Philosophy Now Forum

Jorge J.E. Gracia on the Significance of the Insignificant.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/25/The_Secret_of_Seinfelds_Humor

I never found 'Seinfeld' remotely funny. Too many extremely unlikable characters.

At the time the series aired, I found the primary characters and their scenarios to be ridiculous in an annoying way.

But now, I also read the related articles by Boersema, Madigan and Soble. A picture began to form of a common theme: what makes something funny is mediated by emotions, but beyond that there is nothing more specific to be said.

With this similarity in mind, I returned to the piece by Gracia. Upon review of the Seinfeld article, it seemed to me that it carried the same theme. Some things are funny to one that are not funny to another.

I guess this means that there's no accounting for taste.

Maybe it's best to accept and even enjoy the meaningless than absurdly search for meaning which, in the end, also has nothing to offer being merely a self-improvised illusion the only difference being the former is mostly comedy while the latter usually resolves to serious drama.

Part of PC indoctrination is volunteerism, i.e., work for free.
The characters on Seinfeld are selfish.
They celebrate selfishness.
Whether or not that’s funny is a matter of taste.

However, PC has won.
Evidence: Volunteerism is a resume necessity for youngsters.

Strong characters are required to portray selfishness as comedy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofsljUAUdlc

Brilliant situational comedy.

Beginning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt68NWjd_wc

End
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESe0-_YRX7U

“If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3k7lykTWTk

Philosophers could make a lot of hay out of that.

The secret to Seinfeld's humour is that there are no jokes in it. The situation as a whole presents a joke. The typical sitcom presents one-liners and retorts. Seinfeld did that too, to a minimal proportion, but the show's strength did not lie in that at all.

In other words, other sit-coms tell, Seinfeld shows.

The show was built on character strength; each character displayed a consistent set of behaviour traits. In each show one or more of the main characters were set up to fail due to their immoral or socially undesirable behaviour patterns, and then they failed when the show's main theme and the shortcomings of their characters were no longer tenable, and their character was shown to the viewer and also to the person in the show who was to be cheated.

One of the brilliant examples of this was each show, but most visible was the one where George (a spineless, sweaty, balding, fat and very selfish man) reaches for a magazine on a magazine shelf at an airport, and another hand reaches, and George gets it. The magazine features on the front page the capture and imminent execution of a criminal. George insists that he keep the magazine, and it turns out that his contestant for buying the mag (this was the last copy on the rack) is the condemned himself who is taken by chains on a flight to Florida or wherever where the electric chair had been waiting for him.

Who could think up such a scenario? A brilliant mind, only. I mean, it was more important for the condemned to read about his own case in a national publication, than for anyone else on planet Earth, and especially George. If for nothing else, but for the time constraints on the reading. But George had the audacity that he disregards (or does not feel) the basic human empathy for the condemned's situation.

Festivus For The Restivus combines the worship gene with Christmas cynicism, i.e., Christian cynicism, be it caused by atheism or another religion, or just caused by all-purpose cynicism.

Social commentary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX55AzGku5Y