11/17/2006
Unpublished, Chapters 6-8
Chapter 6 is a discussion of the filming of philosophy in the movie The Third Man. Author argues this movie is a filming of Aristotle's discussion on the nature of friendship and what it takes to break a relationship with a friend and for what reasons. First the protagonist proves he is a friend by resisting the 'slander' of his friend by another, and he tries to solve his friend's death out of loyalty, then he is turned from being his friend by an 'up-close' and 'movie-like' viewing of the friend's bad deeds, but he remains unwilling to help the police catch him. This, author claims, mirrors the extended discussion of when to dissolve a relationship in Aristotle. Finally the protagonist turns in the former friend due to full realization of his bad deeds. This, author claims, is doing philosophy since it deals with a real example of Aristotle's hypothetical discussion on the nature of friendship.
Chapter 7 discusses two structural films, Empire and Flicker. Both, author claims, comment on the nature of film itself, and qualify as doing philosophy insofar as philosophizing about film is philosophy. Empire films the empire state building as night comes in, filming a static object and is conveying stasis. Since essentialist analyses of film said it was necessary for film to show motion, this is a counterexample, or at least adding that film is the only thing that can show stasis as well.
Flicker also adds to the philosophy of film in that it shows that objects do not need to be filmed in order to show motion and shape. Since Flicker is just blacked out film frames and white film frames in different successions, there are no objects or motions shown. Author claims that eventually the viewer sees motion, color and objects in an optical illusion effect. So the film itself does not contain motion or objects but they are seen anyway. Author claims this is chaning the philosophical analysis of film.
Chapter 8 is the summary and conclusion chapter. Author emphasizes the importance of counterexamples and thought experiments in philo and re-hashes the three objections given in the beginning of the book. Author also explains the need to have philosophy enter the public arena more than it has before, and that film might be a good way to do that.
11/17/06
11/10/06
Wartenberg, Tom - Thinking Inside the Frame: How Films Philosophize (manuscript)
11/10/2006
Unpublished, Chapters 4-5
Ch 4 is about a thought experiment in The Matrix. The thought experiment rehearses Descartes' evil demon hypothesis about the external world. But the claim is that because it also puts the viewer into the same place that a subject deceived by the evil demon would be, it is a new approach or counts as 'doing philosophy'.
Ch 5 claims to be a reply to utilitarian arguments about the good. Author explains the use of a counterexample in philosophy as challenging one of the premises in a general argument. Extended discussion about the contrast between narrative vs. broad argumentation. Counterexamples may use narrative to refute a claim that 'A is an essential feature of F' by finding one example of an A not being an F.
The claim is that Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind provides a counterexample to an argument that people will be better off if they do not have bad memories. Author denies the claim that he is using his own philo background to interpret this movie.
Unpublished, Chapters 4-5
Ch 4 is about a thought experiment in The Matrix. The thought experiment rehearses Descartes' evil demon hypothesis about the external world. But the claim is that because it also puts the viewer into the same place that a subject deceived by the evil demon would be, it is a new approach or counts as 'doing philosophy'.
Ch 5 claims to be a reply to utilitarian arguments about the good. Author explains the use of a counterexample in philosophy as challenging one of the premises in a general argument. Extended discussion about the contrast between narrative vs. broad argumentation. Counterexamples may use narrative to refute a claim that 'A is an essential feature of F' by finding one example of an A not being an F.
The claim is that Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind provides a counterexample to an argument that people will be better off if they do not have bad memories. Author denies the claim that he is using his own philo background to interpret this movie.
11/3/06
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
