Philosophy Now Forum

Watched the life of Pi again, and I wont post spoilers but I will ask the thread title: when asked that question the interviewer looks at him perplexed, but the one about the tiger or the one about the man he then proceeds to explain the characters? And when it is explained to him it leaves him with a wry smile.

Anyone who has seen and I am sure many have please feel free to digress on which story you liked best and why and for what reason, there's a mountain of reasons to like either but do go on.

There are no wrong answers of course, that is how it is with your beliefs.

You probably think I preferred one story over the other, juding by what I have posted in the past, but I think there's a bit of philosophical meat on the bones before I say what I think. So if you have seen it let's see what you made of the implications to religion in the film or the implications any way you feel to digress; and if not and few have seen it I'll post a synopisis as best I can and why I believe anyone watching it may find an answer of their own therein.

I've only seen it once and I can't remember the details, but any story that is consistent with the empirical data if fine by me.

That would be the one that wasn't about the Tiger, but I don't think anyone saw it recently enough to discuss the implications to philosophy or religion so meh, let this thread die the quiet sleep of the damned. I don't think philosophers tbh think there is anything of merit in film, which is mostly true, much of it does seem to gloss over the finer points. Meh live and learn.

Blaggard wrote:That would be the one that wasn't about the Tiger, but I don't think anyone saw it recently enough to discuss the implications to philosophy or religion so meh, let this thread die the quiet sleep of the damned.

As I said, the details are blurred, but as I remember, the only empirical evidence the people interviewing Pi was his stories. I thought the message was that belief is based on aesthetic choice, literally Which story would you prefer? I may be projecting, because that happens to be what I think. Even physicists aren't party to all the facts, but people presented with exactly the same data can choose different interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, for instance, and I'm fairly confident that there are some physicists who believe it's all the work of some old god or other.

Blaggard wrote:I don't think philosophers tbh think there is anything of merit in film, which is mostly true, much of it does seem to gloss over the finer points.

Philosophers do take an interest in film. As Hjarloprillar found out, I'm really not the person to prove it, but I do know there is a group associated with Philosophy Now, that holds regular meetings to watch and discuss the philosophical points of films. http://www.meetup.com/Philosophy-For-All-London/

Blaggard wrote:But I'm steadilly getting the impression that many philosophers don't want to let anyone in without an invite, and I'm steadilly getting the impression that is why philosophy is slowly dying sadly. It's now only by invite only if you want in on the club you need to pay for it, and if you don't your clearly not allowed in.

That's one way to interpret it. To be fair, there are a few hoops you need to jump through to get any papers accepted by academic journals, but they are no different from the sort of filtering process that causes cranks to howl that scientific journals are elitist or conspiratorial. As for forums, I have very little experience, but the feeling I get is that the moderation values here are particularly generous; so not all philosophers are as unwelcoming as you suggest.
Spoiler alert! Here comes the bit that will raise your hackles.
It does seem that you creating a picture of philosophers based on a very limited sample and that you are selecting evidence that supports that view. It may be that I am, as the tweedy elitist p**** you imagine, typical, but even if I were to fit that profile, there are other types of philosophers; for instance, Diogenes lived in a barrel, Spinoza was a lens grinder by trade. You do not have to be an academic, with your nose constantly in a book, to make your mark in philosophy, but no philosopher of note made their reputation on the back of lazy stereotypes.

Blaggard wrote:Meet for another thread perhaps.

Go for it.