Henry
I think the truth is clear. It clearly shows apparently Kennedy being
apparently shot. Who fired it and from where, and even whether he is being
murdered are inferences to be made beyond the truth of the footage.
Further to this:
I made my initial inquiry because I was curious about film and truth in the
context of considering the significance of film as both a document and
medium of historiography.
Mike and other's questions about whether films assert have an interesting
affinity with a theory of the 'document' that I think is well put by the
English philosopher Michael Oakeshott. He sees documents as performances and
vestiges of the past which, even if they are assertions, are not as
documents, primarily assertions or primarily true or false. What historical
inquiry makes of them, infers from them, comes next.
From the viewpoint of historical inquiry, which is concerned with truth,
such a primary attitude to documents is precisely what the Zapruder footage,
and all shots demand.
Ross
> The interesting thing about the Zapruder film is that it clearly and
> undisputably shows Kennedy being murdered, yet it is a typically
> undecidable postmodern artifact in that it requires interpretation and
> contextualisation in order to be seen as presenting 'the truth.' We
> can see the fatal head shot, but we cannot tell where it really came
> from or whether there was a conspiracy or not. The Zapruder footage
> therefore is at its most powerful when we already believe in one
> version of the events. Which in some way relates to Bazin's notion of
> realism - we have to believe before we can truly see.
>
> Henry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>> 7 Tarski. And what about Tarski's in/famous formulation of truth
>>> conditions, the 'disquotational theory' which goes something like
>>> this: The sentence 'Kennedy was shot in Dallas in 1963' is true if
>>> and only if Kennedy was shot in Dallas in 1963.
>>>
>>> Is there anything like a video formulation of this truth condition.
>>> Consider a video that shows: The shot (e.g. the Zapruder footage)
>>> 'Kennedy is shot in Dallas in 1963' is true if and only if Kennedy
>>> is shot in Dallas in 1963? IE is there a Tarskian version of film/
>>> video truth? I don't think so. I don't know. But can we do this if
>>> we use a voiceover (ie audio and video)?
>>
>> Ross - I don't get this last section. Can you say a bit more about
>> it?
>> Erica Sheen
>> *
>>
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy salon
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are
> replying to.
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> [log in to unmask]
> Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> *
> Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
> **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.24/2017 - Release Date: 03/22/09
17:51:00
*
*
Film-Philosophy salon
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|