Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Foundation II—The Critique of Film and Philosophy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Cinematic Philosophy

  • 317 Accesses

Abstract

Shamir offers a comprehensive overview of the main challenges to the possibility of creating philosophy via the cinematic medium. This overview is important because, at this writing, there are many more voices arguing against the possibility that films could create any significant form of philosophical wisdom than for it. In addition, most theories that do allow for the possibility of the cinematic platform creating some sort of philosophical wisdom only admit a very limited version of it. Since Shamir’s eventual goal is to claim that cinema can create significant philosophical wisdom, he not only reviews the theories that challenge the philosophical potential of films but also offers responses to each of those challenges.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bibliography

Books and Articles

  • Adorno, T., & Horkheimer, M. (1944/2006). The culture industry: Enlightenment as mass deception. In D. G. Meenakshi & K. M. Douglas (Eds.), Media and cultural studies: Key works (Rev. ed., pp. 42–72). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, M. J. (1992). The fate of art. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, N. (2002). The wheel of virtue: Art, literature, and moral knowledge. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 60(1), 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, N. (2006, March). Philosophizing through the moving image: The case of serene velocity. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 64, 1, pp. 173-185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, N. (2008). Philosophy in the moving image: Response to Bruce Russell. Film and Philosophy, 12, 17–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Céline, L.-F. (1932/2006). Journey to the end of the night (trans: Manheim, R.). New York: New Directions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, D. (2008, August). Can film be a philosophical medium?. Postgraduate Journal of Aesthetics, 5(2). McGill University. Retrieved from http://www.british-aesthetics.org/uploads/David_Davies_-_Can_Film_be_a_Philosophical_Medium.pdf

  • Di Paolo, E., Noble, J. & Bullock, S. (2000). Simulation models as opaque thought experiments. Seventh International Conference on Artificial Life. (pp. 497–506). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/466733/Simulation_Models_As_Opaque_Thought_Experiments

  • Duhem, P. (1913). La Théorie Physique Son Objet et sa Structure, (2nd ed.). Paris: Chevalier & Rivière. Used here in reprint of 1981, The aim and structure of physical theory (trans: Weiner, P.). Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elgin, C.Z. (1993, April). Understanding: Art and science. In Synthese, Vol. 95, No. 1, Probing into “Reconceptions” (pp. 13–28). Published by Springer. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20117763

    Google Scholar 

  • Gendler, T. (1998). Galileo and the Indispensability of Thought Experiments. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 49, 397–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilmore, R. (2005). Doing philosophy at the movies. Albany, NY: State University of New York, Albany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, N. (1983). The new riddle of induction. In Fact, fiction, and forecast. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granger, H. (2004). Cinematic philosophy in Le Feu Follet: The search for a meaningful life. Film and Philosophy, 8, 74–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, G. C. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (1740/1978). A treatise of human nature. In L.A. Selby-Bigge (ed.) (2nd ed. Rev. P.H. Nidditch). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (1748/1975). Enquiry Concerning human understanding, in Enquiries concerning human understanding and concerning the principles of morals. L.A. Selby-Bigge (ed.), (3rd ed. Rev. P.H. Nidditch). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, M. W. (1992). The gedankenexperiment method of ethics. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 26, 525–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamarque, P., & Olsen, S. H. (1994). Truth, fiction, and literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, B. (2006). Impractical pragmatics in doing philosophy in the movies. Film-Philosophy, 10(3), 122–128 Retrieved from http://www.film-philosophy.com/2006v10n3/little.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingston, P. (2006). Theses on cinema as philosophy. In M. Smith (ed.) & T.E. Wartenberg (ed.). Thinking through cinema: Film as philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, J. (1996). Are thought experiments just what you always thought? Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 26(3), 333–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H. (1976). Literature, science, and reflection. InMeaning and the moral sciences (pp. 83–94). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B. (2007). Film’s limits: The sequel. Film and Philosophy, 12, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinnerbrink, R. (2011). New philosophies of film: Thinking images. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. (2006). Film art, argument and ambiguity. In M. Smith (ed.) & T.E. Wartenberg (ed.), Thinking through cinema: Film as philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smuts, A. (2009, Fall). Film as philosophy: In defense of a bold thesis. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 67, 4. Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Souder, L. (2003). What are we to think about thought experiment? InArgumentation (Vol. 17, pp. 203–217). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoehr, K. (2011). ‘By cinematic means alone’: The Russell-Wartenberg-Carroll debate. In Film and Philosophy, Volume, 15, 111–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stolnitz, J. (1992). On the cognitive triviality of art. British Journal of Aesthetics, 32(3), 191–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C., & Jefferson, D. (1994). Artificial life as a tool for biological inquiry. Artificial Life, 1(1/2), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, J. J. (1971, Fall). A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(1), 47–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wartenberg, E. T. (2007). Thinking on screen: Film as philosophy. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. (1973). Problems of the self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Films & Artworks

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. New York, New York, USA

    Tal S. Shamir

Authors
  1. Tal S. Shamir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Shamir, T.S. (2016). Foundation II—The Critique of Film and Philosophy. In: Cinematic Philosophy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33473-8_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation