EXAMINED LIFE (Clip)

http://www.nfb.ca/examined-life

"The unexamined life is not worth living." — Socrates

Examined Life pulls philosophy out of academic journals and classrooms, and puts it back on the streets.

Philosophers have long done their best thinking when directly engaging with the outside world, not in isolation from it. Socrates roved the Athenian agora, courting trouble with the authorities. Rousseau immortalized his rambles through nature on the printed page. Nietzsche once said that only ideas conceived while walking have any value.

In Examined Life, filmmaker Astra Taylor accompanies some of today's most influential thinkers on a series of unique excursions through places and spaces that hold particular resonance for them and their ideas.

Peter Singer's thoughts on the ethics of consumption are amplified against the backdrop of Fifth Avenue's posh boutiques. Michael Hardt ponders the nature of revolution while surrounded by symbols of wealth and leisure. Judith Butler and a friend stroll through San Francisco's Mission District questioning our culture's fixation on individualism.

And while driving through Manhattan, Cornel West - perhaps America's best-known public intellectual - compares philosophy to jazz and blues, reminding us how intense and invigorating a life of the mind can be.

Offering privileged moments with great thinkers from fields ranging from moral philosophy to cultural theory, Examined Life reveals philosophy's power to transform the way we see the world around us and imagine our place in it.

Featuring Cornel West, Avital Ronell, Peter Singer, Kwame Anthony Appiah, Martha Nussbaum, Michael Hardt, Slavoj Zizek, Judith Butler and Sunaura Taylor.

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• Astra
• Taylor
• ideas
• philosophy
• back
• on
• the
• streets
• thinkers
• Peter
• Singer
• Michael
• Hardt
• Cornel
• West
• Kwame
• Anthony
• Appiah
• Martha
• Nussbaum
• Slavoj
• Zizek
• Judith
• Butler
• Sunaura

[MadamTango]

I saw it last night. It's more than worth watching--a must watch.

[milkyvalour]

Some kid in a third world country probably made the shoes to begin with.

So the question is: should we pay a corporation (i.e. charity) to take care of the world's problems without our direct involvement, or should we buy the shoes and supportive the (albeit, low) wage of sweatshop workers who would in all likeliness prefer the financial security of industry relations as opposed to the uncertainty of other means of income (i.e. child prostitution)?

[amielb66]

@toomity Singer is a consistent and strict utilitarian, as far as I am aware (he considers morally relevant animals too). I don't see why he would distinguish between 1st/3rd world people, except regarding the production of utility. The issue (I believe) is that there are many more very destitute people in third world countries, and providing a relatively small amount of resources could drastically improve these peoples' lives. In the US, for example, the resources would do less good.

[logfio]

2 people's lives are not worth living. 

[amielb66]

@violencerunsunabated Singer addresses your point in the same article he mentions in the trailer (about saving the child in a shallow pond). It's been awhile, but I think he says that even if you believe that a Malthusian scenario will occur, there is still an obligation to reduce suffering - by reducing the number of potential future dying people- by contributing to sex education, contraceptives, etc.

[toomity]

i enjoyed this video. one question i'd like to ask Peter Singer though is whether he makes a distinction between someone unable to fulfil their basic needs in a first world country or someone in a similar circumstance in a third world country. Singer seems to be of the opinion that sufferers in third world countries are inherently more in need of aid than sufferers in first world countries. please reply if you disagree (or agree), i'd like to hear your opinions.

[ribar3]

@spiker27a Totally agreed. All of the major problems we are facing right now, birth/death ratio is the biggest cause of all that. We find alternate solutions to the problems but the real solutions lie within our spreading and multiplying.

"You can't live with infinite people on a finite planet". Then there is this:

"The human mind is infinite on demands, but the planet is finite on supplies"

[melodramatic100]

@cyanscreens thanks - I thought as much but the series was advertised in a school resources booklet .

[cyanscreens]

@melodramatic100

No, Singer is the more straightforward one in the movie simply because he's still working within our current paradigm. 15-16 yrs old will miss the subtleties of what the other philosophers say in the movie. 17-18 yr olds might appreciate this more, even then, they'll probably freak out a little.

[melodramatic100]

Hi, I'm considering buying this series for a year 9 school unit I am working on. It will be shown to 15-16 yr olds. Of those who have seen this - do you think it is appropriate for this age bracket?

thanks.

[violencerunsunabated]

Suppose someone gives a certain amount of money to a charity, and that money is used to save the lives of ten children. If these children then grow up and each have five kids of their own, 50 kids total, and the amount of aid available has not increased enough by this time to sustain THEIR lives, and most or all of them die, then isn't the person who gave the money to save their parents' lives responsible for ending more lives than they saved? I'm just trying to discuss this, not arguing.

[kives1985]

@james0apple

No. In the real world, you're choosing to buy shoes, and that money could save multiple lives. And yes, sending money to Oxfam is going to save more lives than buying Prada shoes. That's the way it is. If you can find a pair of fancy shoes, and there is a promise to a percentage amount of money on charity, than I guess that's good. Although a lot of things that are advertised as "green" or "sustainable" are not really. It just takes research, if you care enough. Most people don't.