Enrico Terrone

The philosophy of film usually presupposes two main assumptions or dogmas. First, films are autonomous audiovisual structures that can be instantiated by particular screenings. Second, the cinematic experience is a surrogate of the audiovisual perception. Experimental cinema can defy these assumptions by making films that either lack an autonomous structure or do not provide spectators with an audiovisual experience that emulates ordinary perception. The paper analyzes Ugo Nespolo’s experimental films precisely as peculiar attempts to defy the two dogmas of the philosophy of film.

In recent years, increasing attention has been devoted to the underrepresentation, exclusion or outright discrimination experienced by women and members of other visible minority groups in academic philosophy. Much of this debate has focused on the state of contemporary Anglophone philosophy, which is dominated by the tradition of analytic philosophy. Moreover, there is growing interest in academia and society more generally for issues revolving around linguistic justice and linguistic discrimination (sometimes called ‘linguicism’ or ‘languagism’) (see e.g. Van Parijs 2011). Globalization and the increasing adoption of English as global linguistic vehicle or lingua franca push these issues at the forefront of much of the world’s attention. The convergence of these two trends suggests the appropriateness of an analysis of the condition of non-native speakers of English in analytic philosophy.

Moving from a cinematic reinterpretation of Borges’s Library of Babel, I attempt to provide a new answer to the old ontological question: “What kind of being is a film?”. This answer, which takes into account the coming of digital era, is developed through a comparison with Carroll’s philosophy of motion pictures. While discussing, criticizing and trying to complete his theory, I will examine the concept of a film under four different aspects: as a material object, as an ideal object, as a mental object, and as a social object. Finally, our ontology of film will be applied to clarify some traditional theoretical dualisms: i.e. film vs. reality, film vs. narration, film vs. discourse, film vs. art.

If live-action fictions are photographic representations of theatrical representations, “collapsed seeing”, according to Robert Hopkins, is the experience of directly seeing in the films the narrated events, while overriding the theatrical representation. Collapsed seeing opens the door to a paradox: on the one hand, we would experience live-action films as photographic records of narrated events, on the other hand, we know that it is impossible to access directly fictional events. The paradox can be solved if we consider these events as happening in an artefactual – and not simply a possible – world, with points of view as elements of its ontological structure.

Se dovessi scegliere un unico libro di Maurizio Ferraris da portarmi sulla proverbiale isola deserta sceglierei Una ikea di università. Lo farei per tre ragioni differenti. La prima è autobiografica: è il libro per merito – o per colpa – del quale ho finito per occuparmi di filosofia. La seconda è estetica: c’è in questo libro una felicità di scrittura che è raro trovare non solo in filosofia ma anche in letteratura; forse mi lascio condizionare da fattori idiosincratici, ma per me Una ikea è uno dei testi italiani più belli degli ultimi vent’anni. Infine c’è una terza ragione che è propriamente filosofica. Per come vedo io le cose, è in Una ikea che si compie la svolta decisiva nel percorso filosofico di Ferraris; è in questo libro – a partire dalla riflessione su natura e funzione di un peculiare oggetto sociale, l’università – che si gettano le basi delle dottrine a venire: la documentalità e il nuovo realismo. Nel mio saggio mi propongo dunque di rileggere Una ikea con il senno di poi, mostrando che i principi fondamentali della documentalità e del nuovo realismo erano già all’opera, in forma di vivide intuizioni, ben prima che queste teorie ricevessero un nome proprio e una trattazione sistematica. In particolare, è in Una ikea che Ferraris mette a punto il principio critico-metodico che da lì in poi guiderà l’intera sua ricerca: «Uno potrebbe opporre che qui si ha a che fare con una classica confusione tra ontologia e qualcosa che non è ontologia (e può essere tante altre cose: ermeneutica, filosofia della storia, psicologia delle visioni del mondo, storia delle mentalità, teoria della scienza, o al limite animismo, come ai tempi dei druidi). Come a dire che si confonde il fatto – del tutto indipendente dall’iniziativa umana – per cui c’è qualcosa, con il fatto che si possa descrivere quel qualcosa in tanti modi, e che in questa descrizione siamo relativamente liberi» (Una ikea di università: 42).

Nelson Goodman notoriously distinguished between autographic works, whose instances should be identified by taking history of production into account, and allographic works, whose instances can be identified independently of history of production. Scholars such as Jerrold Levinson, Flint Schier, and Gregory Currie have criticized Goodman’s autographic/allographic distinction arguing that all works are such that their instances should be identified by taking history of production into account. I will address this objection by exploiting David Davies’ distinction between e-instances and p-instances of a work, thereby restating the autographic/allographic distinction. Then, I will show that this way of restating this distinction leads us to effective accounts of relevant related phenomena such as forgery, plagiarism, and digital technologies. Finally, I will show the theoretical advantages of my account of the autographic/allographic distinction in comparison with an alternative account recently proposed by Jason D’Cruz and P.D. Magnus.

Social individuals are social entities having a distinctive individuality, often signaled by the use of a proper name to designate them. This article proposes an account of social individuals based on the notion of a mental file, understood as a repository of information about a single individual. First, I consider a variant of the puzzle of the ship of Theseus in which the object having problematic identity conditions is a social individual, namely, a rock band. Then, I argue that we can figure out such identity conditions by considering the mental files concerning this band. In conclusion, I outline a version of social constructionism according to which the existence of social individuals like bands depends on mental files about them.

L’articolo si focalizza sulle relazioni fra la nozione di Ferraris di documentalità e le nozioni tradizionali di causalità, intenzionalità, e normatività. Mostrerò che la nozione di documentalità, al cui centro troviamo la nozione di traccia, si basa su una spiegazione della causalità stando alla quale i documenti sono costituiti da catene causali. Stando così le cose, occorre formulare un criterio per differenziare le catene documentali da altri tipi di catene causali. Argomenterò che, riconducendo l’intenzionalità alla documentalità, Ferraris si preclude la possibilità di usare l’intenzionalità come criterio. Senza un tale criterio, però, la teoria della documentalità rischia di ritornare alla tesi di Derrida stando alla quale nulla esiste al di fuori del testo. La parte finale dell’articolo considera due strategie grazie alle quali la teoria può evitare tale rischio.

Conceiving of fictional characters as types allows us to reconcile intuitions of sameness and difference about characters such as Batman that appear in different fictional worlds. Sameness occurs at the type level while difference occurs at the token level. Yet, the claim that fictional characters are types raises three main issues. Firstly, types seem to be eternal forms whereas fictional characters seem to be the outcome of a process of creation. Secondly, the tokens of a type are concrete particulars in the actual world whereas the alleged tokens of a fictional character are concrete particulars in a fictional world. Thirdly, many fictional characters, unlike Batman, only appear in one work of fiction, and therefore one can wonder whether it does make sense to treat them as types. The main aim of this paper is to address these issues in order to defend a creationist account of fictional characters as types.

What aesthetic interest do we have in watching films? In a much debated paper, Roger Scruton argued that this interest typically comes down to the interest in the dramatic representations recorded by such films. Berys Gaut and Catharine Abell criticized Scruton’s argument by claiming that films can elicit an aesthetic interest also by virtue of their pictorial representation. In this article, we develop a different criticism of Scruton’s argument. In our view, a film can elicit an aesthetic interest that does not come down to an interest in the dramatic representation or in the pictorial representation. We will argue that this is a distinctively cinematic interest. In section I we outline Scruton’s argument. In section II we point out an interest in how the cinematic medium presents the portrayed subject as detached from the spectator’s environment. In section III, by referring to Wittgenstein’s account of the contemplation from outside, we contend that the interest in films introduced in section II can count as an aesthetic interest. In section IV we argue that both documentaries and fiction films can elicit this kind of interest. In section V we compare the three different kinds of aesthetic interest that, in our view, a film can elicit. In section VI we describe the corresponding kinds of cinematic achievements

This article addresses the definition of cinema by focusing on the related ontological question of which basic category circumscribes cinematic works. According to Noël Carroll, the definition of cinema consists both of ontological conditions that treat the moving image as a type and of other conditions that treat it as a display. But following Carroll’s ontological conditions, the digital encoding of a moving image enigmatically ends up being both a type and a token. Solving such a puzzle by clarifying the relation between the cinematic type and the digital type leads us to define the moving image in general as a type that specifies a spatiotemporal distribution of pixels

I rely on Frascolla's interpretation of the Tractatus ontology to develop an account of depiction in which a picture is conceived of as a visual structure constituted by pixels that are conceived of, in their turn, as elementary propositions. Then I argue that such an account is complementary to the considerations about «noticing aspects» in the Philosophical Investigations, to the extent that the visual structure constituted by pixels provides a design allowing the picture’s viewer to notice aspects. Finally I argue that a joint reading of the considerations about pictures in the Tractatus and in the Philosophical Investigations allows us to address some important issues in the contemporary philosophical debate about depiction