Philosophy@Utah State

Home » Uncategorized » Photography and the metaphysics of presence

Photography and the metaphysics of presence

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 108 other followers

Old Main, USU


You need a Philosophy T-shirt! For more information, please click here.


* Interested in presenting a paper at an UNDERGRADUATE PHILOSOPHY CONFERENCE or publishing in an UNDERGRADUATE PHILOSOPHY JOURNAL? You should consider it! To see what options are available, both in state and out of state, click here.


• Is the world eternal? YES
• Do humans have contra-causal free will (i.e., can humans do otherwise)? NO
• Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? YES
• Do humans have souls? YES
• Are there natural rights? YES
• Is it morally permissible to eat meat? NO
• Is the unexamined life worth living? NO
• Is truth subjectivity? YES
• Is virtue necessary for happiness? YES
• Can a computer have a mind? YES
• Can humans know reality as it is in itself? YES
• Is hell other people? YES
• Can art be created accidentally? NO
• Can we change the past? NO
• Are numbers real? NO
• Is it always better to know the truth? YES

Blog Stats

  • 196,879 hits

Here is an article that makes an interesting connection between photography and the metaphysics of presence.  While the author becoming ‘steaming mad’ over people taking pictures seemed a little much, I think he is on to something concerning the more philosophical point – that photography is technological thinking par excellence, it seeks to master (capture) a moment and space in time, to control it and preserve it.  As such, it involves an unnatural removal of oneself from the basic temporality of  ‘being-in-the-world’.  

As the father of young children who sees too many parents raise their kids through a viewfinder (and I do get annoyed with it), I am glad to now have a more substantial philosophical view to reflect on as I quietly judge them for their foolishness!


1 Comment

  1. source says:

    My first reaction to the article was that the author is a little presumptuous in deciding what other people want and feel. His daughter went on a pilgrimage and “on the whole, it seemed to her, everybody else wanted to take photographs.” To him, his fellow parishioners “[seem] to be saying, what would be the point” of this sacrament without photographs, since photographs “turn sacraments that they could no longer experience or understand as such into . . . precious memories.”

    I’d agree that heavy photography isn’t necessary to make an event significant but I don’t know if photography is an attempt to restore significance to events. To accuse photographers of technological thinking, you should know what they’re thinking, and that’s very hard to do.

    It seems to me that if you can enjoy a higher meaning on your pilgrimage, you shouldn’t judge too harshly those who seem to be there just for the pictures. They may seem to love sight and sound above meaning, but maybe they do understand the meaning. Maybe they just hope they can preserve the fleeting meaning.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: