On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Robert Sinnerbrink
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Here's to continuing the conversation between analytic-cognitivist and 'Continental'-inspired film philosophy!
I don't like your labels, but let's put that aside. How does Colman's
volume contribute to the conversation. I can't see it, at least not
from the title page. From what I can tell, it's entirely focused on
figures. The discussions are grouped under large umbrella categories,
but the focus is on people not problems. Do the articles put the
figures in conversation with work on core problems in the philosophy
or film, problem that those from the "analytic" school are working on?
Perhaps, but I don't see any evidence for this.
The Livingston and Plantinga volume features articles on a variety of
different topics from genre, to narration, to race, to horror (my
entry). There are 60 substantial entries in total Among those are
several articles on a figures that one might group under the
"Continental" label and a few others that show up in the Colman
volume, such as Deleuze and Metz. The Routledge volume also has
entries on phenomenology and psychoanalysis. I could see why one
might say that this volume keeps the conversation going.
Aaron
*
*
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 technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|