Examined Life by Astra Taylor

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

http://www.zeitgeistfilms.com/examinedlife/

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Examined Life
• zizek
• astra
• taylor
• Slavoj Žižek

[udooling]

@fede2 Well you do raise some good points, but in what median other than language can philosophy be conveyed? If there is another alternative, then I would love to entertain that median. However, language is a median that we use to convey ideas. If there is an intended concept to be conveyed, then there is a set of premises that can convey that concept. I believe talks of consciousness and epistemology can be answered in modern analytic philosophy, I just dont think definite answers can be given

[fede2]

@fede2 just one more thing: i apologize if i came off as smug. it wasn't my intention. also, sorry for the successive comments. i don't usually use up more than one because i know it's annoying as hell.

[fede2]

@fede2 there are certain basic truths that cannot be avoided. "something is real", "i am aware/consciouss". this alone provides some ground for more theoretical edification. it's true that you can continue to ask "what does 'real' mean?" and so on. but that doesn't deny the primal truth in itself. as far as i'm concerned, that is a limit of language, rather than philosophy and not the other way around. this is why i continue to revindicate foundationalism.

[fede2]

@udooling whatever the attacks on foundationalism, the alternatives adopted created problems of their own. pragmatism may have specific aspirations but when it adopts a theory or hypothesis for no other reason than because "it works", it doesn't elude certain logical demands, such as a question begging (the "multiverse theory" comes to my mind in this respect.).

continued...

[udooling]

@fede2 Logical dead end? Adopting pragmatism was motivated by the fact that first philosophy produces "logical dead end[s]". Metaphysics begs questions that are interesting to ask, but impossible to answer. What kind of realism would you advocate for that has the predictive and fruitful power of pragmatism? I love the idea of Realism, I just it impractical and limited. The ad hom I threw at you at the end was because your first message came off a bit smug.

[fede2]

@udooling 1) you cited carnaps book. that's what i was responding to. the empiricism i was referring to pertains exclusively to that. not the entire analytic tradition.

2)i know and i know. i am. you missunderstood there.

"I am pretty sure analytic philosophy has become almost entirely pragmatic, the argument for the 'centrality of science' is on pragmatic grounds."

i realize that and i agree that it's the case. i just think it's a weak justification for science.

cont...

[udooling]

@fede2 1) I am not a positivist. 2) I am not an advocate of first philosophy, neither is Quine. "Vague form of Empiricism"? I am pretty sure analytic philosophy has become almost entirely pragmatic, the argument for the "centrality of science" is on pragmatic grounds. Do you not understand what "first philosophy" means? Also, can you try to express yourself clearly, rather than hiding behind a second rate metaphorical style of writing?

[fede2]

@udooling the pretenses of logical positivism are doomed from the start, if you look at their premises. both their conception of language and the centrality of science are based on a vague form of empiricism as a prior theoretical foundation which is not exempt from critique.

as for quine, his exaltation of science is little more than a fetish. his "naturalized epistemology" is a logical clusterfuck.

foundations are always assumed and theoretical first philosophy rears it's ugly head.

[udooling]

@almanacofsleep Actually, if you read any of my former comments, you would have picked up on my naturalism. I basically spelled out Quine's Web of Belief in one comment.

[udooling]

@almanacofsleep Who said anything about logical positivism? I suggested Quine. Quine is who killed Logical Positivism. 1918? Where did you get this number? That is when Russell's Logical Atomism was prominent. The meaninglessness of most Metaphysics is still held by most holists. A quick Google will not teach you philosophy. Read some philosophy, then present an argument. Better yet, give me an argument as to why these questions are fruitful or meaningful.