Lynch should not have to "elaborate". No thoughtful person eg artist is a puppet who dances on a bell signal or command. As Derrida might say, its not the anyones responsibility to serve another person especially the media. I can imagine an American journo asking Hitler, Stalin or Christ or a murderer to "elaborate".
I would almost take the point one step further and say that the pre-packaged or "ready made" answers mentioned here are exactly what is required by those who appear on cable news shows and our general political environment. There is a kind of bias of simplicity where it's assumed that if you can't express yourself, your idea, or your argument in a soundbite then you have nothing of value to add to a conversation. And I think that this is one of the main problems with apps like Twitter and soundbite culture in general. Think about how negatively this has affected us, e.g. in presidential debates candidates are given "90 seconds to respond" and other such bits of time where issues can't be developed and argued in any kind of meaningful and deep way.
It's the professional culture of the managerial class. Philosophers are bums and science is just a tool. The only real jobs are using tools and straightening out bums.
@@jrgenm.dsollie4849 He doesn't realize it. He's known it all along and starts backwards and finishes with Voila -- as if to surmise the Aporia-related developmental stages of the term elaborate riddling the interviewer's question.
@@AudioPervert1 I rewatched this and I realize that what she asked for is clarification on what he meant by being "very American." This is not the same as someone saying, go, elaborate on this topic. Rather, she is asking him what he meant by using very loaded words. To elaborate is different than to ask someone to explain themselves. She is asking him to explain, to account for his word choice because it was directed at her. It's as if I said, well, your comment makes you sound stupid and you said, how so?
It’s really interesting, because he’s right in the sense that all Americans have sort of interpolated this media-speak, journalistic, cinematic language into every day speech, without recognition of the fact that such language is deliberately awkward, probing, and lazy
Dominative. You forgot the central point, dominative. Your conflation of media and journalism, cinema, don’t have much to do with media or journalism or cinema but only the evidence of the commercial contrivance that synthesizes products resembling, but not imbibing those forums.
This is the best comment I've ever read because a) it's true and b) I explore that theme in my transmedia art piece/research project called Scribblebytes. We are all pretending.
@@ericmuschlitz7619 Well that's a given and doesn't need mentioning because, since industrialisation, that's what the human experience has soley been centred around: production.
This guy is a pussy. He should just thankful our western society is so effete and rich and corrupt that it can afford to babysit hacks like him. He needs to get back to his little grift of poring over manuscripts for hours on end, which he probably doesn't even do, before finally throwing his hands up in exasperation. Sacre blue! All verbal communication is inherently equivocal! So leave me alone, I need to time think, I don't have a ready made answer for you! Not even my own students. Just listen to my drivel, parrot it back and you might get an A. And you get to be cultured and sophisticated that way. That's the name of the game anyway. Always be hustling....
@@growingmelancholy8374 so american of you to asume that after one question he should just "elaborate" instead of having a dialogue that would allow him to deconstruct the subject.
I had observed this 'request to elaborate' from some American documentarians and journalists from this era ('70's roughly). You won't hear an American journalist request anyone to elaborate anything in 2022. I wish more so-called journalists would ask for elaboration. But, that won't fit on a TikTok video.
I think Derrida's point is that, if you are unclear about something, you need to ask a specific question, not just a general and vague, "Please talk more!" The former shows that you are a good listener and a thoughtful participant in the conversation, whereas the latter betrays you as intellectually lazy and selfish.
+Victor Weis I have noticed this with alot of friends I can consider to be more European (I live in Belgium, many cultures come together here) as well that they don't like the simple question "What do you mean?", they rather have me trying to define what they meant or what I consider to be the meaning of that and let them correct me when wrong. With Americans it's very different, they consider it impolite to give your own opinion when no one asked for it and even worse they will convince you that you are making assumptions about what they meant because they feel offended that you don't understand them off the bat. Of course, this doesn't count for all Americans but then again there are vast differences between NYC and LA for instance and this definitely can be said about people more towards the West Coast. They absolutely do not like it that "you put words in their mouth"
Victor Weis That is your interpretation of his usage of the 'Elaborate' word! If you pay attention to his conversation, what he's saying is that people must find their own solutions and understanding of a particular question. Think for yourself and use your own thinking! Is the correct interpretation. Cheers,
+Victor Weis Derrida means that American people judge a philosopher about his ability to "improvise" about any subject. But this is not a good criterium. Because if you have "staircase wit" as Rousseau, then you're judged to be a bad philosopher.A good philosopher has to be judged about his ability to create "new concept", not about to be a good show man.
+Victor Weis I guess it's rude for speakers to say something unclear, vague, and ambiguous or things that can be interpreted only by himself or herself, by which listeners can't understand. Since that's communication in which not only speakers but also listeners are involved, speakers need to be kind to them by explaining concepts they want to explain clearly and easily so they can feel easy. For example, If their statements are vague and abstract, then speakers had better need to add details, examples, contrast, comparison, definitions, illustrations, demonstrations, instead of listing all abstract concepts that make listeners get lost in them, and from which communication between them can start. And I don't think the listener's asking questions like can you elaborate reflect their intellectual laziness; rather, it's a sign that asks for a help. They want to understand. They want to be included in words speakers are saying, the conversation where the speakers betray them. If they don't want to be involved, so according to your word, if they were lazy, they could have not shown such curiosity by asking the question. Also, they are not supposed to be blamed for not involving in that since that's their choice not to involve in the conversaiotn they're not interested in. And if the speakers wants them to involved in their words, they had better help, persuade, and convince them in kind manner instead of blaming on them.
I think what Derrida is suggesting is that in order to get deep into an idea the discussion must take place through dialouge, a dialectic approach, where one spars back and forth like Platonic dialouge. To just say talk, elaborate, the speaker has nothing to respond to. However, if you are someone like Noam Chomsky, you want no dialouge. Chomsky just likes to talk nonstop going on several tangents before arriving at a conclusion. Chomsky hates to be interrupted. So, I guess each approach is
America being a product of modernity, it’s people are hungry for information that will help them “succeed” or be “productive.” They do not care about knowledge or higher learning. They care about knowing things because they like the idea of being a person that knows things. They don’t care what they know as long as they know stuff. That’s the sense I get about what Derrida meant here.
Here in the States, knowledge only has value if it gets you money. This is especially true if you come from a working class and/or immigrant background (as I have), which is understandable. But there is this general attitude where reading philosophy, literature, etc. or even having a hobby like music are only for those who can make a living from it, are idle rich, or aren't paying proper attention to their families.
If you put me in your house and you know I know things you are going to be expecting to know things but if I Stand outside your house they will arrest me so either way I am being somewhat persecuted into a nonsense scenario as Value Is desirable as what you can abstract from the person
It makes a lot of sense. Americans are more task and goal oriented, whereas, at least for people in Derrida's circles, the relations are not utilitarian (in the colloquial sense), but are rather communitarian - the conversation matters for its own sake, not because there is a ready made answer. As Levinas says, the saying overflows the said. Conversations are to be this overflowing, not a repetition of the said, which grows stale and does not usually fit nicely into new contexts.
I think what he is trying to say is that philosophical discourse requires a level of nuance even when a question is posed. This makes absolute sense because nuance and complexity is relevant to all of our affairs in life.
I am aMerican, but I like French society. I like that they try to preserve their culture as much as possible and not let globalization infiltrate their society. Of course, there are things I don;t like about France either, but it has some amazing thinkers including Derriad.
He was charm personified. I once saw him speak at the University of Pittsburgh, and his "hostess" was none other than G. Spivak, the queen of self important verbosity. She made a mini-speech to introduce him, and it ended with an insane, convoluted question. He humbly said, "I am sorry, I don't even understand what you are asking." The room came down with applause, because deep down we all despised Spivak. Then he proceeded to give a most wonderful lecture about friendship. We loved him, and he seemed approachable and kind. He was definitely mobbed at the end of the lecture, so I didn't try to get near. His ideas suffice. RIP.
I think that what he means is that in Europe, a conversation is more subtle, more playfull and less pragmatic. The conversation is experienced not as extracting information but relies on equel contribution of its participants. Note that this is about style of conversation, not about Americans being robots or Europeans not talking about serieus topics.
i dont understand all the aggressive reactions on derridas opinion. the crucial point in his statement was the "ready made". philosophy deals with questions out of a context. a philosopher cant create packaged products like consumable biscuits, sweet, light and digestible for every tart. a question comes from somewhere, out of a previous knowledge, with intentions and "bildung".
It's because using a national identity like "American" provokes a collective ego response. It's the same as saying to someone at the individual level, "it's just like you to . . . " Someone could respond to this video by calling it "very French" or "very European" to lack the ability to elaborate freely because of authoritarian traditions of thought that condition fear of criticism, etc. and people who identify with the collective identities, "French" or "European" would in turn get their collective egos bruised and react with aggression - probably subtle passive aggression if they are conditioned to avoid active, direct modes of aggression. It would be nice if intellectuals could discuss issues such as this one raised in this video without provoking ego-battles. Of course it's not surprising that an intellectual with a name as aggrandized as Derrida's is prone to ego-provocation.
It is like saying "that is very Chinese, Christian or Muslim of you?" It is belittling to an entire group of people. Listen to Alan Watts if you want to know about Ego, not this rude trickster. He babbles in this entire video and says nothing more than "Americans want things right now, French arent rude"
Postmodernist deconstructionism doesn't understand inevitable force of the human condition. Suffering is only avoided through structure and values, even if only temporarily and transiently. Its essentially just cultural nihilism. It's a silly philosophical slight of hand. Questioning definitions and value structures is good philosophy, but you must GO from there. Taking them apart and doing nothing with it isn't anything at all... And that's what youre left with: nothing. It's a nothing. Power and oppresion is a consstant inevitable tension, but nothing will leave everyone empty, and everyone suffering. I guess that is egalitarian lol.
Derrida's work, particularly "deconstruction", exists, as he says himself, "in a certain spirit of Marxism". Therefore his work always has that Marxist inclination to criticize the West, western traditions and particularly America. Much like the Frankfurt School, but with a linguistic french style. Nothing really new.
And a university asking Derrida to speak would (rightly assume) that a great mind such as his own would be able to recall patterns of thinking and previous discussions that he could weave together to ask new, novel questions. Instead, he appears to blame American culture, rather than the failure of his own mind. It's quite odd...but decidedly "French" as well (ironic, right?). His own culture informs his breezy, lazy attitude towards the probing of other cultures...which is very typical of the French. They just don't give a shit.
Let's put on these terms: you cannot simply tell a girl (or anyone else) how you feel about her whenever you like and ignore if the context and atmosphere really gives you the opportunity to do it. Some questions and matters require preparation before we can really talk about it in a proper manner. The simple request "elaborate it" suggests that the speech of the thinking is just matter of showing what is already archived and ready for use. But it's a happening. Not a 'springing-phenomenon', but a historical happening. It has its own way to be conducted.
@2:21 In French the verb *_développer_* is used. The verb *_élaborer_* can still be used, but it is usually used for a work, like preparing something for a long intellectual or engineering work or something of that nature. Mister Derrida is absolutely correct, it is rarely used in French conversations and debates. Thank you for sharing this video clip.
"Peux-tu m'en dire plus"... I guess it's true that people tend to instead ask a strategically formulated question to get people to elaborate, instead of directly asking to elaborate...
@@dp503 have you know his ideas,His ideas is about looking at language in a structuralist sense(he is a post structuralist tho) that he looks at how the meaning of the word is structured or given its meaning at the very structure of language(for example how words get their meaning through other words such as how the meaning of the word tree could be describe in its relationship through other words like green or tall) now if you think that is marxist i dont know what to say to you
As an American, I find there's a lot of American insecurity and impatience revealed in these comments, he's suggesting that intellectual realms such as philosophy in general or critical theory require a certain amount of rigorous thought, independence and nuance as opposed to demanding some hard and fast definition from a person of 'authority' so you can get your wonderful little A grade. Go study with the Neo-cons if you want to feel all warm and fuzzy with folks who are dangerously sure
On the contrary, the comments are quite reasonable; your insinuation of the meaning behind this forward approach is what lacks nuance and independent critical thinking; how A-typical anti-establishment which has become so repetitively the norm; how warm and fuzzy it must make you feel. Europe is like Miley Cyrus twerking in her underpants; you all think to yourselves how "its so bold and original", while the rest of us have seen it so many times before that its just as boring and mundane as it was when Madonna and many other artists tried to whore them selves out to society. Sometimes horseshit is just horseshit, no matter how many times you try to candy coat it with elaborate explanations... How frightening it must be for you pretentiously humble Europeans that lack self confidence in screwing in a light-bulb to come across someone who ruins your massive contemplation by actually accomplishing the task with a few twists of the wrist. I'm sorry, we'll leave you to your _deep thought_ and maybe you'll come up with an answer for the purpose existence that isn't the number 47.
Anyway, I agree with your point. On the flip side, as an Americano del Norte living in France I can tell you that one of the great strengths of the English-speaking world is precisely our ability to improvise, which is, at bottom, what the journalist was asking for, and which Derrida attacked. The French are anything but improvisational. They want to know the instructions beforehand since their education not only penalises, but actually punishes, mistakes. French kids are used to being told they are "nul"--they are nothing, idiots, shit. That's how French kids are raised. They develop a hard shell and a dread of failure. I see some of that in Derrida's response. I also see a form of essentialism that goes completely against his own notions of hybridity. That is, I think he would probably agree with the bulk of postmodern philosophers who would state that nations are held together by "imagined communities" that don't exist in reality but are grand narratives that hold nation-states together. His comments about how Americans are pragmatic, utilitarian, etc have an echo in a certain cultural logic that does seem rather common in America but I think it's reductionist, overly simplistic, and not intellectually honest frankly to lump all Americans together in having a penchant for asking someone to adlib an elaboration on nothing. Wouldn't it have been more honest to just denounce the question itself without bringing in all the unnecessary and invalid cultural attacks. At bottom, I think Derrida is just being an asshole here. He's using his platform to vent. Think about it. The easiest thing in the world its to construct an ad hominem argument--just attack your opponent rather than the issue. Here the great Derrida has done just that. Shame on him, frankly.
ad hominem is a very interesting concept... lets say, as a simple example, koch brothers were arguing in the senate, against donating money to democratic politicians (which is the issue in hand), but the person who is for the motion according to your view of ad hominem, the person for the motion should not bring up koch brothers donations to the republican party since that's not the issue in hand? Same, in the video diderra brought the "ad hominem" argument because the way the questions were being asked to him were affecting his answers (so it was related even though it was a personal attack). first like he said he does not have a ready made answers but a conversation has to build up to get to his answer (his preference), secondly his answers shouldn't be asked to elaborate because if he does he may misspeak (human=not perfect) and the reporter might just pounce on it, in other words waiting to make a mistake, and also he might lose what his initial train of thought that was intended, since some thoughts comes and leaves in a snap. And also what some of the commentators has already said. My view on ad homeniem is when someday attacks another person personally for no relatable reasons to degrade his/er opponent or benefit himself. And I think both my example and deiderra has a fairly relatable arguement to make, hence not ad hominem according to me. But I might be wrong and the actual definition of ad homeniem might be your stand on ad hominem, if that's the case then I don't see a reason why anybody should submit to ad hominem name calling.
Most people are unable to ask questions, much less introduce themselves. Since most students and most Americans are very weak in philosophy and social theory not to say politics, there is no real discussion of topics. So when the naive person hears something interesting all they can say is something very general in response, like 'please clarify' or 'could you elaborate?' They have no skin in the game and are unaware of the perspectives of other scholars, so they cannot strike up a conversation about a topic, or ask a specific question. But, to complain would be to say that Americans typically either call each other names or tell them to get out, which is all too often.
***** Wasn't Derrida addressing students? I thought that Derrida was expecting thoughtful questions and commentaries, not general requests to elaborate. I have no idea why anyone who is a non-philosopher would tune into Derrida.
He does elaborate, and is criticized for talking too much, confusing the idea, in the end, it's just an intellectual trap used by small minds to "abuse" the smart. His elaborations, could be much more elaborate for some, much less so for others. So, yeah, FREEDOM, one word explains everything for us Americans. Why are we dropping bombs on Syrian children? FREEDOM. There you go.
Mr. Geraci: Very insightful. Obviously using "blah" to legitimize your westernized - and violent - narrative to pervert reality. We would like to invite you to a colloquium we are hosting "The Violence of Elaboration: From Derrida to Zizek" at Shittown State Community College Springfield Campus (SSCCSC). Please R.S.V.P. immediately.
I'm not Derrida or urmenior but I think what he (Derrida) means is that asking for elaboration on a specific term or whatever is a very general sort of question. In the sense that it doesn't engage you in any way with the other person, you keep yourself at a distance. Whereas if you were to ask a critical question of some other sort you could enter into a more balanced conversation (as opposed to just asking the other person to give you a personalised mini-lecture).
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.
In fact, the funniest thing about what he says is that the French exams for becoming a teacher or professor of philosophy (le CAPES and l'agrégation, respectively) consist entirely and 100% of being presented with a subject ("Justice and Vengeance", "Is the world beautiful?", "Rights and Power" etc.) and having to "elaborate" on it in great detail. No French student of philosophy has not had to do this exercise.
I think it is so important to get outside the point of view of "American" pop culture, to become aware of our "American cinematic, journalistic attitude" in general, our particular cultural bias which is shaped by movies than anything else, by taking the point of view of someone from the "outside" the "American" haven for at least for a moment or two. Americans are pragmatists and are just in love with technology, which is its new "Christian-Protestant " Religion.
The thing with Derrida is that he is authentic or simply being himself when he speaks/writes and lectures. Bending his words just for someone to understand, grasp his thoughts would be like distort his idea/message. If someone does not understand him, that means the student is not ready to study Derrida as a philosopher.
but, in all seriousness, take some advice from Popper (who I'm guessing you find more congenial): the only way to truly demolish someone's position is to read them thoroughly and try to understand them as sincerely as you would your own. I think Russell says something similar in his History as well.
I think he means that Americans tend to want things "here and now", as if everyone's a manager. A right to demand is excercised not by few (he mentions, e.g. journalists) but by many.
I understand where he's coming from. If I had built a career on books that could easily be confused for the products of a random text generator, I would also be very defensive when asked to explain what I meant.
I think what he means is the shallowness of the question that there are different aspects of one matter that are difficult to "elaborate" on in one setting since it is complicated and involves aspects intertwined.
I think what Derrida is saying is quite different from what you are saying. When people ask you to elaborate on something, they are not requiring precise explanations about a certain obscure aspect of a definition which they might have misunderstood. No, they are really asking you for a "readymade" summary of an idea, as he puts it.
I like how it takes Derrida almost four minutes to say something that could've been conveyed in one sentence. That's his work in a nutshell. A great actor.
+Ford Bronco Essentially, "I have nothing to say". Try to find anything cohesive that's by Derrida; it is nearly impossible. Decode the polysyllabic words and sometimes you get simple truisms-- most of the time it's just nonsensical claptrap.
Save it, I completely disregard anything related to continental philosophy. Nothing has been more devastating to third world higher education. How does any of this relate to the real world? I mean outside of academia. If anything it reaffirms state power by promoting apathy-- political and otherwise.
Semiotics is not even a valid field of study anymore, it's derived from bad pseudoscience. It's only function now is within college film studies courses, and even David Bordwell dismisses it. It's a dead approach compared to the study of cognition.
The beauty of conveying or saying nothing, with all the ambiguities that statement entails, is most readily shown by phänomenologie des geistes and wissenschaft der logik. All I'm saying is that the différance of nothing is quite interesting. The notion of could have been conveyed, "without a loss", for mere practicality, shows itself to be impractical when one contemplates the notion of practicality.
Seeking clarity already means you are sacrificing something for the sake of clarity. It s the person who studies a philosopher that seeks clarity, and the philosopher's task is to expose his perspective, as unclear as it may seem.
I wonder what you think about the historical Socrates, then? I work in an analytic philosophy depatment --in the US -- and I don't like being told "I don't understand Hume. Please elaborate." Where does one begin when asked something like that? How do I respond? Derrida is not being bigoted here; this happens far less often in the EU, even all these years later
The truth is that the American educational system creates this type of thinking in its pupils. Our primary, secondary, and sometimes post-secondary education is void of creative thought. Therefore, students are unable to craft creative questions. And worse: they lack the ability to think creatively, as such. Thinking, in the traditional American system, is the connection of facts. Thinking, in the more liberal sense (i.e. which is "French" in this context), is about the creation of connections and the testing of the legitimacy of that connection. I too prefer the latter.
That's really interesting, please tell me more about it. Do you have some books to advise me ? Or some studies on it ? I had that impression too (i'm belgian) but i didn't have enough informations to confirm it.
Buster Friendly yeah, not pedagogically speaking... talk about corporate institutions with standardized curriculum. Until recently, states were coerced to mandate such reforms in public schools ( ESSA 2015)
Totally agree. Also, I get 2 things from this: 1) The "can you elaborate) isn't as much a question, as it is a command, and then, the interviewed person has to 'obey' the command given to them. It's not enough for them to give their viewpoint, and then the other can try to understand it and give their own thoughts on the subject; no, the person has to explain EVERYTHING in detail, instead of the other person doing their homework and trying to find their own answers in answering the question at hand. This is a big intellectual failure, as being a scholar shouldn't be about being spoonfed with information (other people's opinions), but being about learning how to think critically for yourself. 2) A lack of qualification for the questions or critique, you give another person or their work. When an interviewer asks: "Tell me about love", or something general like that, there isn't a specific question related to anything; hence, the person who is asked does not have a sensible way of replying, because really, the question does not concern them (and have no reason to). It's a dumb way of asking or giving critique, because it warrants no good answers. The questions needs to be qualified for academic endeavour in some specific way where there is a direction. That's the problem with a lot of critique today, that it's not ready-made to be critiqued itself. When asking a question, a good trick is to form it, so that you are a 100% ready for having the same question turned around to yourself. How would YOU answer your own question? The best questions are always the ones, that you would like to answer yourself. So, I think the lesson here is to do one's homework, be prepared, and don't squander. When asking a person a question, read up on them; do your research on their works first, etc.
i think what he is saying is that the difference is action vs thinking, europeans love to give issues a lot of time to think about it and see it through different angles ,while the americans love more the action they are practical they love to jump to action and experience it and think while the action or maybe conclude after the actions, when a person demand you to elaborate, he is not giving you enough time to think so he is pushing the button and you are more of a fool robot, i agree with him when he says it's manipulative because when you ask a sudden question to a person , this person is not ready so he could say something that he will regret. sorry for my bad english
hicham konan Well some people would say that before you make a claim, you should have thought about it and had some reason or explanation to justify your belief that your claim was true. And that if for some reason you have made a claim, but haven't thought about it enough, then the very act of explaining it or elaborating upon it is not a selfish or lazy request made upon you, but an opportunity to sharpen your idea or concept, to expand your own mind and that of your interlocutor. Of course, if you know full well before you even speak it that your claim is not really worth consideration and that you are merely putting on a front, then it's useful to cast aspersions at those who are trying to understand you. Mote useful perhaps than simply admitting your attempt to gain status or respect for your phony ideas.
His point is that the person constantly asking the professor to elaborate is never thinking for himself, but lazily entering into the discussion with a vague and general question just to give the appearance of participation in the discourse.
Not just that but also the problem of hegemony of an Empire goes even more and deep into everything and every one in America. As far as I understood him in this sense this idea is to be added to the American attitude.
"Can you elaborate ?" = "Can you do the thinking for me so that I can have a ready made opinion on the matter and later claim it as my own in front of my peers ?"
+Azen Kwed Or it could be, could you explain further because I have an idea in my head that I think is similar to yours, but your idea is so banal that I want to be sure I not missing something.
+shilohwillcome Exactly. "Could you clarify?" Of course Derrida doesn't want to say anything clearly because then people would see he has nothing to say at all.
correct. these people expect you to explain everything to their satisfaction, in a way they can adapt it to their own purposes. it is manipulative and you can see people's narcissistic reactions to Derrida's resistance immediately, all over the comments here. i've been sick of this nonsense for years and i'm so grateful he articulated it.
I understand him. Especially when someone is exploring long thought or cause and effect relationships in the mental space. Some people feel disrespectful and even irresponsible if they give you a partial answer or not enough info. They are trying to be careful and thoughtful with you. IMO
I think Derrida wanted to say that a question can not be a “command“ or a “order“. In other words he was trying to defend his Freedom and Liberty. Perhaps subtle, but I think we can learn from it.
The question was: "what did you mean by american?". He clearly answered that. Maybe the case is that another very american thing is to say "you didn't answered to my question" to everything an enemy says. But answering to your question (alas): the idea that if someone is not ready to hand out some normative proceeding on how to "supercede" a given practice doesn't mean it is beyond critique. The necessity of such attitude is dependent on a utilitarian perspective.
2:13 how does a language that takes nearly twice the time and nearly twice the space on a page as English to convey ANYTHING not have an equivalent for the word "*ELABORATE*"
+Brantley Jones That's the american vision, thinking Derrida, Foucault and Deleuze are representative of the french. In reality, they are nothing but a subsection of our philosophical field, full of various thinkers. And, the french spirit, if it exist, is not in the french philosophy, but rather in litterature : there is more "France" in victor hugo than in any philosopher.
Who do they revere more highly then, if anyone? I ask this with genuine curiosity as an American who was also under the impression that this milieu of French philosophers must be highly revered in France, since they certainly seem to be in our own academia.
It's not French philosophy, but continental European philosophy more generally. Try reading the wiki entry on the "coherence theory of truth" for example: it posits that we cannot know how the word/idea directly relates to the reality it represents (that would be the classical "coherence theory of truth"), but that to know the whole truth of any one particular you would have to know its relationship to the totality of things, the universal, whole, or the One. It's what Hegel meant by dialectic.
I agree with you, the problem here is not elucidation itself. If you didnt understand a point someone is making, and if you paid attention to what that person was saying, you will ask about the particular aspects of that argument which you didnt understand. Asking simply to elaborate is too vague, broad, lazy, it shows lack of interest and it can be a way of asking the other to do all the work for you: he is the one whos supposed to make you understand and you dont have to make any effort.
My wife and i are reading aloud the Symposium, perhaps not a very American form of entertainment.....in which almost everyone engaged is expected to elaborate on the spot about topics that are difficult to be explicit about. Derrida may think that this is characteristic of Americans but it seems to me to be characteristic of western philosophical discourse for about 2400 years or so.
+Orkhan Bayramov One word is never a question. For elaborating a good answer, you need a question, not an interrogation. For example, an interrogation is " Does God exist? This is not a question. There is no interest. You need to formulate a problem in your question in view to be able to elaborate an answer.
The Greek tradition is still extremely valuable and inspiring. I think where you are going a bit off course here is that logic and the analytic tradition are just answers to different questions. Different tools for different trades. But you also must not forget that Logic traces itself back to it's Greek roots in the tradition of Aristotelian syllogisms and was considered a base for much of the philosophy and ancient "rhetorical studies".
But there are other logics than the one invented by the Greeks and that logic is built upon binaries and categorizations that exist nowhere but in the human mind--granted, I'm using it now as I write because it was invented to go hand in glove with alphabetic writing, but there's only so much Greek logic that a human being can take.
@@EatPieYes There is "paleologic" which is the logic of children and imaginative/creative types (and schizophrenics) --see Sylvano Arietti or Google. There is "psyche-logic" which is based primarily on feeling. And there is "ana-logic" which is a logic that uses comparison--this one predates the logic of Socrates/Plato/Aristotle but it serves their logic well. Arthur Koestler also mentions a type of logic that we see most in comic acts (and in invention) that he calls "bisociative" logic. Bisociative logic and analogic are closely related except that analogic, since shaped by the Greek logic project, appears to be more concerned with comparing qualities/properties while bisociative logic is more freewheeling/associative in nature. Personally, if you remove the Greek influence, they seem to be the same thing. I'm probably missing a few, but the point here is that there are logics in play that the Greeks either discounted or they borrowed to fuel their own invention--and logic is an invention! See this site for how these logics work in a complimentary system: www.education.sa.gov.au/docs/curriculum/tfel/mu_dictionary_task.pdf P.S. Vea Vecchi's book on art and education in Reggio Emilia explains how these logics are part of our biological inheritance and to isolate out any of them is to become less human: ruclips.net/video/xaMHusQjvV8/видео.html Hope this helps!
He apparently never considers that maybe some people prefer to pose less-structured questions because they preordain fewer answers. Instead, he bizarrely calls this "manipulative."
what's the problem with can you elaborate? The person he's talking to couldn't get the points of what he's talking about so ask for a help by saying that so that the listener, who does not involve in talking at the moment, can participate in discourse, not being isolated by that. If the speaker rejects the help the listener is asking for, there is no purpose in communication since the speaker is trying to exclude the listener.
Where does the responsibility come from due to the speaker's lack of ability to articulate for the listener? That's from the speaker, not from the listener. If the speaker wants the listener to understand her/him, they need to be equipped with such ability rather than to expect for the listener to get through his/her points without their having such ability. Plus, what if the listener assumes the words of the speaker by not asking such question? In this case, misinterpretation about it would likely happen and thus the original meaning get distorted in a way that the speaker did not intend by the listener. To prevent this, asking such question can be an attitude of seeking for clarity rather than an attitude of lazy thinking.
+Whydoesitmatter Sorry for confusing you. What I meant by such ability was the ability for the speaker to make the listeners understand his or her words by articulating them in a way that's possible. Regarding the second one, I wanted to say that in case the listener does not ask a question like could you elaborate, chances are the listener can misinterpret the point or intention that the speaker wanted to deliver. In other words, in case the listener choose to interpret the words of speakers without asking such question on their own, the listener's assumption would be made in the process of that. I'm unsure that French students do not ask a question like could you elaborate as much as American students do is because they think with more insights tho. Japanese students do not ask such question often either to their instructors not because the quality of the lecture is high but because they are not used to asking such question to a figure of authority. I think when one asks such question I don't see that person asked such question because that person refuses to think more and deeply about my idea; but since my ideas were expressed in a difficulty way or ambiguous way that they can't get, so all I have to do as a speaker is to make the ideas clear with ones such as examples for them because I'm the person who came up with the idea, wanting to deliver it to them.
"except "could you elaborate?" is not really a question. It requires the speaker to think for the listener about what he/she doesn't get. Basically, it's just lazy thinking." And then you just asked her to elaborate. See the problem here?
Normally whenever I ask a lecturer something, at the VERY VERY least I posit something and ask them if I have a correct understanding of what they are teaching, and if it is not, how can I better frame it. I don't just say 'please elaborate'. That's lazy. At the very least, say 'please elaborate on how... x and y is related.', prove to the person that you are intellectually engaged and invested.
i believe good words are easy to understand. a speaker who is capable of articulating is capable of producing understandable words by employing examples, facts, evidence and etc. not pretty much questions like "could you elaborate" is back from his/her listener if his/her statement is supported with details. because a speaker did not support his/her details with his/her claim, a listener asked him/her to elaborate so that his claim makes sense with details. if this is the case, asking "could you elaborate" is not "lazy" but rather the listener is intellectually "engaging".
What Derrida is saying (positive), is that it is more interesting to "answer" to an elaborated question than to simple interrogations about this or that. There is a whole conception of what is thought, what is to think, etc. beneath this way fo questioning, and that's what Derrida is repelling. Gilles Deleuze would also absolutely agree with him. His hostile reaction comes from the believe that this way of asking questions (interrogation) prevents thinking to happen (doxa remains unquestionable).You may not agree with him, but that doesn't have any importance. He's created a philosophy... read it if you find it interesting. If not, find something else to read.
3. Derrida was naturally tanned, he is from the coastal region of France (Algeria) and the people there are naturally that color. The videos color contrast is probably heightened to produce that effect.
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
Wow it took this genius to notice differences between cultures and assume that the other way of doing things was wrong. Wow I mean that is just brilliant.
@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....
So basically, Jacques here is complaining that we Americans don't hold "intellectuals" upon a godlike pedestal, from which they should never be expected to sink to the grave indignity of clarifying the statements coming out of their own mouths? I can live with that.
Just like a comedian has a previous made routine to perform, so American public intellectuals have their ready made stories and anecdotes. That phenomenon of having those stories and comments ready is an American phenomenon more than a French one. Where in France, when you ask for example a philosopher a question about 'being', his response has to be formulated on the spot, and naturally with such complicated subjects that is really hard to do, and thus a bit rude.
snapsnapdik I see the criticism as of a lack of reciprocity in communication that the American attitude seems to enforce - this possibly contributes to the highly partisan nature of their politics - you are this idea, you think/say this, I am other, give to me your words; like an item, like a particular philosopher is a tap that dispenses certain ideas, and I can have some of this, some of that, I can use these ideas for these purposes... it contrasts the reciprocal search for truth, we are both here together on this planet in conversation trying to understand the world, for us to go any further I must ask the right questions. The 'American' attitude, in America, is of course internalised, so the philosopher has a version of their ideas that they can present to whomever asks for them, but the 'French' way is a stream, if you don't ask me the right questions I cannot give you the right answer.
That seems to be the opposite of what he said. I think he means that in America we worship intellectual titans such that we assume they can speak profoundly and articulately in immediate response to a simple vague question (could you elaborate). In France they understand that you have to ask more specific, intelligent questions to receive an intelligent response.
I love how someone, who refined the methodology of analyzing words, ideas and concepts to their respective descriptions and prescriptions, doesn't like being asked to elaborate on his usage of terms. Oh, forgive us poor sorry sods for asking you to clarify your use of terms which you just implied have a relative meaning that changes according to their usage. I love how he had no problem 'elaborating' when asked to discuss what he meant by "How American". Well, we can be overgeneralizing as well -- you self-inflated piece of euro-trash.
I think the source of the ellaboration is important. If it's from a creative person when we can understand a new process. In this American type I understand what he's saying, that the end result is to simply acheive the product - like a movie.
Way too many insecure American comments here just proving his point. It is pretty much agreed on that American culture doesn't really prioritize nuanced thinking. Get over it!
1/ seeking clarity requires additional resources - simplifies the output to make it compatible with different types of person - reduces the research of content itself since the effort has been more oriented towards format 2/ of course my horse - no philosopher has been interpreted in the same way by two different readers No philosopher has ever been interpreted in the same way across time - every interpretation "for the sake of clarity" involves a loss.
Jacques is too sensitive here. When Americans ask to elaborate on something, they sincerely think they are allowing you to exercise the freedom of expression, without restraint, which they think is a good thing. For Derrida, based on his background, an American call to elaborate is a command from someone who believes to be privileged. The cultural nuance is lost in Derrida here. I say this as a foreigner to both Americans and French speakers.
But you were also probably raised by American culture (if you’re young that is). There used to be more visible diversity in the world, which had its charm but wasn’t necessarily good or bad. I think only Japan has done well in keeping it’s more traditional values.
I do think you have a valuable point here. But that it can be seen as "good" to put someone under pressure to come up with an answer to something on the spot is, I think, precisely the problem he is targeting-it is nonetheless a selfish thing disguised as a blessing in many cases. Sure, if you would otherwise be disallowed to speak, then maybe allowing elaboration could be a benevolence, but only within an already suffocating social structure, and only when social power over speech is held by a privileged person other that the person who has to be 'allowed' to elaborate. In this sense it is never really benevolent: and still certainly indicative of the 'fast food, easy philosophy, vulgar politics' that constitutes "the American" at present.
@@dracowolfe305 Interesting point but I think the commercialisation of tradition, as in Japan via the massive and growing tourist industry, is also a kind of vulgarity which will continue to become worse as capitalism barrels on, and makes more catastrophes of itself. Cultural heritage will inevitably become structured more by what sells and less by what traditions are truly important-as it has already begun to do.
How terrible that a person would want you to actually spell out some convoluted and seemingly nonsensical thing! "Wah! I get upset when people ask me to actually explain the stupidities I'm spouting. They're just being manipulative!"
Since people knew that information was valuable (given in any format, context, and purpose), it has been a business. People no longer buy books to think but for ""Is this book going to change me?"" ""Is this book useful?"". Books have turned into products instead of thought instruments. Self-help and How-to-Cook crap flood the shelves of many Americans, and that's why intellect is mistakenly seen as exclusive of academic people. Derrida just described how he saw the attitude of Americans (academically speaking) and suddenly you-tubers believe themselves to be some kind of internet court ... Freedom is not given, it is earned. This man contributed to education and much more, I think he had and has all the freedom to speak about whatever the fuck he wants. And still he does through his books.
"People no longer buy books to think but for ""Is this book going to change me?"" ""Is this book useful?""" ...are you implying that thinking is useless?
McFisticuffs I'm sayin' that books nowadays are 'fulfilling' in the sense of not looking for answers. Readers nowadays settle for the advertised pages in front of them. Summarizing, they are conformed with getting answers instead of asking questions. I don't know about you, but a conformist has no thinking at all.
"intellect is mistakenly seen as exclusive of academic people". also you "you haven't earned the right to criticize this academic man!" Freedom is not earned, freedom is a given to anyone in the western world. No one is exempt from criticism, certainly not people who have earned their bread all their life from criticizing western society!
Probably just has to do with the English language. 'Please elaborate' simply means, "Hey, I kinda get what you're saying. But can you please talk a little more so I can process this information?" Doesn't have anything to do with culture. Simply relates to the *language* itself.
contrary to the comments below, i found nothing particularly offensive about derrida's remarks here. its true that the american will to "produce" has rid the world of many interesting diversions. you have to interpret what philosophers say, that doesn't make them charlatans or oracles or ego maniacs, it simply requires an effort on the reader's part. on occaision, spelling things out robs the subtlety and intent of the original idea
I'm really surprised when I read youtube comments and I find people making just really bad interpretations of what they view in a 5 minute clip and using it to push some kind of agenda. So alright let me clarify some things. 1. He was not saying this is bad to elaborate, he was simply saying it was American. 2. He is not making some broad claim, but answering a very specific question. There is so much conclusion jumping.
As an American post-bac I find it hard to imagine a situation other than what he describes in reference to the "demands" so to speak of American students and professors, but I certainly wouldn't mind being enlightened. What I do understand is this framing of thinkers as kinds of machines, and how that might be problematic. Is agreeing to an interview the same as agreeing to think profoundly on command?
Derrida talks about the same thing as Bergson called : the homo loquax : the smart man who is able to talk about anything instantly. This is also the called " demi-habile" by Pascal. Expertise must be used for getting the third kind of knowledge (Spinoza) : Simplicity.
Wow, the French really are addicted to complaining and using anything any American says to assume their superiority, so they can then turn around and accuse us of being arrogant. Maybe the person who asks "Could you elaborate" (which is a polite form of English) is asking in a spirit of genuine intellectual curiosity, which he's stomping on so he can satisfy, not merely his addiction to complaining, but, worse, his addiction to mood-altering through self-righteousness. Either way, he's a pretnetious bore, which explains why he ended his comments with "voila", as if he'd uttered the final word and there was nothing more to say on the matter.
I have a French girlfriend and friends from France and they talk routinely about how the French love to complain. And I've experienced the complaining first hand. So, it's an ACCURATE generalization. Plus, you said my "generalziations" are worse than his. But you're only responding to one comment of mine on youtube. So how would you be able to use the plural? Whose the one making inaccurate generalizations.
Yes, I know there are three examples IN ONE COMMENT! That's what I wrote, for a reason, ie; they all go together IN ONE COMMENT. But, nevermind, what matters is they all go together, and they are all accurate, whereas his aren't. They are typical prejudcies that many of the French make, and not just the French.
Petter Danckwardt Yeah, he's pointing at intellectual laziness. You can't buy understanding. You have to make an effort e.g. by asking an intelligent question.
+Paul Rothwell American attitude is " Hey Derrida, I just have 5 minutes, please give me quickly the answer to the question of "Being" because I have a more important thing to do : MAKE MONEY!"
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
"Beleive it or not, Eraserhead is my most spiritual film"
"Can you elaborate on that"
"No"
(David Lynch french moment)
Well it's not unreasonable to ask for one to elaborate if they say something so "abusive' to another's intelligence
Lynch should not have to "elaborate". No thoughtful person eg artist is a puppet who dances on a bell signal or command. As Derrida might say, its not the anyones responsibility to serve another person especially the media. I can imagine an American journo asking Hitler, Stalin or Christ or a murderer to "elaborate".
I would almost take the point one step further and say that the pre-packaged or "ready made" answers mentioned here are exactly what is required by those who appear on cable news shows and our general political environment. There is a kind of bias of simplicity where it's assumed that if you can't express yourself, your idea, or your argument in a soundbite then you have nothing of value to add to a conversation. And I think that this is one of the main problems with apps like Twitter and soundbite culture in general. Think about how negatively this has affected us, e.g. in presidential debates candidates are given "90 seconds to respond" and other such bits of time where issues can't be developed and argued in any kind of meaningful and deep way.
excellently put, a very commercial kind of vulgarisation
Derrida was just being his usual polite self in this clip, basically saying that we Americans have the attention span of a gnat!
It's the professional culture of the managerial class. Philosophers are bums and science is just a tool. The only real jobs are using tools and straightening out bums.
Haha gotta love the irony. She basically asked him, "Elaborate by what you meant by American?"
You can see it at the end when he says "Viola", that he realizes it.
@@jrgenm.dsollie4849 He doesn't realize it. He's known it all along and starts backwards and finishes with Voila -- as if to surmise the Aporia-related developmental stages of the term elaborate riddling the interviewer's question.
@@najeebelnasser Nah.
Guess thats what makes an American Duh ! Asking the obvious...
@@AudioPervert1 I rewatched this and I realize that what she asked for is clarification on what he meant by being "very American." This is not the same as someone saying, go, elaborate on this topic. Rather, she is asking him what he meant by using very loaded words. To elaborate is different than to ask someone to explain themselves. She is asking him to explain, to account for his word choice because it was directed at her. It's as if I said, well, your comment makes you sound stupid and you said, how so?
It’s really interesting, because he’s right in the sense that all Americans have sort of interpolated this media-speak, journalistic, cinematic language into every day speech, without recognition of the fact that such language is deliberately awkward, probing, and lazy
Dominative. You forgot the central point, dominative. Your conflation of media and journalism, cinema, don’t have much to do with media or journalism or cinema but only the evidence of the commercial contrivance that synthesizes products resembling, but not imbibing those forums.
This is the best comment I've ever read because a) it's true and b) I explore that theme in my transmedia art piece/research project called Scribblebytes. We are all pretending.
@@ericmuschlitz7619 Well that's a given and doesn't need mentioning because, since industrialisation, that's what the human experience has soley been centred around: production.
This guy is a pussy. He should just thankful our western society is so effete and rich and corrupt that it can afford to babysit hacks like him. He needs to get back to his little grift of poring over manuscripts for hours on end, which he probably doesn't even do, before finally throwing his hands up in exasperation. Sacre blue! All verbal communication is inherently equivocal! So leave me alone, I need to time think, I don't have a ready made answer for you! Not even my own students. Just listen to my drivel, parrot it back and you might get an A. And you get to be cultured and sophisticated that way. That's the name of the game anyway. Always be hustling....
"Please elaborate".
"Please formulate an actual question."
Yes, and the interviewee did formulate an actual question.
@@growingmelancholy8374 so american of you to asume that after one question he should just "elaborate" instead of having a dialogue that would allow him to deconstruct the subject.
Linguistically, but also ethically there’s much to say.
I had observed this 'request to elaborate' from some American documentarians and journalists from this era ('70's roughly).
You won't hear an American journalist request anyone to elaborate anything in 2022. I wish more so-called journalists would ask for elaboration. But, that won't fit on a TikTok video.
THANK YOU
I think Derrida's point is that, if you are unclear about something, you need to ask a specific question, not just a general and vague, "Please talk more!" The former shows that you are a good listener and a thoughtful participant in the conversation, whereas the latter betrays you as intellectually lazy and selfish.
+Victor Weis I have noticed this with alot of friends I can consider to be more European (I live in Belgium, many cultures come together here) as well that they don't like the simple question "What do you mean?", they rather have me trying to define what they meant or what I consider to be the meaning of that and let them correct me when wrong. With Americans it's very different, they consider it impolite to give your own opinion when no one asked for it and even worse they will convince you that you are making assumptions about what they meant because they feel offended that you don't understand them off the bat. Of course, this doesn't count for all Americans but then again there are vast differences between NYC and LA for instance and this definitely can be said about people more towards the West Coast. They absolutely do not like it that "you put words in their mouth"
Victor Weis That is your interpretation of his usage of the 'Elaborate' word! If you pay attention to his conversation, what he's saying is that people must find their own solutions and understanding of a particular question.
Think for yourself and use your own thinking! Is the correct interpretation. Cheers,
+Victor Weis Derrida means that American people judge a philosopher about his ability to "improvise" about any subject. But this is not a good criterium. Because if you have "staircase wit" as Rousseau, then you're judged to be a bad philosopher.A good philosopher has to be judged about his ability to create "new concept", not about to be a good show man.
+Victor Weis Except, that is not what he said.
+Victor Weis I guess it's rude for speakers to say something unclear, vague, and ambiguous or things that can be interpreted only by himself or herself, by which listeners can't understand. Since that's communication in which not only speakers but also listeners are involved, speakers need to be kind to them by explaining concepts they want to explain clearly and easily so they can feel easy. For example, If their statements are vague and abstract, then speakers had better need to add details, examples, contrast, comparison, definitions, illustrations, demonstrations, instead of listing all abstract concepts that make listeners get lost in them, and from which communication between them can start. And I don't think the listener's asking questions like can you elaborate reflect their intellectual laziness; rather, it's a sign that asks for a help. They want to understand. They want to be included in words speakers are saying, the conversation where the speakers betray them. If they don't want to be involved, so according to your word, if they were lazy, they could have not shown such curiosity by asking the question. Also, they are not supposed to be blamed for not involving in that since that's their choice not to involve in the conversaiotn they're not interested in. And if the speakers wants them to involved in their words, they had better help, persuade, and convince them in kind manner instead of blaming on them.
I think what Derrida is suggesting is that in order to get deep into an idea the discussion must take place through dialouge, a dialectic approach, where one spars back and forth like Platonic dialouge. To just say talk, elaborate, the speaker has nothing to respond to. However, if you are someone like Noam Chomsky, you want no dialouge. Chomsky just likes to talk nonstop going on several tangents before arriving at a conclusion. Chomsky hates to be interrupted. So, I guess each approach is
America being a product of modernity, it’s people are hungry for information that will help them “succeed” or be “productive.” They do not care about knowledge or higher learning. They care about knowing things because they like the idea of being a person that knows things. They don’t care what they know as long as they know stuff.
That’s the sense I get about what Derrida meant here.
Here in the States, knowledge only has value if it gets you money. This is especially true if you come from a working class and/or immigrant background (as I have), which is understandable. But there is this general attitude where reading philosophy, literature, etc. or even having a hobby like music are only for those who can make a living from it, are idle rich, or aren't paying proper attention to their families.
If you put me in your house and you know I know things you are going to be expecting to know things but if I Stand outside your house they will arrest me so either way I am being somewhat persecuted into a nonsense scenario as Value Is desirable as what you can abstract from the person
It makes a lot of sense. Americans are more task and goal oriented, whereas, at least for people in Derrida's circles, the relations are not utilitarian (in the colloquial sense), but are rather communitarian - the conversation matters for its own sake, not because there is a ready made answer. As Levinas says, the saying overflows the said. Conversations are to be this overflowing, not a repetition of the said, which grows stale and does not usually fit nicely into new contexts.
I think what he is trying to say is that philosophical discourse requires a level of nuance even when a question is posed. This makes absolute sense because nuance and complexity is relevant to all of our affairs in life.
I don't think so, nevertheless your remark is interesting on its own.
I am aMerican, but I like French society. I like that they try to preserve their culture as much as possible and not let globalization infiltrate their society. Of course, there are things I don;t like about France either, but it has some amazing thinkers including Derriad.
I hope u r not planning on preserving American culture, because the USA is based on infiltration of everyone from all over the world
I studied in France back in the 1980s and attended a lecture he gave on Jerry Lewis and it was very insightful
COULD YOU ELABORATE ?
apparently he did, but its so American eeew
He's a lot more personable than I imagined he would be
He reminds me of one of my professors, one of the kindest I've ever dealt with.
He was charm personified. I once saw him speak at the University of Pittsburgh, and his "hostess" was none other than G. Spivak, the queen of self important verbosity. She made a mini-speech to introduce him, and it ended with an insane, convoluted question. He humbly said, "I am sorry, I don't even understand what you are asking." The room came down with applause, because deep down we all despised Spivak. Then he proceeded to give a most wonderful lecture about friendship. We loved him, and he seemed approachable and kind. He was definitely mobbed at the end of the lecture, so I didn't try to get near. His ideas suffice. RIP.
Wow! It is the first time I heard Derrida speak.. now I want to listen to him more...
I think that what he means is that in Europe, a conversation is more subtle, more playfull and less pragmatic. The conversation is experienced not as extracting information but relies on equel contribution of its participants. Note that this is about style of conversation, not about Americans being robots or Europeans not talking about serieus topics.
Agreed
Like seryus spelling tuhls
@sultan whomever This might be true. As a Canadian that knows Germans they can engage in this kind of questioning where it appears irrelevant.
Sometimes the French can be intentionally obtuse though.
i dont understand all the aggressive reactions on derridas opinion. the crucial point in his statement was the "ready made". philosophy deals with questions out of a context. a philosopher cant create packaged products like consumable biscuits, sweet, light and digestible for every tart. a question comes from somewhere, out of a previous knowledge, with intentions and "bildung".
It's because using a national identity like "American" provokes a collective ego response. It's the same as saying to someone at the individual level, "it's just like you to . . . " Someone could respond to this video by calling it "very French" or "very European" to lack the ability to elaborate freely because of authoritarian traditions of thought that condition fear of criticism, etc. and people who identify with the collective identities, "French" or "European" would in turn get their collective egos bruised and react with aggression - probably subtle passive aggression if they are conditioned to avoid active, direct modes of aggression.
It would be nice if intellectuals could discuss issues such as this one raised in this video without provoking ego-battles. Of course it's not surprising that an intellectual with a name as aggrandized as Derrida's is prone to ego-provocation.
It is like saying "that is very Chinese, Christian or Muslim of you?" It is belittling to an entire group of people. Listen to Alan Watts if you want to know about Ego, not this rude trickster.
He babbles in this entire video and says nothing more than "Americans want things right now, French arent rude"
Postmodernist deconstructionism doesn't understand inevitable force of the human condition. Suffering is only avoided through structure and values, even if only temporarily and transiently. Its essentially just cultural nihilism. It's a silly philosophical slight of hand. Questioning definitions and value structures is good philosophy, but you must GO from there. Taking them apart and doing nothing with it isn't anything at all... And that's what youre left with: nothing. It's a nothing. Power and oppresion is a consstant inevitable tension, but nothing will leave everyone empty, and everyone suffering. I guess that is egalitarian lol.
Derrida's work, particularly "deconstruction", exists, as he says himself, "in a certain spirit of Marxism". Therefore his work always has that Marxist inclination to criticize the West, western traditions and particularly America. Much like the Frankfurt School, but with a linguistic french style. Nothing really new.
And a university asking Derrida to speak would (rightly assume) that a great mind such as his own would be able to recall patterns of thinking and previous discussions that he could weave together to ask new, novel questions. Instead, he appears to blame American culture, rather than the failure of his own mind. It's quite odd...but decidedly "French" as well (ironic, right?). His own culture informs his breezy, lazy attitude towards the probing of other cultures...which is very typical of the French. They just don't give a shit.
That "Voilà" at the end was fantastic hahaha
(He did kind of succeed in giving a "ready-made answer" to be honest.)
Let's put on these terms: you cannot simply tell a girl (or anyone else) how you feel about her whenever you like and ignore if the context and atmosphere really gives you the opportunity to do it. Some questions and matters require preparation before we can really talk about it in a proper manner. The simple request "elaborate it" suggests that the speech of the thinking is just matter of showing what is already archived and ready for use. But it's a happening. Not a 'springing-phenomenon', but a historical happening. It has its own way to be conducted.
right. "can you elaborate" is not a request, its a demand. But, the social reality is what it is. The world needs to keep on turning.
I so agree with you
@2:21 In French the verb *_développer_* is used.
The verb *_élaborer_* can still be used, but it is usually used for a work, like preparing something for a long intellectual or engineering work or something of that nature.
Mister Derrida is absolutely correct, it is rarely used in French conversations and debates.
Thank you for sharing this video clip.
"Peux-tu m'en dire plus"... I guess it's true that people tend to instead ask a strategically formulated question to get people to elaborate, instead of directly asking to elaborate...
I would have liked Derrida to elaborate on his point...
Infinite Rumination should AMERICANS even care to listen to French Marxist Socialists?
@@kikeheebchinkjigaboo6631 Derrida is not a marxist
@@Insert639 Joker, don’t be joker
@@miat9039 He wants to be as Marxist as he can
@@dp503 have you know his ideas,His ideas is about looking at language in a structuralist sense(he is a post structuralist tho) that he looks at how the meaning of the word is structured or given its meaning at the very structure of language(for example how words get their meaning through other words such as how the meaning of the word tree could be describe in its relationship through other words like green or tall) now if you think that is marxist i dont know what to say to you
As an American, I find there's a lot of American insecurity and impatience revealed in these comments, he's suggesting that intellectual realms such as philosophy in general or critical theory require a certain amount of rigorous thought, independence and nuance as opposed to demanding some hard and fast definition from a person of 'authority' so you can get your wonderful little A grade. Go study with the Neo-cons if you want to feel all warm and fuzzy with folks who are dangerously sure
On the contrary, the comments are quite reasonable; your insinuation of the meaning behind this forward approach is what lacks nuance and independent critical thinking; how A-typical anti-establishment which has become so repetitively the norm; how warm and fuzzy it must make you feel.
Europe is like Miley Cyrus twerking in her underpants; you all think to yourselves how "its so bold and original", while the rest of us have seen it so many times before that its just as boring and mundane as it was when Madonna and many other artists tried to whore them selves out to society. Sometimes horseshit is just horseshit, no matter how many times you try to candy coat it with elaborate explanations... How frightening it must be for you pretentiously humble Europeans that lack self confidence in screwing in a light-bulb to come across someone who ruins your massive contemplation by actually accomplishing the task with a few twists of the wrist. I'm sorry, we'll leave you to your _deep thought_ and maybe you'll come up with an answer for the purpose existence that isn't the number 47.
Imagine thinking the Miley Cyrus analogy actually means anything in this context
That's a run-on sentence you just wrote, mate.
Anyway, I agree with your point. On the flip side, as an Americano del Norte living in France I can tell you that one of the great strengths of the English-speaking world is precisely our ability to improvise, which is, at bottom, what the journalist was asking for, and which Derrida attacked. The French are anything but improvisational. They want to know the instructions beforehand since their education not only penalises, but actually punishes, mistakes. French kids are used to being told they are "nul"--they are nothing, idiots, shit. That's how French kids are raised. They develop a hard shell and a dread of failure. I see some of that in Derrida's response. I also see a form of essentialism that goes completely against his own notions of hybridity. That is, I think he would probably agree with the bulk of postmodern philosophers who would state that nations are held together by "imagined communities" that don't exist in reality but are grand narratives that hold nation-states together. His comments about how Americans are pragmatic, utilitarian, etc have an echo in a certain cultural logic that does seem rather common in America but I think it's reductionist, overly simplistic, and not intellectually honest frankly to lump all Americans together in having a penchant for asking someone to adlib an elaboration on nothing. Wouldn't it have been more honest to just denounce the question itself without bringing in all the unnecessary and invalid cultural attacks. At bottom, I think Derrida is just being an asshole here. He's using his platform to vent. Think about it. The easiest thing in the world its to construct an ad hominem argument--just attack your opponent rather than the issue. Here the great Derrida has done just that. Shame on him, frankly.
ad hominem is a very interesting concept... lets say, as a simple example, koch brothers were arguing in the senate, against donating money to democratic politicians (which is the issue in hand), but the person who is for the motion according to your view of ad hominem, the person for the motion should not bring up koch brothers donations to the republican party since that's not the issue in hand? Same, in the video diderra brought the "ad hominem" argument because the way the questions were being asked to him were affecting his answers (so it was related even though it was a personal attack). first like he said he does not have a ready made answers but a conversation has to build up to get to his answer (his preference), secondly his answers shouldn't be asked to elaborate because if he does he may misspeak (human=not perfect) and the reporter might just pounce on it, in other words waiting to make a mistake, and also he might lose what his initial train of thought that was intended, since some thoughts comes and leaves in a snap. And also what some of the commentators has already said. My view on ad homeniem is when someday attacks another person personally for no relatable reasons to degrade his/er opponent or benefit himself. And I think both my example and deiderra has a fairly relatable arguement to make, hence not ad hominem according to me. But I might be wrong and the actual definition of ad homeniem might be your stand on ad hominem, if that's the case then I don't see a reason why anybody should submit to ad hominem name calling.
I loved the viola at the end.
Most people are unable to ask questions, much less introduce themselves. Since most students and most Americans are very weak in philosophy and social theory not to say politics, there is no real discussion of topics. So when the naive person hears something interesting all they can say is something very general in response, like 'please clarify' or 'could you elaborate?' They have no skin in the game and are unaware of the perspectives of other scholars, so they cannot strike up a conversation about a topic, or ask a specific question. But, to complain would be to say that Americans typically either call each other names or tell them to get out, which is all too often.
Could you elaborate?
Fred, breaking-wind at 320 millions of Americans, and then leaving the room without coming back and apologising for it, is very bad form.
Haw Haw Haw, just consider yourself lucky that you don't have to stand in front of them and persuade them to learn new information.
***** Wasn't Derrida addressing students? I thought that Derrida was expecting thoughtful questions and commentaries, not general requests to elaborate. I have no idea why anyone who is a non-philosopher would tune into Derrida.
***** What is odd, the opposite of even, you would like even responses? Maybe you'd like prime responses or improper responses!
lol that subtitle at the end "Viola" xD
Trisador9 Yes! "VOILA... I've just taken 3 minutes to say fuck all!" A French intellectual in a nutshell.
Is that a viola joke ahaha
I think He said "voilà".
....maybe he doesn´t want to play second violin XD
@@terrypussypower can you elaborate?
i wish he elaborated a bit more. can someone please elaborate, what he meant by that?
Not funny, you twit!
barnil bhattacharjee are you some kind of funny elaborator
He does elaborate, and is criticized for talking too much, confusing the idea, in the end, it's just an intellectual trap used by small minds to "abuse" the smart. His elaborations, could be much more elaborate for some, much less so for others. So, yeah, FREEDOM, one word explains everything for us Americans. Why are we dropping bombs on Syrian children? FREEDOM. There you go.
yeah sure blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Mr. Geraci: Very insightful. Obviously using "blah" to legitimize your westernized - and violent - narrative to pervert reality. We would like to invite you to a colloquium we are hosting "The Violence of Elaboration: From Derrida to Zizek" at Shittown State Community College Springfield Campus (SSCCSC). Please R.S.V.P. immediately.
I'm not Derrida or urmenior but I think what he (Derrida) means is that asking for elaboration on a specific term or whatever is a very general sort of question. In the sense that it doesn't engage you in any way with the other person, you keep yourself at a distance. Whereas if you were to ask a critical question of some other sort you could enter into a more balanced conversation (as opposed to just asking the other person to give you a personalised mini-lecture).
I love his dazzling smile at the end
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.
In fact, the funniest thing about what he says is that the French exams for becoming a teacher or professor of philosophy (le CAPES and l'agrégation, respectively) consist entirely and 100% of being presented with a subject ("Justice and Vengeance", "Is the world beautiful?", "Rights and Power" etc.) and having to "elaborate" on it in great detail. No French student of philosophy has not had to do this exercise.
he seems to be buying alot of time with his speech pattern in this clip
Yes but the student has 4h or so to elaborate on it, not 15min or whatever nuggets of time the journalist would be willing to give him.
Maybe that is exactly the point: what in France is the formula of an exame, in America is how journalists make an interview.
@@gusnagel Or commit to casual conversation god forbid.
I think it is so important to get outside the point of view of "American" pop culture, to become aware of our "American cinematic, journalistic attitude" in general, our particular cultural bias which is shaped by movies than anything else, by taking the point of view of someone from the "outside" the "American" haven for at least for a moment or two. Americans are pragmatists and are just in love with technology, which is its new "Christian-Protestant " Religion.
I love this clip so much.
Derrida points out things beyond people's everyday comprehension
The thing with Derrida is that he is authentic or simply being himself when he speaks/writes and lectures. Bending his words just for someone to understand, grasp his thoughts would be like distort his idea/message. If someone does not understand him, that means the student is not ready to study Derrida as a philosopher.
but, in all seriousness, take some advice from Popper (who I'm guessing you find more congenial): the only way to truly demolish someone's position is to read them thoroughly and try to understand them as sincerely as you would your own. I think Russell says something similar in his History as well.
I think he means that Americans tend to want things "here and now", as if everyone's a manager. A right to demand is excercised not by few (he mentions, e.g. journalists) but by many.
I understand where he's coming from. If I had built a career on books that could easily be confused for the products of a random text generator, I would also be very defensive when asked to explain what I meant.
I think what he means is the shallowness of the question that there are different aspects of one matter that are difficult to "elaborate" on in one setting since it is complicated and involves aspects intertwined.
I wish she had asked him to elaborate.
She actually began the interview by doing precisely that.
I think what Derrida is saying is quite different from what you are saying. When people ask you to elaborate on something, they are not requiring precise explanations about a certain obscure aspect of a definition which they might have misunderstood. No, they are really asking you for a "readymade" summary of an idea, as he puts it.
I like how it takes Derrida almost four minutes to say something that could've been conveyed in one sentence. That's his work in a nutshell. A great actor.
+Ford Bronco Essentially, "I have nothing to say". Try to find anything cohesive that's by Derrida; it is nearly impossible. Decode the polysyllabic words and sometimes you get simple truisms-- most of the time it's just nonsensical claptrap.
+Ford Bronco Or "Please don't question my so-called theories, I can't back them up".
Save it, I completely disregard anything related to continental philosophy. Nothing has been more devastating to third world higher education. How does any of this relate to the real world? I mean outside of academia. If anything it reaffirms state power by promoting apathy-- political and otherwise.
Semiotics is not even a valid field of study anymore, it's derived from bad pseudoscience. It's only function now is within college film studies courses, and even David Bordwell dismisses it. It's a dead approach compared to the study of cognition.
The beauty of conveying or saying nothing, with all the ambiguities that statement entails, is most readily shown by phänomenologie des geistes and wissenschaft der logik. All I'm saying is that the différance of nothing is quite interesting. The notion of could have been conveyed, "without a loss", for mere practicality, shows itself to be impractical when one contemplates the notion of practicality.
Seeking clarity already means you are sacrificing something for the sake of clarity.
It s the person who studies a philosopher that seeks clarity, and the philosopher's task is to expose his perspective, as unclear as it may seem.
That is a well tanned good-looking older gentlemen right there
I wonder what you think about the historical Socrates, then?
I work in an analytic philosophy depatment --in the US -- and I don't like being told "I don't understand Hume. Please elaborate."
Where does one begin when asked something like that? How do I respond?
Derrida is not being bigoted here; this happens far less often in the EU, even all these years later
The truth is that the American educational system creates this type of thinking in its pupils. Our primary, secondary, and sometimes post-secondary education is void of creative thought. Therefore, students are unable to craft creative questions. And worse: they lack the ability to think creatively, as such. Thinking, in the traditional American system, is the connection of facts. Thinking, in the more liberal sense (i.e. which is "French" in this context), is about the creation of connections and the testing of the legitimacy of that connection.
I too prefer the latter.
That's really interesting, please tell me more about it. Do you have some books to advise me ?
Or some studies on it ?
I had that impression too (i'm belgian) but i didn't have enough informations to confirm it.
Buster Friendly yeah, not pedagogically speaking... talk about corporate institutions with standardized curriculum. Until recently, states were coerced to mandate such reforms in public schools ( ESSA 2015)
Totally agree. Also, I get 2 things from this:
1) The "can you elaborate) isn't as much a question, as it is a command, and then, the interviewed person has to 'obey' the command given to them. It's not enough for them to give their viewpoint, and then the other can try to understand it and give their own thoughts on the subject; no, the person has to explain EVERYTHING in detail, instead of the other person doing their homework and trying to find their own answers in answering the question at hand. This is a big intellectual failure, as being a scholar shouldn't be about being spoonfed with information (other people's opinions), but being about learning how to think critically for yourself.
2) A lack of qualification for the questions or critique, you give another person or their work. When an interviewer asks: "Tell me about love", or something general like that, there isn't a specific question related to anything; hence, the person who is asked does not have a sensible way of replying, because really, the question does not concern them (and have no reason to). It's a dumb way of asking or giving critique, because it warrants no good answers. The questions needs to be qualified for academic endeavour in some specific way where there is a direction. That's the problem with a lot of critique today, that it's not ready-made to be critiqued itself. When asking a question, a good trick is to form it, so that you are a 100% ready for having the same question turned around to yourself. How would YOU answer your own question? The best questions are always the ones, that you would like to answer yourself. So, I think the lesson here is to do one's homework, be prepared, and don't squander. When asking a person a question, read up on them; do your research on their works first, etc.
Unfortunately, I can't ask him anymore to elaborate his concept "deconstruction" a bit further. R.I.P Jacques.
i think what he is saying is that the difference is action vs thinking, europeans love to give issues a lot of time to think about it and see it through different angles ,while the americans love more the action they are practical they love to jump to action and experience it and think while the action or maybe conclude after the actions, when a person demand you to elaborate, he is not giving you enough time to think so he is pushing the button and you are more of a fool robot, i agree with him when he says it's manipulative because when you ask a sudden question to a person , this person is not ready so he could say something that he will regret. sorry for my bad english
hicham konan Well some people would say that before you make a claim, you should have thought about it and had some reason or explanation to justify your belief that your claim was true. And that if for some reason you have made a claim, but haven't thought about it enough, then the very act of explaining it or elaborating upon it is not a selfish or lazy request made upon you, but an opportunity to sharpen your idea or concept, to expand your own mind and that of your interlocutor.
Of course, if you know full well before you even speak it that your claim is not really worth consideration and that you are merely putting on a front, then it's useful to cast aspersions at those who are trying to understand you. Mote useful perhaps than simply admitting your attempt to gain status or respect for your phony ideas.
Yes, the Europeans of the country Europland.
His point is that the person constantly asking the professor to elaborate is never thinking for himself, but lazily entering into the discussion with a vague and general question just to give the appearance of participation in the discourse.
bingo! i mean how hard is to understand what he is saying
I love seeing philosophers roasting people. It gives me a sinister satisfaction.
Not just that but also the problem of hegemony of an Empire goes even more and deep into everything and every one in America. As far as I understood him in this sense this idea is to be added to the American attitude.
"Can you elaborate ?" = "Can you do the thinking for me so that I can have a ready made opinion on the matter and later claim it as my own in front of my peers ?"
+Azen Kwed bruv
+Azen Kwed Or it could be, could you explain further because I have an idea in my head that I think is similar to yours, but your idea is so banal that I want to be sure I not missing something.
ok
+shilohwillcome Exactly. "Could you clarify?" Of course Derrida doesn't want to say anything clearly because then people would see he has nothing to say at all.
correct. these people expect you to explain everything to their satisfaction, in a way they can adapt it to their own purposes. it is manipulative and you can see people's narcissistic reactions to Derrida's resistance immediately, all over the comments here. i've been sick of this nonsense for years and i'm so grateful he articulated it.
Yes, I think he wants questions. I agree with him. How do you know what someone does not understand if they do not ask an actual question.
i really think he's saying something more abstract about life in this video, took me a while to see it ; o)
I understand him. Especially when someone is exploring long thought or cause and effect relationships in the mental space. Some people feel disrespectful and even irresponsible if they give you a partial answer or not enough info. They are trying to be careful and thoughtful with you. IMO
I think Derrida wanted to say that a question can not be a “command“ or a “order“. In other words he was trying to defend his Freedom and Liberty. Perhaps subtle, but I think we can learn from it.
Agreed. Such questions though have little to do with philosophy.
The question was: "what did you mean by american?". He clearly answered that. Maybe the case is that another very american thing is to say "you didn't answered to my question" to everything an enemy says. But answering to your question (alas): the idea that if someone is not ready to hand out some normative proceeding on how to "supercede" a given practice doesn't mean it is beyond critique. The necessity of such attitude is dependent on a utilitarian perspective.
2:13 how does a language that takes nearly twice the time and nearly twice the space on a page as English to convey ANYTHING not have an equivalent for the word "*ELABORATE*"
Élaborer in french
Impressive, very nice. Let’s hear Noam Chomsky’s opinion on French postmodernists.
The French like their men saying nothing at all, eloquently and at great length.
+Brantley Jones That's the american vision, thinking Derrida, Foucault and Deleuze are representative of the french. In reality, they are nothing but a subsection of our philosophical field, full of various thinkers. And, the french spirit, if it exist, is not in the french philosophy, but rather in litterature : there is more "France" in victor hugo than in any philosopher.
You must be a success there.
The french don't give a shit about Derrida
Yes, and I can assure that they haven't for years.
Who do they revere more highly then, if anyone? I ask this with genuine curiosity as an American who was also under the impression that this milieu of French philosophers must be highly revered in France, since they certainly seem to be in our own academia.
It's not French philosophy, but continental European philosophy more generally. Try reading the wiki entry on the "coherence theory of truth" for example: it posits that we cannot know how the word/idea directly relates to the reality it represents (that would be the classical "coherence theory of truth"), but that to know the whole truth of any one particular you would have to know its relationship to the totality of things, the universal, whole, or the One. It's what Hegel meant by dialectic.
This is the same as when sports writers interview athletes...but they say
Talk about......
Spot on man
I agree with you, the problem here is not elucidation itself. If you didnt understand a point someone is making, and if you paid attention to what that person was saying, you will ask about the particular aspects of that argument which you didnt understand. Asking simply to elaborate is too vague, broad, lazy, it shows lack of interest and it can be a way of asking the other to do all the work for you: he is the one whos supposed to make you understand and you dont have to make any effort.
Trump : I'LL BUILD THAT WALL. TRUST ME. I TELL YOU. I'LL BUILD THAT WALL.
Derrida : Everything can be deconstructed.
Reality cannot be denied nor can it be deconstructed, the branch that you are perched on cannot be done away with.
Deconstruction and it’s fine appointment
My wife and i are reading aloud the Symposium, perhaps not a very American form of entertainment.....in which almost everyone engaged is expected to elaborate on the spot about topics that are difficult to be explicit about. Derrida may think that this is characteristic of Americans but it seems to me to be characteristic of western philosophical discourse for about 2400 years or so.
Please elaborate Jacques what you mean
+Orkhan Bayramov One word is never a question. For elaborating a good answer, you need a question, not an interrogation. For example, an interrogation is " Does God exist? This is not a question. There is no interest. You need to formulate a problem in your question in view to be able to elaborate an answer.
+lionel ODDO Could you elaborate?
+shilohwillcome Welcome to the party, buddy... the "could you elaborate" jokes on this board died years ago.
Marzipaneater Glad I could resurrect it.
shilohwillcome :-)
The Greek tradition is still extremely valuable and inspiring. I think where you are going a bit off course here is that logic and the analytic tradition are just answers to different questions. Different tools for different trades. But you also must not forget that Logic traces itself back to it's Greek roots in the tradition of Aristotelian syllogisms and was considered a base for much of the philosophy and ancient "rhetorical studies".
But there are other logics than the one invented by the Greeks and that logic is built upon binaries and categorizations that exist nowhere but in the human mind--granted, I'm using it now as I write because it was invented to go hand in glove with alphabetic writing, but there's only so much Greek logic that a human being can take.
@@mjamesharding Could you elaborate?
@@EatPieYes Lol, on which part?
@@mjamesharding What other logics do you mean?
@@EatPieYes There is "paleologic" which is the logic of children and imaginative/creative types (and schizophrenics) --see Sylvano Arietti or Google.
There is "psyche-logic" which is based primarily on feeling.
And there is "ana-logic" which is a logic that uses comparison--this one predates the logic of Socrates/Plato/Aristotle but it serves their logic well.
Arthur Koestler also mentions a type of logic that we see most in comic acts (and in invention) that he calls "bisociative" logic.
Bisociative logic and analogic are closely related except that analogic, since shaped by the Greek logic project, appears to be more concerned with comparing qualities/properties while bisociative logic is more freewheeling/associative in nature. Personally, if you remove the Greek influence, they seem to be the same thing.
I'm probably missing a few, but the point here is that there are logics in play that the Greeks either discounted or they borrowed to fuel their own invention--and logic is an invention!
See this site for how these logics work in a complimentary system:
www.education.sa.gov.au/docs/curriculum/tfel/mu_dictionary_task.pdf
P.S. Vea Vecchi's book on art and education in Reggio Emilia explains how these logics are part of our biological inheritance and to isolate out any of them is to become less human: ruclips.net/video/xaMHusQjvV8/видео.html
Hope this helps!
im american i need bullet points baby
god damned powerpoints!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
melizza belle So American of you. . .
I read this comment with joe rogans voice in mind
+Consider the petition to remove CNN from airports lmao please link to your petition as I agree
so...if you want bullet points, you need to ask bullet-point questions showing you have been thinking, baby
He apparently never considers that maybe some people prefer to pose less-structured questions because they preordain fewer answers. Instead, he bizarrely calls this "manipulative."
Well said in a deconstructive way :D
Nice of him to elaborate
what's the problem with can you elaborate? The person he's talking to couldn't get the points of what he's talking about so ask for a help by saying that so that the listener, who does not involve in talking at the moment, can participate in discourse, not being isolated by that. If the speaker rejects the help the listener is asking for, there is no purpose in communication since the speaker is trying to exclude the listener.
Where does the responsibility come from due to the speaker's lack of ability to articulate for the listener? That's from the speaker, not from the listener. If the speaker wants the listener to understand her/him, they need to be equipped with such ability rather than to expect for the listener to get through his/her points without their having such ability. Plus, what if the listener assumes the words of the speaker by not asking such question? In this case, misinterpretation about it would likely happen and thus the original meaning get distorted in a way that the speaker did not intend by the listener. To prevent this, asking such question can be an attitude of seeking for clarity rather than an attitude of lazy thinking.
+Whydoesitmatter Sorry for confusing you.
What I meant by such ability was the ability for the speaker to make the listeners understand his or her words by articulating them in a way that's possible.
Regarding the second one, I wanted to say that in case the listener does not ask a question like could you elaborate, chances are the listener can misinterpret the point or intention that the speaker wanted to deliver. In other words, in case the listener choose to interpret the words of speakers without asking such question on their own, the listener's assumption would be made in the process of that.
I'm unsure that French students do not ask a question like could you elaborate as much as American students do is because they think with more insights tho. Japanese students do not ask such question often either to their instructors not because the quality of the lecture is high but because they are not used to asking such question to a figure of authority. I think when one asks such question I don't see that person asked such question because that person refuses to think more and deeply about my idea; but since my ideas were expressed in a difficulty way or ambiguous way that they can't get, so all I have to do as a speaker is to make the ideas clear with ones such as examples for them because I'm the person who came up with the idea, wanting to deliver it to them.
"except "could you elaborate?" is not really a question. It requires the
speaker to think for the listener about what he/she doesn't get.
Basically, it's just lazy thinking."
And then you just asked her to elaborate.
See the problem here?
Normally whenever I ask a lecturer something, at the VERY VERY least I
posit something and ask them if I have a correct understanding of what
they are teaching, and if it is not, how can I better frame it. I don't
just say 'please elaborate'. That's lazy. At the very least, say 'please
elaborate on how... x and y is related.', prove to the person that you
are intellectually engaged and invested.
i believe good words are easy to understand. a speaker who is capable of articulating is capable of producing understandable words by employing examples, facts, evidence and etc. not pretty much questions like "could you elaborate" is back from his/her listener if his/her statement is supported with details. because a speaker did not support his/her details with his/her claim, a listener asked him/her to elaborate so that his claim makes sense with details. if this is the case, asking "could you elaborate" is not "lazy" but rather the listener is intellectually "engaging".
What Derrida is saying (positive), is that it is more interesting to "answer" to an elaborated question than to simple interrogations about this or that. There is a whole conception of what is thought, what is to think, etc. beneath this way fo questioning, and that's what Derrida is repelling. Gilles Deleuze would also absolutely agree with him. His hostile reaction comes from the believe that this way of asking questions (interrogation) prevents thinking to happen (doxa remains unquestionable).You may not agree with him, but that doesn't have any importance. He's created a philosophy... read it if you find it interesting. If not, find something else to read.
That's what is done in " Democracy now " : he is right: in France , noone ask such a way .
Should america be listening to French Marxist Socialists?
@@kikeheebchinkjigaboo6631 irrelevant
@@kikeheebchinkjigaboo6631 Don't you guys consider everyone to the left of Raegen a "Marxist Socialist"?
3. Derrida was naturally tanned, he is from the coastal region of France (Algeria) and the people there are naturally that color. The videos color contrast is probably heightened to produce that effect.
He sounds very charming. Someone I would like to have a cup of coffee with.
Coffee is drug
Where would you have it?
At what time?
On what day?
What type of coffee?
What would you talk about?
Please elaborate.....
This bad American coffee? ...
Please elaborate ...
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
Wow it took this genius to notice differences between cultures and assume that the other way of doing things was wrong. Wow I mean that is just brilliant.
*****
No
*****
I think many philosophers keep themselves and their admirers in the dark. Again this man said nothing or substance.
@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....
So basically, Jacques here is complaining that we Americans don't hold "intellectuals" upon a godlike pedestal, from which they should never be expected to sink to the grave indignity of clarifying the statements coming out of their own mouths?
I can live with that.
Just like a comedian has a previous made routine to perform, so American public intellectuals have their ready made stories and anecdotes. That phenomenon of having those stories and comments ready is an American phenomenon more than a French one. Where in France, when you ask for example a philosopher a question about 'being', his response has to be formulated on the spot, and naturally with such complicated subjects that is really hard to do, and thus a bit rude.
snapsnapdik I see the criticism as of a lack of reciprocity in communication that the American attitude seems to enforce - this possibly contributes to the highly partisan nature of their politics - you are this idea, you think/say this, I am other, give to me your words; like an item, like a particular philosopher is a tap that dispenses certain ideas, and I can have some of this, some of that, I can use these ideas for these purposes... it contrasts the reciprocal search for truth, we are both here together on this planet in conversation trying to understand the world, for us to go any further I must ask the right questions. The 'American' attitude, in America, is of course internalised, so the philosopher has a version of their ideas that they can present to whomever asks for them, but the 'French' way is a stream, if you don't ask me the right questions I cannot give you the right answer.
no he didn't say that.
That seems to be the opposite of what he said. I think he means that in America we worship intellectual titans such that we assume they can speak profoundly and articulately in immediate response to a simple vague question (could you elaborate). In France they understand that you have to ask more specific, intelligent questions to receive an intelligent response.
I love how someone, who refined the methodology of analyzing words, ideas and concepts to their respective descriptions and prescriptions, doesn't like being asked to elaborate on his usage of terms. Oh, forgive us poor sorry sods for asking you to clarify your use of terms which you just implied have a relative meaning that changes according to their usage. I love how he had no problem 'elaborating' when asked to discuss what he meant by "How American". Well, we can be overgeneralizing as well -- you self-inflated piece of euro-trash.
I think the source of the ellaboration is important. If it's from a creative person when we can understand a new process. In this American type I understand what he's saying, that the end result is to simply acheive the product - like a movie.
Way too many insecure American comments here just proving his point. It is pretty much agreed on that American culture doesn't really prioritize nuanced thinking. Get over it!
1/ seeking clarity requires additional resources - simplifies the output to make it compatible with different types of person - reduces the research of content itself since the effort has been more oriented towards format
2/ of course my horse - no philosopher has been interpreted in the same way by two different readers
No philosopher has ever been interpreted in the same way across time - every interpretation "for the sake of clarity" involves a loss.
Jacques is too sensitive here. When Americans ask to elaborate on something, they sincerely think they are allowing you to exercise the freedom of expression, without restraint, which they think is a good thing. For Derrida, based on his background, an American call to elaborate is a command from someone who believes to be privileged. The cultural nuance is lost in Derrida here. I say this as a foreigner to both Americans and French speakers.
They know what they're doing
But you were also probably raised by American culture (if you’re young that is). There used to be more visible diversity in the world, which had its charm but wasn’t necessarily good or bad. I think only Japan has done well in keeping it’s more traditional values.
I do think you have a valuable point here. But that it can be seen as "good" to put someone under pressure to come up with an answer to something on the spot is, I think, precisely the problem he is targeting-it is nonetheless a selfish thing disguised as a blessing in many cases. Sure, if you would otherwise be disallowed to speak, then maybe allowing elaboration could be a benevolence, but only within an already suffocating social structure, and only when social power over speech is held by a privileged person other that the person who has to be 'allowed' to elaborate. In this sense it is never really benevolent: and still certainly indicative of the 'fast food, easy philosophy, vulgar politics' that constitutes "the American" at present.
@@dracowolfe305 Interesting point but I think the commercialisation of tradition, as in Japan via the massive and growing tourist industry, is also a kind of vulgarity which will continue to become worse as capitalism barrels on, and makes more catastrophes of itself. Cultural heritage will inevitably become structured more by what sells and less by what traditions are truly important-as it has already begun to do.
True, but only if they are fine with one saying “no.” If the elaboration is demanded then, well, it’s precisely an instance of what D. is describing.
It is very interesting. Many of the convictions of Chomsky and Said about America seem to have been corroborated in Derrida's arguments.
That's a very French way of answering a question.
Very French, indeed....
Why did you say that it was "very american" of me? Please elaborate!
How terrible that a person would want you to actually spell out some convoluted and seemingly nonsensical thing! "Wah! I get upset when people ask me to actually explain the stupidities I'm spouting. They're just being manipulative!"
That's so not what he was saying.
Yeah, he also adds in some national stereotypes, and some complaints that he is asked to explain general concepts.
Could you elaborate on that?
Since people knew that information was valuable (given in any format, context, and purpose), it has been a business. People no longer buy books to think but for ""Is this book going to change me?"" ""Is this book useful?"". Books have turned into products instead of thought instruments. Self-help and How-to-Cook crap flood the shelves of many Americans, and that's why intellect is mistakenly seen as exclusive of academic people.
Derrida just described how he saw the attitude of Americans (academically speaking) and suddenly you-tubers believe themselves to be some kind of internet court ... Freedom is not given, it is earned. This man contributed to education and much more, I think he had and has all the freedom to speak about whatever the fuck he wants. And still he does through his books.
"People no longer buy books to think but for ""Is this book going to change me?"" ""Is this book useful?"""
...are you implying that thinking is useless?
McFisticuffs I'm sayin' that books nowadays are 'fulfilling' in the sense of not looking for answers. Readers nowadays settle for the advertised pages in front of them. Summarizing, they are conformed with getting answers instead of asking questions. I don't know about you, but a conformist has no thinking at all.
"intellect is mistakenly seen as exclusive of academic people".
also you "you haven't earned the right to criticize this academic man!"
Freedom is not earned, freedom is a given to anyone in the western world. No one is exempt from criticism, certainly not people who have earned their bread all their life from criticizing western society!
He says I'm not a salesman and my ideas are not products that you can demand a broschur about them. He is sharing his ideas not selling them.
Sounds to me as though he just made this up on the spot.
+lourak613 Derrida made up everything on the spot.
Could you please elaborate why asking for elaboration is wrong?
Probably just has to do with the English language. 'Please elaborate' simply means, "Hey, I kinda get what you're saying. But can you please talk a little more so I can process this information?" Doesn't have anything to do with culture. Simply relates to the *language* itself.
***** Can you please elaborate or GTFO?
What's that?
Oh?
Oh, temper temper?
Can you elaborate? LOL.
contrary to the comments below, i found nothing particularly offensive about derrida's remarks here. its true that the american will to "produce" has rid the world of many interesting diversions. you have to interpret what philosophers say, that doesn't make them charlatans or oracles or ego maniacs, it simply requires an effort on the reader's part. on occaision, spelling things out robs the subtlety and intent of the original idea
He is asked to elaborate on something.
His response is to say "so American!"
My response: "That is so French!"
Doesn't make you less American though! lol
I'm really surprised when I read youtube comments and I find people making just really bad interpretations of what they view in a 5 minute clip and using it to push some kind of agenda. So alright let me clarify some things. 1. He was not saying this is bad to elaborate, he was simply saying it was American. 2. He is not making some broad claim, but answering a very specific question. There is so much conclusion jumping.
Did he ever answer the question?
As an American post-bac I find it hard to imagine a situation other than what he describes in reference to the "demands" so to speak of American students and professors, but I certainly wouldn't mind being enlightened. What I do understand is this framing of thinkers as kinds of machines, and how that might be problematic. Is agreeing to an interview the same as agreeing to think profoundly on command?
Derrida talks about the same thing as Bergson called : the homo loquax : the smart man who is able to talk about anything instantly. This is also the called " demi-habile" by Pascal. Expertise must be used for getting the third kind of knowledge (Spinoza) : Simplicity.
I didn't understand what he is talking about, please elaborate...
Wow, the French really are addicted to complaining and using anything any American says to assume their superiority, so they can then turn around and accuse us of being arrogant.
Maybe the person who asks "Could you elaborate" (which is a polite form of English) is asking in a spirit of genuine intellectual curiosity, which he's stomping on so he can satisfy, not merely his addiction to complaining, but, worse, his addiction to mood-altering through self-righteousness. Either way, he's a pretnetious bore, which explains why he ended his comments with "voila", as if he'd uttered the final word and there was nothing more to say on the matter.
I have a French girlfriend and friends from France and they talk routinely about how the French love to complain. And I've experienced the complaining first hand. So, it's an ACCURATE generalization. Plus, you said my "generalziations" are worse than his. But you're only responding to one comment of mine on youtube. So how would you be able to use the plural? Whose the one making inaccurate generalizations.
Yes, I know there are three examples IN ONE COMMENT! That's what I wrote, for a reason, ie; they all go together IN ONE COMMENT. But, nevermind, what matters is they all go together, and they are all accurate, whereas his aren't. They are typical prejudcies that many of the French make, and not just the French.
Paul Rothwell You do not get it right? He is not saying anything of which you are relating to.
Petter Danckwardt Yeah, he's pointing at intellectual laziness. You can't buy understanding. You have to make an effort e.g. by asking an intelligent question.
+Paul Rothwell American attitude is " Hey Derrida, I just have 5 minutes, please give me quickly the answer to the question of "Being" because I have a more important thing to do : MAKE MONEY!"
What does a viola have to do with that? Please elaborate.