Woody Allen Talks Life with Priest

As he grows old­er, Woody Allen increas­ing­ly finds him­self posi­tioned as the philoso­pher film­mak­er. Fresh Air host Ter­ry Gross asked him some heavy exis­ten­tial ques­tions in an inter­view last year. (Lis­ten here). And, more recent­ly, we have Allen grap­pling with some big life ques­tions in an inter­view con­duct­ed by Father Robert E. Lauder in the Catholic mag­a­zine, Com­mon­weal. The con­ver­sa­tion begins:

RL: When Ing­mar Bergman died, you said even if you made a film as great as one of his, what would it mat­ter? It doesn’t gain you sal­va­tion. So you had to ask your­self why do you con­tin­ue to make films. Could you just say some­thing about what you meant by “sal­va­tion”?

WA: Well, you know, you want some kind of relief from the agony and ter­ror of human exis­tence. Human exis­tence is a bru­tal expe­ri­ence to me…it’s a bru­tal, mean­ing­less experience—an ago­niz­ing, mean­ing­less expe­ri­ence with some oases, delight, some charm and peace, but these are just small oases. Over­all, it is a bru­tal, bru­tal, ter­ri­ble expe­ri­ence, and so it’s what can you do to alle­vi­ate the agony of the human con­di­tion, the human predica­ment? That is what inter­ests me the most. I con­tin­ue to make the films because the prob­lem obsess­es me all the time and it’s con­sis­tent­ly on my mind and I’m con­sis­tent­ly try­ing to alle­vi­ate the prob­lem, and I think by mak­ing films as fre­quent­ly as I do I get a chance to vent the prob­lems. There is some relief. I have said this before in a face­tious way, but it is not so face­tious: I am a whin­er. I do get a cer­tain amount of solace from whin­ing.

You can read the full inter­view here, and, in case you missed it, you can watch Jean-Luc Godard­’s 1986 movie with Woody Allen enti­tled Meetin’ WA.

Thanks to Mike for the tip on this one.

Philosophy on Late Night TV

Last week, Craig Fer­gu­son prob­a­bly made a lit­tle tele­vi­sion his­to­ry when he invit­ed a phi­los­o­phy pro­fes­sor to appear on The Late Late Show. The guest is Jonathan Dan­cy, a prof at UT-Austin, who also hap­pens to be the father of actor Hugh Dan­cy, and the father-in-law of actress Claire Danes. And the unlike­ly top­ic of dis­cus­sion? Moral par­tic­u­lar­ism, which argues that moral­i­ty is con­tex­tu­al, not objec­tive­ly defined. The con­ver­sa­tion runs 11 min­utes, and it’s intrigu­ing to see how Fer­gu­son and Dan­cy nav­i­gate the inter­view, try­ing to bring phi­los­o­phy and com­e­dy togeth­er. Mean­while, if you’re a reg­u­lar Open Cul­ture read­er, you’ll note that Dan­cy’s think­ing stands in sharp con­trast to the con­tro­ver­sial vision of moral phi­los­o­phy out­lined by Sam Har­ris at the recent TED Con­fer­ence.

Sam Harris: Science Can Answer Moral Questions

What’s good, and what’s evil? Tra­di­tion­al­ly, reli­gion and phi­los­o­phy have answered these ques­tions, push­ing sci­ence to the side, ask­ing it to stick to the world of nat­ur­al laws and know­able facts. But Sam Har­ris wants to change things. At TED, he’s argu­ing that sci­ence (par­tic­u­lar­ly neu­ro­science) can address moral ques­tions pre­cise­ly because these ques­tions fall into the world of know­able facts. And, even bet­ter, sci­ence can pro­vide defin­i­tive, high­ly objec­tive answers to such ques­tions. Just as there are sci­en­tif­ic answers to all ques­tions in physics, so there are clear answers in the moral realm. This applies, for exam­ple, to whether chil­dren should be sub­ject­ed to cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment, or how soci­ety deals with very mean­ing­ful gen­der ques­tions. (Things get a lit­tle emo­tion­al on this top­ic at about 11 min­utes in.) The upshot is that Har­ris isn’t buy­ing a rad­i­cal­ly rel­a­tivist posi­tion on moral­i­ty, and this will dis­ap­point many post-mod­ernists. The Enlight­en­ment project is alive and well, ready to make its come­back.

Update: You can find a rebut­tal to Harris’s the­sis from physi­cist Sean Car­roll here. Thanks Mike for point­ing that out.

via RichardDawkins.net

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 3 ) |

Philosophy: A Guide to Happiness

Since the late 1990’s, Alain de Bot­ton has been break­ing down dif­fi­cult philo­soph­i­cal and lit­er­ary ideas and see­ing how they apply to peo­ple’s every­day lives. He did this with his 1997 best­seller, How Proust Can Change Your Life. And he took things a step fur­ther with his tele­vi­sion series called Phi­los­o­phy: A Guide to Hap­pi­ness. The episode above delves into Niet­zsche’s belief that hap­pi­ness only comes about with great effort and hard­ship. In the remain­ing five episodes, de Bot­ton gets into Socrates on self con­fi­dence, Seneca on anger, Epi­cu­rus on hap­pi­ness, Mon­taigne on self-esteem, and Schopen­hauer on love. Each episode runs about 25 min­utes. You can also find all six episodes neat­ly dis­played on one page here.

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 1 ) |

Bertrand Russell on the Existence of God & the Afterlife (1959)

Bertrand Rus­sell, the Nobel Prize-win­ning philoso­pher, math­e­mati­cian and peace activist, died 40 years ago today. And so, above, we rewind the video tape to 1959, to Rus­sell explain­ing why he does­n’t believe in God. This was a view­point that he oth­er­wise elab­o­rat­ed upon in his well-known lecture/essay, Why I Am Not a Chris­t­ian. To be sure, some read­ers won’t share Rus­sel­l’s views on reli­gion. But don’t take umbrage. Just remem­ber, we offer media from across the divide too.

Update: Anoth­er read­er sent us a nice addi­tion to the video above. Here, you can lis­ten to a famous 1948 debate between Bertrand Rus­sell and Father Fred­er­ick C. Cople­ston, Jesuit Catholic priest and pro­fes­sor of phi­los­o­phy. It was orig­i­nal­ly aired on the BBC.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

How Bertrand Rus­sell Turned The Bea­t­les Against the Viet­nam War

Bertrand Rus­sell & Oth­er Big Thinkers in BBC Lec­ture Series (Free)

Bertrand Rus­sell Sends a Mes­sage to the Future

 

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 7 ) |

A.C. Grayling on “Teaching the Controversy”

In this clip from Richard Dawkins’ YouTube Chan­nel, philoso­pher A.C. Grayling offers an argu­ment for why intel­li­gent design should’t be taught along­side evo­lu­tion in the class­room. Some will agree with his posi­tion, and some won’t. And prob­a­bly few will have no opin­ion. If you have reac­tions to Grayling’s argu­ment, please state them civil­ly and intel­li­gent­ly in the com­ments below.

via @courosa

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 6 ) |

Michael Sandel: Our Bodies in the Marketplace

Last year, Michael Sandel made a splash when he put online his pop­u­lar Har­vard phi­los­o­phy course, Jus­tice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? Over the past 30 years, more than 14,000 Har­vard stu­dents have tak­en his course. And now you can access the course online at no cost. (Details here.) In recent days, Sandel has sur­faced one again, this time on Phi­los­o­phy Bites (iTunes — Feed — Web Site), a British pod­cast that fea­tures top philoso­phers being inter­viewed on bite-sized top­ics. In this con­ver­sa­tion (lis­ten here or below), Sandel and Nigel War­bur­ton tack­le some big ques­tions: What are the lim­its of free mar­ket think­ing, espe­cial­ly when it comes to what we can do with our bod­ies in the mar­ket­place? Can we sell blood con­sen­su­al­ly? Per­haps. But what about sell­ing our kid­neys on the open mar­ket? Or “rent­ing wombs”? (There are whole vil­lages in India where women act as “paid sur­ro­gates” for West­ern cou­ples.) Or what about con­sen­su­al pros­ti­tu­tion? Or engag­ing, how­ev­er will­ing­ly, in degrad­ing forms of wage labor? Are these inher­ent free­doms, as some free market/libertarian thinkers might hold? Or do these acts vio­late our col­lec­tive sense of the “good life”? And do they dimin­ish our free­doms in some kind of larg­er sense? The con­ver­sa­tion gets more heat­ed (in a good way) as it goes along. Give it some time, hang with it, and see what you think. For more phi­los­o­phy, see our col­lec­tion of Free Phi­los­o­phy Cours­es.

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 3 ) |

Philosophers Don’t Die Pretty

Cour­tesy of Simon Critch­ley, who teach­es phi­los­o­phy at The New School for Social Research…

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast