Examined Life

For centuries only the privileged who didn't have to toil and work, had the luxury of discussing philosophy and theorizing ideas.

About the meaning of life. There is meaning. It is Subjective. Life's meaning is different to each person. Whether it may be servitude for some (like the man in the film, forget his name), it could be the rearing of family for another, making music, or the joy of writing or film making like this director. Again even objectivity can be very subjective. There is no objective answer to the meaning of life, the goal is to find it for each one of us through awareness and then follow our calling to ensure we lead a more fulfilled and thus a happy life.

Good try Astra, maybe a better organized theme instead of haphazardly put material would prove more useful in the future.

My two cents :)

I'm surprised this movie is rated so highly. I thought any movie that tried to make you think would start at 5 and go down from there. While it's encouraging that that's not the case, it's unfortunate that this has to be the movie to hold up as an example.

There is nothing profound here. There is no coherent theme or narration to tie everything together. It is just a collection of people discussing their new-agey ideas seemingly off the top of their head. I would have much preferred a scripted lecture where every sentence was thought out in advance.

I was hoping to learn something here or at least say "hmm, that's interesting". But that didn't happen once. Maybe philosophy will always require a book to appreciate and will never lend itself to a good movie. I actually do think it is possible, this movie just doesn't deliver.

The idea of making this documentary is great. Recently, I've read an article which says that the result of the arrogance of the academic philosophy is that it's place has been taken by new age prophets, self-esteem gurus, etc. Philosophy needs to be brought back to the streets. And to do that it must start questioning all those problems which analytics have rejected (life meaning, foundations of ethics, etc.).

Considering that, the motives of this film are very clear. However, I must say that while this work is overflowed with philosophic ideas, it lacks of cinematographic creativity. Sincerely, the ideas those people transmit are so interesting that to visually limit them to the philosophers face is wrong. I think it would've been more dynamic and less tiring for the viewer if the interviews with the philosophers would've been combined with some images of what they were talking.

About the philosophers who are interviewed, I couldn't stop thinking about Plato, who says that philosophers should rule the society. Everything which they say is so coherent and it's difficult to find an objection to what they think (perhaps with the exception of Zizek, who's opinions are very controversial but without a doubt express how brilliant he is). West and Butler are very cool, and the political views of Hardt and Nussbaum are very interesting. I mean: it seems that taking a cup of coffee with anyone of this people would change your mind in some many things.

Very good the idea in general, but poor in the way that is expressed. 7 out of 10.

'Examined Life' introduces what may be a whole new sub-genre: the philosophical chat documentary. The title's an obvious allusion to Socrates' famous statement, 'The unexamined life is not worth living.' The film's eight philosophers are peripatetic, though Taylor doesn't claim this alludes to Aristotle, who, they say, walked around while lecturing. The philosopher of running, Dr. George Sheehan, liked to quote Thoreau: "Trust no thought arrived at sitting down." If that's true, maybe we'll have to distrust two of the speakers, because one is in a car and another is rowing a boat on a lake.

It's good if you can lure the public to watch a documentary film that provides a taste of what philosophical thinking is like. Unfortunately the talkers, Cornel West, Avita Ronell, Peter Singer, Kwame Anthony Appiah, Martha Nussbaum, Michael Hardt, Judith Butler, and Savoj Zizek, aren't really making philosophy as they go along, the way Wittgenstein and G.E. Moore did, as well as their followers A.J. Ayer and Gilbert Ryle. Instead, they're just summarizing some of their main ideas or repeating riffs they've done before or answering questions from Taylor as they're being filmed walking, rowing, riding, or, in the case Zizek, fidgeting around in front of some piles of rubbish at a London dump. (Taylor previously made a film about the showy, provocative Slovenian.)

While each of us asks about the meaning of life at some point or another, it's not a sure thing that philosophy is of any use, even to itself, in answering that question. Wittgenstein famously said that of what matters most to us we can say nothing. After a pungent name-dropping riff by West sitting in the back of Taylor's car, Ronell, a "deconstructionist," begins her sequence, pacing a Central Park sidewalk, with a strong dose of skepticism, not to say metaphysical and moral angst. "If you have a good conscience, then you're worthless," she opines. Disdainfully asserting that though ten minutes to speak may be fine for the others, it's ridiculous for herself, she haughtily makes a point of distinguishing between philosophy and thinking. So there's some question whether anything said by these eight people is of any use, or whether presenting them sequentially (with Cornell West injected at three points as a sort of unifying voice) makes any logical sense. But it does, because philosophers do get back to basics, and all of them are talking in one way or another about how to live.

In his 'Village Voice' review of 'Examined Life' J. Hoberman falls into the inevitable trap of rating the speakers one by one. He finds Singer smug and obvious and says his "neo-Kantian platitude" about "commitment to the common good" "stops the conversation" and illustrates that distinction between philosophy and thinking. Actually Singer's stroll down Fifth Avenue while advocating vegetarianism and suggesting it's better to donate a thousand dollars to charity than to spend it on an elegant suit seemed effective and thought-provoking to me; and Singer had the best command of everyday, unpretentious language.

Singer's position coheres with those of Nussbaum and Butler, both of whom speak of the need to act democratically. The image of a Bushian un-compassionate conservatism hovers behind their assertion of our collective obligation to provide for and protect those who are different, or poor, or handicapped. Nussbaum points out that everyone is "handicapped" in infancy and old age, so the need for help is universal. Butler explores a San Francisco second-hand clothing store with a wheelchair-bound friend, Sunaura Taylor, discussing accessibility and gender issues. All of this adds up to the need for a more liberal and humane society. Appiah adds another consideration: culture. As he walks through the international wing of a airport, en route to somewhere, he talks about growing up in a shack and having a Ghanan mother and English father and describes cosmopolitanism--and distinguishes it from cultural relativity. It's important to realize that people can live well (be good), he says, while following different values.

One may be a cosmopolite like Appiah, but it may be better to stay at home. So you might conclude from the words of Michael Hardt, co-author of the book 'Empire.' In his youth he and others went to Latin America to engage in revolution, but they were advised to go back and make their revolution here. As he rows around the lake and runs aground looking at big turtles, he may seem ineffectual. There is the danger in this medium of peppy visuals and extended sound bites that these important thinkers and writers may wind up over-simplifying or parodying themselves.

Zizek, like Jean Baudrillard, delivers provocative pronouncements that seem to defy common sense. It may simply be that while he can devastate you in the sound bites, with a kind of hit-and-run effect, he can't ever be properly understood in such small chunks. His primary point this time is that "shit" doesn't go away as we imagine, when we flush. We need to as it were "embrace" our mountains of waste, forget about living in nature, and accept being more artificial. But since he acknowledges that global warming is a real problem, why does he insist that "ecology" is the comforting new orthodoxy, like "religion" to Marx? What are we to do with this information, if it be true?

And it's hard to see what to do with Cornell West's dazzling high culture jive talk about history, jazz, blues, slavery, courage, and much else. The thing about West is that, like Zizek, you may come away only with questions, but you may also, especially if you're young, come away thinking you want to be able to talk like that and think like that and have all that stuff in your head. Somewhere out of this you may get the urge to think or act in new ways. And in that sense this philosophers' sampler will have justified its existence.

I think what makes this movie good is because of two things: first it introduces you to some contemporary great thinkers, second, as it is also the task of philosophy, makes you wonder and question some of the most important philosophical questions. This movie is not at all an extensive view of philosophy, nor any chronology of history of philosophy, it is just a movie about how thinkers would like to discuss some issues with the audience in a form of monologues.