فلسفه به روایت سینما

by Christopher Falzon, ناصرالدین علی تقویان (Translator)

ساختار سینمای جدید یادآور غار افلاطون است. در سینما هم ما درمکانی تاریک می نشینیم و مبهوت تصاویری می شویم که از دنیای واقعی دور است. چرا که سینما روها شبیه زندانیان غار افلاطون هستند. و به نظر می رسد فیلم ها آنچنان کمکی برای فهم فلسفه نباشند. فلسفه تنها هنگامی میتواند آغاز شود که از پیش، از سینما فرار کرده باشیم...
اما خود افلاطون در اسطوره غار از تصویری آشکار استفاده میکند تا موضع فلسفی خود را روشن کند..

Genres: Philosophy, Film, Nonfiction

408 pages, Paperback

First published February 7, 2002

Reviews

[Owlseyes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Any joking mind would understand my paper notes: “Philosophy goes to Hollywood”. Yes, that’s what I wrote unintentionally, I guess. The true title is “Philosophy goes to the movies”; west movies; many American, some European…. some Japanese ones, in between.



...

Anyway, as I read it, I was prone to the 5 stars, so good was the prose. One of the main effects of the reading is to prompt you to watch the unseen movies so far. Another effect is to shed a new light (the philosophical one) on those films you’ve watched already.

“The cave is an invitation to think”




The purpose of the Australian author is finely attained; namely, a book that includes films which “illustrate and illuminate philosophical themes”.

Movies abound, so philosophical ideas. Yet, those ideas have been arranged according (maybe) to the academia classification. Therefore, you have a chapter on Epistemology (Knowledge themes); one chapter on moral... and ethics; one on self and identity, …political philosophy, philosophy of sciences etc. For each of those divisions you’ll find films, and the correspondent philosophical analysis.

Right, philosophy in the sense of: reflection, thinking critically. An ideal book “for beginners”.



I’ve found the approach of Falzon a bit infatuated (?) with the Platonic view: man as a prisoner in a cave, trying to perceive/understand/know beyond the shadows. That’s one possible approach. But, I reckon, it is a good one. The similarities are obvious between the platonic cave-allegory, and the chamber (living-room, amphitheater, cinema…) you (and I) sit sometimes in the dark (or on broad daylight) to watch the shadows pictures… moving.

True, the pictorial can provoke philosophical thinking, though, at times, I’ve seen more of the psychological domain than only-philosophical, per se.



Take the case of Wim Wenders movie “Wings of desire” (1987). Whereas Falzon sees a philosophical child (“does evil exist? …”why am I here”?) I’ve seen a developing being, as well.



Or “Cinema Paradiso” (1989): enfolding a process of liberation from Totalitarianism, as well as (psychological!) achievement of independence.



Where Falzon sees philosophical schools, I’d seen personalities. Take the case of Star Trek. To Mr Spock, the most rational person, (platonic in a sense): the reason is always in charge, not desire. Whereas Leonard “Bones” McCoy is the Humean-type who indulges freely in emotions.




Self, or soul? I wonder.








(what a cave!)

I‘ve found very pertinent the author’s views on two movies, approached in the Knowledge chapter. They are Total Recall (1990) and The Matrix (1999). The latter typically deals with perception (psychology!) but also with enslavement and liberation: “humans are enslaved by intelligent machines; “a computer feeds them with a simulated reality": the matrix. How can you really know…the Truth?

The former movie deals with reality and dream at a certain point, and the Descartes’ view reveals itself quite appropriate. The French philosopher wondered on deception, and the source of knowledge. How does one know one is dreaming… or awaken? Or: “I’m sitting by the fire, writing”,…how do I know I’m not dreaming on doing it? That same kind of thoughts enabled the main character of Total Recall to find answer to his musings: “what if this is a dream?”.



How can you tell truth from lie? Yet things can be even stranger. Still with Descartes: what about a devil-demon, an all-powerful being who is capable of deceiving us? A kind of “illusion-generator? What if, what you see is just a projection of the devil’s mind?
…
Seeing… is believing?




"The spectre of depersonalization through the deadening of emotion and feeling has also been invoked in connection with the effects of modern technological society, for example in Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). In the film, two astronauts on a mission to Jupiter have to battle the ship's computer HAL for control of the ship. The astronauts are depersonalized and unemotional, little more than apendages of the sophisticated technology around them". [this is really Psychology!!]
…
Philosophy and cinema. Falzon posits at least three possibilities: (1) films that have a philosopher as subject matter; take the following cases of Socrates (1970), Blaise (1971) and Augustine of Hippo (1975); (2) movies that are philosophically inspired like The Stranger (1967) by L. Visconti; and finally (3) films that make explicit philosophical ideas or positions: Carpenter’s Dark Star (1972) or Woody Allen’s Love and Death (1975). Yet, you can hardly fit many thousands more into one of these*.

Certainly, you’ll find more than Descartes and Plato. To illustrate empiricism and rationalism, you’ll meet also Kant and Hume; and Locke; and Freud and Marx. And many others.

Maybe you’ll find more movies than philosophical ideas (I mean, philosophical schools). Or the opposite. It really doesn’t matter. Questioning, is more important. Wondering, that’s the purpose. Finding light, midst the shadows.

Ah, I've decided for 4 stars, due to this pan-philosophical view on movies that can be viewed, more pertinently at times, in other ways.

You just have to take another allegory; beyond Plato's. A different one.

You're thinking, though you're NOT IN THE CAVE.

But, just suppose for a while, you're one of the puppet showmen performing...what is reality, for you?



*I've recently found this article on movies and the French Philosopher Jean Baudrillard. The ideas of SIMULACRA and HYPERREALITY do fit well in some movies.

See here: http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2016/the...


UPDATE

After 2 months of confinment, how to escape Plato's cave? Good question.
https://www.philomag.com/hors-series/...


UPDATE

This is good, one film for each philosopher (even the Buddha has a film)
http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2018/the...


UPDATE

Good list of "Philosophical films":

https://dailynous.com/2019/09/16/phil...

[Hamed Aghakhani · Rating 4 out of 5]

کریستفر فالزن در این کتاب برخی از نظریه‌های مهم شناختی، اخلاقی، سیاسی و اقتصادی رو به زبان ساده و با ارجاع مناسب به فیلم‌های سینمایی توضیح می‌ده.

بریده‌ای از متن کتاب:
دیوید هیوم غیر مستقیم یک مشکل دیگرِ اعتراض‌های دینی را برجسته می‌سازد. او در مقاله‌اش با نام «درباره‌ی خودکشی» به نقد یکی از براهین رایج مسیحی بر ضد خودکشی می‌پردازد، که براساس آن، زندگی انسان موهبتی از جانب خداست و به یک معنا ملک خداست، پس معلوم کردن اینکه زندگی چه وقت باید تمام شود کار خداست نه انسان. هیوم چنین پاسخ می‌دهد که تلاش برای طولانی کردن زندگی‌مان و محتاج مواظبت‌های پزشکی بودن در هنگام بیماری، به‌نظر می‌رسد مجوز برای دخالت ما در امر حیات است، پس چرا کوتاه کردن آن برای ما مجاز نباشد؟ به‌نظر می‌رسد لازمه‌ی رد کردن خودکشی بر این مبنا، رد کردن تمام مداخلات پزشکی باشد و معلوم نیست حتی مؤمنان مخلص نیز بخواهند تا بدین حد پیش بروند.

[Clare · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is an introduction to philosophy using examples from feature film. A great idea!

[Krystal · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting way to approach philosophy, by using movies to illustrate basic philosophical principles. I'd say it succeeded better than my undergrad philosophy professor did with me.

[pedramjarf · Rating 5 out of 5]

این کتاب رو دیشب خوندم کار خیلی جذابیه انتشارات قصیده سرا چاپش کرده