There is an old philosophical legend, to make philosophy a way of life. However, this legend is more often fooled. "The Unreasonable" will show you how radicals take advantage of this dupe. However, you're also likely to be unaware of this dupe.
The Free Fall of Philosophical Legends
——"The Unreasonable Man" and anti-philosophy
Text: Empty language is obvious
The more substantial the world is, the more illusory it becomes.
The emptier philosophy is, the more real it is.
But the truth cannot be satisfied,
Illusion is what attracts people.
Quoted from: The first page of "On the Improvement of Philosophy"
Barucco Spinoza (author)
"The Unreasonable Man" tells an anti-philosophical story of survivalism and an anti-anti-philosophical story in a cheerful literary and artistic way. There are many lines and names from the common sense of survivalist philosophy, such as Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Sartre. The commonly used label of "existentialism" in Chinese is a very awkward term, but it seems to fit the pompous character of this philosophy. You think it talks about existence, but its core thesis is not existence; you think it does not talk about existence, but it does talk about existence.
"The Wrong Man" talks a lot about philosophy, but it's also anti-philosophical. Perhaps in order to conform to the characteristics of anti-philosophy, or to avoid being too boring, the philosophical discussion of "The Unreasonable" almost stays at the level of citing "famous quotes". These quotes are used more to create the image of the male protagonist: the role of a philosophy professor with a survivalist stance. But the film's greater concern is in the character's actions, which constitute an anti-philosophical or anti-philosophical irony thesis: philosophy as a way of life is absurd. Or, deliberately and paranoidly promoting anti-philosophy as a way of life would be more absurd than a boring life.
Still, the tradition of narrative cinema is not lacking in absurdities, on the contrary, cinematic legends are exactly where the absurdities pervade like survival, because cinematographic legends often come close to survivalism. In order to glimpse the absurd, a plausible pivot is required. In The Unreasonable, the fulcrum of rationality is the heroine who is close to the pragmatist standpoint. The male protagonist is a philosophy professor with a survivalist [anti-]philosophical stance, who can be seen as a Heideggerian in the sense that he freely decides on sinful things. Heidegger is the most famous philosopher star of the twentieth century [one of], being flattered [admired] as a "master" by too many scholars, and criticized and ridiculed by some philosophers, which [may] just reflect The Fall of Philosophy, or Free Fall.
Like Heidegger, the hero "is always able to use words to obscure the issue under discussion" (the heroine commented on his words), "His writings are well written and lively, but only in form. Achievement, but content that does not stand up to scrutiny. His idea is very romantic, but there are too many flaws" (the heroine's mother commented on him). He felt that the book he wrote about Heidegger and fascism would not change the world, and maybe Heidegger also felt that the book he wrote about Nietzsche would not change the world. They both believe in irrational decisions, and they don't want to keep philosophy at the stage of discourse, they want their philosophy to be a way of life, they want to put it into action, and even change the world. Heidegger was drawn into the fascist movement by similar ideas, and the hero of the film murders a judge. They feel that by doing so they transcend the philosophy that remains at the stage of empty talk, and that their anti-philosophy becomes a way of life that makes the world a better place. But they all ignore that after they turn their anti-philosophy into action, what happens in reality is even more absurd. In "The Unreasonable Man", this absurdity is expressed as: due to the irrational murder of the male protagonist, it is difficult for the police to regard him as the criminal involved, but the police will determine the murderer based on the "reasonable clues" they can find, that is, the Innocent people are made criminals. The aesthetic character of the hero's murder and its actual effect are two different things.
Do they feel they are wrong? Probably not, because what they think they are doing is an aesthetic act that transcends right and wrong. Heidegger should have felt not that he was wrong, but that the possibility of reality defeated German fascism. But beyond the aesthetic interpretation, even with the romanticized purges of many supporters, Heidegger still cannot escape the taint of fascism. In the film "The Unreasonable", the hero's ending, although not in line with his hopes, is in line with his [anti] philosophy. When the heroine persuades the hero to plead guilty, the hero thinks of defending himself: "I always teach you to trust your intuition. Not everything can be controlled by reason. If it feels right, it usually That's right. That's the meaningful action I've been looking for. ... Hope is what? Hope is bullshit. You know, you have to act." Trust your intuition! What an irrational survivalist aesthetic. But, it is the heroine's intuition that the hero is doing something wrong. After that, he chose to survive and decided to murder the heroine, but failed in an accidental event. The heroine's survival, "it's not luck, it's chance, we all have to be at the mercy of chance". The male protagonist responds to his point about contingency in an accidental free fall.
The final result shows how absurd the idea of paranoid turning philosophical action into a way of life can seem. The male protagonist is obsessed with the anti-philosophy of survivalism, both in and out of the classroom. But such anti-philosophical claims are not against philosophy itself, but against philosophical positions that have been labelled abstract and rationalist, thereby reviving the seemingly lost philosophical legend that philosophy is a way of life . Philosophy should act, not just reflect and talk. The male protagonist said in his class, "It should be understood that many philosophies are just Chinese masturbation." This sentence is adapted from the words of the chief philosophical guardian of the Chinese dynasty, Karl Marx: "The relationship between philosophy and the study of the real world is like the relationship between masturbation and sex". It should be noted that the hero here is talking about "many philosophies", not philosophy itself. Similarly, Archmage Max, in uttering that famous remark, aimed at the attitudes of certain academic philosophers of his day. And this sentence of our Dharma protector is close to swearing or cursing, because if it is really like what he said, he himself should not care so much about philosophy.
The actual situation is that those curses against philosophy are aimed at some individual shoddy philosophical products, some philosophies that are considered to be negative, and some philosophical legends have been abandoned at the end. Master Max also wants to change the world, and wants to turn philosophical action into a way of life and a way of social existence. But this is just another kind of fantasy! It would also turn out ugly if it was really enforced! More powerful than Heidegger, the Archmage Max became a more world-renowned star, but also led to absurdity. The facts have already been laid out, except that our Celestial Dynasty can transform it with the essence of Tai Chi, there is no more powerful move.
Those who are cursed by anti-philosophies, obsessed with ideal world philosophy, are not really irrelevant to real world affairs. In The Unreasonable, it mocks Kant's "ideal world morality": In a truly moral world, one should never lie...in an ideal world, you cannot lie. This view is certainly not intended to be an empty phrase. In fact, this point of view is only the embodiment of the ideal of "the unity of truth, goodness and beauty". We shouldn't ignore that this point of view has emphasized that it is in the "real moral world", not in the real world. Reality is not the real moral world. In the real world, we often see the thesis of "the unity of truth, goodness and beauty", and it has been demonstrated again and again. why? Because this topic is "useful" and can create a comfortable atmosphere for your illusory life. In fact, when you think the world has become too ugly and hypocritical to bear, even survival is unbearable, there is no life worth living at all.
The kind of action-oriented anti-philosophy that is so close to real life is really just pretending to be philosophy, and it doesn't really improve the world. This anti-philosophy is only radical enough to cover up vulgar desires. What Heidegger did was to distort philosophical legends to fit the madness of secular politics. In "The Unreasonable Man", the male protagonist only uses his radical anti-philosophy to obtain his own satisfaction, and he is at ease in the irrational madness. Heidegger seems to confuse existence with existence, yet one thinks he has made existence clear. Correspondingly, the philosophy professor of "The Irrational Man" confuses intuition and feeling, creating smoke for his own irrational actions.
Anti-philosophy is not to reject philosophy entirely, but to improve philosophy in radical and less rigorous ways. However, when anti-philosophy thinks that philosophy can be sublimated, it is degenerating philosophy, making philosophical legends free fall, and shattering philosophical truth into illusory bubbles of the world. "The Unreasonable" provides such a case. Don't think that the philosophy professor in "The Unreasonable Man" is saying: Philosophy is just empty talk, completely irrelevant to life, and you can live better without philosophy. However, this philosophy professor is more like saying: Only a philosophical act can produce the most meaningful way of life. The philosophy professor portrayed in The Unreasonable is not a philosophical indifference, but a philosophical fanatic. However, we should be wary of this frenzy through The Unreasonable.
Anti-philosophy must actuate philosophy, but what has been revived in this way is a deceptive philosophical legend. Because these anti-philosophies of the twentieth century are just inciting irrationality. If conservative philosophy is a disease, anti-philosophy stems from another disease: a paranoid desire to change the world.
"The Unreasonable" is an anti-[anti]philosophical film based on Continental philosophy. Relatively speaking, "Deep Mystery" is an anti-philosophical film based on analytic philosophy. For audiences who have little interest in philosophy, such a film should be relatively boring. The scores they received were just passing grades, and "The Unreasonable" may have a slightly higher score than "Deep Mysteries" due to literary fandom. The common theme of both films is how to deal with real life in the fog of philosophy, and two very popular stars of twentieth-century philosophers: Heidegger and Wittgenstein. From the situation of the two of them, it can be seen that the philosophy of empty talk does not necessarily lead to negativity, and the philosophy of action may not necessarily be really positive, and extreme positivity is more abhorrent than negativity. A philosophical stance that looks like positive action is probably not in the spirit of philosophy, but rather a glorified mask for worldly paranoid desires. Heidegger's philosophical position may well be such an example. It is said that Wittgenstein only commented on Heidegger once, in which he said to Heidegger: You idiot, stop talking nonsense!
Even so, Heidegger is still in vogue, with a focus on philosophers as much as Einstein in science or Picasso in art. Has philosophy been unable to discern Heideggerian nonsense? This, it seems, marks the loss of (literary) philosophy.
Attached:
The Pull and Spin of Philosophical Narratives
- Between non-life and anti-philosophy
【slightly】
View more about Irrational Man reviews
