Intro to Phenomenology and Vivian Sobchack's Film Theory

Рет қаралды 8,345

Күн бұрын

An introduction to the philosophical discipline of phenomenology and an overview of some basic trends in phenomenological thought, providing background on Vivian Sobchack's essay "What My Fingers Knew" from Carnal Thoughts.

Пікірлер: 19

@deYoung2023application 9 ай бұрын

Your comment about Sontag confirmed a hunch I had! Art objects aren't merely a reflection of the world but are objects in and of themselves.

@ksenialeksakova9976 3 жыл бұрын

this video is so helpful, thank you!

@filmandmediastudieschannel 3 жыл бұрын

Glad it was helpful!

@cosmiccress9821 2 жыл бұрын

this has been such a difficult concept to wrap my head around. this half hour video was more helpful than our 4 hour lecture on the same topic! THANK YOU

@filmandmediastudieschannel 2 жыл бұрын

that's great - thanks!

@poukoeve3194 7 ай бұрын

this has literally saved my ass (and my assignment due the day after tomorrow). Thank you so so so much, I'm going to part 2

@follonica1 Жыл бұрын

I really appreciate your channel and the synthesis you do are precious. In my opinion if we consider Kant's distinction between noumena and phenomena both phenomenology and science are addressed to the knowledge of phenomena (appearances). The only way to address noumena is Bergson's "creative intuition" that has something of "phenomenological mysticism". Even Ponty's concept of "synesthesia" or Deleuze's "invention of concepts through affects" in my opinion share this "phenomenological mysticism" that can be applied to what I would call "phenoumena" (with different degrees). What do you think about it? But even Husserl and Heidegger are mystic in someway...I believe all this people has been influenced by oriental philosophy that tends to address subjective conscience and its subjective illusion/experience instead of objective scientific conscience that is maybe even a more naive illusion because forgets the conscience of the subject doing the experiment. Science thinks to understand conscience with objective working of brain: is it not a paradox that a conscience tries to understand itself scientifically when it excludes the presence of consciousness in the act of knowing reality? This reminds me also of the people that speaks of Artificial Intelligence when it is just an empowered automatization of the syntactic function of the intellect through a mathematical algorithm set by humans. And what about the techno-scientific apparatus that allows scientific knowledge? Is it not even that a form of phenomenological extension of the senses? For example the microscope or telescope? But to stay in the cinema...is not even a camera a phenomenological extension of the sensible? An eye with camera is still a simple eye? Does technology extend (but also limit) our phenomenological body? So, phenomenology and science are not intertwined?

@filmandmediastudieschannel Жыл бұрын

Thanks for your interesting comment. To the extent that I understand your remarks, I'd agree that certainly 'phenomenology and science are intertwined.' In distinguishing "science" from "phenomenology" in the video, I was just trying to reproduce some of the basic explanations put forth by Merleau-Ponty in the beginning of Phenomenology of Perception. To clarify, maybe I'd take on your example about the microscope/telescope. The microscope does indeed extend our vision. And one could perform a phenomenological description of seeing the world through a microscope. The description would be attuned to the essence of seeing-through-a-microscope as a kind of perceptual experience. How do we relate to the space that we see through the microscope? Do we feel as if our bodies occupy the same space as the micro-world we see through the microscope? Does the micro-world seem inhabitable, the way my room does when I look at it with my own eyes, or does it look like a flat, two-dimensional picture of a world? These just seem like phenomenological questions to ask of microscope-seeing as an experience. They are importantly not the same questions as "what is the cellular structure of the organism I'm looking at," which is the kind of question a scientist might ask of her use of a microscope. I suppose the more difficult question, and perhaps the more important one, is what is the difference between a phenomenologist and a perceptual psychologist, or between a phenomenologist and a neuroscientist of perception.

@michaelarnowitt2366 Жыл бұрын

I’m a concert pianist so there’s a lot about phenomenology that I’m totally on board with; it’s certainly been my experience that an audience member’s perception of time is very different than scientific time. I do feel however that analysis in music helps us appreciate how events in a musical piece are connected and gives us an appreciation of the whole and larger shapes and structures. We would be losing a lot if we only focused on each micro-event in listening to a piece of music or a film, just as the scientist who only cares about atoms and molecules is also missing a lot of potential beauty.

@filmandmediastudieschannel Жыл бұрын

thanks for the comment, Michael! I agree completely. Most phenomenologists--and phenomenology-adjacent thinkers about time, like Henri Bergson--aren't so much *against* analytical thinking, and what we can do with it, as they are against an assumption that experience itself is analytical. Both modes are clearly important, but the phenomenologist wants to emphasize that both modes exist, and that they are qualitatively different. The difference between listening to music as a temporal experience (and playing music - see the very interesting phenomenology of music performance by David Sudnow) and that of analyzing music through music theory, is a good example of that. And it also seems true that both modes inform each other.

@tarynely683 Жыл бұрын

I really appreciate this explanation. Can you cite your sources in the comments? It would be helpful for further research. Thank you.

@Iguana_slayer 2 ай бұрын

Anybody know where that Maurice Merleau Ponty quote came from? I have been trying to cite it for my essay due Monday and have been looking for the source for two hours.

@RPMcJenkins 8 күн бұрын

have you tried searching on alternative translations (trying yourself)? As MP originally wrote in French, so perhaps the quote pictured is a lesser known translation, and you might find it with a few synonyms (often worked out for me, in different cases)

Жыл бұрын

Thank you so much for this video and your channel. I would love to know if you have consider that experience worlds through technology, as allowed by cinema, would fit better in post-phenomenology approaches, since there is a mediation and not a direct experience of the world.

@filmandmediastudieschannel Жыл бұрын

Yes, that makes perfect sense. And there are plenty of folks working in "phenomenological film theory" broadly conceived who would probably think of themselves as influenced by "post-phenomenology," at least in the way that Don Ihde describes it.

@rileymckinley 11 ай бұрын

[9:45] Starting happy birthday on "Do" is absurd, you would have to end on "te te la fa so fa🎂" I don't know what realm you're entering!!!!

@filmandmediastudieschannel 11 ай бұрын

oh wow you're so right! the melody starts on the 5, not the 1. somebody screwed up...

@rileymckinley 11 ай бұрын

@@filmandmediastudieschannel something, something, something about how even though the sensory information is the same, you can learn different ways to interpret the same melody

@Brian-eh1bn Жыл бұрын

This is so tedious and only the naive would take phemonology seriously it was just another non scientific ,jargon ridden,cultish trend like Structuralism or Jungism .