The Examined Life Documentary
I arrived a minute before the showing of the documentary Examined Life (2008) at the local state university and secured an open seat in the back of the lecture hall. Judging by the attendance, it seemed that the university might also be providing free beer and pizza.
About 100 students and staff, and a group of officially unaffiliated individuals like myself, were also in the audience. The turn-out encouraged me and provided empirical evidence that a remnant of this generation of students could be taking philosophical questions seriously. Or, it might have been that their professors had promised a generous dollop of whip cream extra credit on top of their pumpkin pie grades for showing up and writing a synopsis of the film and the discussion afterwards.
The Examined Life (2008) http://www.zeitgeistfilms.com/examinedlife/ is a documentary by Astra Taylor, of 9 modern thinkers expounding philosophically--while walking, standing, travelling by electric wheel chair, even rowing a boat or being driven around in the back seat of a car--on issues such as the necessity for philosophical and critical thinking, ethical choices, consumerism, globalization, social justice, democracy, ecology, and rights of the disabled. Taylor stated,” I wanted to break philosophy out of that rarefied ivory tower space and show how compelling it (philosophy) can be when it's directly connected to ordinary life… I've been joking that mine are "walking heads." What I'm trying to show, and it's a very basic thing, is philosophy's connection to the space we're in every day.” (IFC.com Astra Taylor Explains the “Examined Life”)
She added in another interview, “My intention was to show the material conditions out of which ideas emerge,” Ms. Taylor said. “People often think of philosophy as cold, analytic, abstract, disconnected from the real world, and I really want to say that’s not the case.” (NY Times Interview, by Dennis Lim, February 20, 2009). The project was idiosyncratic, deriving from her own interests in ethical issues (i.e. Animal Rights, Vegetarianism)
I did not consider the documentary unfair or an affront that “Ms. Taylor has drawn her subjects from a narrow intellectual precinct, where the work of philosophical speculation and the agendas of progressive politics are assumed to be congruent.” (Cerebral Celebrities Entertaining the Big Questions By A.O. Scott, New York Times Published February 25, 2009). It is her film; it can be what she wanted to portray.
Yet, in the spirit of Socrates dictum that the “Unexamined life is not worth living,” the documentary’s life needs to be examined carefully and critically and not accepted carte blanche. There are many aspects of the documentary that I can in good conscience applaud; its innovative use of setting and camera technique, asking hard questions, in demonstrating that humility in the face of life’s immensity is often healthy, that the expectation of perfection inevitably leads to dissatisfaction, that rights for and benevolence to the disabled, disenfranchised, and downtrodden, is charity at its finest, and that a discerning multi-culturalism is a good and beautiful thing ordained by God.
Yet, in that same Socratic spirit, I conversely commented during the Question and Answer period at the conclusion of the showing, that the one underlying and unifying thesis of the film, despite its diversity of topics, thinkers, and perspectives, was that absolutes are unknowable (I hardly am the first thinker to point out the inherent contradiction that the idea that “there are no absolutes” is in itself an absolute statement). Furthermore, as a corollary, the documentary speakers either directly stated or implicitly suggested that a belief in absolutes or philosophic universalism, in the words of one of the thinkers Kwarne Anthony Appiah, means that us (the Absolutists) will only love you if you agree. And if you don’t, this leads us (the Absolutists) to “bashing your skull in.” (German translation). That was a pretty horrific statement, even if made with a smile on his face suggesting perhaps a jesting spirit.
My point, during the Q and A, was that a belief in Absolutes, is not necessarily totalitarian. It depends on whether it is truly an Absolute or someone’s Subjectivity parading as an Absolute. Hitler’s absolute belief in Aryan superiority was in reality not factually true and was even demonstrably idiotic. But, you would have been in extreme bodily danger to mention this to him over dinner (don’t fear one who can destroy the body). I must also add, that we can be wrong attitudinally even if we are right factually. As Christians, what we see as standing up for righteousness, is often perceived by the pagans, either rightly or wrongly, as self-righteousness. A careful checking of our spirit is imperative when engaging others.
When I was asked by another audience member, an especially loquacious student, to provide evidence of my perspective, I proffered that stealing is wrong. As a historical application of this precept, I noted that slavery in America was stealing the labor of another man and denying him the fruits of his work (among other injustices). In fact, the belief that stealing is wrong becomes impossible to defend if it is anything less than a universal (and is instead a social construct). If every man does what is right in his own eyes, then if my eye (actually ears) desires your I-Pod, I am taking it.
One of the facilitators of the evening’s event, a Philosophy professor at the university, noted in his comments afterwards that if we had sat all of the speakers in the documentary down together on stage, they would have been quite contentious in their disagreements with another. The apparent common voice that they spoke with only shared a specific shred of shared belief: That ideologically hegemonic Absolute-think is a tool of oppression of tyrants and totalitarians and their toadies to eliminate dissent by all means possible. Every other idea is fair game, equally valid and equally true. Richard Weaver wrote in the Introduction to his book, Ideas Have Consequences, The world of "modern" knowledge is like the universe of Eddington, expanding by diffusion until it approaches the point of nullity.
This reminded me of the line by Syndrome in the film The Incredibles, "Everybody will be super, which means no one will be." There are no super ideas or Absolutes. The inevitable result is that power, good or ill, is the only rule. And, who has that….rules. And, conflict, destruction, and desolation follow. For might is not always right.
Jimi Hendrix, although hardly worth emulation in many respects, said it well, “When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.” To do so, we must know the One who gives that Peace (John 14:27: “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.”).
We should not be afraid to examine works of the world…while it is passing away, the people in it are eternal. It is our duty as Christians to speak up.
About 100 students and staff, and a group of officially unaffiliated individuals like myself, were also in the audience. The turn-out encouraged me and provided empirical evidence that a remnant of this generation of students could be taking philosophical questions seriously. Or, it might have been that their professors had promised a generous dollop of whip cream extra credit on top of their pumpkin pie grades for showing up and writing a synopsis of the film and the discussion afterwards.
The Examined Life (2008) http://www.zeitgeistfilms.com/examinedlife/ is a documentary by Astra Taylor, of 9 modern thinkers expounding philosophically--while walking, standing, travelling by electric wheel chair, even rowing a boat or being driven around in the back seat of a car--on issues such as the necessity for philosophical and critical thinking, ethical choices, consumerism, globalization, social justice, democracy, ecology, and rights of the disabled. Taylor stated,” I wanted to break philosophy out of that rarefied ivory tower space and show how compelling it (philosophy) can be when it's directly connected to ordinary life… I've been joking that mine are "walking heads." What I'm trying to show, and it's a very basic thing, is philosophy's connection to the space we're in every day.” (IFC.com Astra Taylor Explains the “Examined Life”)
She added in another interview, “My intention was to show the material conditions out of which ideas emerge,” Ms. Taylor said. “People often think of philosophy as cold, analytic, abstract, disconnected from the real world, and I really want to say that’s not the case.” (NY Times Interview, by Dennis Lim, February 20, 2009). The project was idiosyncratic, deriving from her own interests in ethical issues (i.e. Animal Rights, Vegetarianism)
I did not consider the documentary unfair or an affront that “Ms. Taylor has drawn her subjects from a narrow intellectual precinct, where the work of philosophical speculation and the agendas of progressive politics are assumed to be congruent.” (Cerebral Celebrities Entertaining the Big Questions By A.O. Scott, New York Times Published February 25, 2009). It is her film; it can be what she wanted to portray.
Yet, in the spirit of Socrates dictum that the “Unexamined life is not worth living,” the documentary’s life needs to be examined carefully and critically and not accepted carte blanche. There are many aspects of the documentary that I can in good conscience applaud; its innovative use of setting and camera technique, asking hard questions, in demonstrating that humility in the face of life’s immensity is often healthy, that the expectation of perfection inevitably leads to dissatisfaction, that rights for and benevolence to the disabled, disenfranchised, and downtrodden, is charity at its finest, and that a discerning multi-culturalism is a good and beautiful thing ordained by God.
Yet, in that same Socratic spirit, I conversely commented during the Question and Answer period at the conclusion of the showing, that the one underlying and unifying thesis of the film, despite its diversity of topics, thinkers, and perspectives, was that absolutes are unknowable (I hardly am the first thinker to point out the inherent contradiction that the idea that “there are no absolutes” is in itself an absolute statement). Furthermore, as a corollary, the documentary speakers either directly stated or implicitly suggested that a belief in absolutes or philosophic universalism, in the words of one of the thinkers Kwarne Anthony Appiah, means that us (the Absolutists) will only love you if you agree. And if you don’t, this leads us (the Absolutists) to “bashing your skull in.” (German translation). That was a pretty horrific statement, even if made with a smile on his face suggesting perhaps a jesting spirit.
My point, during the Q and A, was that a belief in Absolutes, is not necessarily totalitarian. It depends on whether it is truly an Absolute or someone’s Subjectivity parading as an Absolute. Hitler’s absolute belief in Aryan superiority was in reality not factually true and was even demonstrably idiotic. But, you would have been in extreme bodily danger to mention this to him over dinner (don’t fear one who can destroy the body). I must also add, that we can be wrong attitudinally even if we are right factually. As Christians, what we see as standing up for righteousness, is often perceived by the pagans, either rightly or wrongly, as self-righteousness. A careful checking of our spirit is imperative when engaging others.
When I was asked by another audience member, an especially loquacious student, to provide evidence of my perspective, I proffered that stealing is wrong. As a historical application of this precept, I noted that slavery in America was stealing the labor of another man and denying him the fruits of his work (among other injustices). In fact, the belief that stealing is wrong becomes impossible to defend if it is anything less than a universal (and is instead a social construct). If every man does what is right in his own eyes, then if my eye (actually ears) desires your I-Pod, I am taking it.
One of the facilitators of the evening’s event, a Philosophy professor at the university, noted in his comments afterwards that if we had sat all of the speakers in the documentary down together on stage, they would have been quite contentious in their disagreements with another. The apparent common voice that they spoke with only shared a specific shred of shared belief: That ideologically hegemonic Absolute-think is a tool of oppression of tyrants and totalitarians and their toadies to eliminate dissent by all means possible. Every other idea is fair game, equally valid and equally true. Richard Weaver wrote in the Introduction to his book, Ideas Have Consequences, The world of "modern" knowledge is like the universe of Eddington, expanding by diffusion until it approaches the point of nullity.
This reminded me of the line by Syndrome in the film The Incredibles, "Everybody will be super, which means no one will be." There are no super ideas or Absolutes. The inevitable result is that power, good or ill, is the only rule. And, who has that….rules. And, conflict, destruction, and desolation follow. For might is not always right.
Jimi Hendrix, although hardly worth emulation in many respects, said it well, “When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.” To do so, we must know the One who gives that Peace (John 14:27: “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.”).
We should not be afraid to examine works of the world…while it is passing away, the people in it are eternal. It is our duty as Christians to speak up.
Comments