Comments on: Morals in South Park?

By: Crooked Timber » » Metallica and Philosophy

Crooked Timber » » Metallica and Philosophy — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 18:13:30 +0000

[...] Unfortunately the deadline for abstracts was July 1st, but I would bet you anything that the editors would still consider an abstract from an eminent philosopher like Brian. posted on Thursday, July 21st, 2005 at 1:13 pm Post a comment [...]

By: Richard Hanley

Richard Hanley — Wed, 05 May 2004 20:20:26 +0000

Like some of the others in this thread, I have vested interest in this sort of thing. First, the “career-killer” risk is real. Maybe it depends where you are, but my impression is that in academic philosophy (for career purposes, at least), “popular” writing either doesn’t count at all, or counts negatively, irrespective of quality. I’ve mostly had to live down my Star Trek book. Second, having recently come back from the dead, I’m (wisely or no) going into popularising mode again (I’m also on The Matrix website philosophy section). Last year I even pitched to Open Court the idea of a South Park and Philosophy volume. They said no, so I recently wrote to Trey Parker and Matt Stone to see if they’re interested in an “authorised” version. I have two main thoughts about this. One: maybe I’m a snob, but I think philosophy can do a much better job of popularising than we have seen so far. I don’t think the problem is that the philosophers have been mainly assistant professors. (I’d expect a correlation between relative youth and interest in popular culture. And hey, sometimes it’s better to employ the young and hungry—in both senses.) It’s rather that rigour has taken a back seat, partly in an attempt to be too popular, and partly because of philosophical orientation. Two: some of these popular shows, much as I love them, just aren’t that deep, philosophically, and authors really have to stretch to make meaningful connections. (Obviously, I think South Park is an exception.) What is to be done? We serious analytic types can remain on the sidelines and scoff (not an unpleasant pastime), or we can resign ourselves to the fact that these collections sell, and are selling an impression of philosophy as well. I choose to muck in and try to make that impression a bit better than it would otherwise be. I’ll let you know how the South Park thing turns out.

By: Mark Decker

Mark Decker — Mon, 03 May 2004 23:13:02 +0000

Oops! Sorry, in my previous post I forgot to mention that the topic of the program was philosophy and baseball.

By: Mark Decker

Mark Decker — Mon, 03 May 2004 23:10:44 +0000

For what it’s worth, Allen Wood was recently a guest on “Philosophy Talk”, hosted by Ken Taylor and John Perry. Here’s a link to the streaming audio of that program: http://vodreal.stanford.edu/opa/philo/040427.ram The program’s website is http://www.philosophytalk.org

By: Glen

Glen — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:14:59 +0000

I’ve read through a couple of the volumes in question. Like all anthologies, they are mixed bags. Some of the essays are really interesting; others are silly and pointless. Reading one is like trying to find the good treats in a box of chocolates [insert hackneyed Forrest Gump quotation here]. This is not a criticism of the books, except insofar as it’s a criticism of all anthologies. Also, as Aeon indicates, you have to think about the audience. What seems stale and low-impact to a professional philosopher may be new and fascinating to a high school student who hasn’t thought about philosophy before. Full disclosure: I’m writing an article for an upcoming volume of the series.

By: James

James — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:12:14 +0000

I think Harry has the right idea, but feel the need to add another consideration. If philosophers only write for other philosophers in a language so technical that it can only be understood by those with the right kind of degrees, then philosophy will hold on to its present marginal state. Admittedly, my love for philosophy does cause me to want to communicate with those outside the narrow confines of tenured philosophy professors. And, of course, not everyone outside that community brings the same depth of understanding to an issue, say, feminism. So, sure, someone who has never much thought about feminism is going to get more out of an essay on Buffy and feminism than someone who has spent years with it. I fail to see the problem with that simple fact—the essay wasn’t written for someone with a broad background in feminist ethics. That an essay isn’t addressed to every reader (or even the philosophical professional) does not render it philosophically or pedagogically worthless. But, goodness, what philosophy essay addresses every potential reader? I’m guessing not even papers in the Review of Metaphysics do that. Full disclosure: I edited the above mentioned “dissapointing” Buffy volume.

By: harry

harry — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:25:10 +0000

I’ve only read The Sopranos, which seems to me uneven but which has two excellent Wisconsin-based essays. Sheila Lintott uses the Sopranos as a focal point for a discussion of relativism; Carroll uses Tony Soprano as the basis for a discussion of identification with characters in fiction. There’s nothing philosophically new in either piece—there’s not meant to be. Noel’s piece is illuminating to anyone who ahs watched the show, both about a core issue in aesthetics and about their reactions to it; Sheila’s is a nicely written explanation of the issues about moral relativism. They are both pedagogically valuable (in fact I think I’ll use Sheila’s piece next term). So I don’t want to comment on the quality of the books as a whole, but I think you are being a little myopic Brian about what is worth writing. But just because something is worth writing doesn’t mean you ought to write it, of course—I have a generalised wish that more philosophers would try to write for wider audiences, but not that any particular one of them would.

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:19:54 +0000

Aeon Skoble wrote: “As to “Nat Whilk“‘s continued ad hominems: since he insists on hiding behind a pseudonym, I’ll just assume he’s making ad hominems he wouldn’t want to be publicly committed to, and hence I need not bother replying.” I thought an ad hominem was a claim that an argument is invalid because of who wrote it. (E.G., “This argument is invalid because it’s being produced by someone using a pseudonym.”) Once again, let me say that the reason I brought up the status of the authors of the Seinfeld and Simpsons books is that I thought it simply might provide an explanation for why they were so boring. Of course, it can’t explain everything. For example, it was an associate professor (presumably, already with tenure) who wrote the article revealing the shocking fact that the Simpsons writers apparently aren’t Marxists.

By: aeon skoble

aeon skoble — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:15:13 +0000

“there’s a discussion of a Sorites paradox in X, so I can write up my theory as it applies to the paradox in X….I don’t really see the value in a contribution to X and philosophy that reads like that.” The value would be pedagogical, not theoretical: if X is something very popular, you’d have a platform for explaining the philosophical significance of the Sorites paradox (indeed, the very existence of the paradox) to thousands of people who would otherwise think that metaphysics was just New Age mysticism. “I don’t think there’s much to be said for writing up a paper on the connection between causation and responsibility as it applies in Who Killed Davey Moore? for the Dylan and Philosophy volume, unless the Davey Moore case actually reveals something interesting about the theory.” No. The Davey Moore case doesn’t have to more illuminative about causation for such a paper to be effective; rather, it simply has to be a pedagogically useful example of something in causal theory. (I don’t write on causal theory and I have nothing to do with the Dylan volume, I’m just responding to your example as given.) “But a paper that says little more than “And here’s another case where my theory applies” I’m not sure of the value of.” Again, its value need not be theoretical, although it might be – I think some essays in some of the books actually do that kind of work – but would mainly be pedagogical. The aim of the series is outreach: getting people outside the academy to consider philosophical issues by talking about some popular culture artifact that they know and like. As to “Nat Whilk”’s continued ad hominems: since he insists on hiding behind a pseudonym, I’ll just assume he’s making ad hominems he wouldn’t want to be publicly committed to, and hence I need not bother replying.

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:52:49 +0000

I’d just like to point out that I never said participating in these series would be a career killer. That would be obviously false, since Jim Pryor (to pick just one example from the Matrix page I linked to above) seems to be doing pretty well post his involvement. I said writing the book I had in mind could be fairly bad for my career. And given the pre-existing views people have about me (doesn’t take things seriously enough, jumps between too many topics, etc), and the fact that for the forseeable future it would be the only book on my CV, I really don’t think it would help. Which isn’t to say I won’t do it if the 101 version would really make that much money :) On Harry’s point about the invitation, I’d have to have a fairly specific reason for writing about that topic. I don’t think I’d get much out of writing a paper where I just molded my pre-existing views to a particular topic. As in, I have a theory about the Sorites paradox, there’s a discussion of a Sorites paradox in X, so I can write up my theory as it applies to the paradox in X. The (career-derailing) book might have stuff like that, but I don’t really see the value in a contribution to X and philosophy that reads like that. If it was a particularly interesting version of the Sorites perhaps it would be good, but not if it’s just applying a familiar theory. To take a more real-life case, I don’t think there’s much to be said for writing up a paper on the connection between causation and responsibility as it applies in Who Killed Davey Moore? for the Dylan and Philosophy volume, unless the Davey Moore case actually reveals something interesting about the theory. And it might for all I know – I think looking for real-life examples like that is pretty valuable way of working out the bumps in a theory. That’s part of why Richard’s Star Trek book works I think – some of the cases genuinely are hard cases for familiar philosophical views. (I love the range of cases, often from relatively popular culture, that Ken Walton discusses in detail in his papers. Of course it’s easier to do this in aesthetics.) But a paper that says little more than “And here’s another case where my theory applies” I’m not sure of the value of.

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:37:04 +0000

I think people buy books because they appear interesting; sometimes, they subsequently change their minds once they actually read them. I mentioned that the authors were largely junior faculty (62% assistant professors, instructors, adjunct professors, and college “teachers” for the Seinfeld and Simpsons books) as an attempt to explain what I perceived as the mediocre quality of many of the essays. (“Publish or perish” makes many of us do things we’re not especially proud of.) Judging by these books’ Amazon ratings, many readers do think highly of them, so take my comments as one curmudgeon’s opinion.

By: Kris McDaniel

Kris McDaniel — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:01:37 +0000

This is slightly off-topic, but since some people have commented on children’s books and philosophy, I wanted to bring attention to Gary Matthews wonderful books on philosophy and children. The three that I have read are: Dialogues with Children Philosophy and the Young Child the Philosophy of Childhood (All three are published by Harvard. I am pretty sure that all three are still in print.) These books are great. They are philosophical interesting – I thought about using the first book in an intro. philosophy class, but reluctantly decided against this- and they are genuinely moving. [Disclaimer: I’m a UMass grad. who greatly admires both Gary’s philosophical abilities and personal qualities.] Also, there’s this website, which Gary is involved in: http://philosophyforkids.com/

By: bryan

bryan — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 21:34:38 +0000

Hot Lesbian Teenies and Philosophy.

By: aeon skoble

aeon skoble — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 21:02:34 +0000

“You seem to be assuming that people who buy your books think your books are interesting. Is that a good assumption?” I don’t know – that’s why I and everyone I know buys books. In any case, are you not exaggerating? Not a single essay in any of the books in the series is interesting? On the other hand, at least you’ve read two, which is more than some of the would-be critics here have read. As to your other points, yeah, you’re right, you didn’t say “exclusively,” but the real issue is: whether an essay was written by an assistant or associate or full professor has no bearing on whether it’s interesting or not. As to your suggestion that the only reason for writing this stuff is to make the CV look good (which, BTW, contradicts Brian’s sneering claim that it would be a career-killer to participate in this series), two responses: (a) that’s ad hominem and (b) all contributors to the series do plenty of “real” work as well. Lastly, I really am sorry you didn’t find them interesting, but if they succeed in getting other people to consider further reading in or study of philosophy, they’ve been a success.

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:41:48 +0000

"If Nat Whilk, whoever that is, thinks we have nothing interesting to say, that makes me cry. The quarter-of-a-million people who think we do - much happier." You seem to be assuming that people who buy your books think your books are interesting. Is that a good assumption? "But factually speaking, it’s false that these are exclusively the products of junior faculty." Who said anything about exclusively? "It’s also false that the essays in the series consist only of inserted catch-phrases." Who said they consist only of inserted catch-phrases?