Why read a book about Amy Schumer and philosophy? After all, Amy Schumer is primarily known as a comedian, though she is also an actor, writer, and producer. One reason is that it will be enlightening. Amy Schumer is one of a handful of contemporary comedians filling the role of public philosopher. To be clear, Amy herself does not claim to be offering wisdom. This volume contains seventeen fun-filled chapters. One author makes the case that Amy uses humor to encourage her audience to consider important questions, for example, she does this when she discusses the trial of Bill Cosby while evoking fond memories of The Cosby Show. She essentially asks her audience to consider whether they give priority to unconflicted entertainment over justice for rape victims. In another chapter, the author casts a philosophical eye toward the action-comedy film Snatched and finds that it raises questions about responsibility: Is Schumer’s character, Emily, responsible for getting kidnapped in Ecuador? Is Emily responsible for the death of one of her kidnappers? Another author asks whether Snatched can be a great comedy and still get negative reviews? What is the role of art and who determines whether a work of art is good or beautiful? What do Amy Schumer and Friedrich Nietzsche have in common? Is Amy a “sex comic” or an “issue comic”? With her typical self-deprecating comedic style, Amy makes jokes by highlighting the absurd, the illogical, and the hypocritical in gender relations, notions of masculinity and femininity, and superficial values. But the main reason to read Amy Schumer and Philosophy is that it a pretty awesome read and laughter will most definitely ensue.
2017 saw the triumphant return of the weird and haunting TV show Twin Peaks, with most of the original cast, after a gap of twenty-five years. Twin Peaks and Philosophy finally answers that puzzling question: What is Twin Peaks really about? Twin Peaks is about evil in various forms, and poses the question: What’s the worst kind of evil? Can the everyday evil of humans in a small mountain town ever be as evil as the evil of alien supernatural beings? Or is the evil of non-humans actually less threatening because it’s so strange and unaccountable? And does the influence of uncanny forces somehow excuse the crimes committed by regular folks? Some Twin Peaks characters try to confine evil by sticking to their own moral code, as in the cast of Albert Rosenfeld, who refuses to disguise his feelings and upsets everyone by his forthright honesty. Twin Peaks is about responsibility, both legal and moral. Who is really responsible for the death of Laura Palmer and other murder victims? Although Leland has been revealed as Laura’s actual killer, the show suggests that no one in town was without some responsibility. And was Leland even guilty at all, if he was not in control of his own mind or body? Twin Peaks is about the quest for self-knowledge and the dangers of that quest, as Agent Cooper keeps learning something new about himself, as well as about the troubled townspeople. The Buddhist Cooper has to confront his own shadow side, culminating in the rite of passage at the Black Lodge, at the end of Season Two. Twin Peaks is about madness, sanity, the borderline between them, and the necessity of some madness to make sense of sanity. The outwardly super-normal if somewhat eccentric Agent Dale Cooper is the inspired, deranged, and dedicated shaman who seeks the truth by coming to terms with the reality of unreason, partly through his dreams and partly through his existential encounters with giants, logs, outer space, and other unexpected sources. Cooper challenges official law enforcement’s over-reliance on science. Twin Peaks is about the imagination run wild, moving from metaphysics to pataphysics—the discipline invented by Alfred Jarry, which probes the assumption that anything can happen and discovers the laws governing events which constitute exceptions to all laws.
As RuPaul has said, this is the Golden Age of Drag—and that’s chiefly the achievement of RuPaul’s Drag Rac,/i>e, which in its eleventh year is more popular than ever, and has now become fully mainstream in its appeal. The show has an irresistible allure for folks of all persuasions and proclivities. Yet serious or philosophical discussion of its exponential success has been rare. Now at last we have RuPaul’s Drag Race and Philosophy, shining the light on all dimensions of this amazing phenomenon: theories of gender construction and identity, interpretations of RuPaul’s famous quotes and phrases, the paradoxes of reality shows, the phenomenology of the drag queen, and how the fake becomes the truly authentic. Among the thought-provoking issues examined in this path-breaking and innovative volume: ● What Should a Queen Do? Marta Sznajder looks at RuPaul’s Drag Race from the perspective of rationality. Where contestants have to eliminate each other, the prisoner’s dilemma and other well-known situations emerge. ● Reading Is Fundamental! Lucy McAdams analyzes two different, important speech acts that regularly appear on Drag Race—reading and throwing shade. ● The Values of Drag Race. Guilel Treiber observes two competing sets of values being presented in Drag Race. The more openly advertised “charisma, uniqueness, nerve, and talent,” advancing the skills of every single contender, are opposed by the fading set of “acceptance, support, solidarity, and empowerment,” which has historically been the cornerstone of the LGBTI+ community. ● The Importance of Being Fabulous. Holly Onclin challenges the preconceived notion that drag queens are mainly about female impersonation and instead proposes to understand drag queens as impersonators of celebrity. ● RuPaul Is a Better Warhol. Megan Volpert compares RuPaul and Andy Warhol in their shared pursuit of realness. ● Is Reading Someone to Filth Allowed? Rutger Birnie asks whether there are ethical restrictions on reading someone, since reads are ultimately insults and could cause harm. ● Serving Realness? Dawn Gilpin and Peter Nagy approach the concept of realness in Drag Race, to discuss the differences between realness, authenticity and the nature of being. ● Death Becomes Her. Hendrik Kempt explores the topic of death both in philosophy and in Drag Race, starting from the claim that “Philosophy is training for death.” ● We’re All Born Naked. Oliver Norman follows up on Ru’s mantra, “We are all born naked and the rest is drag.” ● Fire Werk with Me. Carolina Are looks into the fan-subcultures of Drag Race and Twin Peaks, which have come together to form a unique sub-subculture, in which members of both fan-subcultures create memes and idiosyncrasies. ● Towards a Healthier Subjectivity? Ben Glaister looks at the way Drag Race contestants adopt their drag personae almost as second selves, without finding themselves violating their other self. ● RuPaul versus Zarathustra. Julie and Alice van der Wielen ask the question, Who would win an intellectual lip-sync battle—RuPaul or Nietzsche’s Zarathustra? ● Playing with Glitter? Fernando Pagnoni and pals explore the game and play elements of Drag Race. ● The Origins of Self-Love. Anna Fennell expounds upon RuPaul’s question, “If you can’t love yourself, how in the hell you gonna love somebody else?” ● The Sublime. Sandra Ryan thinks about Kant’s concept of the sublime and explores how we find its applications in Drag Race. ● You Want to Be Anonymous? You Better Work! Alice Fox watches Drag Race through the lens of criminal law and the problem of decreasing anonymity through ubiquitous data surveillance. Drag Race can teach us how to create misleading patterns of online behavior and public presentation to render the blackbox persona useless. ● Drag and Vulnerability. Anneliese Cooper contrasts Drag Race’s demand for vulnerability and perceived authenticity with the inherent inauthenticity of creating a new persona.
The Americans, a dark, tense, action thriller with comic touches, has been hailed by many critics as currently the best show on television. The story, created by a former CIA spy, centers on two Soviet agents posing as an ordinary American couple, Philip and Elizabeth Jennings, in 1980s Washington DC. They have two teenage children who know nothing of their clandestine occupation and function as part of their cover story. The Americans and Philosophy brings together diverse philosophers who take a close look at the metaphysical and ethical aspects of the The Americans. The Jenningses believe they are living in a decadent capitalist society and draw emotional uplift from their dedication to a higher ideal. Just one step ahead of the FBI, they practice murder and seduction as instruments to further the goals of Communist subversion. This gives their lives more meaning and more excitement than those of the other people around them, and serious questions arise as to whether their lives can be truly fulfilling and ennobled. Quaint-looking 1980s culture plays a conspicuous role in The Americans, an example being the psychotherapeutic self-awareness cult known as est, which features in the story and also serves as an allegory of espionage, as est (along with ancient philosophy) asks the question, Do our secret, inner lives truly align with how we act? The gadgetry of espionage, including the poorly adapted but actually historically accurate “mail robot” of the 1980s FBI, prompt speculations about the interaction of humans with artificial intelligence. Philip and Elizabeth’s genuine horror when they find that one of their children is praying and attending church brings out the ambiguities in the popular notion of brainwashing and indoctrination. Since the Jenningses’ children enjoy a comfortable life with many opportunities, can it be true that they are immorally exploited? Knowing that all weapons of war are intended to kill and maim, can we uniquely stigmatize some weapons (such as the biological weapon called “Glanders” in Season Four) as unacceptable? All governments practice the duplicity and deception of espionage, but special problems arise when continual lying invades personal relationships. Is it true that in the modern world, devotion to the state has become a “sacred fiction,” like a religion? Lying is everywhere in The Americans, but much of the lying is very similar to everyday deception: parents often withhold from their children facts about the parents’ jobs which might cause needless anxiety, and tell their children apparently harmless fibs like saying that Santa Claus exists. The boundary between criminal lying and everyday lying is a continual irony in the script of The Americans. Can the demands of a lofty cause, even the survival of freedom or justice in the world, justify the deliberate killing of an innocent individual? Such questions continually bombard the show’s protagonists, while existentialist philosophy poses the question: Is Elizabeth truly free to quit being a spy?
Although the year 1984 is hurtling back into the distant past, Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four continues to have a huge readership and to help shape the world of 2084. Sales of Orwell’s terrifying tale have recently spiked because of current worries about alternate facts, post-truth, and fake news. 1984 and Philosophy brings together brand new, up-to-the-minute thinking by philosophers about Nineteen Eighty-Four as it relates to today’s culture, politics, and everyday life. Some of the thinking amounts to thoughtcrime, but we managed to sneak it past the agents of the Ministry of Truth, so this is a book to be read quickly before the words on the page mysteriously transform into something different. Who’s controlling our lives and are they getting even more levers to control us? Is truth objective or just made up? What did Orwell get right—and did he get some things wrong? Are social media opportunities for liberation or instruments of oppression? How can we fight back against totalitarian control? Can Big Brother compel us to love him? How does the language we use affect the way we think? Do we really need the unifying power of hate? Why did Orwell make Nineteen Eighty-Four so desperately hopeless? Can science be protected from poisonous ideology? Can we really believe two contradictory things at once? Who surveils the surveilors?
KISS is the most outrageous and yet the most enduring of rock bands, with an unparalleled, almost religious level of devotion from millions of die-hard fans. In KISS and Philosophy, professional thinkers of diverse outlooks provide much-needed insights into the motivating ideas and metaphysical foundations of the KISS take on life. According to some, the true message of KISS is self-actualization through the hard work of following your dreams. Others focus on the existential aspect of KISS thinking, drawing upon Camus and Sartre to show that KISS is preoccupied with empowering the individual to achieve self-greatness. By contrast, there is a view of KISS which identifies a “destroyer” attitude, leading some listeners to reject KISS outright, while encouraging others to become the most dedicated of followers. Yet another view sees KISS’s “letting loose” as essentially Dionysian. Some chapters gain access to KISS thinking by tracing the band’s cultural and historical impact, finding meaning in the way generations of fans make sense of KISS’s always evolving output, the changing line-up, and the archetypal characters represented by the band’s use of make-up and presentation. Other chapters look at the aesthetic quality of the band’s output, especially their most controversial album, Music from “The Elder.” Several chapters examine KISS’s orientation to bodily pleasures, notably sex, extracting the band’s philosophy of sex and love from different clues and indications. How does KISS’s unashamed indulgence relate to various pleasure-governed ethical systems throughout history? Is getting the most out of pleasure key to living the good life? And does a life of gratifying one’s body ultimately yield fulfillment? What are the limitations and hazards of a pleasure-oriented lifestyle? The biography of band members also provides material for reflection, looking at the nature of forgiveness through the lens of KISS’s notorious feuds, and determining how to reconcile the apparently conflicting accounts of some famous squabbles. The changing line-up of the band raises questions about the meaning of “KISS” and whether KISS could last forever
In his brief career Jimi Hendrix transformed rock music, established himself as the greatest guitarist of all time, and left a rich legacy of original songs and dazzling recordings. In Jimi Hendrix and Philosophy, philosophers come to terms with the experience and the phenomenon of Hendrix, uncovering some surprising implications of Hendrix’s life and work. Much of this book is concerned with the restless polarities and dualities that reveal themselves through Hendrix. His compositions display a preoccupation with the tragic nature of life, moving between the polarities of Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Idea and and Platonic philosophy. Jimi’s “guitar-being” has surprising implications for the philosophical relation between mind and body. There is in Hendrix a duality between innovation and tradition—innovation in psychedelic sonic adventures and tradition in the form of the blues. Hendrix exemplifies the interaction of technology and art, as seen in his use of feedback, varieties of noise, and backwards reel-to-reel playing. How much of the Hendrix phenomenon can be explained by the technological situation and how much by his own unique genius? Everyone knows about Hendrix’s use of feedback in the narrow sense, but feedback can also be viewed as a general phenomenon that arises in complex dynamical systems and emerges at the border of chaos and order. Although critics associate Hendrix’s lifestyle and early death with self-destructive patterns of the Sixties, his actual thoughts as revealed in his songs and writings show a more positive and constructive concern with authentic freedom. What did Hendrix mean when he spoke of “the realities” of conflict conveyed in “Machine Gun”? What is a “Voodoo Chile”? When does noise become music? These and other questions are addressed in Jimi Hendrix and Philosophy. Hendrix’s undying popularity following his death in 1970 has led to the release over the years of a large body of material which Hendrix would never have chosen to make public, raising serious questions about what we owe to the dead and how we view the construction of the artist’s public persona.
The adult-oriented science-fiction cartoon series Rick and Morty, shown on Cartoon Network as part of its late-night Adult Swim feature, is famous for its nihilistic anti-hero Rick Sanchez. Rick is a character who rejects God, religion, and meaning, but who embraces science and technology. This leads to a popular show that often presents a world view favorable to science and dismissive of spirituality. It is existentialism mashed up with absurdism with a healthy (or unhealthy) dose of dick jokes thrown in. Rick and Morty and Philosophy focuses on the philosophical underpinnings of the show. The authors explain and develop ideas that are mentioned or illustrated in various episodes, so that fans can get really solid evidence for what they know already: this show is awesome and deep. Rick has access to technology that allows him to jump between dimensions or realities. He brings his grandson, Morty, along with him on these adventures, often putting Morty in mortal danger. However, Rick’s attitude is that there are an infinite number of Mortys in the multiverse, so if his Morty dies, he can always replace his Morty with another Morty from a different dimension. One question that arises is, are these Mortys really identical to each other? And if one of them dies, can he really be replaced without loss? Another character in the show is Jerry, the husband of Rick’s daughter. Jerry is a complete and total loser with no self-respect, desperate to get any kind of respect from others. Why is it so important that he has self-respect? How does his lack of self-respect affect those around him? In one adventure, Jerry finds himself in a position where he can save one of the greatest civil rights leaders in the universe whose heart is failing. Jerry can save his life by donating his penis, which is the perfect organ to match the alien’s failing heart. Does Jerry have a moral obligation to do so? Recently, ethicists such as Peter Singer and Julian Savulescu have argued that people have a moral obligation to donate a kidney to people who need one. Why wouldn’t the same apply to Jerry’s penis? Is such a donation above and beyond a moral obligation, and consequently optional, or is it a basic moral obligation and therefore required, as noted ethicists like Singer and Savulescu suggest? This volume also includes chapters that examine the experience of watching Rick and Morty. One writer argues that many of the Rick and Morty episodes induce within viewers a state of “Socratic aporia,” or confusion. Viewers are forced to reflect on their own moral beliefs about the world when characters do something that seems good but results in horrendous consequences.
A wide-ranging, eclectic collection of essays on philosophy and the moving image by a pre-eminent philosopher of art This volume presents a selection of philosopher Noël Carroll's essays-several of which appear in print here for the first time-at the intersection of philosophy, film, and television. The volume begins with broad, foundational issues-what the moving image is, the nature of the medium of film and how we should evaluate it-engaging critically with the most essential problems and puzzles in the field. Carroll then moves to more focused issues in the philosophy of film and television. He reflects on whether ethical defects in fictional characters such as Tony Soprano have an impact on artistic excellence; the role of films in political debates (using the examples of Star Trek and Planet of the Apes); the question of whether film can do philosophy in its own way; and philosophical themes in avant-garde cinema. His analysis touches on a broad range of areas in philosophy including metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics. The book then concludes with philosophical re-assessments of key figures in the philosophy of the moving image-Sergei Eisenstein, Arthur Danto, Bela Balasz, and Stanley Cavell. A wide-ranging and eclectic collection of work by a major figure in aesthetics and the philosophy of film and television, this volume will appeal to scholars, students, and cinephiles alike.
The Good Place is a fantasy-comedy TV show about the afterlife. Eleanor dies and finds herself in the Good Place, which she understands must be mistake, since she has been anything but good. In the surprise twist ending to Season One, it is revealed that this is really the Bad Place, but the demon who planned it was frustrated, because the characters didn’t torture each other mentally as planned, but managed to learn how to live together. In ,i>The Good Place and Philosophy, twenty-one philosophers analyze different aspects of the ethical and metaphysical issues raised in the show, including: ● Indefinitely long punishment can only be justified as a method of ultimately improving vicious characters, not as retribution. ● Can individuals retain their identity after hundreds of reboots? ● Comparing Hinduism with The Good Place, we can conclude that Hinduism gets things five percent correct. ● Looking at all the events in the show, it follows that humans don’t have free will, and so people are being punished and rewarded unjustly. ● Is it a problem that the show depicts torture as hilarious? This problem can be resolved by considering the limited perspective of humans, compared with the eternal perspective of the demons. ● The Good Place implies that even demons can develop morally. ● The only way to explain how the characters remain the same people after death is to suppose that their actual bodies are transported to the afterlife. ● Since Chidi knows all the moral theories but can never decide what to do, it must follow that there is something missing in all these theories. ● The show depicts an afterlife which is bureaucratic, therefore unchangeable, therefore deeply unjust. ● Eleanor acts on instinct, without thinking, whereas Chidi tries to think everything through and never gets around to acting; together these two characters can truly act morally. ● The Good Place shows us that authenticity means living for others. ● The Good Place is based on Sartre’s play No Exit, with its famous line “Hell is other people,” but in fact both No Exit and The Good Place inform us that human relationships can redeem us. ● In The Good Place, everything the humans do is impermanent since it can be rebooted, so humans cannot accomplish anything good. ● Kant’s moral precepts are supposed to be universal, but The Good Place shows us it can be right to lie to demons. ● The show raises the question whether we can ever be good except by being part of a virtuous community.
