Customer Reviews

Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul (The Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture Series)

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The editors and authors of this book have loved Batman since he is human and without super powers; he is so complex, he can be used as a vehicle or ploy to discuss philosophical concepts. I know little of formal philosophy, but this book was a good introduction to so many concepts, and quite intellectually funny at the same time. There are Six Parts in this book. Part One: Does The Dark Knight Always Do Right?; Part Two: Law Justice and the Social Order; Where Does Batman Fit In?; Part Three: Origins and Ethics: Why Become The Caped Crusader; Part Four: Who Is The Batman?; Part Five: Being The Bat: Insights from Existentialism and Taoism; and Part Six: Friend, Father.. Rival?: The Many Roles of The Bat.

Of course, much of this book was above my head and bat ears. But the parts I thoroughly enjoyed were quite informative. For example, in the first chapter, the author asks whether Batman is a Utilitarian or a Deontologist? Why doesn't Batman just kill the Joker, if he knows that he will merely kill again and kill close friends? Is the death of one Joker better than hundreds of innocent victims? The authors tell the story of a runaway trolley and a person who stands at the switch. The train can hit and kill five bystanders if you do nothing, or you can divert the track and the train will kill just one person. Can you get involved and kill fewer people? Are those parties deemed morally equivalent? Deontologists judge the morality of an act, regardless of the consequences (the ends do not justify the means). The second chapter looks at Ethics, in "Is it Right to Make a Robin?" "What should Bruce Wayne? How should he Live his life? What sort of person should he be?... Is it right (ethical) for Batman to take an orphan and train him to fight crime instead of turning him into social services? Can we excuse Batman for throwing a young man at vicious criminals in a spandex outfit? In this chapter, the reader learns about Kant, Mill, Bentham, Plato, and deon(duty)tological ethics, virtue ethics, universal ethics, and categorical (without exception) ethics. (Can Batman lie to the Joker? Can he choose to be ethical only some of the time?) In Chapter 3, the author looks at Aristotle and virtue ethics and Batman's hatred as a virtue. Batman, a loner, makes a virtue of vice, perhaps. The author asks whether Batman is virtuous or does he merely DO virtuous things?

In "Governing Gotham" the authors look at Batman as a reaction to the failure and incapacity of the government to control crime and protect Bruce Wayne's parents from being murdered. They throw in Max Weber's view of state legitimacy, as well as Hobbes' Leviathan. Plus they throw in Nietzsche and his views on the state as a threat to liberty and self expression. Can only the state use force to bring law and order? Or can Batman use force as well? In Chapter 11, the authors ask whether Batman Could Have Been the Joker?. They discuss identities and ModAl and metaphysics (the study of what exists and how it goes about existing). That was too deep for my pea sized brain. The same holds true for Chapter 12, in which Wittgenstein's ideas on identity and language are brought to bear on Batman. Chapter 18, on the nature of friendship (Batman and Superman), Aristotle, loyalty, and Nietsche's ubermensch were easier for me to understand. All these just skim the surface of the wealth of ideas and explanations found in this book. Reading it will spur great discussions on the new Batman film, and you will learn more about philosophical ideas than you thought possible.

Very interesting read. The various authors seem to have done their homework - not only on philosophical ideas, but on the Batman mythos as well, and actually do a really good job of citing their sources and backing their claims with actual Batman storylines.

It's not the easiest read in the world - if you are expecting a graphic novel, think again - but philosophy itself isn't an easy subject to cover.

I like the fact they bring well-known philosophers' work to bear on the subject (Nietzsche, Singer, Kierkegaard for instance) so I was able to learn a little bit about them as well.

Overall a fun read, I enjoyed it.

If you're looking for a light, cheap (in the intellectual sense) read that doesn't require any thinking, this isn't your book. If you're looking for a book that shows a surprising depth of understanding both about both subjects, one that will make you think about aspects of both Batman you had never considered before and maybe teach you a few (or many) things about philosophy and interpretation of great philosophers along the way, this is definitely the book for you. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in Batman (or anyone involved in his crazy large batfamily!), and anyone versed in or just curious about great philosophers.

After "The Dark Knight" came out and everyone was all in a tizzy about it (including me) I had the awesome and freeing opportunity to write a college-level paper about the systems of justice and order in Batman, particularly "The Dark Knight." Not only is this book a fascinating read for anyone into basic philosophy, comics, both, or just random knowledge, but it's actually chock-full of undergraduate-level philosophic discussions. This book helped me get an A on my paper, and if you ever have the opportunity to write a paper on Batman, definitely check this one out! Even if you don't, pick it up anyway because it's a quick and enlightening read.

It was a (barely) decent study of Batman, but I wish that it had dug deeper into other areas of who Bruce Wayne really is, who Bruce Wayne allows the public to perceive that Bruce Wayne is, and who the Batman is.

It actually got extremely boring in areas, which literature about Batman shouldn't. You have one of the deepest and most complex fictional characters ever created here, and this book didn't study the character(s) to the depth and degree that I had hoped that it would.

There was too much filler in this book, it droned on needlessly in several areas, and they didn't explore the facets of the character that I had hoped that they would. It seemed a bit rushed, and looks to have been written and released coinciding with the release of the second of the Christopher Nolan Batman films: The Dark Knight. So I believe that there was some level of hope in "cashing in" a bit with this title based in release during the heavy marketing for the film: The Dark Knight, and I think that the material covered in the book and studied suffered because of that.

This book definitely didn't meet with what I had set my expectations for it to be. I had a perception of what I thought it should be, based against a couple of other fairly recent books on the Batman, and it didn't live up to my preemptive perception of what I expected it to be (however it did still offer some good material). And it didn't even come close to the other titles that I had recently read on the subject matter (listed below).

Truly, if someone wants to read a book about the Batman, and really explore the character, I would recommend reading one of the following books over reading this one (as they detail the Batman better that I have found in any other study of the character):

Wisdom from the Batcave: How to Live a Super, Heroic Life by Cary A. Friedman

The Forensic Files of Batman by Doug Moench

Want your philosophy but maybe not presented so, well, densely? Then these pop culture and philosophy books are for you. This one, BATMAN AND PHILOSPHY, does a solid job of using everyone's favorite Dark Knight as the connecting conduit for an exploration on a number of subjects. Given the number of essays (20), each written by someone different, it is hardly surprising that some pieces are much better than others. But overall, if you are attracted to this book based on the subject, you probably will not be disappointed by the content.

The book starts off strong with one of the better essays, Why Doesn't Batman Kill the Joker?, exploring the difference between utilitarianism and deontology. The concepts are explained well enough, and applied practically to a situation we can appreciate, to allow us novices to gain at least a working understanding of the major differences between two major and competing views of right and wrong. Broken down into larger sections on concepts of right and wrong, law and justice, origins and ethics, friendship and rivalry, BATMAN AND PHILOSOPHY may have its slow parts (the section on existentialism and Taoism comes to mind) and flat-out bad parts (the essay Could Batman Have Been the Joker? really comes to mind), yet it maintains a standard likely to keep one's attention.

The book ends not only on a strong note, but on a strong foundation. The last section, Friend, Father . . . Rival? The Many Roles of the Bat, contains several particularly worthwhile entries, including a couple in which Superman plays a guest role as a philosophical foil to the Caped Crusader. Philosophy does no good if it just stays in the Ivory Tower, to be discussed by egghead intellectuals all impressed with themselves. It is for everyone. Batman fights for justice. BATMAN AND PHILOSOPHY explores what that means, and more importantly, why that matters, and does so in such a way as to allow us to, maybe, kinda get it.

Batman and Philosophy, as name suggests, tries to explain things Batman does from a philosophical perspective. What I am trying to say is, in this book you will find a lot of reasoning for the things (good and bad) Batman does through the concepts, ideas and thinking of many great philosophers (Aristotle, Plato, Kant ..etc). Many questions which we had like:

Why doesn't Batman kill the Joker ?
Why really prompted Bruce Wayne to become Batman ?
Why does Batman consider Superman his good friend ?

are answered along the lines of reasoning provided by philosophers. Other than the questions above, there is a lot of good content which you will find really interesting. The entire book is divided into chapters each of which is authored by individuals contributing to the field of philosophy for a long time.

I personally enjoyed reading this book and would recommend it to any one who would like to get their feet wet in the incredible world of philosophy and its incredible reasoning to things we do every day.

As a casual fan of Batman and someone who, before reading the book, had little to no knowledge of philosophy, I must say the book was quite an interesting read, albeit one that drags a bit in the middle.

The premise of the book is to explore philosophical concepts, which to the uninitiated can be a bit overwhelming, through one of the best-known characters ever created. Using classical concepts with neoclassical works like "The Killing Joke," "Batman: Year One" and "The Dark Knight Returns," the authors take well-known stories and use them to illustrate the concepts of philosophy.

The book does get a little too technical for me in the middle, especially in the sections talking about conscience and identity. While a philosophy buff will probably find that kid stuff, it was a bit of a challenge for me.

Two great sections sandwich the so-so middle. The beginning especially is strong, tackling the oft-considered question "Why doesn't Batman kill the Joker?" as well as looking at exactly why Bruce Wayne became the Dark Knight. There is also a good chapter on whether or not it is ethical to train a Robin. The end deals with the Superman-Batman dynamic, using it as an example to explore the nature of friendship and to argue (philosophically, of course) why Batman is better than Superman.

This book is definitely not light reading - it deals with some pretty heady stuff. But, with the exception of a few sections in the middle, it does it in a distinctly down-to-earth way. An interesting read for both Batman fans and philosophy buffs, and a must for those who are both.

If you're a fan of the Bat or you are just genuinely curious about why comic fans geek out over this particular character then you really should get this book. One of the most concise deconstructions I've ever read. Makes you think about a lot of things not only within the comic universe but within the real world as well. Can't recommend it enough.

"Superman and Batman are the Plato and Aristotle of the comic-book world." (Superheroes and Philosophy: Truth, Justice, and the Socratic Way (Popular Culture and Philosophy), 262).

There are four reasons why we should study Batman--pedagogical, philosophical, existential, and victimological.

First, people read comic books, especially children, and we need to monitor what children read. "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." (Proverbs 22:6)

Second, Aristotle observed that poets are more important that historians. The historian deals with particulars, but the poet--the artists and taleweavers--deal with universals, or the ideal. That is why esthetics is a branch of philosophy.

Third, since Batman is a universal idea--an archetype--in a broad sense we are all Batman.

This last one is key. Batman is different from most other superheroes. In fact, he is not a superhero at all. Like the Scarlet Pimpernel or James bond, he is just a normal human who fights with his wits as well as his hands. Superman is too far above us, and, unlike the Green Lantern (all of them) or Iron Man, we do not have power rings or armored suits. We just have our brains, our brawn and nothing else.

The fourth reason is that Batman is a victim. He was a "poor little rich boy" whose parents were murdered in cold blood before his virgin eyes. But the key thing is that he chose not to be a victim. He took his pain, embraced his Jungian shadow, and then sublimated his pain.

In this way he is like Elizabeth Smart (Bringing Elizabeth Home: A Journey of Faith and Hope. Both were rich, both suffered trauma at a young age, and both took command of the situation by becoming missionaries. One a missionary for her church, the other became a Dark Friar for justice.

We all must sublimate our pain; we all must become Batman.

Now to the book.

For he most part, the essays are mediocre. I would rate them B to B+. Sometimes we get non-answers to the questions, as on page 25. Other times we get an eclectic (not exotic!) smorgasbord of points-of-view, like the McLaughlin Group. But we do not come to any hard conclusions. This is ABC Gum philosophizing--we chew the cud and pass it along.

An example of a B paper that could have been an A paper is the essay, "Could Batman have been the Joker?"

What I execrated was a discussion about Bruce Wayne becoming evil and a secondary question, after his accident, could Jack Napier become a hero? What we got was a discussion about identity and names. To be sure, this is an important topic--Thomas Aquinas had a treatise on how words mean--but the deeper question was ignored: how are human nature, good and evil, and choice interrelated.

A better essay was "Why Batman is better than Superman." This essay deals with axiology (value theory), and Foresman does a wonderful job of evaluating both Batman's and Superman's abilities and values. And the conclusion is the right one: Batman is more courageous than Superman because he is, in the words of G. K. Chesterton, more "eatable" (Orthodoxy: Centennial Edition, ch. 8). There is more danger involved.

The later sections, on existentialism and the Tao of the Bat, are better. Again, Batman is the best study in self-determination, since he was a normal man who chose to become a hero.

One subtheme has to do with relationships: Batman and Robins, Batman and Alfred, Batman and Gotham, Batman and Gordon, Batman and Catwoman, Batman and Superman, and Batman and Bruce Wayne. He is a man of complex, though distant, relationships. This makes for an interesting study.

Then there is the relationship of Batman to the Joker. No, Batman is not like the Joker--Batman is not a sadist. The Joker twisted two Robins; one was bludgeoned to death, and the other was twisted to become the next Joker (Batman Beyond Return of the Joker (2001)). For his part, Batman let Grayson spread his own Nightwings. The local errors are "undistributed middle" and "hasty generalization." Shame on you for missing them!

Also there is the question of how sane both men are (Ch 6). This is where most people involved with the Batman franchise get worse than silly.

One ugly idea is that the Joker is "super-sane" (134). Sanity is defined in terms of rationality, and rationality is based on the Law of Identity (The Metaphysics (Philosophical Classics)). Something either is or is not, and cannot be more "is" or supra-"is." Like perfectly round squares, this is linguistic nonsense.

This discussion sanity brings us back to my idea that Elizabeth Smart is Batman. Mitchell is her Joker (this fits better with Burton's version where Napier, and not Joe Chill, murders Wayne's parents). Again, this is why we discuss the archetype and subcreation of Batman--things like Batman and the Joker really exist (Man and His Symbols).

The Batman discussed is the late 1980s reinvention--where Batman became too much like Wolverine. So they discuss his moral code (Ch. 1), and what would happen of Batman and Superman fought (Ch. 18).

(Batman would outsmart Superman and would use Krytonite against him, but both would keep each other alive--Batman keeps crime down in Gotham, and Superman and Shazam keep Darkseid at bay).

What was lacking, however, was a compassion to another low-end hero with a stronger moral code--Daredevil (Daredevil (Two-Disc Widescreen Edition)). He, along with The Savage Tales of Solomon Kane (and Elizabeth Smart The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ), have religious motivations for doing what they do. Batman is focused on a secular justice, having a "fuzzy-grey" relationship with the established civis. He works outside the civis, but ultimately turns the criminals over to the state.

So this book is good for stoking ideas, but I could have been a bit more penetrating. Any weaknesses are not the fault of the subject matter, but the current state of philosophy and philosophers.