Worthwhile reading original philosophy texts?

^^Probably a lot better than the film makers themselves too much of the time ;-)

Joks,

Agree, it is partially because of his understanding, no doubt. I think the ‘irrational’ response to an overly rational way of living was addressed well by thinkers like Weber and later by the Frankfurt school. In an attempt to escape the ‘iron cage’, man will often go to desperate extremes.

It’s certainly a classic theme of existentialism and modernism that’s been very influential. That’s precisely why I think it’s a point that carries weight that needs addressing.

And again, I mentioned Woody Allen in my original hypothetical because he’s the quinessential neurotic. I was talking about neurotic types in particular. In addition, I think Woody Allen is an accessible way of bringing up these themes. It’s a film forum after all! I only used him as an example, the substance of my post is provided in my argument.

@Izzy

In that case, I don’t think you’ve necessarily widened or complicated the discussion so much since I think my general initial points and concerns remain.

I don’t know. Imo, the distinction between “happiness” and “fulfillment” calls into question the approach of judging philosophy by happiness—or at least it makes the issue more complex.

Sure, but my only point is that exposing the lie, if it is in fact a lie, isn’t necessarily a good thing. You have to consider the consequences.

Right, but, as I mentioned, believing in something you no longer truly believe in is a kind of sad joke, and, imo, the truth is preferrable. (But that’s just my opinion.)

I don’t think so.

You mean, you think his statement is controversial? because you think the statement is false?

Jazzaloha,

I don’t know. Imo, the distinction between “happiness” and “fulfillment” calls into question the approach of judging philosophy by happiness—or at least it makes the issue more complex.

My point is that the worries I’ve raised for the value of philosophy hold regardless of whether we’re taking value to be understood in terms of happiness or fulfillment. If there’s some other criteria we should respect, they’ve yet to be put on the table.

You mean, you think his statement is controversial? because you think the statement is false?

That’s right. It’s a disputable claim that’s not all obvious. It’s not universally accepted among philosophers, even if it has import and is a very plausible, influential claim. But on the whole, we aren’t really disagreeing. I’ve only been saying that there’s exceptions to the rule, not that philosophy doesn’t have general value, even if doesn’t have essential value.

@Izzy

My point is that the worries I’ve raised for the value of philosophy hold regardless of whether we’re taking value to be understood in terms of happiness or fulfillment. If there’s some other criteria we should respect, they’ve yet to be put on the table.

OK, I think I got it. So, happiness or fulfillment is not the best criterion for judging the value of philosophy, right? I would agree with that.

You put something else on the table, namely improving your powers of reasoning. That seems like something valuable. I added that it does (or can) help with clearer writing, and clearer thinking (which is closely related, if not one and the same thing).

I’ll add something else (although I hesitate because I’m going to sound so inarticulate). Philosophy deals with fundamental ideas and principles—the nature of being, knowledge, existence, etc. Without knowledge and understanding of these things, my feeling is that our knowledge about any subject will be significantly limited.

Who cares about that? Well, I think this is important when one makes decisions—about one’s life, about one’s work, etc. Your understanding of these principles and ideas can have a dramatic impact on the decisions you make. And to tie this back to Socrates, if you don’t really examine these ideas and make decisions about them—i.e., which ideas and principles you ascribe to—you’re going to be making poor decisions. By “poor” I don’t just mean decisions that may harm you in a concrete way, but “poor” in the sense that they’re not consistent with who you are and what you really believe. My feeling is that a big disconnect between what you really believe/who you really are and the decisions you make leads to a very unfulfilling life. It’s tragic and not inappropriate to say that it’s a life not worth living, imo.

(Btw, I wouldn’t equate philosophy and knowing one’s self. I think people can spend their lives studying philosophy and not know themselves. Similiarly, one can know one’s self well, without studying philosophy.)

I’m curious to hear if how some of these books have affected the way you watch films.

They break down mental rigidity and encourage a more fluid approach to a film – different than a lock and key approach.

How so? (And what’s a “lock-and-key” approach? Do you mean an approach that allows for only one reading and one approach to understanding a film/Art?)

With a large knowledge base one can synthesis a new thought or way of being or becoming – thinking here of Tree of Life.
That vs using knowledge as a key to unlock a specific meaning.

An example of how this could work:
Ansel Adams came up with system to compensate for the limited range of panchromatic film. For some reason he decided that one should expose to get detail in the dark areas. I learned the system, but decided that because the eye is attracted to light, I wanted detail in the light areas, allowing the dark areas to be empty.
I synthesized from the zone system a way that worked better for me.
I used to shoot with an individual who was a ‘zoner’. He applied the zone system like he had the key to unlock panchromatic film. I couldn’t convince him there was another approach – he rigidly knew what he knew.

Here’s an Adam’s image with empty highs and lows – sometimes you got to do what you gotta do:

They break down mental rigidity and encourage a more fluid approach to a film – different than a lock and key approach … With a large knowledge base one can synthesis a new thought or way of being or becoming … That vs using knowledge as a key to unlock a specific meaning.

I synthesized from the zone system a way that worked better for me.

Something like creativity and adaptability, right? Perspective and context?

Things change and change is creative and chaotic, so one needs a little creativity to keep up (or to get on top). Hence reading philosophy.

@Robert

I learned the system, but decided that because the eye is attracted to light, I wanted detail in the light areas, allowing the dark areas to be empty.
I synthesized from the zone system a way that worked better for me.
I used to shoot with an individual who was a ‘zoner’. He applied the zone system like he had the key to unlock panchromatic film. I couldn’t convince him there was another approach – he rigidly knew what he knew.

Here’s what I hear you saying:

Exposure to interesting ideas can inspire you to use those ideas in a different context. However, I don’t think the studying philosophy increases your ability to do this. Reading great philosophical works can expose you to insights and interesting concepts—which you can then apply in a different context or use in a different way (then it was originally used), but you can get this from works outside of philosophy—e.g., other artists, like you did with Adams. Basically, if you understand the way great thinkers/artists approach problems they face—in whatever field—this is valuable because it will suggest creative ways of approaching and solving problems in your own field. And—this is another value for reading the Great Books (including those of early scientists, whose conclusions may no longer be valid).

But I don’t know if reading great philosophical works increases the imagination and open-mindedness to apply concepts and ideas in different contexts or ways (from the original use). The connection seems a bit tenuous, but maybe I’m wrong about that.

“I don’t know if reading great philosophical works increases the imagination and open-mindedness to apply concepts and ideas in different contexts or ways (from the original use).”

Oh, I think it can.

Just the reading itself? Will the exposure lead to open-mindedness and greater imagination? Suppose the reader isn’t very open-minded or imaginative. I’m not saying your wrong, but I’m not as sure as you are. How about going in to why you think it can help.

Not in all cases, of course not, but, how to you explain Derrida making the the leap from Hegel and Saussure and Rousseau to Derrida? Part of it’s the individual doing the reading, of course, but part of it is the work that he was reading.

_
Not in all cases, of course not, but, how to you explain Derrida making the the leap from Hegel and Saussure and Rousseau to Derrida?_

I’m not familiar with the writing of all those people, but I would say Derrida has the ability to make these connections and insights, as well as apply concepts and ideas outside of the original context. Think of this way. If we have a group of students and we expose them to ideas. Some of these students will see connections between these ideas and others—including connections outside of the discipline (e.g., an imaginative student might take concepts from science and apply them to painting or vice-versa).

I guess great works of philosophy will present links between different ideas and disciplines—and this may trigger readers to begin thinking in a similar fashion. I can buy that. Perhaps, the open-mindedness and intellect of the student matters more than the quality of the books, but exposure to these books couldn’t hurt the development of the type of thinking we’re talking about.

Derrida has the ability to make these connections and insights…..

Motivation…..he was really interested in the subject matter.

I suspect motivation is one factor, but I’m not sure it’s the most important one. I think the ability is a way of thinking and approaching ideas. Innovators tend to do well in this area. Does reading great works of philosophy make a person think more innovatively? That seems a bit of a stretch. (It can stimulate and lead to other ideas—as the ideas themselves are interesting and insightful—but that’s a bit different from “causing” one to thinking more imaginatively, etc.)

In any event, I’m a huge proponent of reading the Great Books.

Isn’t “offering a way of thinking and approaching ideas” exactly what a great work of philosophy is doing? Or are you suggesting that innovative thinking is an innate and one either has it or one doesn’t?

… innovative thinking is an innate and one either has it or one doesn’t?

Creativity is a talent which can be nurtured by reading philosophy, which has the potential to give one ideas.

I know a guy who doesn’t have a creative bone in his body but he loves reading philosophy – probably because he has great comprehension skills and loves to show off his knowledge. But he hasn’t the ability or inclination to create his own ideas à la Robert W Peabody III’s example with adapting the Zone System to his own needs.

Isn’t “offering a way of thinking and approaching ideas” exactly what a great work of philosophy is doing? Or are you suggesting that innovative thinking is an innate and one either has it or one doesn’t?

No, I’m not saying innovative thinking is completely innate. It can be developed. I just don’t know if simply reading great philosophical works is effective for doing this—it couldn’t hurt, though. Let me put it this way: if I wanted to develop innovative thinking in an individual, I think I’d have other items on my list ahead of reading these books. (I don’t think this argument is worth having, as I don’t think we’re so far apart.)

@Flani

Wait—you’re second paragraph seems to refute the first one. ?

Wait—you’re second paragraph seems to refute the first one. ?

What I mean is that if my friend had any inclination towards creative thinking (which he doesn’t) then it could be nurtured by reading philosophy.

Oh, OK.

What’s the difference between “leading to other ideas” and “causing one to thinking more imaginatively”? Aren’t there going to be a lot of situations where they’re pretty much the same thing?

What’s the difference between “leading to other ideas” and “causing one to thinking more imaginatively”? Aren’t there going to be a lot of situations where they’re pretty much the same thing?

Sure, but reading philosophy (or even “comprehending” it) won’t necessarily lead to “more imaginative thinking” or “lead to other ideas”. My friend is a good example of this. I get the feeling he likes to read philosophy so he can win intellectual debates over less-knowledgeable people and feel superior. He’s an academic lecturer by profession, but even with his large knowledge base he is incapable of synthesising a new thought or way of being or becoming.

But of course, I also know of many creative people who “think more imaginatively” by reading philosophy. These are the people who have an innate sense of curiosity, adaptability and creativity.

Here’s what I meant:

“leading to other ideas”—ideas within the framework of their origin. For example, in Robert’s example, maybe Adams’ approach lead his friend to think of specific subjects that would be appropriate for that style, whereas…

…“causing one to think more imaginatively” might be Robert using the approach towards light rather than dark areas. Or maybe a more imaginative leap would be a musician taking the idea and adding tuba, baritone saxophone and other instruments in the lower register to create richer sound and details in the “darker” parts of the music.

approach lead his friend to think of specific subjects that would be appropriate for that style

Good point. The reason I posted that image was to show that rules-of-thumb are there to be broken.
So it is an outlook or a way of being that we are discussing. Some aspire to the rules rather than using them as tools or a point of departure.

A word I was looking for :
tec·ton·ic adjective 1. of or pertaining to building or construction; constructive.

“but reading philosophy (or even “comprehending” it) won’t necessarily lead to “more imaginative thinking” or “lead to other ideas”.”

Right, of course. A lecturer, some one who’s supposed to be a more or less expert on a subject, would have an obviously different motivation for reading philosophy than would, say, Claire Denis reading Jean-Luc Nancy, Godard reading Marx, Malick reading Heideggar, the Wachowskis reading Baudrillard (to site a tackier example), Assayas reading Debord, etc.

Assayas: “[art, philosophy, and politics] have not moved apart, though. People think that they have, but they never do. It’s always politics, art, and philosophy together. If you think that they are separated, it is just bad philosophy, bad art, and bad world politics. Ultimately, they are always one thing”

I understand grouping art, philosophy and politics, but I think you could group many other academic disciplines with philosophy and say the same things. My feeling is that if you want a deep understanding of a subject, chances are, you’re going to touch on some of the ideas that come from the great philosophical works. Well, you could say this about the great books that are not about philosophy—although I might argue that even these books are often philosophical in nature.

So maybe this is another way of answering the OP, although it’s far from articulate. (…what would make the argument more articulate and compelling?…I’m too tired to answer that right now, but maybe later.)

“My feeling is that if you want a deep understanding of a subject, chances are, you’re going to touch on some of the ideas that come from the great philosophical works.”

Right, the traditional idea of philosophy was that it was objective, and therefore “higher” than those other areas, so it was in a sense, free of all the other disciplines and could be used to critique pretty much everything else. But really it’s all connected.