We name the principles of Subjectivism, Holism, and Descriptionalism, as the "three dogmas of modern philosophy". We can see a complete structure of these dogmas in the "Wisdom-Library Theory". It is an ideal kind of library that preserves, accumulates and evolves all the wisdom of mankind within the general form of language. However, first, even such a super-subject as the "Wisdom-Library" is not exempted from the self-righteousness problem of subject. Intending the whole consistency, it falls rather deeper in the problem. Second, there is much silence wisdom that is never talk out but supporting our daily lives, although such "Wisdom-Library" is not able to deal with it. Third, individual persons maintain the "Wisdom-Library" so partially, that its whole consistency and direct development are never guaranteed.
However, 'description' does not depend on the correspondence with the reference but on the same reaction of the listeners as the reference so that we are able to accept it sufficiently as a speech-act to change the action of the listeners as well as the described reference itself. Also, although the illusion as if there were the 'whole' wisdom somewhere should be denied indeed, yet we need to consider it moderately to understand the possibility of the (mis)understanding of the listeners. Furthermore, 'subject' is not able to be the ground of all things nevertheless it is the status of the narrator as the owner of the authority and responsibility of the speech-act. And who judges an object is judged oneself about the personality of the judge-act. Then, trying to be judged ourselves by the whole world, we are able to show the whole world like mirror inversely.
Reviving the "Methodical Contract Theory", Rawls conceptualized justice with the 'Fairness Principle'. It is valuable as a lodestar to solve our problem of the present age, namely the compatibility of contradicting liberty and equality. However, we are not able to derive 'justice' from it actually because we have also the liberty not to follow it. Therefore Rawls says that we need sanctions and compulsions against 'egoist'. However, if we do something under menace, is it able to be 'justice'? Inversely, if someone is not 'egoist', namely if he or she do'justice'ignoring his or her own interest, then it is unnatural and irrational folly in fact. And there is the "Courage Principle" here that makes us true social-comrades. For this "Practical Contract", people have to gamble themselves. Nevertheless, we do it because 'justice' in our society is necessary for our own happiness.
We study here the movie grammar as the story structure, especially of Feature Movies. In the cognition of the movie, we do it at the level of the Understanding with the concepts. There are two types of the shots grammar: ‘one by one’ to explain the space and ‘one after another’ to express the time. On the other hand, movies often use the ‘counterpoint’ technique against the limit of our sensibilities. Therefore, movies have the polyphonic ‘diagogue’ as the bones, and we should analyze movies by this point of view. Thus, a movie has the eight steps structure, as well as every scene fractionally has them. By the way, movies have such diagogue not only in the screen, but also with the audience. This is the 3-dimensional grand structure of the movie. We distinguish the levels of the movie story as ‘mythos’, ‘elocution’ and ‘interpretation’. At first, we have to make up a movie story with the perfect continuities. It consists of scenes or sequences as the partial diagogue. The event becomes common to all characters and the audience links them. The character-plot throughout the whole mythos is the main. We are going to arrange the episodes along it lineally for the elocution.
Isagogics for Cinema-Aesthetics: Beauty as Argumentum ad Hominem
In this essay, we try to clear the way to the general aesthetic theory of film with the hint by Baumgarten. To review the antecedent researches, although Eisenstein and the French Nouvelle Vague challenged the theoretical artificiality in their making films, the audience rejected such works and the attempt itself to make a general aesthetic theory of cinema has abandoned now. Their defeat is caused by their way to take shots one by one according to the script words. We name it 'Articulativist Fallacy'. It lacks betweenness or movements, the most important essence for movie. In this background, there is Structuralism that analyses all things to the single function and tries to create a new mechanism by the combination. Additionally, Eisenstein and FNV were under the affection of the Hegel-Marx Dialectics; however, it is Plato who established Dialectics and the Hollywood learns it without intent. They developed the film-taking method by the multi-coverage with the huge budget as the Hollywood Griffith Style. However, his theme montage is more important. While the outside expressions are only able to mean the seeming, the various touchstone situations test the truth of the concept in the story. In addition to this Dialectics in the screen, there is another one between the screen and the audience, so we call this 'Grand T-Structure' of cinema. Here the audience is able to discover and moved by the beauty of the universal truth in the specific story. Therefore, poetical Aesthetics of cinemabeauty is determined by the fineness of the sensibilitive argumentum about the theme.
critique of art interpretation:the possibility of art-science
Do we need Art-Science that interprets art with word? Art should be by nature self-evident. However, in the face of an artwork that does not belong to us, we began to use Iconography to translate it into our culture. Such an interpretation depends on Structuralism. Although the Enlightenment believed the universality of human Reason, after the Revolution and Napoleonic hegemony we had to admit the relativistic schemes to each personality and nationality. However, as Hegelianism without the Progressivism, Iconology has divested authors of their prerogatives in interpretation and has reduced all to the Reception Theory of our culture-code. In the meantime, Freudianism developed Aristotle’s Catharsis Theory into the Repression Theory. Although Structuralist claimes artists create only what is beforehand immanent in our culture-code, Foucault thought the very culture-code is the repression for us. It hides the thing itself. Nevertheless, we can see it by chance as something aweful. It exceeds our culture-code. Art does not show “sign” of our culture-code but such “shadow” of the truth. Indeed, Bricolage manages the thing itself regardless of the original purpose in order to make a new tool; but art has no purpose. It is an activity to show the awful existence with a unique exception and it breaks the repression of the dogmatic culture-code. Interpretation of an old artwork asserts its status as science and struggles against each other; however, it is by nature not science but artistic Bricolage with word; nevertheless, gathering and examining various interpretations will rather enable us to establish Art-Science.