Advertisement

Foundation II—The Critique of Film and Philosophy

Chapter
  • 261 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Thought Experiment Philosophical Inquiry Philosophical Text Fictional Narrative Philosophical Interpretation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

Books and Articles

  1. 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
  2. Bernstein, M. J. (1992). The fate of art. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Carroll, N. (2002). The wheel of virtue: Art, literature, and moral knowledge. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 60(1), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Carroll, N. (2008). Philosophy in the moving image: Response to Bruce Russell. Film and Philosophy, 12, 17–26.Google Scholar
  6. Céline, L.-F. (1932/2006). Journey to the end of the night (trans: Manheim, R.). New York: New Directions.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Gendler, T. (1998). Galileo and the Indispensability of Thought Experiments. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 49, 397–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gilmore, R. (2005). Doing philosophy at the movies. Albany, NY: State University of New York, Albany.Google Scholar
  13. Goodman, N. (1983). The new riddle of induction. In Fact, fiction, and forecast. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Granger, H. (2004). Cinematic philosophy in Le Feu Follet: The search for a meaningful life. Film and Philosophy, 8, 74–90.Google Scholar
  15. Hempel, G. C. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Jackson, M. W. (1992). The gedankenexperiment method of ethics. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 26, 525–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lamarque, P., & Olsen, S. H. (1994). Truth, fiction, and literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Norton, J. (1996). Are thought experiments just what you always thought? Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 26(3), 333–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Putnam, H. (1976). Literature, science, and reflection. InMeaning and the moral sciences (pp. 83–94). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  24. Russell, B. (2007). Film’s limits: The sequel. Film and Philosophy, 12, 1–16.Google Scholar
  25. Sinnerbrink, R. (2011). New philosophies of film: Thinking images. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. Souder, L. (2003). What are we to think about thought experiment? InArgumentation (Vol. 17, pp. 203–217). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Stoehr, K. (2011). ‘By cinematic means alone’: The Russell-Wartenberg-Carroll debate. In Film and Philosophy, Volume, 15, 111–125.Google Scholar
  30. Stolnitz, J. (1992). On the cognitive triviality of art. British Journal of Aesthetics, 32(3), 191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Taylor, C., & Jefferson, D. (1994). Artificial life as a tool for biological inquiry. Artificial Life, 1(1/2), 1–13.Google Scholar
  32. Thomson, J. J. (1971, Fall). A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(1), 47–66.Google Scholar
  33. Wartenberg, E. T. (2007). Thinking on screen: Film as philosophy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Williams, B. (1973). Problems of the self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Films & Artworks

  1. Godard, J.-L. (1967). Weekend. [Motion Picture].Google Scholar
  2. Gondry, M. (2004). Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind. [Motion Picture].Google Scholar
  3. Linklater, R. (2001). Waking life. [Motion Picture].Google Scholar
  4. Malle, L. (1963). Le Feu Follet. [Motion Picture].Google Scholar
  5. Proyas, A. (2004). I, Robot. [Motion Picture].Google Scholar
  6. Reiner, C. (1984). All of me. [Motion Picture].Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations