___ Michael ___
| Clark's answer to Sarah's question about Sartre is really very
| weak and extremely subjective.
 ___

I don't know if it is weak, but it certainly is subjective.  But then I
tried to point that out by saying many would disagree.  I hoped I indicated
why *I* didn't like him.  I wasn't trying to make some kind of objective
argument against Sartre.  Although I do stick to my guns that Levinas,
Gadamer, and Ricouer have contributed more to philosophy.

Now that I am at home with my library and have awoken with insomnia allow me
a more formal critique.  Quoting Moran in _Introduction to Phenomenology_
(pg. 390)

   Sartre's philosophy is philosophy understood as a kind of
   brilliant literature. ...Part of the problem is that
   Sartre was obsessed with creating monuments to his genius.
   Even though he engaged in debates and interviews, these
   are always manifestations of himself.  Sartre never seems
   to have had the patience to revise anything he wrote, and
   his lack of interest in academic life meant that he was
   never subject to scholarly constraints.  Everything pours
   out in a breathless torrent of words.  Sartre's ontology
   is so crude that philosophers such as Daniel Dennett have
   wondered how anyone could take it seriously.  Sartre
   himself does not seem to know how to develop it.  It seems
   to have arrived as an intuition, and to have been
   elaborated repetitively rather than justified.

Now I recognize that when I quote something like this that I open myself up
to the charge that those I quote simply misread Sartre.  Heaven knows
philosophers I like, such as Derrida, get misread and attacked.  At best I
can say though that I agree that Sartre's role was more primarily literary
rather than philosophical.  While the charge of unjustified intuition is
sometimes applied to Levinas, I'm not sure it holds there - although he
certainly has a difficult style.

But to each their own.  As I said, it is my view of why *I* don't like him.
I don't enjoy reading him nor do I find myself illuminated much by what he
says.  If others do, that's fine.  Who am I to tell people what to enjoy or
how to think.

 ___ Michael ___
| Better to see philosophy as a matter of position-taking within
| a field, as Bourdieu teaches, in which case all philosophy has
| political implications even when the politics isn't explicit.
 ___

That is true with regards to politics (although the effects often are
small).  I'm not sure I buy philosophy as *just* a matter of position
taking, if that is how you take that.  Rather it is a certain way of
position taking which involves reason.  To leave out the reason is to stop
doing philosophy.

 ___ Michael ___
| It is, of course, the political implications of the positions
| taken by members of this list which is what got up Jon Jost's
| nose, and I suspect there are other subscribers to the list
| who, like myself, sympathise with his gist.
 ___

Sadly Jon, who apparently has decided to leave, failed to really give much
by way of reason for why our positions got his gander.  I admit I don't
understand why someone having a difference of opinion entails getting upset.
For instance I disagree rather profoundly with Doyle's view of semiotics and
also his Marxism.  Yet I've enjoyed the conversation and he has pointed out
some rather interesting papers I'm reading.

Further the gist of Jon Jost seems to be that was are all babbling and
wasting our time.  Perhaps, although many would say that watching film is
wasting time when we could be helping out at the soup kitchen or doing some
other form of charity.

There was a film from I believe the 40's whose name escapes me at the
moment.  It was about a director who was famous for making comedies.  He
becomes rather depressed at Hollywood and the system and goes off pretending
to be a bum, to make a serious film that deals with the real political
issues of the working people.  As the film proceeds he finds that these
people enjoyed his comedies a great deal and that this bringing joy was a
valid contribution to the world.  So he goes back to Hollywood to make
comedies.  [Anyone recall the name of this film?  It's been a while since I
saw it last so I may have a few details wrong.]

Now I'm sure some here will consider this a weak apologetic for the
Hollywood system.  However I think there is a great deal of truth in it
which goes to the heart of the divide here on this list.  Is the only way to
help people to make these political films?  I know Hollywood gets attacked
fairly regularly.  However lets face it, the average person *enjoys*
Hollywood films far more than they would films that are praised at Cannes.
Perhaps some will say, "well they *ought* to enjoy these other films."
However that is a kind of elitism I find distasteful.  Further while people
portray Hollywood as forcing people to watch a certain kind of movie I
simply don't buy it.  Hollywood makes what makes money.  What makes money is
what's popular.  What I like may not be what's popular.  But who am I to say
that it is bad for Hollywood to make movies like _The Mummy_ simply because
I don't like it?  Clearly many did.  And if that brought them happiness, it
seems difficult to say it was bad.  What's wrong with two hours of escapism?

Same with this list.  I like movies and enjoy discussing them with people.
If other people want to discuss other aspects of film that's fine.  However
why complain about what some of us here enjoy discussing?  Perhaps our
discussions won't end world hunger.  But call me a cynic, but I doubt the
Cannes films will make much of a practical change either.  If you enjoy
them, fine.  But lets not get too elitist or pretentious in how we treat our
subjective likes.

 ___ Michael ___
| As Stuart Jeffries puts it, writing recently from Cannes
| in The Guardian, 'Film-makers around the world ... are
| making movies  not only of substance but of social and
| political relevance, and  Cannes is providing a platform
| for them. But guess what? We won't get to see many of
| them, so awash is our cinema with Hollywood "product"...'
 ___

This is an example of what I disagree with strongly.  First off Hollywood
distributes what they think makes money.  Now I'll admit that the
distribution channels are filled up and controlled by the various media
giants.  However there are plenty of other distribution channels, especially
with DVD and video.  Further in the US there are several independent film
channels, such as IFC and Sundance.  The problem is that, guess what, most
people don't *want* to watch those things.

Now, as I said, I love a lot of "artsy" films.  However I'm not going to
consider it a conspiracy that _Mulholland Drive_ made next to nothing while
_Spiderman_ is expected to make nearly a billion dollars.

If you like this kind of film it is in this day and age easier to see them
than ever before.

 ___ Michael ___
| He adds that 'A central theme of the festival has been a
| growing resentment of the asphyxiating triumph of Hollywood
| values in globalised culture.'
 ___

i.e. the resentment of a social minority against the likes of the majority.
aka. you should be more like me.

I'm sure those following Ptolemaic astronomy also resenting the asphyxiating
trumph of Copernican astronomy as well.  If we are to have a true exchange
of ideas in the world then some ideas will triumph.  Some likes will also
triumph.  So long as we do not limit the right of people to express
themselves, there is nothing wrong.  The problem is that some don't merely
want the right to express themselves, they feel it a right to have others
want to listen.  <Grin>

My response to those at Cannes is that if you want to overcome the
"asphyxiating triumph" of popular films, make films that people want to
watch.

 ___ Michael ___
| As Jon asks 'What economic distortions ruined how many lives
| today?' Jon may leave the list, but his awkward questions
| won't go away.
 ___

Well "economic distortion" is often in the eye of the beholder.  What I
think, however, is sad, is that you and he didn't start discussing what you
liked.  Had people enjoyed it they'd have read it and probably others would
have contributed as well.  Instead we had a few weeks of nearly no
discussion until Doyle and a few others started a discussion I joined in on.
Yet instead of offering a discussion, Jon simply attacked me for not
creating the discussion he wanted and then left.  No doubt because of the
asphyxiating triumph of Hollywood values here as well.  Had he instead
contributed something people wanted to read he'd have accomplished
something.  Instead we were left only with the demand that *we* produce what
*he* wanted.

Shades of Cannes' judgment of Hollywood.