Группа авторов
Список книг автора Группа авторовScott Adams and Philosophy
As cartoonist, author, public speaker, blogger, and periscoper, Scott Adams has had best-sellers in several different fields: his Dilbert cartoons, his meditations on the philosophy of Dilbert, his works on how to achieve success in business and all other areas of life, his two remarkable books on religion, and now his controversial work on political persuasion.<br><br> Adams’s two most recent best-sellers are <i>How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life</i> (2014) and <i>Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don’t Matter</i> (2017). Adams predicted Donald Trump’s election victory (on August 13th 2016) and has explained then and more recently how Trump operates as a Master Persuader, using “weapons-grade” persuasive techniques to defeat his opponents and often to stay several moves ahead of them.<br><br> Adams has provocative ideas in many areas, for example his outrageous claim that 30 percent of the population have absolutely no sense of humor, and take their cue from conventional opinion in deciding whether something is a joke, since they have no way of deciding this for themselves.<br><br> In <i>Scott Adams and Philosophy</i>, an elite cadre of people who think for a living put Scott Adams’s ideas under scrutiny. Every aspect of Adams’s fascinating and infuriating system of ideas is explained and tested. <br><br>Among the key topics:<ul>
<li>Does humor inform us about reality?
<li>Do religious extremists know something the rest of us don’t?
<li>What are facts and how can they not matter?
<li>What happens when confirmation bias meets cognitive dissonance?
<li>How can we tell whether President Trump is a genius or just dumb-lucky?
<li>Does the Dilbert philosophy discourage the struggle for better workplace conditions?
<li>How sound is Adams’s claim that “systems” thinking beats goal-directed thinking?
<li>Does Dilbert exhibit a Nietzschean or a Kierkegaardian sense of life? Or is it Sisyphian in Camus’s sense?
<li>Can truth be over-rated?
<li>“The political side that is out of power is the side that hallucinates the most.”
<li>If there’s a serious chance we’re living in a<i> Matri</i>x-type simulation, how should we change our behavior?
<li>Are most public policy issues just too complex and technical for most people to have an opinion about?
<li>In politics, says Adams, it’s as if different people watch the same movie at the same time, some thinking it’s a romantic comedy and others thinking it’s a horror picture. How is that possible?
<li>Does logic play any part in persuasion?</li></ul>
Iron Man vs. Captain America and Philosophy
Iron Man or Captain America? Which one is superior—as a hero, as a role model, or as a personification of American virtue? Philosophers who take different sides come together in <i>Iron Man versus Captain America</i> to debate these issues and arrive at a deeper understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of these iconic characters. The discussion ranges over politics, religion, ethics, psychology, and metaphysics.<br><br> John Altmann argues that Captain America’s thoughtful patriotism, is superior to Iron Man’s individualist-cosmopolitanism. Matthew William Brake also votes for Cap, maintaining that it’s his ability to believe in the impossible that makes him a hero, and in the end, he is vindicated.<br><br> Cole Bowman investigates the nature of friendship within the Avengers team, focusing predominantly on the political and social implications of each side of the Civil War as the Avengers are forced to choose between Stark and Rogers. According to Derrida’s <i>Politics of Friendship</i>, Cap is the better friend, but that doesn’t make him the winner!<br><br> Aron Ericson’s chapter tracks our heroes’ journeys in the movies, culminating with <i>Civil War</i>, where the original attitudes of Tony (trusts only himself) and Steve (trusts “the system”) are inverted.<br><br> Corey Horn’s chapter focuses on one of the many tensions between the sides of Iron Man and Captain America—the side of Security (Iron Man) versus Liberty (Cap). But Maxwell Henderson contends that if we dig deeper into the true heart of the Marvel Civil War, it isn’t really about security or privacy but more about utilitarianism—what’s best for everybody. Henderson explains why Iron Man was wrong about what was best for everybody and discloses what the philosopher Derek Parfit has to say about evaluating society from this perspective. Daniel Malloy explains that while both Captain America and Iron Man have faced setbacks, only Iron Man has failed at being a hero—and that makes him the better hero! In his other chapter, Malloy shows that where Iron Man trusts technology and systems, Captain America trusts people. Jacob Thomas May explores loss from the two heroes’ points of view and explains why the more tragic losses suffered by Stark clearly make him the better hero and the better person.<br><br> Louis Melancon unpacks how Captain America and Iron Man each embodies key facets of America attempts to wage wars: through attrition and the prophylactic of technology; neither satisfactorily resolves conflict and the cycle of violence continues. Clara Nisley tests Captain America and Iron Man’s moral obligations to the Avengers and their shared relationship, establishing Captain America’s associative obligations that do not extend to the arbitration and protection of humans that Iron Man advocates.<br><br> Fernando Pagnoni Berns considers that while Iron Man is too much attached to his time (and the thinking that comes with it), Captain America embraces-historical values, and thinks that there are such things as intrinsic human dignity and rights—an ethical imperative. Christophe Porot claims that the true difference between Captain America and Iron Man stems from the different ways they extend their minds. Cap extends his mind socially while Stark extends his through technology. Heidi Samuelson argues that the true American spirit isn't standing up to bullies, but comes out of the self-interested traditions of liberal capitalism, which is why billionaire, former-arms-industry-giant Tony Stark is ultimately a more appropriate American symbol than Steve Rogers. By contrast, Jeffrey Ewing shows that the core of <i>Captain America: Civil War</i> centers on the challenge superpowers impose on state sovereignty (and the monopoly of coercion it implies).<br><br> Nicol Smith finds that Cap and Shell-Head’s clash during the <i>Civil War</i> does not necessarily boil down to the issue of freedom vs. regulation but rather stems from the likelihood that both these iconic heroes are political and ideological wannabe supreme rules or “Leviathans.” Craig Van Pelt reconstructs a debate between Captain America and Iron Man about whether robots can ever have objective moral values, because human bias may influence the design and programming.<br><br> James Holt looks into the nature of God within Captain America’s world and how much this draws on the “previous life” of Captain Steve Rogers. Holt’s inquiry focuses on the God of Moses in the burning bush, as contrasted with David Hume’s understanding of religion. Gerald Browning examines our two heroes in a comparison with the Greek gods Hephaestus and Hercules. Christopher Ketcham supposes that, with the yellow bustard wreaking havoc on Earth, God asks Thomas Aquinas to use his logical process from <i>Summa Theologica</i> to figure which one of the two superheroes would be better at fixing an economic meltdown, and which one would be better at preventing a war.<br><br> Rob Luzecky and Charlene Elsby argue that gods cannot be heroes, and therefore that the god-like members of the Avengers (Iron Man, with a god’s intelligence; Thor, with a god’s strength, and the Hulk, with a god’s wrath) are not true heroes in the same sense as Captain America. Cap is like Albert Camus’s Sisyphus, heroic in the way that he rallies against abstract entities like the gods and the government.
Jimi Hendrix and Philosophy
Growing out of the Jimi Hendrix Electric Guitar Festivals of the 1990s, the continually expanding Experience Hendrix Tour is now an annual nationwide event, in which leading rock and blues artists pay tribute to Hendrix, with its most ambitious itinerary and biggest impact yet in Spring 2017.
2017 is the fiftieth anniversary of Hendrix’s breakthrough as an intercontinental popular artist, and of the release of the first album of the Jim Hendrix Experience, <i>Are You Experienced?</i>
The Jimi Hendrix live performance CD <i>Machine Gun: The Fillmore East First Show</i> (recorded 12/31/69) was released in September 2016, received rave reviews, and reached 66 in the Billboard 200, with subsequent solid sales.
The Philosophy of Umberto Eco
The Philosophy of Umberto Eco stands out in the Library of Living Philosophers series as the volume on the most interdisciplinary scholar hitherto and probably the most widely translated. The Italian philosopher’s name and works are well known in the humanities, both his philosophical and literary works being translated into fifteen or more languages. Eco is a founder of modern semiotics and widely known for his work in the philosophy of language and aesthetics. He is also a leading figure in the emergence of postmodern literature, and is associated with cultural and mass communication studies. His writings cover topics such as advertising, television, and children’s literature as well as philosophical questions bearing on truth, reality, cognition, language, and literature. The critical essays in this volume cover the full range of this output. This book has wide appeal not only because of its interdisciplinary nature but also because of Eco’s famous “high and low” approach, which is deeply scholarly in conception and very accessible in outcome. The short essay “Why Philosophy?” included in the volume is exemplary in this regard: it will appeal to scholars for its wit and to high school students for its intelligibility.
Mr. Robot and Philosophy
Philosophers shine a light on the dark world of the hacker underground, corporate cybersecurity, and injustice in contemporary capitalist society as portrayed in the popular pessimistic techno-thriller, Mr. Robot.
Hamilton and Philosophy
This astounding smash-hit Broadway musical has broken box-office records and revitalized interest in American history, the American Revolution, and of course Hamilton himselfThe spin-off book of the play Hamilton: The Revolution has become a best-seller, having sold 186,393 copies in the first few months of release
Szasz Under Fire
Since he published The Myth of Mental Illness in 1961, professor of psychiatry Thomas Szasz has been the scourge of the psychiatric establishment. In dozens of books and articles, he has argued passionately and knowledgeably against compulsory commitment of the mentally ill, against the war on drugs, against the insanity defense in criminal trials, against the «diseasing» of voluntary humanpractices such as addiction and homosexual behavior, against the drugging of schoolchildren with Ritalin, and for the right to suicide. Most controversial of all has been his denial that «mental illness» is a literal disease, treatable by medical practitioners.In Szasz Under Fire, psychologists, psychiatrists, and other leading experts who disagree with Szasz on specific issues explain the reasons, with no holds barred, and Szasz replies cogently and pungently to each of them. Topics debated include the nature of mental illness, the right to suicide, the insanity defense, the use and abuse of drugs, and the responsibilities of psychiatrists and therapists. These exchanges are preceded by Szasz's autobiography and followed by a bibliography of his works.
Confucius Now
Written by the most important scholars in contemporary Confucian studies, these approachable essays focus on the relevance of Confucius’s ideas to modern living, with special attention given to the Analects, his seminal text. Topics covered include tradition and creativity, grief and mourning, the doctrine of correcting names, Confucian kungfu, and moral cultivation.
More 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?