The problem with pretentious windbags

Parallel Worlds, Seeds of Our Demise Add comments

…is the way they always gild the lily. They could be content with a simple statement, but no, they have to add something unnecessary and extra that makes you want to punch them in the face. Take Sartre, for example, a dead French guy whose philosophy the hipster set likes to claim they base their lives on. (They don’t, though — at least in this country the actual world view of those who can afford to waste their time pretending they read rambling, incomprehensible nonsense by Derrida and Foucault is based firmly in their staid, butter-on-white-bread Protestant-work-ethic bourgeois upbringing.) But as I was saying, take Sartre, as quoted in this article:

“Man is not the sum of what he has already, but rather the sum of what he does not yet have, of what he could have.”

Now, see what he did there? That last section, so not needed: “…of what he could have.” Bitch, you already said “the sum of what he does not yet have,” you don’t need to say it again in a slightly different way! Don’t you just want to go back in time, walk up to him where he is sitting at his little café table with his little glass of wine and his cigar or whatever and deck him?

Hey, here’s a new idea for an episode of Doctor Who:

SCENE: It is 1931. a Frenchman sits at a café table on the Champs Elysée. It is Jean-Paul Sartre. He is drinking cognac and reading a French magazine.

(Wheeze wheeze wheeze wheeze VWORP VWORP VWORP VWORP.)

A blue box with the words “POLICE PHONE BOX on it materializes in front of Sartre, who is nonplussed. The box is the Tardis. The door of the Tardis opens and a tall, thin man in a long brown coat steps out. It is the Doctor. He is carrying a cricket bat. He approaches Sartre and looks down at him.

DOCTOR: M. Sartre?

SARTRE: Mais oui!

DOCTOR: Jean-Paul Sartre?

SARTRE: (warily) Yes, monsieur, that is my name.

DOCTOR: The Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre, the existentialist philosopher, playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer, and literary critic, one of the leading Figures in 20th Century French philosophy? (Ed: the Doctor reads Wikipedia.)

SARTRE: (Amazed) I am?

(The Doctor then raises the cricket bat and brings it down on Sartre’s head. Sartre falls out of his chair and sprawls inert on the pavement.)

DOCTOR: Not any more.

(The door to the Tardis opens. A young girl with long brown hair, wearing jeans and a sweatshirt with the initials CUNY across the front of it looks out.)

GIRL: Is it done?

DOCTOR: (Looking down at Sartre.) Yup. When he wakes up in the hospital he’ll have forgotten everything he learned at the Sorbonne. He’ll decide to go into chicken farming in Provence. Being and Nothingness will never be written.

GIRL: Thank you, Doctor!

DOCTOR: Now, who’s next on the list… (Still speaking, he and the girl go back into the Tardis and close the door. A few seconds later the Tardis dematerializes.)

************

(Slate article via Kathy Shaidle.)

6 Responses to “The problem with pretentious windbags”

  1. dustbury.com » One always dies too soon or too late Says:

    […] the other hand, there are other pests of European origin that possibly could be preempted: DOCTOR: M. […]

  2. Brett_McS Says:

    This doesn’t violate some Time Lord/Doctor Who scriptwriter’s rule? Are you suggesting a new direction for the series?

  3. Andrea Harris Says:

    Heh. I wish.

  4. ak13820 Says:

    Refined intellectual that I am, I have a hard time thinking of Sartre without thinking of Monty Python. I.e., Michael Palin in drag as Mrs. Sartre, cig hanging out of her mouth, complaining about Jean-Paul leaving papers and books lying around all over the apartment. “It’s the bourgeoisie this and the bourgeoisie that.”

  5. Sigivald Says:

    “Man is not the sum of what he has already, but rather the sum of what he does not yet have, of what he could have.”

    I don’t think it’s that bad.

    “What he does not yet have” and “What he could have” aren’t quite the same thing; if Sartre hadn’t added “could have”, it could be misinterpreted as referring to things that man will have in the future, rather than those he could (inevitability vs. possibility).

    Similarly, if he’d left out “does not yet have” and said only “could have”, it could be misinterpreted as the sum of all things a man might have, rather than focusing on the future, on becoming.

    (And of course, just as I used it in that last paragraph, repeating a message in a slightly different term is not inherently pretentious; repetition is an aid to memory and understanding.

    If the terms chosen are carefully considered, it can add meaning, and it always adds emphasis.

    Having read Sartre and Foucault, and attempted Deleuze and Derrida, I can assert confidently that whatever Sartre’s failings are, being incomprehensible isn’t one of them, as it is for Derrida.

    Foucault is actually a pretty clear writer. However, most of the “problem” with Foucault is the people who invoke him inappropriately.)

  6. Andrea Harris Says:

    It’s pretentious.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.