Customer Reviews

Seinfeld and Philosophy: A Book about Everything and Nothing

5 star:		(21)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Seinfeld and Philosophy is a book with an interesting premise: it examines various philosophical issues raised by the phenomenally popular sitcom Seinfeld. The conceit is to examine the show that examined the minutia, the trivia of everyday life and to analyze certain aspects of the show from a philosophical standpoint. Thus, those of us who like both subjects have William Irwin to thank for this book, which is essentially a collection of essays from contemporary philosophers about Seinfeld.

The book includes 14 essays, organized into four "acts", most of which are good. The first act centers mostly on the primary characters. There is one for each main character. Jerry is compared to Socrates and George to a "Virtueless man" of Aristotle. The weakest essay, perhaps, is the one examining if Elaine is a feminist. The strongest essay concerns Kramer and Soren Kierkegaard's Asthetic Stage of Life. Although I am not entirely familiar with the man's work, the essay lays out the central principles of Kierkegaard's theory and ties it all together perfectly. Act II contains specific analogies between Seinfeld and the work of Nietzsche, Sartre, Lao Tzu, and Wittgenstein. Act III has a fascinating essay on George's choice to do "the opposite", another on Peterman and reality in the media, and a weak essay on the "significance of the insignificant" which purports to know the secret of Seinfeld's humor but never tells it. The final act tackles the moral and ethical backgrounds of the four and also examines whether the law used to convict the four (the Good Samaritan Law) deserved to be on the books.

Any Seinfeld fan will appreciate this wonderful book, even if they have no philosophical background. The book allows fans to look at their show at a different angle. Similarly, fans of philosophy will not be disappointed. Most of the major philosophical figures of history are covered here, including Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Lao Tzu and a smattering of Eastern philosophy, Nietzsche, Sartre, Wittgenstein, Kant and others. This is basically an appetizer plate for those who like Seinfeld have an interest in philosophy and but don't know where to start. This is worth buying for the more bookish variety of Seinfeld fans.

This book attests to the profundity of Seinfeld, how it is an appropriate vehicle for teaching a philosphical analysis explaining why the Seinfeld characters never grow up, find meaning, and discover wisdom, all the while holding a mirror to our own society and being loveable and endearing at the same time. You learn about Aristotle's Ethics and Virture and why George, lacking these things, can never achieve happiness. This essay about George's incurable unhappiness is the best of the bunch and worth the price of the whole book. In this anthology, I came across about six solid essays that highlighted Seinfeld's best attributes through the use of philosophy.

Seinfeld and Philosophy: A Book About Everything and Nothing is an excellent book for any Seinfeld fan, and any philosopher, amateur or professional interested in a philosophical analysis of a pop-culture phenomenon. For anyone who has ever thought there to be something deeper to Seinfeld, easily among the most popular sitcoms of the 90s, this book articulates those seemingly intangible qualities that made it so popular and so special.

At times tedious, it hosts a great number of excellent discussions. Organized first into four sections, analyzing each character through certain philsopher, then conversely explaining certain philosophers and their works through the characters, then discussing a certain philosophical issue raised by the show, and finally the last section, devoted to ethics, morality and considerations of what is acceptable or unacceptable. My particular interest in philosophy is ethics, and the final section does no injustice to either the contemplative ethicist, nor the rabid Seinfeld fan, and all who fall in-between.

Overall, this book was very well-written. As a side note, take the time to read the footnotes where applicable. Many of them raise other points which may be of interest to the reader. For the sitcom fan, the thoughtful philosopher, and anyone with an interest in either or both, this book is a must-read.

It was my curiosity about the concept of such a book that initially led me to purchase this book. Being such a big fan of the show, I immediately saw a connection. Seinfeld is an excellent case study for philosophy. You could do a whole book on George alone. Like most case studies though, it is tough to find a 100% match to the underlying theories and models, but book does a great job in using the TV show to understand the wide range of philosophical topics discussed, and its a relatively easy read. My knowledge of philosophy is limitted to a couple of courses required in college many moons ago. Overall, I was delighted with the opprtunity the book provided me to refresh and re-discover philosophy.

Most academic treatments of popular culture either take their subject matter way too seriously or dumb down anything of substance they have to say. So I was skeptical about Seinfeld and Philosphy. Having read it, however, I was very pleasantly surprised. Not only do the contributors to this book really know their Seinfeld, but they manage not to take the show or themselves too seriously. In addition they manage to raise and discuss some interesting and important philosophical issues. They make an intriguing, though not totally convincing case that the show deals with ethical issues. The book's concluding essay sheds light on and brings new interest to the disappointing final episode by examinng the moral and legal issues involved in good samaritan laws. Other important philosophical issues discussed are the nature of feminism, (is Elaine a feminist?)the author doesn't think so, but I beg to differ. The nature of comedy in general and the secret of Seinfeld's humor, in particular and marxism vs. capitalism (taking its cue from J. Peterman). My favorite essay was Jason Holt's "The Costanza Maneuver: Is it Rational for George to do the Opposite?" Holt takes some of the fun out of George's new approach to life, but his arguments are tough to deny.

Unlike George's tax-preparer girlfriend, Seinfeld and Philosophy is not pretentious. It's entertaining and enlightening (most enlightening when it concentrates on being entertaining). It contains fourteen essays by professional philosophers "about everything and nothing," at least as everything and nothing is experienced by Jerry, George, Elaine, and Kramer.

One of my favorite essays is William Irwin's on how Kramer illustrates one of Kierkegaard's three stages of human existence - - the pleasure-seeking or aesthetic stage (in no other way could Kramer be considered "aesthetic," kavorka or no kavorka). Irwin really does teach a lot about Kierkegaard's philosophy, but he does it by continually going back to examples from the show, so it's funny as well as informative.

Another really good chapter is Jorge J. E. Gracia's take on the difference between comedy and tragedy. I've never heard it put so simply - - comedy shows us the significance of the insignificant and tragedy the insignificance of the significant.

Gracia's essay made me think about the comedians I've liked the most, for instance the Three Stooges. ("I will show you the Stooges," Jerry tells the Romanian woman he expects to transport him to heights of gymnastic ecstasy by making him "the apparatus.") And like the Borscht Belt comics who often showed up on Seinfeld ("IN-tah-VEN-shun? Who's intervening?") they were old-fashioned tragedians at heart. And mostly Jewish, which explains their style of humor. Survival humor.

In The Haunted Smile: The Story of Jewish Comedians in America, Lawrence Epstein makes the point that the best Three Stooges stories were about immigrants trying to get into the American middle class - - Moe's always trying to get the boys to work at a regular job and fit in (act less Jewish?), but Larry and Curly always screw it up.

In their films Moe, Larry, and Curly never quite made it, but Jerry did. He's confident enough to make jokes about the Nazis ("It's the Heil Five") and Israel ("I don't get upset if someone asks me the way to Israel"). Jerry's dad put in thirty years selling overcoats in the garment district so his son could achieve more than the Howard boys (as Morty tells Peterman: "Cheap material and bad lighting is what sells clothes").

It would have been interesting to see an essay comparing Jewish philosophers (secular and religious) to Jewish comedians. ("You, Jerry Seinfeld, are no comedian," the Romanian gymnast finally tells Jerry, who nods, in a scene where I think he's acknowledging his debt to those old comics.)

The real Jerry Seinfeld must have wanted to remind people how funny these older comedians (not all Jewish) were because he kept using them on his show. Around the table at the condo meetings every time Morty Seinfeld would get fired as condo president was a group of comedians like Bill Macy (from Maude) and Jesse White ("It's his material"). It's like Carl Reiner said in an interview on the DVD where he starred in an unsuccessful pilot for what became The Dick Van Dyke Show: the rule was "write Jewish, cast Gentile."

Who really thinks that the Costanza family is Italian (how did Frank learn to cook kishkas for Jewish Singles Night?), or that Elaine, like all of her girlfriends who keep going back to see The English Patient and vacation in the Hamptons, isn't Jewish? ("Elaine, ya gotta see the bayyy-bee.") And who does Elaine turn to for advice when she's sick over George and Susan's marriage and can't talk to her usual friends? - - the rabbi in her building. And why did she REALLY steal Puddy's Jesus fish?

Being shallow, I did skim a couple of essays that didn't talk about the show very much. I think the writers might have used Seinfeld (nothing) as a hook to discuss important philosophy (something), but those didn't really come out of the Seinfeld characters.

Eric Bronson's essay relating Seinfeld to Taoist philosophy was interesting (talk about being about Nothing), and I liked Jennifer McMahon's look at Sartre and Seinfeld (a lot of people saw the similarity of the last scene of the four in the Latham, Massachusetts, jail to Sartre's play No Exit). And having Jerry's last question (about the location of George's shirt button) be the same line that opened the first episode of the first show leads to Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence.

Mark T. Conrad brings up a funny point about eternal recurrence - - to really have what Nietzsche talked about you wouldn't have one day happening to you repeatedly (like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day), you'd have every day of your life repeated one after the other, endlessly.

In some undiscovered manuscript, Socrates' answer to the question "What is life after death?" is:

Syndication.

The authors may not appreciate my letting you in on the secret taht this book is quite a bit more scholarly than I gave it credit for being, before actually reading it. I was expecting something flimsy and silly and hollow, and am quite impressed to find a strong, well-written, eloquent, arguably even *important* collection of intellectual writings.

If you've didn't watch much Seinfeld (that is, never saw it, or didnt see enough of it to know at least a few inside jokes), then you may have trouble appreciating what's here. But as an academic, who's probably seen every episode of the show at least once (given nearly a decade of reruns), I found it refreshing and alive.

There was a time when I actually hated the show. That,however, was before I watched it. I was hooked fast, and still miss it-- re-runs can only do so much for you.

I think that a large part of the reason I loved Seinfeld was that I instantly recognized that the base tenents for the program were the stupidities of everyday life. That is not to say that life is stupid (but boy, can it be), but that things just seem to happen because they happen.

Existentialism?

It was the same deal for me with philosophy. I hated it 'till I took it in college, and then found out I enjoyed it very much.

But philosophy, like lots of subjects, is one of those things you tend to stray from when a grade isn't riding on it. "Seinfeld and Philosophy," takes an academic (that means disjointed) subject and makes it real by showing the underlying reasons the show really was funny.

The essays in the book are really fun, and how can one resist "Peterman and the Ideological Mind?" Plato, Nietzsche, Sartre (No Exit or what?) an essay called "George's Failed Quest for Happiness" that was probably my favorite one.

This book is a delightful read.

My only real critisism: they didn't publish a version that turns into a coffee table! But I think that has been done before.

Now, if only the author would do a volume devoted only to Neuman -- what about it, Professor Irwin?

As a die hard fan of "Seinfeld" and a person without previous exposure to philosophical concepts, I found this book entertaining and educational.

The book is a collection of essaies by different authors, using characthers and situations of "Seinfeld" for introducing us to Kierkegaard (using Kramer as an example of the aesthetic stage), Socrates (with a funny comparison to the dual role of Jerry as real person a TV show characther), the moral life and, of course, the meaning of "nothing", among other topics.

Not all the chapters were equally interesting, but most of them are very enjoyable, as the style and language is never too elevated. The book includes a episode list, a chronology of philosophers (with a quote from each one, so you can rapidly get the idea of their thinking), and a brief, but funny, description of the authors.

Highly recommended.

Here's the premise; take an immensely popular show and capitalize on it by writing a series of essays on philosophy and slapping a Seinfeld photo on the cover? Nope, it's much more than that. This book is very interesting, and very well done. I had several moments when reading where the correlation between the show and the philosophical concept was so direct that it is either a remarkable coincidence, or was actually written that way.

For example, philosopher Jean Paul Sartre's play "No Exit" offers an account of three characters in hell, who are imprisoned together in a room. They are sentenced to stay awake and in that room with one another for eternity. (Page 105). His thesis is that we are defined by others. Compare this to the unique end of the show where Jerry, George, Kramer and Elaine are found guilty of violating a "Good Samaritan" law. Their punishment; sentenced to spend a year in a cell together.

How often do you get serious discussions about the philosophical foundations of the "Castanza Maneuver", or how Socrates and Kramer may share some of the same philosophical focus? When you can combine Plato and Elaine Bennes in the same book that is saying something. The book itself is a series of essays. Some of these are fabulous, some a bit of a stretch, but the overall effect is that the reader is exposed to countless philosophical concepts that may be otherwise unknown to many Seinfeld viewers. If the popularity of the show can help deepen the thinking of a few, then that is worthwhile.

While the title suggests a light fare, the book is anything but that. In all honesty, had the book not been divided into rather short chapters that could be read one at a time, I may not have made it through. The concepts are actually often quite deep, a stark contrast to the easy to digest commonality of the show. Where the book gets the biggest hit is in the discussion of the fact that the show is actually about everything, not nothing.

A fun read for Seinfeld fans and anyone who would like a quick introduction to some of the most highly regarded philosophical minds in history. Combine this with a discussion of whether a chicken salad on rye is really the opposite of tuna on toast, and you have a winner.