Look! A human on TV!

[sue hindmarsh]

It is extremely rare to see a human on television, but the other day, whilst watching a repeat of a 2004 episode of the Michael Parkinson chat-show, I was treated to a few minutes of seeing one. The human* was Ricky Gervais, who really isn't very human at all, but who shone brightly in contrast to the animals surrounding him. Those animals were: film star, Kevin Kline; TV personality, Joanna Lumley; and the host of the show, Michael Parkinson.

Ricky Gervais is best known for his moc-documentry comedy show “The Office”, but he has also put out some podcasts where he and a couple of mates toss around some philosophical questions (but mainly prat on about other stuff). His appearances on the Parkinson show usually only allowed him to show off his dry wit – but in this episode the viewers got to see a bit more of his mind.

-

It came about when Michael asked Kevin Kline if he believed in ghosts…

Kevin: I do, yes.

Michael: We're going to talk ghosts in a moment.

Kevin: I believe if you're open, there are things that we can't explain. Now I've told too much about myself! (Laughter)

Ricky: I can't explain a fridge! (Laughter)

Kevin: I'll explain it too you later! (Laughter)

Michael: (To Joanna) So, let's talk about ghosts stories. In your book you talk about a house that you lived in, in Kent, The Parsonage in Kent.

Joanna then relates a less than ordinary ghost story.

When she was finished Michael asked her: So it was just those experiences in that one house?

Joanna: Once when we were looking for a house I went into a house in Brooke Green and I got into the front and I could see a body hanging from its neck from the electric lightbulb.

Ricky: It's a terrible area. (Laughter)

Joanna: Anyway, this is all silly talk. But you've got a story haven't you?

Michael tells a story about when he was a boy and saw a piano being played by what he thought must have been a ghost. He added that he didn’t know if he’d dreamt it, or if he’d been sleep walking. And ended by saying, “That's the only thing I've encountered in all my life because I'm a total sceptic about all these things”.

Ricky: I'd say he was sleep walking. I don't believe in ghosts or God or anything like that.

Kevin: I think it depends on your mood. There's different parts of our brains. If there's a scientific explanation for it then our scientific part will accept it and then the other part. And then there's being open to it, like love or God or whatever.

Ricky: Well I think I can explain it because the burden of proof is on the people who've seen a ghost or believe in God. And it's up to them to prove it, not for me to disprove it. And there's been no evidence of something supernatural.

Kevin: What about when you see something absolutely exquisitely beautiful. How do you explain it?

Ricky: What do you mean? (Laughter)

Kevin: A woman or a sky. You can explain it from a meteorological point of view.

Ricky: What do you mean, why do we feel it's beautiful or why is it there in the first place?

Kevin: No, I mean the way the mind works, we want to put a cause and effect on a scientific piece.

Ricky: Well I have emotions and I see things and think they're beautiful. Like nature or whatever.

Kevin: No you don't. I sense you don't. (Laughter)

Ricky: I put that down to you know, this illusion we have of consciousness.

At this point, Michael quickly steers the conversation away to a safer, lighter topic. The show then ends on this lighter note.

-

If Parkinson had had the balls to let the show continue, it would have perhaps made for some interesting viewing. But of course it was never going to be. Philosophy discussed on television during prime-time (or anytime) just isn’t a ratings grabber.

I would have been interested in hearing where Ricky Gervais was taking his “illusion of consciousness” thought – oh, well - that's show business for you.

-
Sue

* Human: a person who values sanity over insanity.

[BJMcGilly]

To me it must ever remain one of the wonders of the world- the fear and loathing people have for philosophy. From High School to the present, the only topic that I needed passionately to discuss with friends was philosophy and truth. Granted, my mates from H.S. ultimately drifted away due to the one topic they couldn't stomach: Woman. Truly, they died not with a bang, there was no brilliantly explosive conflict over the matter- just the wary edging away from a madman. But with a whimper they each died to me.

I suspect that influences me to this day, keeping me out of the philosophy game. Each time I try to participate on this board and the world at large I'm always reaching, reaching. Like a man in the valley of empty shells, I tread loudly, crunchingly over empty words until, irritated and disoriented I stop moving. Is there any similar experiences to this out there? Sorry Sue, I don't mean to threadjack.

Bryan

[Katy]

I suspect that influences me to this day, keeping me out of the philosophy game. Each time I try to participate on this board and the world at large I'm always reaching, reaching. Like a man in the valley of empty shells, I tread loudly, crunchingly over empty words until, irritated and disoriented I stop moving. Is there any similar experiences to this out there? Sorry Sue, I don't mean to threadjack.

Around here if I try to discuss philospophy it almost immediately turns to theology and leaves me banging my head against brick walls. Although commenting on this to my friend Mark tonight did lead to an interesting conversation on where the border between the two is, and which varietys of Buddhsm fit in which category. :)

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Bryan,

When we get a clean flesh wound, we tend to ignore it and it heals. We only scratch at the scab when it has healed enough that the scab needs to go away.

If we get a thorn or splinter in us, or if the wound is infected, we are driven to pick at it, trying to remove that which should not be there. Messing with the injury in a way makes it hurt worse, but we are driven to do it anyway.

I think that perhaps the rejection by your friends may be sticking in you like a splinter, and that you are digging at that splinter by messing with the rejection wound, seeking it out whenever you can, trying to pull out that original splinter.

[sue hindmarsh]

Bryan,

Sorry Sue, I don't mean to threadjack.

Threadjacking? - No, you're right on the money as far as I'm concerned.

I say stuff other people and their mediocre attachments. Philosophy is LIFE! If they want to continue to snivel pathetically and scratch around in their own excrement, so be it. I won't be bending down to scratch along with them.

That's why I posted this bit about Gervais talking philosophy on the telly. It shows that this planet hasn't completely been taken over by the cretins.

Human thought does continue. Huzzah!

-
Sue

[Kelly Jones]

To me it must ever remain one of the wonders of the world- the fear and loathing people have for philosophy. I suspect that influences me to this day, keeping me out of the philosophy game. Each time I try to participate on this board and the world at large I'm always reaching, reaching. Like a man in the valley of empty shells, I tread loudly, crunchingly over empty words until, irritated and disoriented I stop moving. Is there any similar experiences to this out there?

Is "reaching" is the same as "moving"?

This may be similar at root, but perhaps not on the surface of it:

I have difficulties with philosophy because of residual Christian superstitions. I imagine that i am separate from God. I imagine that i need to be loved. I even start thinking that other people spend as much time as i do, thinking.

It's demoralising to believe that other people are intelligent and thoughtful, and are just pretending to be stupid and reserved, because the only conclusion one comes to, is that they are expecting you to "come out of the closet". Maybe a useful kind of demoralisation.....

But an intelligent person talks freely, and sees no need to pretend under cover of silence.

"It is hard to be silent, especially for a talkative man" means "I cannot get anyone to understand me, and i am overflowing with wisdom." There aren't many thinkers, but it's cause and effect. Our ancestors were cowards, not apostles.

What have you been up to lately, Bryan?


[edited a conclusion].

[Pye]

.

I am not the very television/movie savvy person (it's a numbing-skull, chewed-up time thing for me), but I have seen 2 episodes of "The Office" imported to the american public television stations, and I thought Ricky Gervais possessed of a certain strange genius in them; in fact, my mouth fell open over the following item.

In one of the episodes I saw, Gervais had commandeered a staff meeting by whipping out his guitar and playing a song he had written. It is impossible to explain this song. An easily impressed colleague was beside himself with Gervais' "genius," but the rest of the staff responded the way we might to it -- an ego-maniac attention-on-me act, with music coming from the borderlands of badgood. They all wandered away, embarrassed, annoyed, whatever. But the song was good enough to explain the remaining people, and bad enough to explain everyone leaving.

Anyone who can write and perform a song like that -- a piece of music that both parodies and advances something, and in the process, reveals knowledge of all these nuances in both the sound, and the human-nature reaction to it -- well, I was really amazed. Gervais' dialogue, character, surrounding characters, situations -- many of them were like this -- existing in some strange space of almost painful awareness of human personality and human-being . . . well, anyone who can do that I wouldn't be the least surprised knows many other things . . . .


.

[Pye]

.

Here is the question I got asked over and over and over again when I returned to school for more formal study of philosophy (and to "credential" myself to their satisfaction to teach):

"Philosophy? What are you going to do with that!?!"

I went through a blue-million different kinds of answers - serious, smart-ass, funny, in-your-face, as well as good-naturedly self-effacing.

How would you answer it?

"Philosophy? What are you going to do with that!?!"



.

[kowtaaia]

"Philosophy? What are you going to do with that!?!"

Apply for welfare. :)

It's a very old joke that the welfare system was invented for philosophy graduates.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

With the simple truth that they are looking for - to teach. Philosophy is useful in every aspect of life, but what they are really asking in "What are you going to do with that?" is "Why are you spending a bunch of money on that particular piece of paper?"

That is the only justification for the expense of formal education - having that credentialed piece of paper. There are many much less expensive and often more effective ways of learning something for the knowledge.

[Steven Coyle]

"Philosophy? What are you going to do with that!?!"

What I do with all things.

For a cool-million!

;-)

"Well, I'm gonna uncover the best philosophy."

"These and those, this and that."

[BMcGilly07]

I think that perhaps the rejection by your friends may be sticking in you like a splinter, and that you are digging at that splinter by messing with the rejection wound, seeking it out whenever you can, trying to pull out that original splinter.

I don't think myself wounded, it wasn't that big of a deal that they were passionless for truth, it was a long time coming. Presently I'm just stuck at words, I am easily distracted by my own deluded thoughts whilst reading. After reading a post and full knowing what needs to be said, I find myself arguing with phantom responses before I have even set finger to the keyboard. I have no attraction for the majority of worldly affairs.


Bryan

[BMcGilly07]

Is "reaching" is the same as "moving"?

I'm not sure I'm clear on what you mean by moving, unless you mean to continue the metaphor such that I keep moving in the shell-floored canyon. In which case, yes, reaching is the same as moving.

What have you been up to lately, Bryan?

Same old song and dance. I think I need a trip to Australia, get out of the "Septic Tank" for a bit.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

After reading a post and full knowing what needs to be said, I find myself arguing with phantom responses before I have even set finger to the keyboard.

That's actually good thinking skills. You are able to play devil's advocate with yourself.
.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

In one of the episodes I saw, Gervais had commandeered a staff meeting by whipping out his guitar and playing a song he had written. It is impossible to explain this song.

Funny, it's one of the two or three episodes I've seen of that show as well. Quite impressive overall, dark but overall demonstrating a deep understanding of the culture in many offices - which is directly connected to a deeper growing problem in the 'modern man'.

Anyway, I didn't pay attention that time to the song itself, I wish I did now! But I was laughing too much, it was the first time I saw the show and he reminded me of a manager I once (twice? thrice?) worked under who didn't bring a guitar but the rest was nailed frightening accurate.

[Katy]

"Philosophy? What are you going to do with that!?!"

Apply for welfare. :)

It's a very old joke that the welfare system was invented for philosophy graduates.

Academic philosophy kinda drives me nuts. There's no thought required in memorizing a bunch of names...

Anyway, higher education is really only important in that the piece of paper exists. It doesn't really matter what it's in unless you plan to teach highschool...

My friend Mark put it this way, and I find it fairly apt "the college degree really only shows that you are willing and able to put up with four years of beurocratic nightmare bullshit."


As to actual philosophy, rather than academics, there's a whole other thread dedicated to that in the Genius section of this board.

[Pye]

.

katy writes:

Academic philosophy kinda drives me nuts. There's no thought required in memorizing a bunch of names...

Yes, katy, academic philosophy kind of "drives me nuts," too; and there's no thought in memorizing anything. And oh, would that that was all academic philosophy is.

I spent considerable time when I first came on this forum explaining how I eek out a living teaching distinctly non-"academically," and at maverick status, so I'll just leave it at that.

There is a small handful of renegades in this business, believe it or not. There is a small handful - very small - of people who teach philosophy and who do not warrant the associative derision.

Elizabeth writes (in response to question "Philosophy? What are you going to do with that!?!"):

With the simple truth that they are looking for - to teach.

Yes, this was the answer, interestingly, that I would give the least understanding of persons. It's a kind of currency they can understand.

Sue writes:

Philosophy is LIFE!

But this is the truest reason of all.


.

[Kelly Jones]

Is "reaching" is the same as "moving"?

I'm not sure I'm clear on what you mean by moving, unless you mean to continue the metaphor such that I keep moving in the shell-floored canyon. In which case, yes, reaching is the same as moving.

Same old song and dance.

I think I need a trip to Australia, get out of the "Septic Tank" for a bit.

The character of a man is measured by the distance between his knowledge and will.

Nowadays, i beat up God til he gives me what i want.

Man wills, Woman is willing.

What i will, he cannot will. (Nietzsche as Christ)

Pray not for Nature's mysteries to be revealed to you, but that you will have the courage to bear them.

Nature demands the ultimate sacrifice before she will reveal her deepest secrets.

[Katy]

There is a small handful of renegades in this business, believe it or not. There is a small handful - very small - of people who teach philosophy and who do not warrant the associative derision.

Well, I didn't mean to say everyone is all the same. The comment was more in general...

[Pye]

.

Diebert writes:

Funny, it's one of the two or three episodes I've seen of that show as well. Quite impressive overall, dark but overall demonstrating a deep understanding of the culture in many offices - which is directly connected to a deeper growing problem in the 'modern man'.

Coincidence again, Diebert. That's the first one I saw, too. After the second one, I got it and stopped watching.

Yes, to all you say of 'modern man' and office culture, but I was also seeing Gervais' character as the example of the scantily functional sociopath. His bubbled-in ego is at the barest edges of functionality in his societal setting; it is like he is mental illness on legs just before the abyss, and yet has somehow made his way to a managerial position (which, yes, is terrifically funny social satire). You can't cart him away, but how can he be permitted to stay in his position? It's that same line-walking I admired from the impossible-to-explain song. Only an extremely alert person could do this.


Katy writes:

Well, I didn't mean to say everyone is all the same. The comment was more in general...

Sure, I got that. Are you in university at present, Katy? (just curious). These only-really-matters statements you make regarding the degree would have to be strong ones to keep you there.



.

[Katy]

.
Sure, I got that. Are you in university at present, Katy? (just curious). These only-really-matters statements you make regarding the degree would have to be strong ones to keep you there.
.

Well, yes, I am in college currently. Actually, I already have a BA, but am theoretically working towards my teaching certificate. In truth, they are trying to put me under "less stress than a job but more stress than nothing" while they try to work on the correct drug combination to deal with my schizophrenia. :)

[DHodges]

My friend Mark put it this way, and I find it fairly apt "the college degree really only shows that you are willing and able to put up with four years of beurocratic nightmare bullshit."

Which counts for a lot, in the working world.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Yes, to all you say of 'modern man' and office culture, but I was also seeing Gervais' character as the example of the scantily functional sociopath.

At the time I was just thinking he nailed the sociopath element that is (or has to be?) present in office managers. There is some research out there trying to prove that 1 out of 10 managers is fulfilling all the criteria of a 'subclinical psychopath'. I think it was Robert D. Hare (When Psychopaths Go to Work).

Personally I think Hare is right, but same could be said for self-made billionaires being megalomaniac. Somehow it comes with the kind of character needed to do it. But to be confronted with the reality of this gives good comedy - for a little while.