In the article which is called “Philosophy Screened: Experiencing The Matrix”, Thomas Wartenberg claims that films can contribute to discuss philosophical issues by using the mediums of this type of art. In order to do that, films can screen thought experiment which is a good way to concern philosophical discussions. During the first part of this paper, I will present Wartenberg’s argument basically and his hypothetical answer to No-Argument Argument of Carroll. Through the end of the paper, I will try to state my ownopinion about art in general by arguing whether art is educative or not.
Thomas Wartenberg asks an important question about the relationship between art and philosophy and he fundamentally wonders that: Is it possible to screen a philosophical argument as a movie? In order to argue this question, he uses the deception hypothesis of Descartes as a philosophical argument and The Matrix as a movie. His comparison between these two is based on Descartes’ deception hypothesis about a genius evil which deceives him about the reality of the world in which he lives. After a series of doubts, Descartes concludes that he cannot trust his senses and the reality based on his sensations. He assumes that there is a genius evil to deceive him about everything including his own body. The only reality which he can trust is his mind. This is a typical thought experiment in philosoph
y which concerns a possibility and then argues it with the help of opinions in a concrete system of thoughts. At this point, Wartenberg claims that the movie The Matrix has a kind of thought experiment and it is a similar version of Descartes’ deception hypothesis. In the movie, the protagonist whose name is Neo figures out that his reality is deceived by computers and his life is a kind of illusion which is created by the computers. As Descartes’ genius evil depicts him, the computers in The Matrix depicts people about their reality. According to Thomas Wartenberg, The Matrix screens the deception hypothesis and the movie does this by using the advantages of this art. Wartenberg gives some examples from the scenes of the movie such as the mirror scene that Neo touches the mirror, he becomes one with the mirror, both Neo’s and audience’s perception of reality is broken down. Once the movie succeeds this, then it becomes capable of arising the thought of the audience. Since, we see that Neo’s reality is depicted by the computers and he lives in the matrix, then what restrains us to think ourselves in a similar position? Can we really know that our reality is the very reality? By screening its own hypothetical thought experiment, movie can alter us to think a philosophical question. And it would not be wrong to say that this is a kind of contribution which riches philosophical discussions.
In my view, after this point it would not be difficult to guess Wartenberg’s answer to Carroll’s No-Argument Argument. Carroll’s argument states that: “Artworks offer no arguments or analysis to justify the beliefs which they convey. And if this is the case, then they don’t convey any knowledge. Therefore, artworks do not convey any knowledge. Hence, art is not educative.” As I have just mentioned above, Wartenberg’s paper aims to show that an artwork such as a movie can offer an argument like the thought experiment in The Matrix. Although there is not any necessity for a movie to do any justification for a thought experiment, we can easily see that it refers to Descartes’ hypothesis and makes an analogy with it. Wartenberg’s general position seems true, at least according to his paper we can see that a movie can screen a philosophical argument, at least a thought experiment. Hence, I agree with Wartenberg’s general position that movies can prompt philosophical reflection and enrich philosophical discussion of wide range of issues.
In order to argue about art and artworks and their features such as being educative, I would like to state my personal opinion about what art is. As The Matrix, which is a piece of artwork, succeeds to alter us in order to think a philosophical question, this does not have to be the case for every movie we see. However, they can still distribute our way of perceiving. In general, I would like to define art or an artwork something which extends you. An artwork can extend your ideas, emotions or aesthetic tastes. Since the word extend is a bit vague, in order to clarify it, I will continue with the examples of artworks from the exhibitions we visited with the class. While I was visiting the exhibitions, I was thinking, questioning and arguing about the artworks at the same time. In Salt, the video “Double Shooting” was impressed me a lot, I found the argument that the video offers very valuable to think upon it. The video is a combination of one real video from Syrian civil war and the artist’s thoughts about that video. Artist’s speech about this short real video states three interesting arguments. Without deepening in the details of these arguments, I can say that they made me think about them and the validity of these arguments. On the other hand, while I was walking and thinking about the artworks around me in the exhibition taking place in Arter, I wanted to take some notes for myself and I walked towards a table. I put my notebook on it then the security of the exhibition came and warned me. Because the thing which I assumed as a table was not a table actually, it was one of the artworks in the exhibition. I was so surprised and ashamed a bit, I took a step back and pretended like this table is an artwork. As can be seen, this artwork was just a table but nothing more for me. All I think about it was that I see a table here, not an artwork. In other words, it did not extend my thoughts, so I did not take it as an artwork. I claim that the real reason was that this artwork did not extend my thoughts, emotions or tastes in any way.
Even if I accept my argument as a kind of guide in order to define something as an artwork, still I have to think about whether art is educative or not. Is a thing which extends one’s opinions, emotions or tastes educative in some way? I agree with Wartenberg about that the movie has a thought experiment, thus does it mean that this movie is an educative artwork? If a thought experiment can be counted as an educative activity, or one’s own contemplation about her/his own opinions, then we can say that art is educative. In other words, we can say that movie extended my opinions about a philosophical issue, and this can be counted as an educative aspect of an artwork.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Mroue, Rabih. (2012). Image(s), Mon Amour. Curator: Aurora Fernandez Polanco. In Salt Beyoğlu, İstanbul, 2014.
Wartenberg, Thomas E. (2003). Philosophy Screened: Experiencing The Matrix. Wiley Online Library.
kuşlar uçuyor 