I went to see Woody Allen’s new film yesterday, about a homicidal philosophy professor. The story itself was paper thin, as well as absurd, and the dialogue clunking and cliched, with none of the usual Woody Allen wit and charm. But what really struck me was the low level of the philosophy in the film. Woody has been preoccupied with philosophy for his entire career, so you might think he had made a study of it. But to call the philosophy in this film sophomoric would be insulting to sophomores. Mainly confined to superficial readings of existentialism, it bore no relation to philosophy as it is taught in universities; the one reference to the “analytic tradition” was pathetically ignorant. The supposedly brilliant professor came across as a complete nincompoop. You would think Woody might bone up a bit on philosophy if he is going to make a film about a philosophy professor, but so such thing. What has he been reading all these years?

What a pity the neanderthals went extinct!  The world would be a very different place with them and us in it. Would we be at war with them or in harmony? Would we have enslaved them? It would be fascinating to see another version of human nature, possibly superior to the Sapiens version. Given that we interbred with them, would there be a lot of intermarriage now? What would their culture be like? I suspect that a genetic mixture of the two species would have produced a superior hybrid. But we will never know.

“Mr. Oover’s moral tone, and his sense of chivalry, were of the American kind: far higher than ours, even, and far better expressed. Whereas the English guests of the Junta, when they heard the tale of Nellie O’Mora, would merely murmur ‘Poor girl!’ or ‘What a shame!’ Mr. Oover said in a tone of quiet authority that compelled Greddon’s ear ‘Duke, I hope I am not incognisant of the laws that govern the relations of guest and host. But, Duke, I aver deliberately that the founder of this fine old club, at which you are so splendidly entertaining me to-night, was an unmitigated scoundrel. I say he was not a white man.’” Zuleika Dobson, 125-6.

Such is the deadpan of Max’s satire here that you might not have noticed the moral stupidity of Mr. Oover till that final utterance of his, which exposes his utter fatuity (not to speak of his pomposity). Notice how eager he is to condemn someone he foolishly blames, rather than sympathize with poor Nellie; but also note the ridiculous use of “Duke” as a term of ostensible respect. Max knows how to skewer a man with his own blade. And is not the type still with us?

Now that same-sex marriage is legal in these United States, what about the rights of the bisexual? He or she is only allowed to marry one person at a time, thus restricting his or her expression of sexual orientation within marriage. Such a person may not believe in sex outside marriage, so that our laws prohibit the bisexual from a fulfilled sexual and romantic life. Is there not a case here for legalizing marriage to two people for this special case?