Comments on: Televising philosophy

By: Kenneth

Kenneth — Thu, 20 Nov 2003 05:25:40 +0000

Don’t know if this will ever be seen. I just came across this today—a few days late. Anyway, “Philosophy Talk” John Perry’s and my new show is now officially a go for January. We’ll be on Tuesdays at noon, starting January 6th. Right now we only have enough money for six months, but we’re still in fund raising mode. I hope we can do real philosophy in a way that’s entertaining, accessible but still has some depth. We’ll see. It’s a grand experiment and we’re going to give it a helluva try.

By: enthymeme

enthymeme — Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:41:45 +0000

Shai, right, but i’d add, they have this sort of thing on the radio. Yeah, Magee set the standard for radio philosophy back in the day. John Holbo and Chris Bertram in his previous incarnation have blogged about a shitty Radio Singapore International attempt at radio philosophy. If you read the transcripts, it just isn't really well done. It's too short, the host is terrible - he just acts as a signpost and doesn't do anything to engage or explicate or simplify whatever is being said. The interviewee pretty much ends up delivering a monologue-ish lecture, and that's just boring. The whole point is not to make it just a lecture but something more resembling an exchange or a dialogue. I’m in favor of a strong host after listening to some egregious programs where the sit in host couldnt control the guests . . . . . . or effectively act as mediator and interlocutor. Drapetomaniac, It’s such a bizarro view considering the popularity of everything from Crossfire to Oprah. People are riveted by talking heads all the time. Perhaps the difficulty of ideas would be a deterrent to some but it isn’t because they are verbalized by talking heads, it’s because they’re hard to follow without the proper intellectual background. Yep. But the way I see it, adding nice visuals and MTV-izing Rorty is just silly. It isn't going to make the content of what Rorty says any more interesting. If a person wasn't interested in the first place, the visuals are not likely to keep him glued to the screen while Rorty is insidiously injected into his system. Of course, there's a difference between tastefully done visuals that relate to Rorty and/or his philosophy and crass affectations to hipness (nice escalators, duh).

By: nnyhav

nnyhav — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:59:12 +0000

Here we are (via JLSperanza): Miller also has the exchange between Moore and Russell as representatives, respectively of the modernists (Russell) and the neo-traditionalists (Moore), although – like all the Beyond The Fringe Group (the Footlights) it is CAMBRIDGE based rather than Oxford. I will try and transcribe the ‘Apples in the basket’ skit from Angel CD ZDM 0777 7 64771 21. The monologue is titled, “Portrait from Memory”, and is by Miller. The note reads, “The British philosopher Bertrand Russell was reminiscing on television a great deal in those days”. Presenter: This is the BBC Third Programme. We have in the studio Bertrand Russell, who talks to us in the series, “Sense, Perception, & Nonsense, Number Seven: Is this a dagger I see before me?”. Bertrand Russell. Bertrand Russell: One of the advantages of living in Great Court, Trinity, I seem to recall, was the fact that one could pop across, at any time of the day or night, into trap of the then young G. E. Moore, into a logical falsehood, by means of a cunning semantic subterfuge. I recall one occasion with particular vividness. I had popped across and have knocked upon his door. “Come in,” he said. I decided to wait a while, in order to test the validity of his proposition. “Come in,” he said once again. “Very well,” I replied, “if that is in fact truly what you wish.” I opened the door accordingly, and went it. And there was Moore, seated by the fire, with a basket upon his knees. “Moore,” I said, “Do you have any apples in that basket?”. “No,” he replied, and smiled seraphically, as was his wont. I decided to try a different logical tack. “Moore,” I said, “do you, then, have SOME apples in that basket?”. “No,” he replied, leaving me in a logical cleft stick from which I had but one way out. “Moore,” I said, “do you, then, have APPLES in that basket?”. “Yes,” he replied. And, from that day forth, we remained the very closest of friends. (c) Jonathan Miller.

By: nnyhav

nnyhav — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:41:55 +0000

“When there was a film about Derrida recently … there was a good deal of footage of him listening to the radio while he made toast.” Lovely, this. Though there seems some mistranslation of The Burning Bread. Evoked Beyond the Fringe’s treatment of BRussell on da Beeb (with the throwaway footnote at the end: “… next week’s lecture, ‘Is this a dagger I see before me?”)

By: Docg

Docg — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:32:12 +0000

I’m impressed that anyone made a film about Richard Rorty. American philosophers are now so absent from popular culture as to be virtually invisible. A sharp contrast from the days of William James, when people would attend his philosophy lectures for fun. BTW, I think Rorty’s “Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature” ought to be required reading for grad students in any of humanities disciplines. DocG

By: rea

rea — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:24:26 +0000

“every one of whom I now remember as having looked absolutely fatuous. Above all, Ezra Pound.” But Zizka, of course Ezra Pound WAS fatuous.

By: zizka

zizka — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:05:42 +0000

Decades ago I took a poetry class from a major poet who relied on films a lot because he didn’t believe poetry could be taught. I saw filmed interviews with 5 or 10 poets, every one of whom I now remember as having looked absolutely fatuous. Above all, Ezra Pound.

By: PF

PF — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 07:12:48 +0000

Terry Eagleton sez: I shall omit the usual self-regarding narrative of how my screenplay was ripped to shreds by the director. Suffice it to say that at one point my agent instructed me to remove my name from the credits, whereupon the British Film Institute took fright and persuaded me to keep it on. Quoted here, where Eagleton's work is called Overall quite a successful and entertaining script. Certainly worthwhile. Personally I couldn't watch more than half an hour of Jarman's film, but I was a freshman in college, and a friend of mine who knows Wittgenstein far better than I do really enjoyed it. So there you are. Don't they have a lot of French thinker-types sitting around and talking all the time on French TV? Or have I just picked all the wrong times to watch?

By: kez

kez — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 00:46:35 +0000

a modern philosopher claims that the study of human being cannot be adequately expressed on film – i think that says a lot about modern philosophy.. for what it’s worth, i enjoyed Jarman’s Wittgenstein, despite being philosophically and biographically inaccurate.. there was a joke i overheard on tv last night that described how people continue reading the fine print on contracts, despite not understanding a word.. perhaps that is the same as laymen watching philosophy shows.. oh, and for anyone interested, both ‘Men of Ideas’ and ‘The Great Philosophers’ have been transcribed and published by Oxford University Press. they’re a great introduction to philosophy..

By: Kes

Kes — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:30:23 +0000

I watched a programme about the mind, presented by John Searle, a few years back. Can’t remember exactly why, but I am left with the feeling that it was extremely bizarre. Anyway, this is an amusing anecdote from yesterday’s Independent: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/media/story.jsp?story=462694 My Greatest Mistake: Mark Lawson, presenter, ‘Front Row’, BBC Radio 4 11 November 2003 Although I have never been any kind of shock jock, my worst moment on live television involved an apparent foul-mouthed outburst. My error was not to have known that the philosopher Immanuel Kant’s surname is habitually pronounced by academics to rhyme with “punt”. And so it was that, one night on Late Review, I heard Professor Germaine Greer declare, during a discussion of a new book by Roger Scruton: “The problem with Scruton is that he tries to write about cunt but he knows absolutely nothing about cunt.” Apart from my ignorance of German phonetics, I blame the misunderstanding on the fact that this was a perfectly plausible critique of the limitations of Scruton’s world-view and expressed in terms that Professor Greer would not necessarily consider extreme for television. Nor was I the only one to be confused. The producer was screaming through my earpiece: “Just apologise!” The panellist to my right, Tony Parsons, was fighting hysterical laughter, which, once started, as fans of cricket radio commentary know, tends to spread. I was drafting an apology in my head – “Germaine is known for her robust language, but I’m sorry if anyone found that below the belt…” – when the foul-mouthed Professor suddenly referred to “Cunt’s Critique of Pure Reason”. I realised what had happened and changed the apology to express a hope that the correct academic pronunciation hadn’t confused anyone. But that remains the closest I’ve come to being unable to complete a link through giggling. Many years later, listening to a late-night Radio 3 arts programme in the car, I almost had to pull off the M40 when a punctiliously pronouncing philosopher revealed that he had “devoted my whole life to Kant but am always finding new things hidden there”.

By: drapetomaniac

drapetomaniac — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:37:16 +0000

Apparently the execs at the BBC did not think that a pair of “talking heads” in Men of Ideas could sustain the interest of a TV viewing audience for an hour. It’s such a bizarro view considering the popularity of everything from Crossfire to Oprah. People are riveted by talking heads all the time. Perhaps the difficulty of ideas would be a deterrent to some but it isn’t because they are verbalized by talking heads, it’s because they’re hard to follow without the proper intellectual background.

By: Shai

Shai — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:32:57 +0000

enthymeme: right, but i’d add, they have this sort of thing on the radio. (eg NPR’s “the connection” before current events dominated the program, and soon “philosophy talk” in january). In the case of radio there’s always a host, but I’m in favor of a strong host after listening to some egregious programs where the sit in host couldnt control the guests (the worst philosophical one was a discussion about pragmatism on an npr sister station between rorty, putnam, and james conant where they trailed off into ideas no one but themself would find interesting, which is why no one called in)

By: enthymeme

enthymeme — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:21:43 +0000

handed

By: enthymeme

enthymeme — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:21:00 +0000

The good sir above would like to have seen the poker confrontation!! Wittgenstein would have been nonplussed at being handled a mock poker. You know, like a prop.

By: enthymeme

enthymeme — Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:14:33 +0000

It seems to me that TV and philosophy aren’t compatible, in large part because of TV’s status as a visual medium . . . This was precisely the point that Magee addressed in his memoir. Apparently the execs at the BBC did not think that a pair of “talking heads” in Men of Ideas could sustain the interest of a TV viewing audience for an hour. But in fact it did, and they were bowled over by its success. A recent Guardian article opines:

There is a considerable audience for exciting ideas discussed by top thinkers. It’s not the viewers who have lost interest, but the TV executives. But why? Whatever happened to intellectuals on television?

Right. Why has TV dumbed down? Probably for the same reason that the BBC was initially sceptical about Magee’s talking heads – the reason being the presumption that it would be a ‘waste’ of the medium to have something on air that is visually non-exciting at best, positively unappealing at worst. There’s probably also the suspicion that such programmes may be too high brow for a supposedly undiscerning lay audience. In my view, these two mistaken notions are the reason why TV more often insults the intelligence than challenges it. IIRC, Magee believes the former presumption to be wrong. There is, he supposes, a certain fascination with watching talking heads talk: the speakers’ mannerly quirks, the body language, the thrill of the ex tempore style of exchange (even though much of the materiel was prepared beforehand), and so on. This is all the more fascinating, I’d venture, if the participants were intellectuals of some repute. So I don’t agree that the visual medium is badly cut for this sorta thing. Back home, there used to be a segment after the evening news that featured a panel of journalists and pundits on various issues du jour. I remember watching one particular episode in which some of the panelists were highly critical of the white paper prepared by the (Singapore) Government’s Censorship Review Committee. Among them was a former theatre critic (I can’t remember his name) who was formidably articulate and had me nodding away to much of what he said. It was refreshing to see something like that on television (Singapore TV is for the most part brainless and boring – choose between the two). Not just because it’s novel; but because the whole concept of televised debate is captivating in itself. And yet, despite having the technology and an arsenal of media that avails us the opportunity to record for posterity the intellectual disputes of the day, none of it is being exploited. What would you have given to see a Socratic dialogue, ‘live’? A Hegel-Schopenhauer debate? Gellner vs Ryle on linguistic philosophy? Or Popper vs Wittgenstein sans poker?