Examined Life
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. Slavoj Zizek questions current beliefs about the environment while sifting through a garbage dump. 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.
Instant Take: "An apple a day..." doesn't work, cure, or boost, but it reminds one to focus on health. Do not admire a canary's song whilst in the coalmine and be grateful you know why it sings on your flight... it may also be a "whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly" (Rev.Dr.MLK,Jr.) effort with suspicions of crying for the dismantling of damaging social profiling to aid in our evolution-extensions as a body people. Wink, peace, compassion, smile and all that jazz, blues, and funknastynasty thoughts; I feel like a priveleged passenger to Pr. West. Laying a cornerstone...
Enjoyed this short doc. If you dont have any understanding or interest in philosophy, it is very hard to understand.
I read the comments before I watched this as usual.
I can see why Avital was off-putting to some posters. I had to listen to her twice before I got what she was saying. I didn't like her, but this isn't a popularity contest.
I enjoyed listening to the different philosophies, spoken by very diverse individuals.
I had to really pay attention and listen very hard to understand some of what was being said; but it was worth the effort.
When I have the time, I'll watch the other doc on Slavoj Zizek, because he struck me as a very interesting man. I liked his outlook the most.
The power of your arguments vs the power of this film, and all it processes, receptions, publications etc - is practically quite hollow in terms of argumentative weight. Yet wether or not that matters is pretty pointless. I think that purpose of the film is to get people to start thinking critically, and judging by some, definitely not all, comments it does a pretty good job. Anyway, these philosophers are wondrous writers, consider this movie an invitation to READ their philosophies not an exhibition of them....
ben says "Never have I heard people talk so much, but say so little"
I think he is right and I also guess it may be because
Total verifiable human knowledge = science
Total divine knowledge = religion
Science is still struggling with "how" question of our existence and, not to mention, is far away from answering the "why" question and the meanings of life.
Religion...... imagine how politically incorrect it would feel if one of these philosopher says that ISLAM has all the answers to this question or CHRISTIANITY has all the answers or BUDDHAISM.
Now in the absence of both (total verifiable human knowledge + total divine knowledge) no matter how hard you try or no matter how much is your vocabulary you would end up saying something like these philosophers did....as ben said "talk so much, but say so little"
Hmm... I liked what they had to say. The way it was pieced together was pretty terrible... the cinematography.
@RobbieRowboat, So far your comment has been the most one-sided and banal of all comments made here.
To me it feels as if it is a throw-back mentality. You advocate a life of thinking which includes a brain-washed red-neckism. One of America's shame and a definite misguided element in your make-up.
You are like an imaginary everyman philosopher - highly common/crude/lower hanging fruit destined soon to be removed by the natural evolution of progress.
You do not grasp the concept that Indeed It DOES take courage to think, and be open to change in all aspects of life (not just the ideal). And that one's philosophical muse could indeed be music. Fredich Netiszche, to name just one philosopher, had no problem at all with this.
You seem to not be much of a deep thinker and so your outlook reflects your beliefs.
To me You seem to have feet of clay and no wings at all. I think You are neither real enough nor well-rounded enough; and therefore cannot appreciate nor respect those who contribute with their minds and hearts and spirits.
You do not have enough faith nor a broad enough understanding of the physical world and how it impacts and in turn is impacted by the intangibility of mind, spirit, emotions and yes, even music.
You do not have knowledge and breadth in the reality of the modern philospher -who in this case- most likely do not look like You.
In essence I do not like what your words suggest and I think the diatribe offered here, by You masquerading as an understanding of philosphy has little ethical or political or spiritual or even intellectual value.
Avital Ronell
She starts by questioning the value of meaning. Meaning is imposed on reality and if we only look at reality and not impose meaning then we can do little more than observe it as we move through it. She uses that to question authority - religion - social structures as they offer imposed meaning and to her deny the simple fact that reality just is . She advocates for a political stance against those that offer simple meaning or fast found for the soul. She sees the active acceptance of the lack of meaning in life as an impetuous for a proper ethical anxiety/vigilance when it comes to trying to make the right decision in a moral situation. To me this seems like an interesting extension of the existential argument but like her clothes perhaps a bit too much in the matrix. I think meaning is imposed, a narrative is constructed, we are built of language and this is our reality and to try to question this leads to an abstraction that can only end up in the matrix. In essence she argues for personal abstraction from the reality of meaning (and with that authority and power and whatever else) but to what she does not say.
Peter Singer
The basis of this argument was essentially a christian philosophy - do unto others as you would have them do unto you - which I always found to be a troubling and weak position. It does not take into account the subjective and variable nature of individuals experiences of reality. It presumes that you can know the mind of others.
He goes on to suggest a moral confluence between engaging in consumerism and the suffering of others. His suggestion is that if we are moral we should give to charity rather than satisfy consumer whimsy. There are two problems here firstly we know money cannot fix all problems, on the contrary it can exaggerate or brings its own set of problems, and secondly we cannot always know how to act in the best interests of others. Even at face value I find the argument flawed. The only reason a citizen in a western economy is in a position to give money to struggling people is because they live in a western capitalist economy. Those struggling are not successfully engaging in this economy.
For this to be a cogent argument I think it has to be based on a stronger form of love and commitment. It has to be based on the near total self sacrifice of individual will to lessen the burden of others. That is considerably more complicated that simply not eating a chicken burger and giving some money to Oxfam. The argument seems to display weak willed love or love without power. If it has no power it cannot not do good or bad - it can only add to the situation.
Kwame Anthony Appiah
A more rounded approach. This argument recognizes some fundamental problems with Global Ethics. We are well developed to be moral in small groupings but this does not successfully extend out to larger groups and we cannot all abandon our small groups or engage in relativistic morality. So he leaves us with a question. How does a person be ethical in a global virtual village?
Martha Nussbaum
She begins by describing the social contract as one where providers to the whole group, or those that pull their weight, are afforded the greatest roles and opportunities. She criticizes this on feminist and humanitarian grounds arguing that not all humans are equal and so the idea that only equal providers are given equal rights necessarily disadvantages the young, old, the weaker sex and the physically or mentally challenged.
She then goes on to list a number of what sound like natural rights such as the right to life and health but she extends it to include the right to certain opportunities such as the opportunity to have a fulfilled rounded life. I did like that she focused on a right to have a varied emotional life. She seems to be arguing for equal opportunities.
Cornel West
So far this is the most abstract and to me feels as if it comes from a glass tower. He advocates a life of thinking which includes a ghetto element. It's like an imaginary beat poet philosopher - highly romanticized and removed. His says is that it takes courage to think, we have to be open to change, all aspects of life (not just the ideal) need to be thought about, philosophy should include music and but you can become obsessed. He is a Christian thinker and so I think his outlook reflects his belief in an afterlife. To me he seems to have no feet and only wings. I think he has not enough grounding, not enough respect for the builders and makers, not enough faith in/understanding of the physical world, not enough belief in the reality of the modern material existence. In essence while I like his words I think the philosophy offered here has little ethical or political value.
Michael Hardt
How to have revolution in the US. He believes a revolution of guns is not feasible and even when applied elsewhere it often results in just another power structure emerging. What is needed is a revolution of minds. He argues that for democracies to work people need to be capable of democracy. Democracy can only be learned through practice and that just because a state is formally labelled democratic does not mean that the people or even the government have any real say. He goes on saying that revolution is difficult in affluent societies, due to the perception of possible loss, but it must be learned that revolution towards a better world means better for all, not just those in poverty or servitude. I think he is simply advocating political awareness and the practice of democracy - while it may not seem revolutionary I think it has been so forgotten or sublimated in capitalist societies that if acted upon it may be revolutionary.
Slavoj Zizek
I love this guy. He is very difficult but has some great arguments. His basic argument is that the modern eco movement is a conservative ideology. It says don't do X from an authoritarian high ground and it idolizes and mystifies ecology. Basically he says the eco movement has it's head in the clouds. If it loved the environment it would recognize the rubbish we create and the chaotic nature of ecological change and try to further divorce itself from that process(nature) and try to turn the whole thing into art. I mean it is audacious! He argues for an enforced automated mechanistic socially good society - almost like Brave New World is a road map for him. Of all the philosophies on show his is the most radical but also possibly the most juvenile.
Judith Butler + Sunaura Taylor
The ethics of disability and gender. This one asks what is it to be human and why do people fear the different. Sunaura argues that Human is a collection of differing attributes and there is no set form. Judith argues that disabilitiy is something imposed by society on the differently functional. Judith asked if the fear in people is an expression of pack hostility to those perceived as being not quite human or on the border of being part of the pack. It ends with a statement that when a person asks for assistance they are in effect asking what kind of world we live in? Of all the philosophies on show this is possibly the most personal but also the most reflective of real daily societal and political issues in cultures worldwide.
philosophers mis-quoted and points missed....lame attempt, at.....hmmm
What was the point here?
well examine this. it was Plato who wrote it. There is some concern over whether or not Socrates was an historical or literary figure.
"The unexamined life is not worth living" is a quote by Socrates., not Plato.
This film didn't even get that right.
Oh Americans. The average person (even if he is cool enough to watch documentaries online) in this fast food culture of ours has little if no capacity to consider much beyond vague capitalistic drives, repressed sexuality, and "unexplained depression" that permeates all aspects of their rat-race existence. They think, "My life looks like an Ethan Alan commercial so everything must be a-ok with the universe." Even to begin to approach some of the ideas here you would at a minimum have to be honest about how your western lifestyle has corrupted your ability to think. Freedom is in the truth about existence, not in the truth of living in America.
I watched this video again and summarized the painful amounts of fluff for each person minus the intro and exit by Cornel West who seemed to get 30 minutes while everyone else got 10minutes.
Avital Ronell
- Don't try to find meaning in everything, just let it exist.
- Be obsessive about being ethical. You can never be ethical enough because people are different from you.
Peter Singer
- Wading into a pond to save a drowning child and in the process ruining your shoes is the same as giving the value of the shoes to a charity to save children.
- Humans shouldn't have the right to farm animals for meat because they are so similar to us.
- Examining ethics causes you to question common sense morality.
- Ethics doesn't require religion, but it isn't subjective to your desires.
- What you decide to not do is an important ethical decision.
- Life has meaning when we connect to important causes like making the world a better by reducing suffering.
Kwame Anthony Appiah
- We evolved to be responsible to our small family groups, but now we need to be responsible to everyone on earth.
- This doesn’t mean love everyone as long as they are like you.
- There are different ways to raise a family and no one way should be universal.
- You can’t withdrawl your morals to your local group, but at the same time can’t abandon them to the global group.
Martha Nussbaum
- Give humans opportunity
- Imagine the world without inherited opportunity
- A good member of society provides advantage to everyone.
- A theory of justice needs to include physical and mental disabilities including the young and old.
- All humans have an inherit dignity and require the circumstances to develop including: life, health, integrity, sensation, imagination, thinking, reasoning, pleasure, relationships, emotions.
Cornel West
- Thinking critically requires courage.
- Philosophy includes learning how to die.
- Truth is a way of life.
- Humans don’t know absolute truth and we can’t fully grasp the ultimate nature of the world.
- There are attempts to correct our limited knowledge by scientific pursuits or divine revelation.
- Philosophy doesn’t often go into the dirty nature of reality.
- You are not really alive unless you are using your intellectual capacity, but you can become obsessed with it.
Michael Hardt
- Revolution is commonly seen as either: Replace the ruling elite with a “better” ruling elite or the removal of authority. The first removes the possibility of democracy. The second removes the capability to rule.
- Human nature isn’t good or evil; it is a combination of our history.
- Lenin’s possibility to achieve democracy is to use the state to transform human nature first, then transform into a democracy, but in reality you can only learn democracy by doing it.
Slavoj Zizek
- Our relation to our filth follows an “out of sight, out of mind” principle, but trash doesn’t disappear.
- Ideology addresses real problems but mystifies them.
- We search for meaning when a horrible event happens to make it easier to accept.
- The ideology of ecology is that world is in the best possible state and that humans disturb nature.
- Nature is not an organism in balance that humans exploit, but rather a series of great catastrophes.
- Ecology is becoming more like religion with dogmas.
- Even if we learn the potential catastrophes of nature, we ignore them as long as they don’t manifest near us.
- The solution is not to worry about saving nature, but to figure out how to survive without it by becoming more artificial.
- Learn to love our trash as a part of ecology.
Judith Butler + Sunaura Taylor
- Disabled people are socially isolated and further disabled by the expectations of “normal” people.
- A body has a set of capabilities, but it doesn’t have a perfect form.
I thought alot of it was really pretentious. Everything was wrapped up in huge words to distract from the fact that maybe some of them didn't have much to say. I also didn't like when she made the remark about Bush. Not because of Bush, but because she can't and shouldn't try to say what someone she doesn't know is feeling. And the way she said it was very bitchy and biased. Which makes me think she's not looking at things from different angles so how can I trust or listen to her philosophy?
Thx Paul very true what you stated. I am by no means a philospher yet it is an intriguing subject to me. They only had a few minutes to express themselves and if you are truly interested you simply go into their personal work for more.
I enjoy documentaries therefore they are always a plus and I will decide what I take away from them.
What was with all the fedex trucks throughout
I don't understand why anyone was looking for its message when it was clearly the title of the documentary.
This was a beautiful and inspiring documentary. Thankyou so much for creating this. Aristotle's school of philosophy was known as the peripatetic school, because he walked around while he was teaching.
What a wonderful idea to film each one of these modern philosophers moving around in various appropriate environments. It made me really appreciate the power of the human intellect, and savour the pleasures of intelligent conversation.
Some of the people writing the critical comments should go back and watch Martha Nussbaum's conversation. What she was saying is directly relevant to your comments.
Interesting Documentary. I liked it. Interesting Comments too, The thoughts and ideas that whirl around your heads! Better come up with my own and with ways to articulate them!
Tc
Philosopy is not for the Americans - they talk too much and say too little :) I did not like this documentary...
I stopped when she pretended to know about what 'Bush" gave a s@#$ about. This was a remark that told me she assumes too much.
Great film. Bravo to the National Film Board of Canada. I enjoyed, on some level 'all' of the interviews, and felt the philosophers interviewed tried their best to speak a 'relatable' language and in fact several spoke to their own experience that the discussion of philosophical questions often becomes too academic - when academia winds up a subject, so to speak the 'topic or subject' disappears and the egos take over. Those interviewed in this doc convinced me that they care about making sense, and if I am not stretching too much, hoped to encourage (maybe even inspire) those watching to consider the possibility that THINKING through and about complex questions might be exciting/interesting, dare I say, even FUN, maybe useful, potentially important? I fell in 'like' with the philosopher who brought us to the dump site - honest, authentic, intelligent, and kind. Nicely done, please make MORE!
Pretty decent cinematography, but as far as the philosophers interviewed, they stated the obvious which I thought was rather disappointing, for I was hoping to come across new thoughts I could ponder myself, but left with nothing new.
Stoner Philosophy this one. Best left to the projection room of a museum...darting around staid and abstract ideas using long, unnessecary and liminal adjectives...should have know from the slow, movie like opening credits.
While I do think that the people who say the people in this doc were just talking non-sense are being deliberately obstinate, the question then arises: how do you explain it to them so that they understand? actually, should you explain it to them?
It's an interesting doc nonetheless because it's great to see if people who, on paper, seem to have such a good grasp of different notions can also be intelligent verbally when it comes to it.