Wartenberg, Tom - Thinking Inside the Frame: How Films Philosophize (manuscript)

11/03/2006

Unpublished, Chapters 1-3

Author wants to establish a firm basis for taking film to be 'doing philosophy', or that film can be a place where philosophy is 'screened'. There are three general objections to this idea: Explicitness objection, Generality objection, Imposition objection. Author suggests that the most effective doing of philo in film is by using the counterexample.


Explicitness: philo tries to be clear and unambiguous, art tries not and is not
Author's response: Really, the objection is about implicit argumentation and explicit argumentation. And implicit argumentation isn't necessarily imprecise.

Generality: philo is about universals, or at least abstract, art is normally about particulars
Author's response: There are some academic subjects that translate well into narrative, for instance history. Really the objection is about a narrative versus argumentation. But not all philosophy uses general argumentation only! Some use thought experiments, and examples. Some of these thought experiments/examples are indispensable to the arguments. These are just like narratives.

Imposition: any philo interpreted to be in film is the philosopher's imposition, not from the art
Author's response: we must be careful not to attribute meaning to a work that was not intended by the author. Don't use an 'audience-oriented' interpretation, use instead 'creator-oriented' interpretation.

The final chapter deals with a supposed difference between film as an 'illustration' of a philosophical point, and actually making a philosophical point. Some illustrations or examples are essential to a philosophical argument, just as some illustrations are essential to other works.