Why Philosophy Has Always Needed Cinema



AU: Please note that the chapter title is repeated. Consider revising to avoid repetition. Shamir introduces one of his key innovative concepts here, arguing that the pattern of using thought experiments throughout the history of philosophy points to an essential need within philosophy to think cinematically. What Shamir does is to upend what has been written on thought experiments and cinema so far. This provides the explanation for why philosophy has always needed cinema, thus allowing for the establishment of a firm relationship, based on necessity, between cinema and philosophy. Shamir goes on to argue that cinematic thought experiments, which are experienced onscreen, are dramatically different from traditional thought experiments, which take place in our imagination. This process begins to establish that the evolution of thought experiments as cinematic entities offers an unprecedented possibility for philosophy.


Thought Experiment Geiger Counter Artistic Device Pictorial Illustration Narrative Detail 
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.


Books and Articles

  1. Arnheim, R. (1986). A plea for visual thinking. In R. Arnheim (Ed.), New essays on the psychology of art (pp. 135–152). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, F. M. (1902). Handbook of birds of the Western United States. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, J. R. (1987). Einstein’s brand of verificationism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2, 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, J. R. (1991). The laboratory of the mind: Thought experiments in the natural sciences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, J. R. (1992). Why empiricism won’t work. PSA, 2, 271–279.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, J. R. & Fehige, Y. (2010, Winter). Thought experiments. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from
  7. Buzzoni, M. (2008). Thought experiment in the natural sciences. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
  8. Carroll, L. (1865/1993). Alices adventures in wonderland (illustrations by John Tenniel), Philip Smith (ed.), New York: Dover Publication Inc.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Einstein, A. (1952). Relativity: The special and the general theory. New York: Bonanza Books.Google Scholar
  12. Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1966). The evolution of physics. New York: Simon and Shuster.Google Scholar
  13. 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 Google Scholar
  14. Gilmore, R. (2005). Doing philosophy at the movies. Albany, NY: State University of New York, Albany.Google Scholar
  15. Gooding, D. C. (1992). What is experimental about thought experiments? PSA: Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2, 280–290.Google Scholar
  16. Griswold, Charles. (2003). Plato on rhetoric and poetry. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from
  17. Haggqvist, S. (1996). Thought experiments in philosophy. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
  18. Jackson, M. W. (1992). The gedankenexperiment method of ethics. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 26, 525–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. King, P. (1991). Mediaeval thought-experiments: The metamethodology of mediaeval science. In T. Horowitz (ed.) & G. Massey (ed.), Thought experiments in science and philosophy, (pp. 43–64). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  20. Kuhn, S.T. (1964/1977). A function for thought experiments. In The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change (pp. 240–265). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mach, E. (1897). Über Gedankenexperimente. In Zeitschrift für Den Physikalischen Und Chemischen Unterricht, 10, 1–5.Google Scholar
  22. Mach, E. (1905). Über Gedankenexperimente, In Erkenntnis und Irrtum, Leipzig: Verlag Von Johann Ambrosius Barth (pp. 181–197). In Knowledge and error (pp. 134–147) (trans: McCormack, J.). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  23. Milne, A.A. (1926). Winnie-the-Pooh. (Illustrations by Ernest H. Shepard). New York: Penguin Group.Google Scholar
  24. Newton, I. (1687a/1995). Principia Mathematica. Retrieved from The Principia (trans: Mott, A.), New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  25. Newton, I. (1687b/1999), The principia: Mathematical principles of natural philosophy (trans: Cohen, I. Bernard & Whitman, A.). Proceeded by A Guide to Newtons Principia by I. Bernard Cohen. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. Newton, I. (1728), A treatise of the system of the world. Published by F. Fayram.Google Scholar
  27. Penley, C. (1990). The future of an illusion: Film, feminism, and psychoanalysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  28. Popper, K. (1959). On the use and misuse of imaginary experiments, especially in quantum theory. The logic of scientific discovery (pp. 442–456). London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  29. Schrodinger, E. (1935). The present situation in quantum mechanics. In J. Wheeler (ed.) & W. Zurek (ed.), Quantum theory and measurement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Shapin, S. (1984, November). Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle’s literary technology. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 481–520. Retrieved from
  31. Sorensen, A. R. (1992). Thought experiments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Souder, L. (2003). What are we to think about thought experiment? In Argumentation (Vol. 17, pp. 203–217). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. The Wachowskis. (1999). The Matrix. [Motion Picture].Google Scholar
  34. Thomson, J. J. (1971, Fall). A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(1), 47–66.Google Scholar
  35. Unger, H. (1991). Film and philosophy. Israel, Tel-Aviv: Dvir Publishing House [Hebrew].Google Scholar
  36. Wartenberg, E. T. (2005). Philosophy screened: Experiencing The Matrix. In E. T. Wartenberg & A. Curran (Eds.), The philosophy of film: Introductory text and readings (pp. 270–283). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  37. Wartenberg, E. T. (2007). Thinking on screen: Film as philosophy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Wilkes, V. K. (1988). Real people: Personal identity without thought experiments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Williamson, T. (2004). Philosophical ‘intuitions’ and scepticism about judgment. Dialectica, 58, 109–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations