I like Deleuze's idea that philosophical concepts are a "toolbox" which we unpack to address particular issues. In my own work I use Deleuze as a methodological bridge between music and film theories. It works extremely well.



Cheers,

Gregg Redner, PhD

University of Western Ontario

Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry



-----Original Message-----

From:         "Shaw, Dan" <[log in to unmask]>

Date:         Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:32:21 

To: <[log in to unmask]>

Subject: Re: Film and philosophy: general vs specific methodology



Let me quote the passage from Mike Frank's comments that I wish to discuss





"but, more contentiously, i’m inclined to think of philosophy precisely as an attempt to articulate the underlying premises or protocols that inform our actions, and in that light i want to say that only what havi calls a “general program” really should count as film-philosophy . . .  to put it even more blatantly: to refer to aristotle’s poetics as a way of describing the plot of maltese falcon is not to be doing philosophy; to use maltese falcon as a way of calling into question aristotle’s claims – which amount to a “general program” -- is to be doing philosophy"







So, I take it then that Aristotle was doing philosophy when he proposed his definition of tragedy but not when he applied it to Oedipus Rex?  And why is it more philosophical to use a work of art to question a proposed aesthetic theory than it is to confirm it with persuasive examples?  I am confused.







The distinction between abstract and applied philosophy seems apt.  I take you to be claiming that only when you are proposing general theories or critiquing them are you truly doing philosophy. So applied ethics is not "doing philosophy"?







Maybe Kuhn's distinction between scientific revolutionaries and normal scientists is also helpful here.  Normal scientists apply a new paradigm to an ever widening array of phenomena, just as "normal" aestheticians apply aesthetic theories to broader and broader sets of art works.  But no one ever said that normal scientists weren't doing science.  Why should it be said of philosophy?







To allude to your maltese falcon example, am I not "doing philosophy" when I offer a philosophical reading of the film by calling it a tragedy in the Aristotelean sense?  If not, what endeavor am I engaged in?











It is also important to remember the Greek root of aesthetics is "aesthesis" or "perception".  One of the most serious philosophical tasks of the aesthetician is to deepen his reader's perception of particular works of art, and the application of theory to such works can do precisely that.











Daniel Shaw

Professor of Philosophy and Film

Lock Haven University     (570) 484-2052

Managing Editor, Film and Philosophy



"And remember you are more authentic the closer you are to the person you dreamed of being"



Pedro Almodovar's All About My Mother

________________________________



*

*

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]

**