classified human, even when all evidence suggests that I am in fact, human?
Weak arguments aside, he has referred to himself as a philosopher just about as much as any other philosopher has. Have you actually been reading much of his papers?
It is disingenuous of him to say he does not know how to say "please elaborate" in French. "Pourriez-vous developper ce point?" is pretty current usage in my experience. This suggests his American vs French comparison is a red herring, an attempt to justify in cultural terms his dislike of direct scrutiny ... perhaps (if I might elaborate) because his own ideas would not survive such scrutiny.
I find the French absolutely enamored with the possibility of what American Culture could have become, but failed to become. Why else would they hate us so much? They'd like us to be more alike to them, they want desperately to like us. They are frustrated lovers, spurned by an oaf.
It is also possible that most Journalists in America believe most Americans especially the intelligentsia are conversant with popular culture and society and would have the pulse on what people want to know about in regards to their specialty of knowledge.
Ignoring for a moment his postmodernist roots, his point is obvious. The American attitude is at times overbearing, assumptive, manipulative. However, as Derrida subtly claims, there is curiosity and a willingness to (somewhat naively) inquire when at all possibly.
I go to an American university, and let me tell you, we would line up for this guy's office hours.
also, he basically spends 3 minutes saying absolutely nothing. fuck postmodernism, poststructualism, derrida, foccault, and the like. google "the sokal affair" and be enlightened.
@brothamouzoune the Sokal Affair is a refuge for those too lazy and stupid to understand what Derrida, Foucault, ... etc, are saying. Sokal's serious writing on the Hoax is worst than his attempt at humor. Furthermore, the journal Social Text is a Marxist project; not "postmodern". So what exactly did Sokal prove? That Marxists don't know their ass from their elbow?
@leolasi He proved that Postmodern philosophers couch their language with impenetrable style because the underlying concepts are really quite pedestrian. Derrida is a massive waste of time.
@brothamouzoune How? Sokal doesn't even make that claim, in 'What the Social Text Affair Does and Does Not Prove' Sokal says, "It proves only that the editors of one rather marginal journal were derelict in their intellectual duty". He also says, "Some of my over-enthusiastic supporters have claimed too much." I guess you must be one of Sokal's over-enthusiastic groupies. LoL!
@leolasi No he doesn't make that claim, but it's implicit in the fact that a leading PoMo journal would accept such faulty and vacuous language. I'm extrapolating from the Sokal affair that PoMo is just a bunch of bullshit...which it is. Maybe interesting for a college course...but for it to be the largest philosophical school in Academia today...well that's just a sad joke.
@brothamouzoune I cited the article in which Sokal said "It proves only that the editors of one rather marginal journal were derelict in their intellectual duty". So your denial is a fail. Also, Social Text and "cultural studies" is Marxist orientated. No extrapolation can be made. Sokal admitted, "I wasn't trying to summarize the editors' views, but merely to test whether the bald assertion (without evidence or argument) of such an extreme thesis would raise any eyebrows among them."
@leolasi What Sokal proved was that some 'postmodern' thinkers (especially Kristeva, Lacan) don't know what they are talking about. First of all, they take quantum physics and other theories belonging to the world of natural sciences and translate them into the world of social sciences without giving the sound reason for the justifiability of such an operation. Secondly, they don't understand these physical theories. Why do critical thinkers get so upset when they become the subject
i started looking into this guy and he doesn't impress me much. maybe i need to read stuff but it sounds like a lot of the stuff he talks about i chat about with my friends just about all the time. this other video he talks about love and loving the thing that is loved or the qualities that it has. i think that his answer is typical of western philosophy to look into things way too much. you love someone because it is the only thing that posesses those qualities that you love. anyway...
@plainPLAIDplain well I'm sorry if that just sounds very condescending that I actually want to take such a dirty word as universal truth and criticize Derrida with it. I'm not saying that what Derrida is saying is necessarily wrong, I'm just saying that with all of it in mind, what has he produced that actually transcends his dualist analysis of human nature? Because playing with these constructs is all very nice, but it doesn't really explain more than a deadlock which the classics were against
... making a bold statement and not being able to explain or justify it. I mean, continental-European thinkers, and French ones especially, often come across self-indulgent and tend to just throw around bold or vague statements and then fail to explain what they meant in the first place. In a way that attitude is precisely what made contemporary philosophy, art theory etc such a mess...
The thing about (young) American intellectuals I have met is that they get extremely offensive, they always seem to compete between each other, they are constantly alert, like they need to prove themselves in every little social interaction. It can be either a bad or a good thing, but it gets tiring for a European like myself.
This, however, along with that 'can you please elaborate' attitude Derrida talks about creates a potentially healthy circumstance, where one can't get away with just...
I like how he lets himself switch freely between French and Enlgish. I do the same, as an anglophone who studies philosophy at a French-speaking university, my ideas relating to philosophy come more easily in French, and it's annoying to say them in Enlgish if the person with whom I'm speaking doesn't speak French. Luckily most people where I live are native French speakers who also understand English if there's a good English word I want to use.
Perhaps he thinks that American media, with their ferocious attempts at commercial sandwiched concision, are representative of ALL Americans. Though he has more experience with the day-to-day workings of American life than most other French intellectuals do. But then, is it such an injustice to want a man to elaborate who makes such robust claims. I love him and I don't. A binary opposition.
What i've noticed about Americans is not that they are dumb--far from it--but that there is a kind of cultural pressure towards certainty that i honestly feel is problematic. Yet would America be the country it is today without it? Maybe this is part of why America is such a successful country. Because they have a strong sense of identity and self belief. They are confident in themselves and their achievements and in the institutional framework that allows them to prosper
@lamentate07 Who wouldn't be "successful" with so much land, oil, crops, minerals, and slave labor? Would there be a "successful America" if the land mass was only the size of Guatemala?
Yes, there is a blind certainty here, but it is the arrogance of a pirate who has, with his gang of thieves, killed and raped his way across the continent. The institutions are really mechanisms of organized crime, and The Mafia always likes to dress up and look fancy.
@JesusManson323 I'm not an expert on America, so i can't really judge the accuracy of your statements. I will say, however, that luck does play a crucial role in the success of many world economies--not just America--and that the inner workings of social and political institutions are considerably less ethical than they appear on the surface. But this 'blind certainty' you refer to, this kind of 'faith' in the machine, in the social apparatus, is crucial to America's success as a nation.
@JesusManson323 Perhaps it's naive, but i'm more interested in the results themselves than the (moral) integrity of the actual process. If it's just propaganda and nothing more, than the process itself has been extraordinarily effective.
Derrida had a problem with the way certain American academics in the social sciences used his ideas to 'deconstruct' and basically defend American pop culture against European elitism. It some respects it was a big F.U to the critics influenced by 'snobs' like Adorno that hated the culture industry and therefore found very little value in American life.
The criticism of Americans extreme pragmatism, which leads to 'straight talk' is endemic in the Anglo-Saxon world.
@lamentate07 it also has a lot to do with the extreme popularity of analytic philosophy in the US over a style that derrida would feel comfortable with, but i agree otherwise
Very lucid analysis of European attitudes, on one hand, and American attitudes, on the other. I am not sure when he says French, it's really only French. I would say this example is valid for Europe in general. In Germany it's the same, you cannot just drop in your professor's office without having made an appointment, or you will get an answer from the secretary 'Sorry, but the professor is busy now, please call before you come'.
@ipublica Your comments are completely invalid. Derrida here does not mention students impetuously dropping by professors' offices to ask questions (which by the way does NOT happen in america. There are designated office hours where students are encouraged to meet with their professor for questions such as "could you elaborate on this..." so that we can better understand.) I cannot fathom how any professor interested in actually teaching students would oppose elaborating on their teachings?
Maybe if the French had asked someone to "elaborate" the point of the maginot line extending just shy of Belgium ie the German point of entry into France in WWI, they would not have been overrun in 40 days.
Though he is quite pompous that Amy broad is a real numskull, she's got the opportunity to interview one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, and she asks him to talk about "love" and then "being"??? What an idiot! He should have deconstructed her!
Would Derrida respond this way if you approached him and instead of asking him directly what do you think of this you explained your interpretation or understanding of some concept and then asked him if he believed your interpretation was reasonable or accurate ?
In a sense derrida seems upset that americans are offloading the cognitive work on somebody else when they should be asking yes or no questions ?
i like how he responded to her question with a ready made discourse critiquing her 'american' expectation for a ready made discourse and then said 'voila' at the end
Hmm, the gross misunderstanding of Derrida going on in this thread isn't quite depressing enough. Maybe it needs a little more uncritical anti-Americanism and threadbare intellectualist cliche?
... racism towards Americans or American racism towards the French. Even less I respect the idea that all white people who speak English are either English or American.
You really didn't get it. The journalist was obnoxious and idiotic when she asked him a question which could only result in banal generalities. It wasn't even a real question, just a command to perform as 'Philosopher'. Appalling. I don't blame him for being irritated. I would have been far less polite.
Don't get me wrong I am only slightly less ignorant than the average joe/josephine but what I am refering to is his use of the word 'american' in the abusive sense. It is a negative racial essentialism.
I'm not American but as a Scottish student in a French University I know his reference to the French 'Learning and Teaching' system first hand. 'Professors' hate being stopped and asked to explain themselves. It's a 'I am the teacher and you the student I know better' attitude and they expect you to respect their domination even if they are completely wrong. Needless to say as a qualified teacher knwing how learning works I don't respect this attitude at all. Likewise I don't respect...
You could go deeper any say, in Amerika, people are what they do, first, and human beings, second, and therefore, when we interact, Amerikans automatically feel like someone (who should be at someone's service) should be feel obligated to perform. This, it seems, would not happen in a society in which we people are allowed simply To Be, first. "The customer should always be happy," but what about "the servant." He exposes this polarization within American culture.
That not right. If someone feels like they have been disrespected they will do something about it. Doesn't that shoot down your "customer first" idea?
Either you've never been to Amerika, or you're an Amerikan who, like a fish in water, doesn't know the ideological currents s/he's swimming in. The "disrespect," comes from a frustrated expectation--that, in the US, you are what you do, first, and a person second. Keep shooting at the moon.
I do live in the United States and I do not appreciate you calling me ignorant of my own surroundings. You are wrong and it seems like there's nothing that will convince you. Come live here to see for yourself. I'm done with this conversation.
How do you know this for sure? Derrida calls for a certain self-reflexivity. I am part american and i do have some biases towards the US, but i do agree that they are manipulative and utilitarian. Just look at how the states use technology.
Also, I find his other point about Americans always wanting to elaborate really funny, but sadly true.
I may be ignorant because I'm so used to it, you're right. I just can't stand these stuck up people that feel the need to trash talk an entire country. It gets me really frustrated, you know? Maybe you can help me out in understanding their view. What uses of technology do you mean and why is elaboration sad?
Well, Americans or at least the government seems to be busy developing research for technology they can use in the war, like invisibility camouflage uniforms and sophisticated planes. Also capitalists from America keep exploiting 3rd world resources.
Students forcing Derrida to elaborate is just weird to me because as he said, you should work and THINK to develop your own philosophy, not be lazy and ask him about everything. Philosophy must not be reduced to objective knowledge.
I know of no other way to conduct an interview than by and interviewer asking the interviewee a series of questions. Further, as a philosopher, one must be forever ready to elaborate and expound on one's ideas. (He probably hates questions and elaboration because he realizes that he has nothing of consequence to say.)
Also, I detect a tinge of xenophobia in this contemptible human being.
The whole point of an interview session is for the interviewer to ask questions and for the interviewee to respond. She asked him to elucidate on a certain topic; that's it. He is just a rambling, pompous ass with nothing relevant to say. That's why he was offended.
no, she asked: "what do you think of love" or something alone those line. In Europe we don't ask such things, we would instead put the question in historical, comparative, conceptual, spatial, cultural or other perspective. Many stones, before the street is paved, in other words. We don't use coin machines.
It is true that without Europe, the US would have been better off belonging to the Indian tribes and all. if you are an American, you would not have been born, 9/11 would never have happened, Vietnam would only have been the name of a country and black slaves would have never have been hung 'from the highest tree'. Yes, you are right when I look at the state of the US and its history, Europe gets nothing done.
It's funny that you mention the Slave Trade, which was, of course, initiated by the Portugese. Also, Vietnam was a colony of France before the U.S. entered the scene. ;)
"initiated by the Portuguese"? Harhar, the Greeks already had slaves as had the Egyptians etc, etc. But you clearly missed the point, which was far from morality, without Europe the US as it is now, would have never existed. Next.
I was referring to the African Slave Trade, as you obviously were. And yes, The Americas were at one point European colonies. How is that in any way material? It remains that, once independent, the U.S. took a course of action which was very discrete, both politically and economically, from the European trend.
If the united states has such a low level of development in education style then why would such an educated Frenchmen set foot on such unhallowed ground? Basically, I'm saying that you're an ethnocentric ass. Was that direct enough for me to appear american or would you prefer it if I beat around the bush.
He actually has a point. When in knowledge about something (or not even being in knowledge but having accumulated a lot in a certain area of thought), it is always funny when those who have not done so, the uninitiated, imagine that you can just give them the gist of it in half a sentence.People are too accustumed to getting answers. I say it's because the journalist level of popular sicence what answers any question in headlines. Who cares if it is not true, it' s an answer.
HubertTheBeardless 6 days ago
@HubertTheBeardless He is trolling bro!
Metalheadtill1die 5 days ago
@HubertTheBeardless However anyone wants to frame this, it's still a repetitious appeal to a fascist one-sided discussion. The fact is that this video clearly shows that he does not like losing control of the narrative and prefers to bunker down into the hidden cave-like nook of an authoritarian platform where his obscurities can flourish like weeds. There is no excuse for this, except cult-like admiration.
kiittenwolf 3 days ago
Derrida looks like this guy's father I've seen on YouTube. Look up "Tim and Eric Awesome Show Great Job Chrimbus special- Tickle Him Good"
S2Cents 1 week ago
connard, le mot français est élaborer, il ne sait même pas parler français
yolenin1 2 weeks ago
Wow this guy is completely insane. I remember reading some of his work in university and I thought to myself "wow, this is so cool . . . so modern art". Now that I see him explain his ridiculous opinions I laugh. This man is no different than a rambling piss soaked street corner vagrant. But the quackademics and pseudo-intellectuals LOVE it and pay 50,000 dollars a pop to "study" this tripe. Gawd!
welhungjohnson 2 weeks ago
This guy, by not wanting to elaborate, suffers from the same intellectual laziness that Americans suffer by asking to elaborate...
UnemployedProfessors 2 weeks ago 2
I loved the viola at the end.
eravulgachris 2 weeks ago
Derridouche simply held a bigoted view of America, the stereotypical "French" view to be sure, though if he had bothered to take a good look around him he would soon have realized that America has never had any monopoly over utilitarian louts and anti-intellectuals.
djs259 3 weeks ago
He could also ... do not give an interview... but then all those poor American "intellectuals" would have an item less to buy on amazon.... blolololol.
I mean postmodernist is a pile of bullshit in a blender, and american culture is a plain pile of bullshit, so somehow they go along...
Midgardboa 3 weeks ago
Derrida is an antiamerican and wants to hide his ignorance in postmodern terms. Handle the postmodernist thinker with kid gloves. He could bite you.
psaikoski 1 month ago
monologue is inferior to dialogue; in this case
wblakesx 1 month ago
monologue is inferior to dialogue; in this case
wblakesx 1 month ago
when someone come into my house suddenly and say anythings, I would suppose he knock on the door, introducing himself, first then he can say the what can I help him ... :)
jonkarbon 1 month ago
looks like someone left a pumpkin out in the sun and it grew mold
Duder871 1 month ago
@Duder871 hahahahahha
8bobthebuilder 1 month ago
hmmmm, maybe "elaboration" is such a problematic thing when you just talk wishy washy muck,
4455matthew 1 month ago
@4455matthew exactly.
N73B60 1 month ago
@4455matthew good point matthew.
8bobthebuilder 1 month ago
What I got from this: Derrida dislikes explaining things.
NiHuWi 1 month ago 12
@NiHuWi exactly.
N73B60 1 month ago
@NiHuWi french people dislike it.
GabAxe 1 month ago
@NiHuWi All he said was that elaboration was an american thing. He never said he didn't want to elaborate.
NearVSMello 2 weeks ago
@NiHuWi He is an Expert Troll Derrida, as well as as one of the only noteworthy French philosophers ever. The fact is that he can be so well known and respected in some literature groups, and yet troll like an anonymous genius, shows that even "seriously" important people can act as jesters. It is far better than arrogance.
Metalheadtill1die 5 days ago
Viola!
lispectorando 2 months ago 2
He's a lot more personable than I imagined he would be
thecooltactition81 2 months ago
Derrida should be glad he died before having the chance to see the hideous mass of intellectual troglodytes and posers claiming to either praise or bury him gathered here.
MrNomadologist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's funny how nobody here realizes he's not tanned, he's just French-Algerian.
MrNomadologist 3 months ago
Comment removed
MrNomadologist 3 months ago
He must spend quite a few Francs on facial bronzer...
Astoned11 3 months ago
I like the fact that most of the comments confirm what he is saying.
unadresse 3 months ago 2
Comment removed
unadresse 3 months ago
What the American people don't know is what makes them the American people. What Derrida doesn't know is what makes him famous.
11pinrelay 3 months ago
As an American I know this phenomenon very well, it's called intellectual laziness. Instead of honoring the mind of the giant before you with a bangin' question and subsequent dialog, you ask him to poop out all of his knowledge on call. WTF. Do everyone a favor: do some thinking, formulate a question, and put it to him. She was asking him for a Deconstruction-in-60-seconds. Instead, think about how one might consider you, should you be like: deconstruction, GO!
Derrida needs Nardwuar.
xiuxiu12 3 months ago 21
@xiuxiu12 YES!
drumpoltergeist 3 months ago
@xiuxiu12 Fuck you bitch! You can suck Derrida's dick.
"Instead of honoring the mind of the giant before you" <---this made me laugh out loud.
You could be considered a better person than Derrida, but instead you keep glorifying others. This is humiliating, don't you have dignity?
Intellectuals like Derrida are like sports commentators, they talk too much and play NOTHING!
N73B60 1 month ago
@N73B60 You raise a good point. I'm with you on this.
xiuxiu12 1 month ago
@xiuxiu12 Now that's an interview I would have paid to make happen.
MrVapourtrails 1 week ago
@xiuxiu12 I don't have the slightest idea how this video or your comment clarified why it is "lazy" or "American" to give a professor a topic and ask them to speak about it. In fact, if this actually is American, and I don't think that questioning blatant obscurity is exclusively American in any way, it's not lazy...it's an attempt to effectively communicate. It's a mutual exchange. What you and Derrida seem to be arguing for is a one-sided cult-like fascist conversation. Fuck that.
kiittenwolf 3 days ago
@kiittenwolf I suppose the point is that a "mutual" exchange can't happen if you're not at least somewhat familiar with the arguments and the major points at stake. Asking a philosopher to explain their "famous" theoretical stance in such a short time is, I think, on one hand very utilitarian from a pedagogical standpoint, but also it undervalues the problems inherent in a quick summation. A quick summation, among other things is something which Derrida's philosophy actively questions.
xiuxiu12 3 days ago
@xiuxiu12 He was literally criticizing the process of 'elaboration', and he even said this in English. The only possible way what you are saying could be true is if he did not know what he was saying in English and meant 'summarize'. Honestly, if he had said summarized I would be in complete agreement with you, but he didn't. He said 'elaborate' which connotes clarification not summary. So he seems to be criticizing the social dynamic of being interrogated in my opinion.
kiittenwolf 3 days ago
@kiittenwolf I can see the issue of Derrida-worship. Derrida's appearance attracts all kinds of ignoramuses(i?), but I don't think at its core it is something fascistic or dishonest or manipulative. It is a kind of philosophy that takes in account its ethical standpoint (that of doing), and questions through action. Of course, some people might say that this is in effect, doing nothing. But Derrida is not the only philosopher from whom I get enjoyment.
xiuxiu12 3 days ago
@xiuxiu12 I've read practically everything by Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Foucault and although they were difficult to understand I got it and learned from it all. With Derrida I find just a lot of fluff which never really adds up to anything except what appears to be a philosophical cargo-cult. It seems to me that wherever I see depraved and utterly preposterous claims they have intellectual roots with Derrida. His philosophy is just shady.
kiittenwolf 3 days ago
Derrida obviously is trying to say that philosophy is more of a discussion through which the arguments are formed rather than a ready made discourse...
totaki 3 months ago 2
The interviewer should have asked him to elaborate.
r3t0dd 3 months ago
He was elaborating on elaboration.
3K1 3 months ago
I hate this man with a fiery passion
GnomesAmok 3 months ago
@GnomesAmok Why? Why hate a genius with a good soul? Is deconstruction troubling and irritating at times? Sure...but come one; he's done more good than harm.
MrClipper23 3 months ago
@MrClipper23
You're calling Derrida a genius? Hahaha
GnomesAmok 3 months ago
funny
secasz 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Postmodernism Generator is a computer program that automatically generates postmodern essays. Gramatically correct but meaningless.
Now watch a college language student reviewing a computer generated essay. He has no clue of its true origin.
A must see.
/watch?v=jxQ7rONF5iE
verwoestijning 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I just fucked Casey Anthony again!
She was on her back, all comfy on the bed, and her knees were bent as she rested her feet on the mattress. She made herself really comfortable. I crawled up between her knees, and slid my pickle into her wet, smooth cunt hole. There was this 'shlurp' sound as it went in.
It felt good, like "aaaahhhhhh....."
Then I pumped my Johnson in and out of her Love Canal until I blasted cum on her cervix.
Then I went and watched TV.
gj7l1O0ij49gq1l00O0l 6 months ago
I hate this dude and the stupid prof who made me read him. Life's too short for this kind of nonsense.
jyozeff 7 months ago
@jyozeff then fuck off and watch mtv's ''teen mom''
hjgfweuryfgwuyegfuyw 7 months ago
@hjgfweuryfgwuyegfuyw come to think about it... it is thanks to people like you that Charlatans like Derrida make their living. Maybe you are the one who should go away, so that everyone could be rid of the likes of Derrida. no offense...
jyozeff 7 months ago
@jyozeff I understand you mate. As William Blake says:" The tree that the wise and fool see is not same". Just people like you and people like Derrida. That's why I dont blame you
huschow 7 months ago
The forerunner of the Jersey style.
KalleVarta 8 months ago 2
@Guanomysterio, its Voilà.. :)
mamabari07 8 months ago
comme si "élaborer" n'était pas un mot français...
delameu 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Derrida wants people to be concise and get to the point. HAW! HAW! HAW! HAW! HAW! HAW! HAW! HAW! HAW! HAW!
comrademattrulz 9 months ago
Derrida wants people to concise and get to the point. HAW! HAW! HAW! HAW! HAW! HAW! HAW! HAW! HAW! HAW!
comrademattrulz 9 months ago 3
Comment removed
Merely 9 months ago
great tan, dude
Quex01 10 months ago 3
his face! hahaha... "I'm so thoroughly looking into it, just about everything" philosophize, jacques. Philosophize!
TheGeisapleas 10 months ago
Pause and look at his face at 0:03. That is the face of someone who's trying to give the impression of incredibly deep thought. It's not just his work, it's the entire persona. It is one great package supposed to give the appearance of profoundness.
zanderstuud 10 months ago 2
@zanderstuud Instead of analyzing people's facial expressions for evidence a grand plot against you, you could pay attention to what they say. Strange idea, I know, but try it.
jxhensley 6 months ago
@jxhensley
Nice straw man, that thing about the plot. Amazing insight too, how you deducted from one youtube comment that someone has never read Derrida. Although next time stay ontopic and try to attack someone's point head on, okay?.
I'm not the first person suggesting that Derrida might be a bit of a fraud. If you won't take it from me, and you don't have to since I'm just some nobody, I suggest you look into those other people.
zanderstuud 6 months ago
@zanderstuud What Derrida says in this video is so straightforward a child could understand it. He's debunking the whole idea of an "deep thinker" ready to comment on anything and everything. So to choose this video to rant that he's putting on some "deep thought persona" is ironic.
jxhensley 6 months ago
@jxhensley
Nice evade, once again. Although by doing it you just flat out admitted what has always been my point to begin with. Most things the guy says can be understood by a child, yet most of the time it is hidden beneath an amazingly dizzying obscure jargon filled language that just isn't necessary, EVEN when you consider his philosophical position, which, when you get down to it, isn't as difficult as he tries to make it seem.
zanderstuud 6 months ago
@zanderstuud here's one quick remark about what u wrote here without reading what u posted before: derrida has no 'philosophical position', and if you still wanted to force one on him, and you'd definitely have to use force in order to do that, he would, if he could, probably ask you something like: what is a 'philosophical position'? is it where you stand, how you stand, what you stand under...? Or perhaps you could be lying (Nietzsche talks about 'lying in judgment')? Or maybe even stooping?..
vladaro 5 months ago
@vladaro
Sorry I took so long.
If he, or you for that matter claims to "have no philosophical position", that in itself is a philosophical position whether you like it or not. "Having no position" is a position intentionally designed to be able to criticise everyone else while easily evading criticism from the outside.
@jxhensley Neither him nor foucault are against deep thinking. What they were against is "the intellectual" who is able to speak on behalf of the people and ready to..
zanderstuud 3 months ago
@zanderstuud
..comment on any subject. The irony though is that even when you watch just a few of his youtube video's, he turns out to be commenting on anything and everything. Atheism, the economy, animals, legal matters. Any subject that's handed to him, he's got something to say about it.
zanderstuud 3 months ago
@zanderstuud no worries, glad you still replied!
Hmm, i don't know whether or not derrida has ever claimed to have or hold any 'philosophical position', but what i tried to say is that he would probably not so easily take up, or understand, or affirm this language of 'philosophical claims' and 'positions'. And it was you in the end who made a comment about 'his philosophical position', and hence it was you who in a way were trying to force this particular language onto him. And so i would....
vladaro 3 months ago
@vladaro
...position of being able to criticise everything while not being criticised yourself.
zanderstuud 3 months ago
@zanderstuud ....ask you again, what is a 'philosophical position'?
vladaro 3 months ago
@vladaro
When I first said "philosophical position", I thought I was using these two words to refer to Derrida's way of philosophizing and the claims that he makes, if not explicitly, then surely implicitly through his method. That is what we might call a philosophical position. And indeed it would come as no surprise that Derrida would contest such a thing, because if one has a position, then arguments can be made against that position. If one has none, then you are in the fortunate..
zanderstuud 3 months ago
@zanderstuud ...And also, from what i've heard, derrida never called himself a philosopher; and so, as a non-philosopher would he be able to produce or claim philosophical positions? (this relates back to the question of what a philosophical position really is). And even if you answer Yes to this, isn't it still you who would in the end have to actually read these philosophical positions into his speech?
vladaro 3 months ago
@vladaro
Surely you must be clowning around. Are you trying to suggest that if I never claim to be human, I would not be classified human, even when all evidence suggests that I am in fact, human?
Weak arguments aside, he has referred to himself as a philosopher just about as much as any other philosopher has. Have you actually been reading much of his papers?
zanderstuud 3 months ago
@Guanomysterio I know, but the subtitles got the spelling wrong. it's nothing of importance, really..
MichelCroz 10 months ago
@Guanomysterio It's spelled "voilà", actually... but I won't elaborate on this.
MichelCroz 10 months ago
He looks like he's spent a bit too much time in the sun.
ZerstorenAH 10 months ago
Seriously now, what philosopher goes to a tanning booth :O ?
Wwhackk 10 months ago
It is disingenuous of him to say he does not know how to say "please elaborate" in French. "Pourriez-vous developper ce point?" is pretty current usage in my experience. This suggests his American vs French comparison is a red herring, an attempt to justify in cultural terms his dislike of direct scrutiny ... perhaps (if I might elaborate) because his own ideas would not survive such scrutiny.
MisterSimnock 11 months ago
@MisterSimnock the think you have got this right !!
8bobthebuilder 1 month ago
"so you say you're a philosopher, eh? philosophize for me." is it the idea that any vocation can be performed for an audience, is that so american?
edstirling 1 year ago 2
@edstirling That idea is utilitarian and America is no where near as utilitarian as developing business countries such as China and India.
Wwhackk 10 months ago
Viola... hahaha hha ahahaha!...
And I'm not even French myself!
Cassyan 1 year ago 2
I find the French absolutely enamored with the possibility of what American Culture could have become, but failed to become. Why else would they hate us so much? They'd like us to be more alike to them, they want desperately to like us. They are frustrated lovers, spurned by an oaf.
chazmena 1 year ago
It is also possible that most Journalists in America believe most Americans especially the intelligentsia are conversant with popular culture and society and would have the pulse on what people want to know about in regards to their specialty of knowledge.
jesaintlouis 1 year ago
I think he elaborated quite good in this video what he thinks of Americans :)
bytedildo 1 year ago 3
Ignoring for a moment his postmodernist roots, his point is obvious. The American attitude is at times overbearing, assumptive, manipulative. However, as Derrida subtly claims, there is curiosity and a willingness to (somewhat naively) inquire when at all possibly.
I go to an American university, and let me tell you, we would line up for this guy's office hours.
icravespam 1 year ago
@icravespam so that he could elaborate?
fweebrotwosday 1 year ago
also, he basically spends 3 minutes saying absolutely nothing. fuck postmodernism, poststructualism, derrida, foccault, and the like. google "the sokal affair" and be enlightened.
brothamouzoune 1 year ago
google "the sokal affair" and be enlightened.
brothamouzoune 1 year ago
@brothamouzoune the Sokal Affair is a refuge for those too lazy and stupid to understand what Derrida, Foucault, ... etc, are saying. Sokal's serious writing on the Hoax is worst than his attempt at humor. Furthermore, the journal Social Text is a Marxist project; not "postmodern". So what exactly did Sokal prove? That Marxists don't know their ass from their elbow?
leolasi 1 year ago 2
@leolasi He proved that Postmodern philosophers couch their language with impenetrable style because the underlying concepts are really quite pedestrian. Derrida is a massive waste of time.
brothamouzoune 1 year ago
@brothamouzoune How? Sokal doesn't even make that claim, in 'What the Social Text Affair Does and Does Not Prove' Sokal says, "It proves only that the editors of one rather marginal journal were derelict in their intellectual duty". He also says, "Some of my over-enthusiastic supporters have claimed too much." I guess you must be one of Sokal's over-enthusiastic groupies. LoL!
leolasi 1 year ago
@leolasi No he doesn't make that claim, but it's implicit in the fact that a leading PoMo journal would accept such faulty and vacuous language. I'm extrapolating from the Sokal affair that PoMo is just a bunch of bullshit...which it is. Maybe interesting for a college course...but for it to be the largest philosophical school in Academia today...well that's just a sad joke.
brothamouzoune 1 year ago
Comment removed
leolasi 1 year ago
@brothamouzoune I cited the article in which Sokal said "It proves only that the editors of one rather marginal journal were derelict in their intellectual duty". So your denial is a fail. Also, Social Text and "cultural studies" is Marxist orientated. No extrapolation can be made. Sokal admitted, "I wasn't trying to summarize the editors' views, but merely to test whether the bald assertion (without evidence or argument) of such an extreme thesis would raise any eyebrows among them."
leolasi 1 year ago
@leolasi no , my friend sokal wrote a book about something that he doesnt understand. That is illogical,
CROCEX 2 months ago
@leolasi What Sokal proved was that some 'postmodern' thinkers (especially Kristeva, Lacan) don't know what they are talking about. First of all, they take quantum physics and other theories belonging to the world of natural sciences and translate them into the world of social sciences without giving the sound reason for the justifiability of such an operation. Secondly, they don't understand these physical theories. Why do critical thinkers get so upset when they become the subject
marekjakmarek 2 months ago
@leolasi of the critique themselves?
marekjakmarek 2 months ago
And the award for greatest bullshit artist in history goes to....Derrida!
BandofSorensons 1 year ago
He makes a pretty pointless distinction here.
okterrific2005 1 year ago
i started looking into this guy and he doesn't impress me much. maybe i need to read stuff but it sounds like a lot of the stuff he talks about i chat about with my friends just about all the time. this other video he talks about love and loving the thing that is loved or the qualities that it has. i think that his answer is typical of western philosophy to look into things way too much. you love someone because it is the only thing that posesses those qualities that you love. anyway...
donnaholic1987 1 year ago
Comment removed
plainPLAIDplain 1 year ago
@plainPLAIDplain well I'm sorry if that just sounds very condescending that I actually want to take such a dirty word as universal truth and criticize Derrida with it. I'm not saying that what Derrida is saying is necessarily wrong, I'm just saying that with all of it in mind, what has he produced that actually transcends his dualist analysis of human nature? Because playing with these constructs is all very nice, but it doesn't really explain more than a deadlock which the classics were against
Shreddersebbes 1 year ago
Comment removed
plainPLAIDplain 1 year ago
Thumbs up if you think Derrida shouldn't have gone tanning with the Jersey Shore!
Arodinme6 1 year ago 4
he talks shit about Americans, but he loves his hollywood tan
groopnits 1 year ago 5
The worst philosopher of the XX century.
Beingmeansliberty 1 year ago
-"Please could you elaborate?
- Fuck you pay me (lol)
- Now you're being american (lol)
- Fuck me
- Now that's french... I love your shirt"
RISKILNIKIV 1 year ago
legend hahahah
ozzylaza 1 year ago
Please, could you elaborate?
kiasmus 1 year ago 37
golden brown tan is besides the point, but there it is, and hand gestures and lots of elaborating on American demands
S2Cents 1 year ago
... making a bold statement and not being able to explain or justify it. I mean, continental-European thinkers, and French ones especially, often come across self-indulgent and tend to just throw around bold or vague statements and then fail to explain what they meant in the first place. In a way that attitude is precisely what made contemporary philosophy, art theory etc such a mess...
astronettle 1 year ago
The thing about (young) American intellectuals I have met is that they get extremely offensive, they always seem to compete between each other, they are constantly alert, like they need to prove themselves in every little social interaction. It can be either a bad or a good thing, but it gets tiring for a European like myself.
This, however, along with that 'can you please elaborate' attitude Derrida talks about creates a potentially healthy circumstance, where one can't get away with just...
astronettle 1 year ago
I like how he lets himself switch freely between French and Enlgish. I do the same, as an anglophone who studies philosophy at a French-speaking university, my ideas relating to philosophy come more easily in French, and it's annoying to say them in Enlgish if the person with whom I'm speaking doesn't speak French. Luckily most people where I live are native French speakers who also understand English if there's a good English word I want to use.
VeganKittensmith 1 year ago
Perhaps he thinks that American media, with their ferocious attempts at commercial sandwiched concision, are representative of ALL Americans. Though he has more experience with the day-to-day workings of American life than most other French intellectuals do. But then, is it such an injustice to want a man to elaborate who makes such robust claims. I love him and I don't. A binary opposition.
Zatki 1 year ago
@Zatki When a philosopher makes a claim he usually expresses it as clearly as he can to begin with. To ask him to elaborate would be tautological.
marcolopolis555 1 year ago
viola..
andersv20 1 year ago
What i've noticed about Americans is not that they are dumb--far from it--but that there is a kind of cultural pressure towards certainty that i honestly feel is problematic. Yet would America be the country it is today without it? Maybe this is part of why America is such a successful country. Because they have a strong sense of identity and self belief. They are confident in themselves and their achievements and in the institutional framework that allows them to prosper
lamentate07 1 year ago 2
@lamentate07 Who wouldn't be "successful" with so much land, oil, crops, minerals, and slave labor? Would there be a "successful America" if the land mass was only the size of Guatemala?
Yes, there is a blind certainty here, but it is the arrogance of a pirate who has, with his gang of thieves, killed and raped his way across the continent. The institutions are really mechanisms of organized crime, and The Mafia always likes to dress up and look fancy.
JesusManson323 1 year ago
@JesusManson323 I'm not an expert on America, so i can't really judge the accuracy of your statements. I will say, however, that luck does play a crucial role in the success of many world economies--not just America--and that the inner workings of social and political institutions are considerably less ethical than they appear on the surface. But this 'blind certainty' you refer to, this kind of 'faith' in the machine, in the social apparatus, is crucial to America's success as a nation.
lamentate07 1 year ago
@JesusManson323 Perhaps it's naive, but i'm more interested in the results themselves than the (moral) integrity of the actual process. If it's just propaganda and nothing more, than the process itself has been extraordinarily effective.
lamentate07 1 year ago
Derrida had a problem with the way certain American academics in the social sciences used his ideas to 'deconstruct' and basically defend American pop culture against European elitism. It some respects it was a big F.U to the critics influenced by 'snobs' like Adorno that hated the culture industry and therefore found very little value in American life.
The criticism of Americans extreme pragmatism, which leads to 'straight talk' is endemic in the Anglo-Saxon world.
lamentate07 1 year ago 4
@lamentate07 it also has a lot to do with the extreme popularity of analytic philosophy in the US over a style that derrida would feel comfortable with, but i agree otherwise
nwatts88 1 year ago
the french are snot noses, stuck up, rude and ignorant.
im already a philosopher on the order of magnitude of Derrida
jhg123456 1 year ago
@jhg123456 Care to elaborate? Wheh wheh wheh...
blishypoos 1 year ago
I bet you are. I've unread your non-books and you have unsaid the most extraordinary things I've ever forgotten.
kiasmus 1 year ago
appears to me that the genuine blinks and nods t words the end of the clip says :
"go ahead, interviewer we can speak on your terms but don't blame me..."
and then there is that deceptive humble smile that reminds everybody of frenchness. if there is such a thing.
normankeena 1 year ago
fraudster
momintheweedzone 1 year ago
Very lucid analysis of European attitudes, on one hand, and American attitudes, on the other. I am not sure when he says French, it's really only French. I would say this example is valid for Europe in general. In Germany it's the same, you cannot just drop in your professor's office without having made an appointment, or you will get an answer from the secretary 'Sorry, but the professor is busy now, please call before you come'.
ipublica 1 year ago
@ipublica Your comments are completely invalid. Derrida here does not mention students impetuously dropping by professors' offices to ask questions (which by the way does NOT happen in america. There are designated office hours where students are encouraged to meet with their professor for questions such as "could you elaborate on this..." so that we can better understand.) I cannot fathom how any professor interested in actually teaching students would oppose elaborating on their teachings?
dbpatrick3 1 year ago
Maybe if the French had asked someone to "elaborate" the point of the maginot line extending just shy of Belgium ie the German point of entry into France in WWI, they would not have been overrun in 40 days.
Though he is quite pompous that Amy broad is a real numskull, she's got the opportunity to interview one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, and she asks him to talk about "love" and then "being"??? What an idiot! He should have deconstructed her!
dbpatrick3 1 year ago 2
Would Derrida respond this way if you approached him and instead of asking him directly what do you think of this you explained your interpretation or understanding of some concept and then asked him if he believed your interpretation was reasonable or accurate ?
In a sense derrida seems upset that americans are offloading the cognitive work on somebody else when they should be asking yes or no questions ?
rayyf69 1 year ago
i like how he responded to her question with a ready made discourse critiquing her 'american' expectation for a ready made discourse and then said 'voila' at the end
rockyoulikeahurrican 1 year ago 3
U don`t know that, i like very much derrida`s work and I agree with him. God I just hate the use of "French" in america
american987usa 1 year ago
Hmm, the gross misunderstanding of Derrida going on in this thread isn't quite depressing enough. Maybe it needs a little more uncritical anti-Americanism and threadbare intellectualist cliche?
pyroglyphic 1 year ago 2
That's a very French way of answering a question.
Very French, indeed....
JVIPER88 1 year ago 3
The greatest philosopher of the 20th century. A genius. A real giant.
dembogiatzis 1 year ago 2
This man is annoying.
qwer4o 1 year ago
You are just criticizing people's styles. Different cultures have different ways of approaching things.
chantalbernard 2 years ago
... racism towards Americans or American racism towards the French. Even less I respect the idea that all white people who speak English are either English or American.
Fucking human ignorance.
Even a famous philosopher displays it.
Ridiculous.
utopianconstruction 2 years ago
@utopianconstruction
You really didn't get it. The journalist was obnoxious and idiotic when she asked him a question which could only result in banal generalities. It wasn't even a real question, just a command to perform as 'Philosopher'. Appalling. I don't blame him for being irritated. I would have been far less polite.
thehoopoe 2 years ago
I'm talking about the background context of the world.
utopianconstruction 2 years ago
<<Ridiculous.
Could you elaborate?
Burdell22000 2 years ago
Don't get me wrong I am only slightly less ignorant than the average joe/josephine but what I am refering to is his use of the word 'american' in the abusive sense. It is a negative racial essentialism.
At least he deconstructs his own prejudice.
utopianconstruction 2 years ago
self-reflection is a gift
Marenqo 2 years ago
That's his saving grace in his statements.
utopianconstruction 2 years ago
I'm not American but as a Scottish student in a French University I know his reference to the French 'Learning and Teaching' system first hand. 'Professors' hate being stopped and asked to explain themselves. It's a 'I am the teacher and you the student I know better' attitude and they expect you to respect their domination even if they are completely wrong. Needless to say as a qualified teacher knwing how learning works I don't respect this attitude at all. Likewise I don't respect...
utopianconstruction 2 years ago
Comment removed
utopianconstruction 2 years ago
You could go deeper any say, in Amerika, people are what they do, first, and human beings, second, and therefore, when we interact, Amerikans automatically feel like someone (who should be at someone's service) should be feel obligated to perform. This, it seems, would not happen in a society in which we people are allowed simply To Be, first. "The customer should always be happy," but what about "the servant." He exposes this polarization within American culture.
keytoothed 2 years ago
That not right. If someone feels like they have been disrespected they will do something about it. Doesn't that shoot down your "customer first" idea?
diomedes39 1 year ago
Either you've never been to Amerika, or you're an Amerikan who, like a fish in water, doesn't know the ideological currents s/he's swimming in. The "disrespect," comes from a frustrated expectation--that, in the US, you are what you do, first, and a person second. Keep shooting at the moon.
keytoothed 1 year ago
I do live in the United States and I do not appreciate you calling me ignorant of my own surroundings. You are wrong and it seems like there's nothing that will convince you. Come live here to see for yourself. I'm done with this conversation.
diomedes39 1 year ago
@diomedes39
How do you know this for sure? Derrida calls for a certain self-reflexivity. I am part american and i do have some biases towards the US, but i do agree that they are manipulative and utilitarian. Just look at how the states use technology.
Also, I find his other point about Americans always wanting to elaborate really funny, but sadly true.
miku282 1 year ago
I may be ignorant because I'm so used to it, you're right. I just can't stand these stuck up people that feel the need to trash talk an entire country. It gets me really frustrated, you know? Maybe you can help me out in understanding their view. What uses of technology do you mean and why is elaboration sad?
diomedes39 1 year ago
@diomedes39
Well, Americans or at least the government seems to be busy developing research for technology they can use in the war, like invisibility camouflage uniforms and sophisticated planes. Also capitalists from America keep exploiting 3rd world resources.
Students forcing Derrida to elaborate is just weird to me because as he said, you should work and THINK to develop your own philosophy, not be lazy and ask him about everything. Philosophy must not be reduced to objective knowledge.
miku282 1 year ago
Words of wisdom.
jedimasterbooboo 1 year ago
wow.
thats all i can say.
selinascerri 2 years ago
I know of no other way to conduct an interview than by and interviewer asking the interviewee a series of questions. Further, as a philosopher, one must be forever ready to elaborate and expound on one's ideas. (He probably hates questions and elaboration because he realizes that he has nothing of consequence to say.)
Also, I detect a tinge of xenophobia in this contemptible human being.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
@XxxNuMbxxX0301
She didn't ask him a question, she issued a command for him to perform. If you cannot tell the difference you need to study harder.
thehoopoe 2 years ago
The whole point of an interview session is for the interviewer to ask questions and for the interviewee to respond. She asked him to elucidate on a certain topic; that's it. He is just a rambling, pompous ass with nothing relevant to say. That's why he was offended.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
no, she asked: "what do you think of love" or something alone those line. In Europe we don't ask such things, we would instead put the question in historical, comparative, conceptual, spatial, cultural or other perspective. Many stones, before the street is paved, in other words. We don't use coin machines.
Marenqo 2 years ago
Which is why Europe can get nothing done.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
It is true that without Europe, the US would have been better off belonging to the Indian tribes and all. if you are an American, you would not have been born, 9/11 would never have happened, Vietnam would only have been the name of a country and black slaves would have never have been hung 'from the highest tree'. Yes, you are right when I look at the state of the US and its history, Europe gets nothing done.
Marenqo 2 years ago
It's funny that you mention the Slave Trade, which was, of course, initiated by the Portugese. Also, Vietnam was a colony of France before the U.S. entered the scene. ;)
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
"initiated by the Portuguese"? Harhar, the Greeks already had slaves as had the Egyptians etc, etc. But you clearly missed the point, which was far from morality, without Europe the US as it is now, would have never existed. Next.
Marenqo 2 years ago
I was referring to the African Slave Trade, as you obviously were. And yes, The Americas were at one point European colonies. How is that in any way material? It remains that, once independent, the U.S. took a course of action which was very discrete, both politically and economically, from the European trend.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
African slave trade same all, did not start with the Portuguese.
"The Americas were at one point European colonies. How is that in any way material?"
Which is why Europe can get nothing done.
ergo US is nothing, your words, not mine
Marenqo 2 years ago
@Marenqo
If the united states has such a low level of development in education style then why would such an educated Frenchmen set foot on such unhallowed ground? Basically, I'm saying that you're an ethnocentric ass. Was that direct enough for me to appear american or would you prefer it if I beat around the bush.
diomedes39 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam