Yea you're right, Tampopo isn't quaint. It deals with the most philosophically piercing questions known to man!

P.S: I know that you're looking for the most philosophical movies, but I also know you're looking for satisfying philosophical movies. When I tried to think of a satisfying philosophical movie to suggest, all the ubiquitous candidates fell away and Tampopo jumped out at me as the most memorable. As a film with such humble philosophical aims, it's able to achieve masterful delivery.

A woman sets out to learn to cook the perfect bowl of ramen noodles...

Have you ever seen it?

It fits into my narrow logical positivist view on life. — Question

or, alternatively, shows that you don't know what 'logical positivism' means.

This sounds fantastic and I will bump it up in the watching queue. Thanks!

Remember to let me know what you think of it!

Inception, Edge of Tomorrow, Pandorum, Interstellar

Pandorum is very under-rated! (even though the other movies are better cause hollywood budget chicanery)

I'm not sure if it's philosophical or psychological. Both?

Any movie that makes you think might be fit for the philosophical category. It makes commentary on human nature and evolution for sure. It's not extremely philosophical (indeed it's a psychological story) but I think it is satisfactorily so.

Maybe I missed the memo; but, does anyone else think 2001 is philosophical? I mean, Solaris was already mentioned; but, not 2001?

If you check any clip of 2001 in youtube, people are amazed in the comments section about how modern CGI for special effects pales over what Kubrick created.

Of course, it was hugely philosophical - but what I'm not getting is any relationship to 'logical positivism'.

I mean, the movie opens with the theme of Also Sprach Zarathustra by Strauss.

Anyway, where have I gone wrong in my interpretation of logical positivism?

where have I gone wrong in my interpretation of logical positivism? — Question

'Logical positivism' is associated with a book called Language Truth and Logic, published in 1936 by A J Ayer, and still on the curriculum in many philosophy departments. It's basic argument is that in order for any proposition to be meaningful, it must be able to be validated with reference to some actual state of affairs. Therefore most or all metaphysics is simply nonsensical, and ethical discourse is likewise the expression of feeling, not the statement of anything that could be true or false.

It's hard to see how that relates to 2001: A Space Odyssey which would have to be considered one of the most metaphysical movies ever made!

De gustibus non est disputandum.

It's not a question of taste.

My question wasn't sarcastic when I asked if the movie was sarcastic. It seemed they were parodying the idea of Japanese mastery by applying it to a bowl of noodles. Irony, sarcasm, and parody often gets lost in translation with foreign flicks, so I was really asking if I was missing something.

Maybe I missed the memo; but, does anyone else think 2001 is philosophical? — Question

I did send out a memo on that. Maybe it was eaten by a virus and transformed into a command to launch a nuclear strike on Sweden. Hope not.

Arthur C Clarke's story is somewhat dimmed by Kubrick's movie-making grandeur. Just watch it and don't try super hard to figure it out.

It's been said that one thing that Kubrick introduced in the film, which doesn't fit well with the theme of technological progress that Q talked about, was the theme of humans' losing control of their technology, symbolized by the floating pen, and then played out for real with HAL.

Oh! Heh, I thought you thought my suggestion itself was sarcastic!

To be honest I'm not quite sure if sarcasm is the right word for this scene. This movie definitely has people taking themselves far too seriously, but it's hard to tell how far out it is by Japanese standards.

I looked into japan and sarcasm, and it turns out that it's harder to pull off because unless you're the social equal or better, then being sarcastic can be considered rude.

That said, in the scene I linked, I'm almost positive that he apologizes to the pork completely un-ironically and un-sarcastically! (tis a serious metaphor for love me thinks).

Maybe I missed the memo; but, does anyone else think 2001 is philosophical? I mean, Solaris was already mentioned; but, not 2001?

If you check any clip of 2001 in youtube, people are amazed in the comments section about how modern CGI for special effects pales over what Kubrick created. — Question

It is very philosophical. And also very telling of the age before the energy crisis and the 70's when our thoughts on the near future started to change from to something darker.

Above all, Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrik truly wanted to portray a realistic reality. This is clear when you watch this interview just before the film's opening night. Clarke tells that their aim was to give "a mature treatment of the theme of space exploration". Not only was the aim of the film to portray the possible, but also the probable, as realistic as possible. If you listen to Clarke, you can understand just how philosophical this movie was. If you find 2001 interesting, the interview given back then is very interesting to watch (here only part 1).



In a way, the most closest modern counterpart of the 2001 scifi-movie would be Interstellar, which clearly tells how pessimistic we are of our own future now. That there just happens to be found a tucked away secret NASA capable of creating the most outstanding spaceships in a world where space flight is treated as a hoax might not be realistic, but the film has tried to get the physics correct. And here both films share a common ground of trying to portray something realistically ...with the knowledge of the time. At least when it comes to black holes. Above all, it's fascinating the comparison hear to Kip Thorne, and Arthur C. Clarke (who btw did have a degree in math and physics from King's College in London) and their thoughts on the films.



Because just have 40 years go and then look at Interstellar and judge how correct, or rather up-to-date it's science is then.

That there just happens to be found a tucked away secret NASA capable of creating the most outstanding spaceships in a world where space flight is treated as a hoax might not be realistic, but the film has tried to get the physics correct. — ssu

What do you mean by this? I'm wondering as that fact stood out the most for me during the film. There's obviously some reason to do so.

The good news is that the market (SpaceX) has provided humankind with the means to move into space affordably and efficiently.

It's sad that 2001 never happened; but understandable. However, expecting people to move to Mars within my lifetime is something to be positive about.

It's sad that 2001 never happened — Question

It's sad that there haven't been monoliths guiding the evolution of the human race so we can become space babies?

Well, it's sad in terms of mankind not exploring space and seeking a new home out in space is what I meant. Sorry, confusion there. It's inevitable, so better sooner than later?

I always knew my life was empty, but I didn't know why until I saw the opening scene of 2001. I was born to dance around a monolith, to do it's bidding, and embrace it's glorious boons.

yeah, I was kidding.

Yeah, the black monolith is just the representation of a dark movie screen from what I have heard.

Greatest jump cut in film history.

'Logical positivism' is associated with a book called Language Truth and Logic, published in 1936 by A J Ayer, and still on the curriculum in many philosophy departments. It's basic argument is that in order for any proposition to be meaningful, it must be able to be validated with reference to some actual state of affairs. Therefore most or all metaphysics is simply nonsensical, and ethical discourse is likewise the expression of feeling, not the statement of anything that could be true or false.

It's hard to see how that relates to 2001: A Space Odyssey which would have to be considered one of the most metaphysical movies ever made! — Wayfarer

I took the painstaking detail of making 2001 by Kubrick as an appeal to perfection and beauty, something strict, formalized, and true, which are many of the things logical positivism entail or value. I don't know, I just loved the movie from an aesthetic perspective.

I tend to value entertainment that is realistic, and the surrealism present in 2001 just made a huge appeal to me. Most entertainment nowadays is shit, sorry to say. That kinda leaves me with Discovery or National Geographic and some market analysis stations like Bloomberg. But, who cares, I don't even own a TV, haha.

Fair enough! Maybe it is more 'positivism', generally, which you had in mind, which is the general idea that culture tends to evolve towards scientific ways of thought.

Anyway, I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey when it came out - I would have been 15. Mind-blowing experience. It was 1968 - 'the year that changed the world'. That film was central to it. Still think it was an all-time great film.

Haha, my experience was near identical. I forget how old I was, but when I saw the movie I was glued to the screen. It was love at first sight.