Some Things To Consider. . .
What are the messages that we receive from culture? How do we receive them? Is it possible to avoid them? Does a violent movie incite violence or does it serve as an outlet? What does isolation mean and in what ways do the message mediums/media in our culture reinforce isolationism in individuals? Is the isolation one of the reasons that "the world is scary" or is it an answer to the fear? What is the "victim mentality" and how does it affect one's self-identity? How do we interpret meaning in things? How do we find Truth? Why are messages and meanings more difficult to identify in movies, songs, or shows today than they were in the past?
Individually, a movie can be interesting, artistic, and meaningful. But on the sociological level, one must take a more negative view. Individual producers may want to make society and people better through positive influence, but the messages, when there at all, are lost in the multifarious series of images and themes from all types of media that constantly bombard us.
What about philosophical ideas in movies? Messages used to be easier to find. For example, the political messages in Casablanca.
Does violence in a movie incite violence or does it serve as an outlet? Sociological studies have proven the effects of inundating an individual with repeated images and messages. One movie may not have any effect, but messages of violence in movies, television, music, magazines, comic books, billboards. . . everywhere. . .may.
In 1913 there was an interesting revolution in Music history. According to one of our participants, there was a concert in which was played a revolutionary piece by Stravinsky. There were several composers in the audience, who began to get up and leave, offended by the radical new music. Apparently, there was nearly a riot. Prior to this time, music had been primarily melodic; Stravinsky introduced rhythm. The philosophy of music had made a quantum leap which forever changed what is allowable in music.
Can we isolate ourselves from cultural messages if we choose to do so? We don't seem to have to directly experience the mediums to get the message. It somehow seeps to us through others. Someone who does not read the paper, listen to the radio, or watch television or movies, still seems to have a general understanding of what the media says is going on in the world.
Our meeting began with a discussion of a book called Philosophy at 33 1/3 rpm's, and how the philosophical theme of popular culture in the 1960's and 70's was the individual or small group against the establishment. For example, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of The Moon exposes both the inner face of the individual self and the other part of the self over which society imposes control. Is there an evolution of this theme in the music of today? Many seemed to agree that there is a social angst coming out in today's popular music; the "oh, poor me" attitude as well as anger and fear.
Last week's topic was "philosophical thoughts in popular media". If philosophical thought appears often in literature, ignoring the fact that, by it's very nature, media is unable to contain philosophical thought, is this providing a way of delivering philosophical concepts to the masses?
If a gem of philosophical insight is implanted in the mind of your average citizen through television, music, movies or other such media, does it cause the person to think, or is it invariably neutralized by the media in which it is presented? Truth cannot be delivered in a Hallmark card, but maybe, on a smaller scale, philosophy can be delivered to the masses disguised as entertainment, much the same way as Walker Percy delivered his philosophical arguments in the form of fiction.
Is there a concerted effort to deliver philosophical thought through the mass media? Doubtful. But, perhaps, there is a general trend towards subversive philosophy among some of the driving elements in the media these days. Or, perhaps, it is becoming trendy to at least appear to be concerned with more than the senses in these days of rampant hedonism and the all-powerful enlightenment. Maybe there is no trend towards inclusion of philosophical ideas in media, and instead, those who pursue philosophy are merely reading more into the contents of the media than was intended by the creators of the movies/songs/novels/etc.
Regardless of why these thoughts find themselves creeping into the media, are they having any effect at all, or are they only noticed by those who are already consumed by the quest for philosophical enlightenment (not to be confused with THE enlightenment)?
What does it mean to say that something is True? What are the relationships among truth, perception, and reality? At the last meeting, someone-with fear and trembling-dared to define Truth; it was said that "Truth is the interaction between the observer and the observed." In this definition, Truth itself is an action and a reciprocal relationship. It is not something that is within what you are reading or seeing that exists as input for you to discover, nor is it something that resides solely within you which you superimpose on the world. It is neither completely subjective nor completely objective, but both and neither-some Hegelian synthesis of the two.
There are many other theories of Truth. The correspondence theory, for example, states that a judgment or belief is true if there is something in the world which corresponds to it. "Unicorns exist," under this theory, would not be true because there is nothing in our experience which validates the claim. What would it mean to say that unicorns exist as a mythological entity? What happens to a statement when we start adding qualifiers to force a subject/predicate statement into a category in which we can impose truth? What do we mean when we say that something is true contingent upon the qualifiers with which we identify it? Would Ockham be upset with us? Using the correspondence theory of truth, how do we prove such statements as "ideas exist"? Also, what we are saying is basically that, for example, "it is true that dogs bark if and only if dogs bark." We are comparing the idea that dogs bark with the fact that in our experience dogs bark. Well, what is a fact? What is the relationship, or difference, between facts and truth? How do we know whether or not a fact is true?
Another theory is the coherence theory of truth, in which truth is verified by its relation to other truths in a belief system. If the system remains consistent, then the statement can be true. For example, in base 10, the statement "210 + 210 = 410" is true, but in base 3, 23 + 23 = 113. Both statements are consistently true within a specific system.
The pragmatic theory of truth, which we credit to William James, holds that true beliefs should serve as a basis for action. In other words, something is not objectively true, but rather true in relation only to what is useful or desirable at a given time. What does this transformation do to Truth? If Truth need not be consistent, what is knowledge? Some theorists claim that truth can only be found within the formal system of language. For example, if we say that "the red ball is red," the proof of the statement's validity is within the statement itself, the descriptive adjective verifying the predicate (if it is a red ball, then it is red; it is a red ball, therefore it is red). However, we don't generally concern ourselves with the proofs of such redundant statements, unless it is for some demonstrative purpose. We are more likely to be confronted with the statement "the ball is red," for which our argument must be formulated differently; we have the aggravation of dealing with varied perceptions among individuals and the inability to claim certainty of knowledge and truth predicated on disputable experience
The definition of Truth given at the last meeting was that Truth is an interaction between the perceiver and the perceived. So it is not that there is a definite molecular configuration of the ball which deflects specific wavelengths of light, to which perception we have designated the referent "red," nor is it an idea of "redness" within our own minds which we randomly superimpose on this ball hence causing the ball to be red (where would this idea of "redness" come from?)-but some combination of these aspects which allows us all to perceive approximately the same thing while still gaining from the experience a unique interpretation.
Also,
we shouldn't just limit truth to something between us and objects. What
about the relation between the perceiver of an object and other perceivers?
What about the interaction between subjects? This interaction is harder
to account for.
This event sponsored by The Philosophical Debate Group. For more information about this or other PDG events, Contact Dr. Erik Nordenhaug