> 1) All show, no substance
If the film can lead us to consider items of substance then this shouldn't
be a worry.
> 2) Adequate physics, bad metaphysics
This needs expanding on, why are the metaphysics bad (qualitative, not
quantative) ?
> 3)Appearance but no reality
Errrrmmm... isn't that what the film considers. Possibly consider Fight Club
as another tweak on the same riff.
> 4) Appeal to senses but not to mind--when will some stop confusing images
on the wall
> of the cave with reality
Isn't this about how you watch rather than about what is watched ?
> 5) Sensuously rich, ethically poor
See (4). In fact, isn't it basically the same ?
> 6) Finding philosophical content within the film may be akin to William
James's blind
> man in a dark basement seeking a black cat that isn't there.
Maybe, but if you never feel around blindly, how can you tell ?
> Surely in the history of film, we can find good examples of metaphysical
puzzles and
> ethical quandaries more deserving of discussion than this quintessence of
technological
> self-indulgence.
Yes. We can. But it's relatively recent, and contains a lot of modern
concerns re. technology etc. that aren't as explicitly causes-for-concern in
earlier films (if they are, specific examples would be nice to see...)
Steve
|