William Irwin (3)Critiques

Been listening to them again since discovering Elizabeth Zarhoff's Youtube channel, "Charismatic Voice" reviews of the musical merits of their music. Her reviews of Nothing Else Matters, Master of Puppets, One - really got me to think beyond the lyrics - and sent me back to this book.

It's worth listening, watching and reading all three together.½

El propio Homer Simpson afirma que «las series animadas no tienen significado profundo. Son sólo unos dibujos estúpidos para pasar el rato» (T03 E02). Con todo, este libro no sólo tiene mucho que decir sobre ese gran artefacto cultural de nuestro tiempo que es Los Simpson a entusiastas y detractores de la serie por igual, sino que es una introducción entretenida y al mismo tiempo rigurosa a la obra de pensadores como Aristóteles, Kant, Heidegger o Sartre, entre muchos otros.

Just the fact that this book exists is awesome. I love the chapter about Lisa and how we live in an anti-intellectual society. However, there is a downside: the essays are written in an academic format, and thus don't read fluidly, which I think would have made this book perfect.

The Meaning of Metallica by William Irwin is a wonderful deep dive into the lyrical legacy of Metallica, and more specifically James Hetfield. You will find some great new avenues into songs while at the same time you will think that some readings are a bit over the top. That is not a negative comment, that is what makes this book fun.

Like any interpretive project, Irwin is not claiming that Hetfield intended the same meanings that are in this book. Even in the instances where Hetfield may have been inclined in the direction, he likely had neither the breadth of literary references nor the detailed inclusion of each nuance Irwin highlights. It doesn't mean they aren't there, it simply means these are Irwin's understandings, not Hetfield's intentions. Any overlap is coincidental.

For Metallica fans (past and/or present) this should be thought of as offering more ways into your favorite songs and not an attempt to tell you the "right" way to understand or appreciate them. In many cases, even when I had some understanding that was similar to Irwin's, he offered sources and angles that I had not considered. Even if I ultimately rejected some of those ideas (as far as my way of understanding the song) I still came away with a richer appreciation.

Some readers may quit in the middle of chapter 2 because they don't or can't think about songs at this level. Not a big deal, we take what we want and need from our music. But don't let them convince you this is some arrogant rant that slights everyone except Metallica, it isn't. That is just defensive posturing, ignore them. Yes, Irwin often sounds almost smug, but I liken it to someone who has given a lot of thought to something they love and they can't help coming off like a know-it-all. But ultimately the authorial voice here is one of a very knowledgeable fan who has organized his thoughts into a nice presentation. Appreciate it for what it is.

Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.½

I’ll spell it for you so that you won’t have to read the book. I think the book is mixing up three different but related ideas and referring to them as simulation theory regarding “The Matrix”:

1) Solipsism represented by the idea of the brain in the jar. The only thing which exists is yourself. Other people and world around you don't exist and hence your interactions are meaningless with no moral consequences;

2) What I'll refer to as shared solipsism represented by something like the Matrix where most of the people are actually real (though there may be some who are simulated characters you can't generally distinguish them from real people without breaking out of the simulation). The world that these people inhabit though is a simulation. Actions in that simulated world may effect other people at least mentally hence actions taken in that world have moral consequences;

3) True simulation theory. All the people and the world that they inhabit is simulated. This includes yourself who would be something like a piece of software code with a limited self-awareness running on some hardware in a "real world" somewhere. (Which of course could itself be a simulation running on some higher level hardware in a higher level world ad infinitum). From the higher/real worlds perspective the interactions of the characters in the simulated world have no more moral meaning than characters in a computer game shooting each other. However since your code within the game is self-aware it makes sense to assume the same is true of other characters in the simulation and hence your actions in the simulation as far as you are able to control them have moral consequences from your point of view.

The subject is interesting though. It could have properly examined Philip K. Dick’s theories and how they stack up against questions of fundamental reality across the world’s religions and philosophies.

The same few ideas are analysed over and over and over again from similar angles. The feminist parody one was at least entertaining (the matrix is a patriarchy!). Other than that it's all waffle.

At least a philosophy book which is human-readable and fun ! This is the purpose of this collection : to bring philosophy to people outside of the academic milieu. I think this is achieved : I read it. And while reading it, it gave me planty of reference that my studies in "education nationale" failed to bring to me.
I a eager to grab another one of this series.

Disappointing

I was not terribly impressed by this book. The problem is not that I'm not a fan of "The Simpsons"; I watch that show in reruns just about every day. The problem is not that I don't find philosophy interesting; I own about 40 books on philosophy and tend to spend a lot of my spare time reading them. I gave the first book in this series (_Seinfeld and Philosophy_) 4 stars. The authors of that book had meaningful things to say about the philosophical aspects of "Seinfeld", but they seemed to think it would be hilarious if they liberally and randomly inserted phrases like "not that there's anything wrong with that" into their essays, and that got old really quick. (To get an idea how annoying this can be, think of your acquaintances who can't seem to carry on a conversation without repeating dialogue from _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_.)

In _The Simpsons and Philosophy_, the editors have managed to keep the cuteness under control, but the authors don't establish too many non-obvious connections between philosophy and the show. Part of the problem is that some of them don't seem to be very familiar with the program and with popular culture, in general. For example, the author of one essay asserts that Maude Flanders was killed at a football game and that the running character on the old Letterman show was the "equalizer guy", and seems unaware that the song "Jazzman" that was featured in the episode about the death of Bleeding Gums Murphy was an old Carole King hit. Another essay reveals the shocking fact that "The Simpsons" does not, to the essay's author's dismay, push a consistent Marxist agenda.

Several of the essays make only tangential and superficial reference to the Simpsons. It's hard to suppress the impression that many of the authors are junior faculty members who jumped at the chance to pad their CV's by taking an old essay of theirs and dressing it up with token reference to the Simpsons. There is also an essay or two that reads like another Alan Sokal parody.

The Free Market Existentialist by William Irwin is the kind of book you might discuss in a college classroom. For me its been a long time since I’ve seen the inside of a school. In fact I didn’t do well in philosophy and economics so I wasn’t so sure I would fully understand the book. In all honesty I didn’t understand every concept in the book but I did get a lot out of it.

In this book William Irwin looks at three different ideas: Sartre’s existentialism is a better fit with capitalism than with Marxism, that we need to go beyond the “final delusion” of objective morality, and that libertarian political theory should be put into practice. Irwin describes ideas that don’t seem like they would work together and describes why they can work together. There are a lot of ideas in this book and Irwin takes the time to explain everything so anyone can understand it and come up with ideas of their own.

The Free Market Existentialist is a book that will make you look at life differently. Irwin questions everything in this book and his goal seems to be to get his readers to question things in their world also. I personally loved his idea that you can be an existentialist and a capitalist. It is up to the person to make choices for himself what he chooses to buy. Existentialists don’t join groups to buy things in mass but they think there should be many choices for people. They want to have a free market for people to make money, but they won’t blindly spend their money like others do. If you have a love of philosophy and economics you will enjoy this book.

Introducing Philosophy Through Pop Culture is an excellent beginners book to philosophy. This book covers the a wide breadth of philosophical topics, but written in an easy-to-understand format. Furthermore, analogies are made to contemporary popular culture icons, including South Park, Harry Potter, the Office and more. This is a great book for those interested in philosophy, and could be used in the classroom.

I really enjoyed these series of essays on philosophy with the Simpsons as the starting point. My favorite essay has to be the one comparing Nietze to Bart. I was actually laughing while reading the essay!

The one thing that I really liked about this book is how it captures the essence of what really matters in superheroes comics. More than the pretty graphics and the whole justice conversation, this Superheroes: The Best of Philosophy and Pop Culture actually highlights the moral questions that comes with being a superhero. It's not just about having powers and means to do justice, it's about defining justice and measuring how you can do what's right causing the minimal possible damage. It's nice and refreshing to see the heroes of our infancy being treated "seriously" once in a while.

The book is really pleasant to read, you will skim through its pages without even noticing it. It did feel like it could have included a lot more heroes though. I also felt that the ending was rushed up and inconclusive and... well, honesty, the Wolverine analysis was quite poor compared to the previous analysis.

Nevertheless, definitely worth a couple of hours of your life.

The lowest score is the perfect score for this potboiler of a sham book and I really hate myself for thinking this was going to be any good. I have always prided myself of not buy self help books, however low I got to be in the past. But this book is on that level. For example, it tries to justifies, through Philosophy, why Batman is right not to kill the Joker, ever, even if it means endangering lives of more people. What utter rubbish.

Building on a growing trend of "Philosophy and..." books that run the gamut of pop cultures, Superheroes is a great way to introduce people to philosophy, especially those who might not be otherwise inclined. A series of essays, the work covers both the Marvel and DC universes as well as philosophers from Plato through to Derek Parfit (b. 1942). It would be easy to dismiss this series as nothing more than philosophical fluff dumbed-down for the masses, but I think one would be missing something to do so. As William Irwin states in the Introduction, "Ultimately, this book aims to shed light on the hidden depth of superheroes, while at the same time illustrate the importance of philosophy. Superman and Batman are not replacements for Plato and Aristotle, but they can inspire you to read Plato and Aristotle, who will challenge you to think deeply." And after all, isn't that what we ask of any good book?

Wasn't sure what to expect, while not a philosophy student I got quite a bit out of it. I did enjoy this book though I don't agree with everything quoted, but any comic book and philosophy fan will really enjoy it.

This is kind of a cool idea. Take a current topic and apply philosophy to it. So you've got essays on the death penalty (Ride the Lightning), assisted suicide/euthanasia (One), intellectual property rights (the Napster lawsuit), etc... It did seem a little repetitive at times and sometimes the subject only seemed tentatively connected to the band most of the writers did seem to be genuine fans of the band so that was cool.

I've been a huge fan since just about the start of the whole Metalica thing and I still like their stuff (especially St. Anger). They may be one of the last "big" bands and that's kind of sad but I'm glad they made it.

This was a pretty solid collection, with a nice range of topics, writing styles, and target superheroes. There were instances of groan-worthy punning, and attempts at lightness that fell flat. It's the same danger with any discussion about comic books - the medium's stereotype of humor getting in the way of the content actually being presented.

My particular favorite essays were:
William Irwin's introduction, which resonated with me as a long-time superhero-comics reader.

Mark D. White's "Lord Odin Have Mercy: Justice and Punishment in Asgard" for looking at the morals behind the superhero trope of meting Justice.

Jason Southworth's "The Blackest Night for Aristotle's Account of Emotions" for putting the rainbow-colored warfare of the Green Lantern comics into a comparative framework that's not all about who beats whom.

Jacob M. Held's "Can We Steer This Rudderless World?: Kant, Rorschach, Retributivism, and Honor" for the frank discussion of Rorschach's worldview and why he fits so well, and so poorly, in the world of Watchmen - and potentially why he's still the fan-favorite.

Daniel P. Malloy's "Forgivers Assemble" - particularly interesting in conjunction with discussions of the criminal justice system that have been in the news I read lately. A nice discussion about who is allowed to forgive, and when it's permissible to have ex-supervillains on your superheroes team.

Neil Mussett's "Does Peter Parker Have a Good Life?" which talks about what makes a good life, the sacrifices of a superhero life, and Peter Parker's long-standing status as what fans refer to as "the woobie" (Mussett never uses the term, but I don't know how to short-hand it any better).

Many a true word is spoken in jest.

Do you think Metallica is nothing more than meaningless wild noise? Think again! In this book you will find essays from philosophers inspired by Metallica songs. Heavy metal meets Kant and Platon...½

This book opened the door for me to Buddhism.

Los Simpson y la filosofía’, un volumen que hace una radiografía filosófica de cada uno de los personajes y las situaciones que acontecen en Springfield. No se trata de otro producto de merchandising ni se asemeja a cualquier otro libro publicado sobre la serie. ‘Los Simpson y la filosofía’ se atreven a analizar la esfera moral de los Simpson desde su punto de vista, y compararla con las teorías de filósofos de la talla de Nietzsche o Kant.

I did not really expect a lot, and I was not disappointed. There are a couple of good essays in here that provide some useful background material on philosophical references in the movie. For example, I had not realized that "know thyself" was written over the entrance to the abode of the oracle at Delphi. (I should probably be embarrassed to admit that.) But the majority of the essays reinforce my suspicion that philosophy has lost its purpose. It seems that most everything of value in philosophy has been taken over by math or science, whether it be cosmology, logic, or artificial intelligence.

The philosophers in this volume are right, at least, to pick out consciousness as a key presumptive difference between mechanical minds and human experience, but unfortunately none of them shed much light on the matter.

Oh don't be pretentious . . . it's fun! It's also all good. The ability to relate thought and thinking not only to the issues of today, but to the contemporary inculturated expressions of that thought is a necessary discipline if ideas are to be recognized and used well. This book undertakes that task well. Enjoy it - and admit it - you just wish you'd thought of it first!

Oh don't be pretentious . . . it's fun! It's also all good. The ability to relate thought and thinking not only to the issues of today, but to the contemporary inculturated expressions of that thought is a necessary discipline if ideas are to be recognized and used well. This book undertakes that task well. Enjoy it - and admit it - you just wish you'd thought of it first!