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

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".

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?

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.

+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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I don't think so, nevertheless your remark is interesting on its own.

COULD YOU ELABORATE ?

apparently he did, but its so American eeew

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

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

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.

"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 hope u r not planning on preserving American culture, because the USA is based on infiltration of everyone from all over the world

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!

+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.

+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.

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.

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.

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.

Spot on man

Agreed. Such questions though have little to do with philosophy.

***** No

***** I think many philosophers keep themselves and their admirers in the dark. Again this man said nothing or substance.

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

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.

+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 :-)

bingo! i mean how hard is to understand what he is saying

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 ...

+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.

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".

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.

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"?

Doesn't make you less American though! lol

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

"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!

+lourak613 Derrida made up everything on the spot.

***** Can you please elaborate or GTFO?

What's that?

Oh?

Oh, temper temper?

Can you elaborate? LOL.

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.

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!"