Download
1 / 29
E N D
THE QUESTION • “I do not look to these films as handy or popular illustrations of views and arguments properly developed by philosophers; I see them rather as themselves reflecting on and evaluating such views and arguments, as thinking seriously and systematically about them in just the ways that philosophers do. Such films are not philosophy’s raw material, nor a source for its ornamentation; they are philosophical exercises, philosophy in action—film as philosophizing” (Mulhall 2001, 2). Stephen Mulhall
THE BOLD THESIS • “[F]ilm can do philosophy in a more ‘cinematic’ way than merely recording a talk [and can] make original contributions to the field” (Smuts 2009, 409). • “[F]ilms can make innovative, independent contributions to philosophy through means that are exclusive to cinema” (Smuts 2009, 409).
QUIZ 1 • According to Smuts, films can make contributions to philosophy that are impossible to make through other media (e.g., literature). • True • False
THE ARTISTIC CRITERION • The artistic criterion: film can contribute to philosophy by “means exclusive to cinema.” • This criterion is meant to distinguish genuinely philosophical films from mere recordings of philosophical presentations, debates, or arguments. • But how should we understand the requirement that a contribution be “exclusive to cinema”? • Super bold thesis:the contribution can only be made through cinema. • Merely bold thesis:the contribution is made by way of paradigmatic cinematic means.
THE EPISTEMIC CRITERION • The epistemic criterion: film can make independent, innovative contributions to philosophy. • The independent component is meant to rule out films that are merely supplementary to some preexisting philosophical context. • The innovative component is meant to distinguish films that merely illustrate a preexisting philosophical concept from those that present new ideas. • The innovative component does not require that films present new philosophical ideas in order for cinema to be a philosophical medium—only that they be capable of doing so in principle.
THE BOLD THESIS REVISITED • The bold thesis: “films can make innovative, independent contributions to philosophy through paradigmatic cinematic means” (Smuts 2009, 411).
THE PROBLEM OF PARAPHRASE • If it is claimed that a film makes a philosophical contribution, then either we can say what the contribution is, or we can’t. • If we can’t, then we have no reason to accept the claim. • If we can, then we need a reason to think that the contribution is not wholly dependent on the linguistic medium. Paisley Livingston
POLL • Do you find the problem of paraphrase compelling? • Yes, I think it is a serious problem for the bold thesis. • No, I don’t find it compelling.
SMUT’S STRATEGY • “The problem of paraphrase is essentially a demand . . . to demonstrate how a film could present a new idea or argument that is not grossly dependent on textual sources, non-cinematic devices, or interpretations” (412). • We need to unpack the notion of an “innovative philosophical contribution.” • “New idea or argument” • “Philosophical knowledge” • We can do that by thinking more carefully about what it is to do philosophy. • Once we do that, we will see that films can do philosophy.
DOING PHILOSOPHY • What distinguishes philosophical activities from other sorts of activities? • To answer that, we might focus on why we do philosophy in the first place. What are we trying to accomplish? • Once we have an answer to that question, we will be in a better position to distinguish philosophical activities from non-philosophical activities.
QUIZ 2 • According to Smuts, if you attempt to convince a supremely patient, rational, neutral, contemporary audience of a philosophical position, you’re thereby doing philosophy. • True • False
DOING PHILOSOPHY MORAL NIHILISM NON-NATURALIST MORAL REALISM
DOING PHILOSOPHY • In doing philosophy, we seek to convince a supremely patient, rational, neutral, contemporary audience that is only responsive to reasons. • Our aim is to encourage the formation of rationally justified beliefs—not mere opinions. • Assuming that we can account for the notion of a philosophical position, we can then understand doing innovative philosophy as the attempt to persuade by giving a historically novel reason to hold a philosophical position.
FILM AS PHILOSOPHY Judith Jarvis Thomson’s violinist analogy
FILM AS PHILOSOPHY Argument by analogy: • Aand Bare relevantly similar. • Such-and-such is true of A. • So: such-and-such is also true of B.
FILM AS PHILOSOPHY • “Step by step, by a process of comparing each new image with the common denotation, power is accumulated behind a process that can be formally identified with that of logical deduction. . . . The conventional descriptive form for film leads to the formal possibility of a kind of filmic reasoning. While the conventional film directs the emotions, this suggests an opportunity to encourage and direct the whole thought process, as well” (1997, 62). Sergei Eisenstein
FILM AS PHILOSOPHY • “Maintaining the denotation of ‘God,’ the images increasingly disagree with our concept of God, inevitably leading to individual conclusions about the true nature of all deities. In this case, too, a chain of images attempted to achieve a purely intellectual resolution, resulting from a conflict between a preconception and a gradual discrediting of it in purposeful steps” (1997, 61). Sergei Eisenstein
FILM AS PHILOSOPHY October’s argument by analogy (put into language): • Christianity is relevantly similar to even the most primitive and crudest of religions—they have the same kind of origin. • Such religions are fundamentally mistaken about reality. • So: Christianity is also fundamentally mistaken about reality.
POLL • Do you agree with Smuts that this example establishes the bold thesis? • Yes, I agree. • No, I’m still unconvinced.
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES • First, it might be objected that the contribution is not innovative, because it depends on a prior Marxist critique of religion. • In response, we have no reason to think that the film’s argument couldn’t be novel.
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES • Second, it might be objected that the contribution is not independent—it is merely supplementary to a preexisting Marxist critique of religion. • In response, again, we have no reason to think that the film wouldn’t have made any sense had it been made in a culture completely unfamiliar with Marxism.
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES • Finally, it might be objected that the film is just a series of images—there isn’t an argument to consider until we interpret the film. • In response, in order to paraphrase the film, there has to be something there for the paraphrase to be a paraphrase of in the first place. • The argument is in the film; our paraphrase merely gave it linguistic shape.
UPSHOT • We have reason to believe that it is possible for a film to provide a historically novel reason to accept a philosophical position—for example, the atheistic view that God doesn’t exist. • We also have reason to believe that film can do this through paradigmatically cinematic means—for example, through montage. • Therefore: we have reason to accept the bold thesis. Film can do philosophy in a very robustway.
