Группа авторов
Список книг автора Группа авторовMore Doctor Who and Philosophy
More Doctor Who and Philosophy is a completely new collection of chapters, additional to Doctor Who and Philosophy (2010) by the same editors. Since that first Doctor Who and Philosophy, much has happened in the Whoniverse: a new and controversial regeneration of the Doctor, multiple new companions, a few creepy new enemies of both the Doctor and planet Earth. And the show’s fiftieth anniversary! We’ve learned some astounding new things from the ever-developing story: that the Doctor’s number one rule is to lie, that he claims to have forgotten his role in the mass extermination of the Time Lords and the Daleks, that the Daleks do have a concept of divine beauty (divine hatred, of course), and that Daleks may become insane (didn’t we assume they already were?) Oh, and the cult of the Doctor keeps growing worldwide, with more cultish fans in the US, more and bigger Who conventions, more viewers of all ages, and more serious treatment by scholars from many disciplines. New questions have been raised and new questioners have come along, so there are plenty of new topics for philosophical scrutiny. Is the “impossible” girl really impossible? Is there anything wrong with an inter-species lesbian relationship (the kids weren’t quite ready for that in 1963, but no one blinks an eye in 2015)? Can it really be right for the Doctor to lie and to selectively forget? We even have two authors who have figured out how to build a TARDIS—instructions included! (Wait, there’s a catch, no . . . ?) And then there’s that old question that just won’t go away: why does the Doctor always regenerate as a male, and is that ever going to change? An added feature of this awesome new volume is that the editors have reached out to insiders of Who fandom, people who run hugely successful Who conventions, play in Who-inspired bands, and run wildly popular podcasts and websites, to share their privileged insights into why the Doctor is so philosophically deep. No more spoilers. It’s time for the truly thoughtful travelers in both time and space to rev up the TARDIS once more. . . . Allons-y, Alonzo!
The X-Files and Philosophy
In The X-Files and Philosophy, thirty-six fearless philosophers seek for the truth which is out there, in here, at least somewhere, or (as the postmodernists claim) nowhere. One big issue is whether the weird and unexplained happenings, including the existence of entities unknown to traditional science, might really exist. And if they did, what would be the proper way to behave towards them? Some of these entities seem to flout conventional laws of nature—but perhaps we need to allow for different, as yet undiscovered, laws. If such fabulous entities really exist, what do we owe them? And if they don’t exist, why do we imagine they do? In The X-Files, regular science is represented by Scully and usually turns out to be wrong, while open-minded credulity or pseudoscience is represented by Mulder and usually turns out to be right, or at least somehow on the right track. Scully demands objective, repeatable evidence, and she usually gets it, with Mulder’s help, in astounding and unwelcome ways. What lessons should we take from the finding of The X-Files that respectable science is nearly always wrong and outrageous speculative imagination nearly always right?
Deadpool and Philosophy
Deadpool is the super-anti-hero who knows he's in a comic book. His unique situation and blood-stained history give rise to many philosophical puzzles. A group of philosophical Deadpool fans delve into these puzzles in Deadpool and Philosophy. For instance, if you know that someone is writing the script of your life, can you really be a hero?Is Deadpool really Wade Wilson, or did Wilson have his identity stolen by the monster who is now Deadpool? Are his actions predetermined by the writers, or does he trick the writers into scripting his choices? And what happens when Deadpool breaks into the real world to kill the writers? What kind of existence do literary characters have? How can we call him a moral agent for good when he still commits murder left and right and then left again and then right? Since Deadpool gets paid for his good deeds, can they be truly heroic? And which of the many Deadpool personalities are the real Deadpool? And of course, why does Deadpool love to annoy Wolverine so much?Deadpool challenges us to think outside the box. Deadpool and Philosophy shows us the profound implications of this most contradictory and perplexing comic book character.
Peanuts and Philosophy
In Peanuts and Philosophy, twenty philosophers, from a diverse range of perspectives, look at different aspects of the Peanuts canon. How can the thoughts of children, who have yet to become grown-up, help us to become more grown up ourselves? Do we get good results from believing in something like the Great Pumpkin, even though we’re disappointed every time? What can Linus’s reactions to the leukemia of his friend Janice tell us about the stages of grief? Why don’t we settle what’s right and what’s wrong by the simple method of asking Lucy? Is true happiness attainable without a warm puppy? Do some people’s kites have a natural affinity for trees? Is Sally an anarchist, a nihilist, or just a contrarian? Does Linus’s reliance on his blanket help him or hurt him? Is Charlie Brown’s philosophy of life pathetic or inspirational?Other topics include: how the way children think carries general lessons about transcending our limitations; the Utopian quest as illustrated by Charlie’s devotion to the Little Red-Haired Girl; Snoopy’s Red Baron and history as selective memory; the Head Beagle as Big Brother. And, as we would expect, Lucy’s repeated cruel removal of Charlie's football has several philosophical applications.
David Bowie and Philosophy
Among the topics explored in David Bowie and Philosophy are the nature of Bowie as an institution; Bowie’s work in many platforms, including movies and TV; Bowie’s spanning of low and high art, and his relation to Warhol; the influence of Buddhism and Kabuki theater; the recurring theme of Bowie as a space alien, including “Space Oddity” and The Man Who Fell to Earth; the dystopian element in Bowie’s thinking, displayed in “1984” and the album Outside; the role of fashion in Bowie’s creativity; personal identity as preserved over various divergent personae; the aesthetics of theatrical rock and glam rock; Bowie’s public identification with bisexuality and his influence within the LGBTQ community.Pervasive themes in Bowie’s output include change, time, apocalypse, dancing, mind-body dualism, and spirituality. In the dualistic universe that undergirds his lyrics, body consistently wins over mind, but body is nevertheless on the hook of moral responsibility. There is thus an inherent tension: the overwhelming desires of bodily drives versus the repressive institutions such as church and the omnipresent “They” who would have us do otherwise than our body want. The emergent paradox in Bowie is that for all his alleged sexual indulgences, in the end mind trumps body.
Red Rising and Philosophy
Red Rising and Philosophy has gathered together a crew of the wisest Helldivers philosophy can offer. Could humanity's love of physical enhancements cause its extinction? Do people doom humanity by trying to all be the same? Can a person love someone, while at the same time wanting that person destroyed? Is equality always the best principle on which to organize society? What is evil, and how does it exist in contemporary life? Does one remain the same person, even after changing every physical aspect of one's body? Is it moral to sell oneself into slavery, whether it’s through sex or manual labor? Is it ethical to sell one's children into slavery, on the promise that their children will live in peace and tranquility? These questions and more are what make Brown’s Red Rising trilogy such an impactful story. Brown pulls no punches, and philosophy works best in such an environment. Red Rising and Philosophy is not for the timid or the faint at heart. It’s not The Passage, since no one will die from reading it, but reading it could be a life-changing experience.
Orphan Black and Philosophy
In Orphan Black, several apparently unconnected women discover that they are exact physical doubles, that there are more of them out there, that they are all illegally produced clones, and that someone is having them killed. They find themselves in the midst of a secret and violent struggle between a fundamentalist religious group, a fanatical cult of superhuman biological enhancement, a clandestine department of the military, and a giant biotech corporation. Law enforcement is powerless and easily manipulated by these sinister forces. The clones are forced to form their own Clone Club, led by the resourceful Sarah Manning, to defend themselves against their numerous enemies and to find out exactly where they came from and why. Orphan Black continually raises philosophical issues, as well as ethical and policy questions deserving philosophical analysis. What makes a person a unique individual? Why is it so important for us to know where we came from? Should we have a say in whether a clone is made of us? Is it immoral to generate clones with built-in health problems or personality defects — and if so, does that mean that producers of clones must practice eugenic selection? What light does the behavior of members of the Clone Club shed on the nature-nurture debate? Is it relevant that most are heterosexual, one is a lesbian, and one is a transgendered male?This TV show shows us problems of biotechnology which will soon be vital everyday issues. But what kind of a future faces us when human clones are commonplace? Will groups of human clones have a tight bond of solidarity making them a threat to democracy? If the world is going to be taken over by an evil conspiracy, would it better be a scientific cult like Neolution or a religious cult like the Prolethians? Should biotech corporations be able to own the copyright on human DNA sequences? What rules of morality apply when you can’t trust the police and powerful groups are ready to murder you?
Batman, Superman, and Philosophy
Batman or Superman? Which of these heroic figures is morally superior? Which is more dramatically effective? Which is more democratic? Which shows us the better way to fight crime? Who is a morally better person? Whose actions lead to the better outcomes?Superman vs. Batman and Philosophy tries to decide “for” and “against” these two superheroes by comparing their contrasting approaches to a wide range of issues. Twenty-six philosophers evaluate Superman vs. Batman in order to decide which of them “wins” by various different criteria. Some of the writers say that Superman wins, others say Batman, and others give the result as a tie.Since both Batman, the megalomaniacal industrialist, and Superman, the darling of the media, sometimes operate outside the law, which of them makes the better vigilante—and how do they compare with Robin Hood, the anonymous donor, the Ninja, and the KKK? Which of them comes out better in terms of evolutionary biology? Which of the heroes works more effectively to resist oppression? Does Superman or Batman function better as a force for embodied intelligence? Who does more to really uphold the law? Which one is better for the environment? Which of these two supernormal guys makes a better model and inspiring myth to define our culture and our society?Is Batman or Superman the more admirable person? Who conforms more closely to Nietzsche’s Übermensch? Which one makes the more rational choices? Who makes the better god? Who is more self-sacrificing in pursuit of other people’s welfare? Who goes beyond the call of duty? Which one does better at defining himself by resolving his internal conflicts? Whose explicit code of morality is superior? Which superhero gives us more satisfying dramatic conflict? (And why does a battle between the two make such a compelling drama?)Which of our two candidates comes closer to Christ? Which has the sounder psychological health? Whose overall consequences are better for the world? Which one more perfectly exemplifies C.S. Lewis’s concept of chivalry? What’s the deeper reason Batman is so successful in videogames whereas Superman isn’t? What are the advantages and disadvantages of having the two extraordinary heroes work together? Is either superhero logically or metaphysically possible? How can each of them be diagnosed as psychotic? How do they compare in masking their real identity? Whose motives are more worthy? Which one is more self-aware?Superman vs. Batman and Philosophy comes out at the same time as the movie Batman v Superman. The book cannot discuss what goes on in the movie, yet it also can’t avoid doing so, since by sheer probability, many of the controversial issues between the two superheroes will be the same in both. The book will therefore naturally fit in with the numerous raging controversies that the movie unleashes.
Louis C.K. and Philosophy
Charlie Rose has called Louis C.K. “the philosopher-king of comedy,” and many have detected philosophical profundity in Louis’s comedy, some of which has been watched tens of millions of times on YouTube and elsewhere. Louis C.K. and Philosophy is designed to help Louis’s fans connect the dots between his pronouncements and living philosophical themes.Twenty-five philosophers examine the wisdom of Louis C.K. from a variety of philosophical perspectives. The chapters draw upon C.K.’s standup comedy, the show Louie, and C.K.’s other writings. There is no attempt to fit Louis into one philosophical school; instead the authors bring out the diverse aspects of the thought of Louis C.K.One writer looks at the different meanings of C.K.’s statement, “You’re gonna be dead way longer than you were alive.” Another explores how Louis knows when he’s awake and when he’s dreaming, taking a few tips from Descartes. One chapter shows the affinity of C.K.’s “sick of living this bullshit life” with Kierkegaard’s “sickness unto death.” Another pursues Louis’s thought that we may by our lack of moral concern “live a really evil life without thinking about it." C.K.'s religion is «apathetic agnostic,» conveyed in his thought experiment that God began work in 1982.
Hannibal Lecter and Philosophy
Sixteen philosophers come at Hannibal the way he comes at his victims—from unexpected angles and with plenty of surprises thrown in. Hannibal is a revolting monster, and yet a monster with whom we identify because of his intelligence, artistry, and personal magnetism. The chapters in this book pose many questions—and offer intriguing answers—about the enigma of Hannibal Lecter. What does the the relationship between Hannibal and those who know him—particularly FBI investigator Will Graham—tell us about the nature of friendship and Hannibal’s capacity for friendship? Does Hannibal confer benefits on society by eliminating people who don’t live up to his high aesthetic standards? Can upsetting experiences in early childhood turn you into a serial killer? Why are we enthralled by someone who exercises god-like control over situations and people? Does it make any difference morally that a killer eats his victims? Can a murder be a work of art? Several chapters look at the mind of this accomplished killer, psychiatrist, and gourmet cook. Is he a sociopath or a psychopath, or are these the same: Is he lacking in empathy: Apparently not, since he has a quick understanding of what other people think and feel. Maybe what he lacks is a conscience.