There are analogies between the characteristics of Early Christianity and independent cinema. The Early Christian narratives have been adapted or subverted in order to serve a different function in the later context of the film and worldview of its creator(s). There is some sort of line we can trace, moving from perspective to perspective, but essentially we end up with Nietzsche's philosophy in 9 big pieces and 296 smaller fragments. Early Christian narrative production has created unique story structures, themes and protagonists that transcend time and ideology, and continue to serve a function in cinematic narrative production. Beyond Good and Evil is Nietzsche's perspectivism in practice: we can read every aphorism as one different perspective from which to look at Nietzsche's philosophy. The sociological concepts of anomie and deviance, the anthropological concept of peripheral religious groups and the cognitive/sociopolitical theories of Modes of Religiosity, provide useful insights when examining the selected narrative producing activities. Through-out the thesis I shall be looking to display the following: -That there are distinct narrative structures and themes particular to the selected Early Christian texts. So let us for once be more cautious, let us be ‘unphilosophical”: let us say that in all willing there is firstly a plurality of sensations, namely, the sensation of the condition ‘AWAY FROM WHICH we go,’ the sensation of the condition ‘TOWARDS WHICH we go,’ the sensation of this ‘FROM’ and ‘TOWARDS’ itself, and then besides, an accompanying muscular sensation, which, even without our putting in motion ‘arms and legs,’ commences its action by force of habit, directly we ‘will’ anything.For this study I have selected three independent films of the late 20th and early 21st Century in which the narrative structures, character types and symbolic imagery of three Early Christian (1st to 5th Century) texts and legends can be shown to appear. Willing-seems to me to be above all something COMPLICATED, something that is a unity only in name-and it is precisely in a name that popular prejudice lurks, which has got the mastery over the inadequate precautions of philosophers in all ages. But it again and again seems to me that in this case Schopenhauer also only did what philosophers are in the habit of doing-he seems to have adopted a POPULAR PREJUDICE and exaggerated it. Nietzsche found our understanding of good and evil to be flawed, showing here that what we value severely influences what we would, or could, consider an evil action. Philosophers are accustomed to speak of the will as though it were the best-known thing in the world indeed, Schopenhauer has given us to understand that the will alone is really known to us, absolutely and completely known, without deduction or addition.
0 kommentar(er)
