first off, my thanks to Dan Barnett for this new thread

If a film requires the viewer to shift perspective in order to understand its reason for existing, it can be said to have done some philosophy. Other films may be about philosophy or be said to pose philosophically interesting  questions but cannot actually be said to do philosophy.


Dan puts forth an interesting claim.  It suggests that "doing philosophy" finds its essential task in inducing "gestalt shifts".  I do think films can help us occupy a perspective alien to us at first.

That is certainly one of the things philosophy does, but most attempts to answer the "Can film do philosophy?" question involve taking one aspect of philosophical inquiry as definitive and then arguing about whether films can do that or not.

If the task of philosophy is to generate certainty and necessity through demonstration (as Descartes would have argued), then films probably aren't particularly good at doing that.  If philosophy involves offering overall world views, gestalten on existence, then films begin to look more promising as able to do philosophy.  If the task of philosophy is therapeutic (in either Nietzsche's or Wittgenstein's sense of that term) then the jury is still out.

Perhaps there aren't more discussions of this issue on this venue because it isn't easy to get started without developing ideas at length, a task few of us have the time to do (especially during the school year).  But I would like to see a lot more of it.  The print journal which I edit has dealt with this issue in many articles published over the last five years, and will be furthering the discussion with several more publications in the forthcoming Volume 15.

My take on the issue is that the question of whether a particular film is philosophical is a matter of degree.  A film is minimally philosophical if it can usefully be interpreted from a philosophical position.  It is more philosophical if it intentionally seeks to embody certain philosophical ideas, positions or problems and succeeds in doing so.  It is the most philosophical (and equal in this regard to any prose essay) if it can make a real and original contribution to the ongoing philosophical conversation about a philosophical issue.  I have argued in an article for the Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism that Being John Malkovich, to name one film, does just that.

This trichotomy is neutral as to which concept of what is truly philosophical you bring to the discussion.


Cheers!

Dan .


Professor Daniel Shaw
Chair, Philosophy Department
Lock Haven University     (570) 484-2052
Managing Editor, Film and Philosophy

"Hope is the thing with feathers--/ that perches in the soul--/
and sings the tune without the words--/ and never stops at all."

Emily Dickinson
________________________________

*
*
Film-Philosophy
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]
**