I. What does narrative theory suggest or tell us about the nature and fate of universes? What if all the films we watched ended with the Gnab Gib, ‘the Big Crunch’?

Imagine a (narrative) film you’ve recently watched and enjoyed. Something that you really connected with in whatever wonderful way; maybe the lead was a hottie, the special effects were mind-blowing, the story was captivating and well written, or you just watched it with someone special at a special time. Got something in mind? Take your time…

Okay, now quickly remind yourself what it was that made you choose it, and then think about the ending. Was it a happy one, or where you clutching the Kleenex like a leaky lover? Did your hero survive and get the girl/guy, or did they seize up and suffer after the climax?

Now imagine that entire world (the one that holds the story you enjoyed) suddenly meeting a violent and destructive end, an apocalypse of supreme order, one so absolute in its taking as to thereby definitively define the term “nothing” (assuming, naturally, that there is some other universe — parallel, perhaps — whose beings may someday have access to observations of its existence).

Your story now does not end ‘happily ever after’, per se: both the prince and the princess (as well as their lovely union) are spaghettified, slurped up by the singularity like sand up a straw, their ‘being-in-a-world’ obliterated — nothing remains, or now ever was.

How does this make you feel? If every film hereafter ended (rather obviously) with the Gnab Gib, would this “Big Crunch”, in turn, crush the purpose and meaning of the creation in question? Some films may even try to rebel against this fate, and include a flashy exposition of its characters’ futures (Disney’s Oscar-winning short film “Paperman” comes immediately to mind), but they too would then collapse under this imagined contraction’s supreme simulation of a terrifying telos: film’s ‘final cause’.

This is, of course, not only how every film ends, but also how they all begin: To and from black — the cinematic nothing, or pure absence of life-giving light — fade in, fade out, repeat.

II. Can the philosophical tension between the rationalists and empiricists be made analogous to the fundamental ontology of live action vs. animation?And what would this then tell us about the epistemological validity and reliability of philosophy through film?

NOTES & COMMENTS

• Explore the philosophical (filmosophical?) implications of ‘light’ as film’s primary element, as a kind of ‘cinematic singularity’ from which all other cinematic matters derive impetus (for example space and time; which seems itself (space-time) to belong to discussions of creative force — the collective act of film production: the director, cinematographer, screenwriter, and so on — then, subsequently, the filmgoer becomes in a way privy to fragmented thinkings of ‘a world’). This ‘heliocentric’ worldview of cinematic conception may then provide us insights into other ‘modes’ of the cinematic medium (like, as just mentioned, those around issues around film authorship and its reception — towards a ‘light-minded’ filmgoer?).
• Research Zizek’s use and understanding of the terms “Event” and the “Sublime”.
• Research and expand your usage and understanding of Aristotle’s causes in relation to cinema (formal, efficient, and final).
• I am not sure if Plato’s “telos” is the root of ‘teleology’, but this might be a useful bridge (in both its philosophical and theological nominations — in fact, having reviewed the given definitions, their synthesis best supports the ‘fantasy of authorship’ argument; with first the filmgoer focusing on the immediate “purpose” of the Event at play, and while their is “design and purpose” in cinematic art, but said willingness is inherently detached from that which was created — and should so be received) into arguing that cinema may, in fact, place emphasis on such ‘phenomenon friendly’ approaches to (cinematic) knowledge and truth. This is a complicated argument to make, particularly in relation to issues of authorship, but it’s potentially a fruitful one.

SOURCES ENCOUNTERED

I. Books:

“Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won’t Go Away” (2014) by Rebecca Goldstein (source: http://www.amazon.com/Plato-Googleplex-Philosophy-Wont-Away/dp/0307378195)

“Philosophy for Life: And other dangerous situations” (2012) by Jules Evans (source: http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Life-other-dangerous-situations-ebook/dp/B007Q27YVS/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=)

“Plato: Complete Works” edited by John M. Cooper and D. S. Hutchinson (source: http://www.amazon.com/Plato-Complete-Works/dp/0872203492)

II. Videos:

III. Articles:

“EXODUS: GODS AND KINGS and the myth of authenticity” by Kristin Thompson (source: http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2015/01/11/exodus-gods-and-kings-and-the-myth-of-authenticity/)

“Slavoj Žižek on the Charlie Hebdo massacre: Are the worst really full of passionate intensity?” by Slavoj Zizek (source: http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2015/01/slavoj-i-ek-charlie-hebdo-massacre-are-worst-really-full-passionate-intensity)

IV. Audio:

“RS125 — The Quantified Self” via The Rationally Speaking Podcast (source: http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs125-the-quantified-self.html)

V. Reference:

“Rationalism vs. Empiricism” via the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/)

VI. Writing and Research:

“Taking Notes On Philosophical Texts” by Peter Suber (source: http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/notes.htm)

“Why Keep a Journal?” by Bill Vallicella (source: http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/10/why-keep-a-journal.html)

“PoW: The journal, from Marcus Aurelius to Bridget Jones” via Philosophy for Life blog (source: http://philosophyforlife.org/pow-the-journal-from-marcus-aurelius-to-bridget-jones/)