Joss Whedon As Philosopher by Kowalski Dean;

Author:Kowalski, Dean;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: undefined
Publisher: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic
Published: 2012-12-15T00:00:00+00:00

Certainly, if Mulhall countenances the life of Socrates as testament to a vision of ethically significant meaningfulness that each of us should carefully consider, then undoubtedly Whedon accomplishes a similar result in his audience via his novel and rich depiction of Angel. Whedon’s tortured vampire with a soul tirelessly strives for redemption as a result of the vile deeds he could not prevent; however, he finds only modicums of atonement by “helping the helpless”—not for his sake, but (invariably) for its own sake. Whedon intimates that this is an ideal each of us should aspire to. We, too, can make the world less harsh and cruel by living as the world should be, to show it what it can be. Therefore, if Mulhall is correct that filmmakers successfully philosophize via their vivid and gripping fictional depictions of what ultimately matters, then Whedon plays the part of the philosopher via his portrayal of Angel.

Mulhall’s third rejoinder begins by carefully examining human nature. Mulhall believes that human beings are inherently reflective beings, which, he believes, entails that we are inherently philosophical beings. Mulhall elaborates, “What distinguishes the philosopher is the persistence and the single-mindedness with which he employs the capacity for self-questioning that informs every aspect of our ordinary existence” (144). Just as philosophers are prone to question the basic principles and assumptions in the various disciplines—accounting for philosophy of science or philosophy of religion and the like—Mulhall argues that philosophers must be consistent and continually reevaluate the fundamental principles and assumptions of philosophy itself. He further argues that opponents of the film-as-philosophy thesis are invariably guilty of not being sufficiently self-reflective about the nature of philosophy. Preconceived (and invariably a priori) notions of what philosophy is prevents them from fully considering the possibility that a reflective filmmaker is being philosophical—and thus doing philosophy in his or her own way through the non-standard medium of film. As Mulhall eloquently puts it:

Rather than allowing their experience of particular films to teach them what ethics, art, imagination, emotions and thinking might be, they permit their preconceptions about the nature of ethics, art, imagination, emotions and thinking to dictate what their experience of these phenomena as presented in or activated by particular films might be. And rather than allowing their experience of particular films to teach them what philosophizing might be, they permit their preconceptions about the nature of philosophy to determine what their experience of particular films might be (145).

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.