David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy Compass 5 (4):359-362 (2010)
The idea that films can be philosophical, or in some sense ‘do’ philosophy, has recently found a number of prominent proponents. What is at stake here is generally more than the tepid claim that some documentaries about philosophy and related topics convey philosophically relevant content. Instead, the contention is that cinematic fictions, including popular movies such as The Matrix, make significant contributions to philosophy. Various more specific claims are linked to this basic idea. One, relatively weak, but pedagogically important observation is that some films can be used to provide philosophy students with vivid and thought-provoking illustrations of philosophical issues. Film screenings stimulate discussion and may motivate renewed engagement with difficult philosophical texts. A stronger contention, however, seeks to link innovative and philosophically valuable thinking to ‘the film itself’ or to the ‘specificity of the cinematic medium’. Such claims raise interesting questions, including questions about the status of the increasingly prevalent philosophically motivated interpretations of particular movies. Who is actually doing the philosophizing in such cases? Is it the audio-visual display, the film-maker, or the philosopher who devises an interpretation of the work? What is the role of specifically cinematic devices in the philosophical points made in such interpretations? Is there any tension between the goal of appreciating a film as a work of art and the goal of arguing that a film has significant implications for a position on a problem in philosophy? A course in the general area of cinema as philosophy can focus on issues related to the locus and status of cinematic philosophizing. It can also delve into specific films and film-makers and philosophically oriented interpretations of specific philosophical topics, such as personal identity. Issues pertaining to interpretation, meaning, and authorship can be usefully investigated in this connection, as can topics in meta-philosophy related to the very nature of philosophical insight or knowledge
|Keywords||philosophy of film bold thesis Noel Carroll Aaron Smuts film as philosophy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Russell J. A. Kilbourn (2010). Cinema, Memory, Modernity: The Representation of Memory From the Art Film to Transnational Cinema. Routledge.
Aaron Smuts (2014). Cinematic. Nordic Journal of Aesthetics 23 (46):78-95.
John Adams (2010). Reviews Cinema, Philosophy, Bergman: On Film as Philosophy . By Paisley Livingston. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, £32.50. [REVIEW] Philosophy 85 (3):409-413.
Cynthia Freeland (2010). The Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Film Edited by Livingston, Paisley and Carl Plantinga. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 68 (3):301-303.
Angela Curran (2011). Review: Cinema, Philosophy, Bergman: On Film as Philosophy by Livingston, Paisley. [REVIEW] Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 69 (2):253-255.
Aaron Smuts (2009). Film as Philosophy: In Defense of a Bold Thesis. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 67 (3):409-420.
Paisley Livingston & Carl R. Plantinga (eds.) (2008). The Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Film. Routledge.
Paisley Livingston (2008). Recent Work on Cinema as Philosophy. Philosophy Compass 3 (4):590-603.
Paisley Livingston (2009). Cinema, Philosophy, Bergman: On Film as Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2010-04-09
Total downloads78 ( #53,862 of 1,796,560 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #281,430 of 1,796,560 )
How can I increase my downloads?