I think this reference to applied philosophy is very relevant to the
discussion. Consider ethics, in which the 'applied' v. 'theory'
distinction is very pronounced. Theories are forced to evolve precisely
because of inadequacies in their application. Utilitarianism is an
obvious example. Similarly in film theory generally, problems arise
with the theory as a result of its practice. Note how much of the
backlash against auteur theory arose from the 'practice' of auteur
critics.
So I think in terms of philosophy of film, the general v. specific
approaches constitute an important dynamic. I find it odd to suggest
that we should choose between them.
On another point that has come up in this conversation, I wonder how
best to classify this evolving field of the philosophy of film. A
tendency here has been to consider it a form of aesthetics, but much of
what has been written in journals and books is clearly aimed at
theoretical positions in other areas, like ethics, social philosophy,
and existentialism. While these works might have implications for
aesthetics, surely they can stand on their own as contributions to these
other forms of philosophy.
So is it best to see the philosophy of film as part of a larger
subdivision within philosophy, or is it it's own field that intersects
with all those others?
-- Bill
Henry M. Taylor wrote:
> Horribile dictu perhaps, but is there such a practice as 'applied
> philosophy' ? You know, like the 'schools of applied arts' ?
>
> H
>
>
*
*
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]
**
|