Najbolji filozofski filmovi ikada snimljeni

Black_star

Veoma poznat
Moderator
Poruka
12.824
Nisam znao.
O čemu se radi?
Uh.. Kompleksna prica. Mladi genijalac sociopata gradi veliki kucni racunar sa zeljom da se dokopa algoritma uz koji ce da predvidi rezultate berze ili brojeve na lotou. Medjutim, racunar kao rezultat stalno ispisuje broj Pi...Polako pocinje da misli da je taj broj kljuc univerzuma i upetljava se u gadne odnose sa razlicitim interesnim grupama, od religioznih (jevrejska zajednica) do korporacijskih (koje ga finansiraju)... sve dok na kraju...;) E,pa,pogledaj film. :) Legendaran. ;)
 

Golub

Elita
Poruka
16.878
Uh.. Kompleksna prica. Mladi genijalac sociopata gradi veliki kucni racunar sa zeljom da se dokopa algoritma uz koji ce da predvidi rezultate berze ili brojeve na lotou. Medjutim, racunar kao rezultat stalno ispisuje broj Pi...Polako pocinje da misli da je taj broj kljuc univerzuma i upetljava se u gadne odnose sa razlicitim interesnim grupama, od religioznih (jevrejska zajednica) do korporacijskih (koje ga finansiraju)... sve dok na kraju...;) E,pa,pogledaj film. :) Legendaran. ;)
ok
 

Exaybachay1

Ističe se
Poruka
2.163
Otprilike, egzistencijalizam je jedini filozofski pravac koji može uspešno da se pretoči u film...

Uzmi recimo fenomenologiju Mišela Anrija pa pretoči to u filmsku radnju und scenario -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Henry

Barbarism (1987)

In his essay Barbarism, Michel Henry examines the link that exists between barbarism and science or modern technology, from their opposition to culture understood as self-development of sensibility and of inner or purely subjective life of living individuals. Science is founded on the idea of a universal and as such objective truth, and which therefore leads to the elimination of the sensible qualities of the world, sensibility and life.[255][256] There is nothing wrong with science in itself as long as it is restricted to the study of nature, but it tends to exclude all traditional forms of culture, such as art, ethics and religion.[257] Science left to its own devices leads to technology, whose blind processes develop themselves independently in a monstrous fashion with no reference to life.[258]

Science is a form of culture in which life denies itself and refuses itself any value. It is a practical negation of life,[259] which develops into a theoretical negation in the form of ideologies that reduces all possible knowledge to that of science, such as the human sciences whose very objectivity deprives them of their object: what value do statistics have faced with suicide, what do they say about the anguish and the despair that produce it?[260][261] These ideologies have invaded the university, and are precipitating it to its destruction by eliminating life from research and teaching.[262] Television is the truth of technology; it is the practice par excellence of barbarism: it reduces every event to current affairs, to incoherent and insignificant facts.[263][264]

This negation of life results, according to Michel Henry, from the "disease of life", from its secret dissatisfaction with the self which leads it to deny itself, to flee itself in order to escape its anguish and its own suffering.[265][266] In the modern world, we are almost all condemned from childhood to flee our anguish and our proper life in the mediocrity of the media universe — an escape from self and a dissatisfaction which lead to violence — rather than resorting to the most highly developed traditional forms of culture which enable the overcoming of this suffering and its transformation into joy.[267][268] Culture subsists, despite everything, but in a kind of incognito; in our materialist society, which is sinking into barbarism, it must necessarily operate in a clandestine way.[269]

Incarnation. A philosophy of Flesh (2000)

In his book Incarnation. A philosophy of Flesh, Henry starts by opposing the sensible and living flesh as we experience it perpetually from the inside to the inert and material body as we can see it from the outside, like other objects we find in the world.[294] The flesh does not correspond at all, in his terminology, to the soft part of our material and objective body as opposed for example to the bones, but to what he called in his earlier books our subjective body.[295][296] For Henry, an object possesses no interiority, it is not living, it does not feel itself and does not feel that it is touched, it does not subjectively experience being touched.

Having put the difficult problem of the incarnation in a historical perspective by going back to the thought of the Church Fathers, he undertakes a critical re-reading of the phenomenological tradition that leads to a reversal of phenomenology.[297][298] He then proposes to elaborate a phenomenology of the flesh which leads to the notion of an originary flesh which is not constituted but is given in the arch-revelation of Life, as well as a phenomenology of Incarnation.[299]

Although the flesh is traditionally understood as the seat of sin, in Christianity it is also the place of salvation, which consists in the deification of man, i.e. in the fact of becoming the Son of God, of returning to the eternal and absolute Life we had forgotten in losing ourselves in the world, in caring only about things and ourselves.[300][301][302] In sin, we have the tragic experience of our powerlessness to do the good we would like to do and of our inability to avoid evil.[303] Thus, faced with the magical body of the other, it is the anguished desire to rejoin the life in it that leads to error.[304][305] In the night of lovers, the sexual act couples two impulsive movements, but erotic desire fails to attain the pleasure of the other just there where it is experienced, in a complete loving fusion.[306] The erotic relation is however doubled by a pure affective relation, foreign to the carnal coupling, a relation made of mutual gratitude or love.[307] It is this affective dimension that is denied in the form of violence that is pornography, which wrenches the erotic relation from the pathos of life in order to deliver it to the world, and which constitutes a genuine profanation of life.[308][309]

Može ovo, ali tipa smarački Terens Malik kadrovi i naracija....
 

Bodljikavo Prase

Primećen član
Poruka
737
Господин Нико је научнофантастични драмски филм из 2009. који је написао и режирао Јацо Ван Дормаел, а главне улоге тумаче Јаред Лето, Сарах Поллеи, Диане Кругер, Линх Дан Пхам, Рхис Ифанс, Натасха Литтле, Тоби Регбо и Јуно Темпле.
maxresdefault.jpg
 

suave

Aktivan član
Poruka
1.796
Filmovi su retko jednodimenzionalni, da se oslanjaju samo na jednog filozofa ili jedan filozofski pravac. Svaki film može biti gledan na više različitih načina, sa više različitih filozofskih stajališta.

Moj prilog: jedan tekst iz 2017 o Ničeu na filmu:"Nietzsche on film"

The most famous film to productively engage Nietzsche is Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). At the level of explicit citation the film's celebrated opening sequence, in which the sun gradually illuminates the earth's curvature, is scored to the thunderous timpani of Richard Strauss' musical adaptation of Zarathustra, from which the film takes its worldview. This is a film whose narrative literalizes the idea of humankind as a transitory conduit between the ape and some unknowable, future being: which is eventually revealed as the appallingly kitsch Star Child.

Andrei Tarkovsky's Sacrifice (Offret, 1986) is about Alexander, a middle-aged nihilist who in a supreme act of bad faith attempts to bargain with God to prevent an imminent nuclear holocaust. The film's opening long take features a conversation between Alexander and the postman about the dwarf from part three of Zarathustra, a figure that famously necessitates the fullest articulation of the eternal return; and, thereafter, the film stages Alexander's willful self-transfiguration. His is an existential journey that reaches its climax in the conflagration of an old house, the kind of architectural structure which in almost all of Tarkovsky's late-career films serves as an emblem of the past's recurrence and which in this instance emblematizes the eradication of Alexander's bourgeois values.

And finally, transplanting a Tarkovsky-esque house into a whole new setting and genre, Lars von Trier's Antichrist (2009) is, like Nietzsche's text from which it borrows its title, a hymn to the untamed force of nature. It is a pronouncement of the fact that – to recall only the film's best-known line, which is delivered by a self-mutilating ouroboros, a grisly embodiment of the eternal return – ‘Chaos reigns.’

https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/full/10.3366/film.2017.0033
 

Top
  Blokirali ste reklame
Dragi prijatelju, nemojte da blokirate reklame - isključite Ad Blocker na Forumu, jer će tako mesto vaših susreta na Krstarici ostati besplatno za korišćenje.