Customer Reviews

The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer (Popular Culture and Philosophy)

5 star:		(27)
4 star:		(29)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Almost everyone is a Simpsons fan of one degree or another - everything from complete devotion to the occasional viewer. This book is truly for those who have watched the Simpsons and wondered about the archetypal structure of the family, the Power Plant and the town of Springfield. If that idea interests you, you should have this book. If you think that sounds like a bunch of hooey, then don't buy this book. If you are a rabid fan who must have every piece of Simpsonsphilia, buy several copies.

It is a fun read for those who are interested in such things as both philosophy and The Simpsons, but I stress BOTH. You don't need a philosophy degree to read it, but you should have some interest in/and grounding in philosophy. Similarly, you should have a solid grasp of the Simpsons show, and the characters. I think this would be a bit dry for the casual Simpsons fan and bit lightweight for the ultra philosophical. But just right for a lot of us, and fun to read to boot!

Some of the chapters include:

Homer and Aristotle

Lisa and American Anti-intellectualism

Thus Spake Bart: On Nietzche and the Vitues of Being Bad

Enjoying the So-Called "Iced Cream": Mr. Burns, Satan, and Happiness

I had a very good time reading this book, and I do wish I had owned it while I was in college. It might have helped me digest Roland Barthes a little easier. Enjoy!

This book is a small gem. It does not try to say that the Simpsons is a grand philosophical guide but does pull some deep ideas out of the wonderful primetime animation. The book helped me appreciate the Simpsons more, and shows the hidden genius in many of the episodes. More importantly, it inspired me to read more philosophy books! I also highly recommend everyone read another wonderful little book of wisdom called "Open Your Mind, Open Your Life" by Taro Gold. Excellent.

Bill Irwin's first collection, _Seinfeld and Philosophy_ was a well put-together set of musings about philosophy regarding the best sit-com ever. This latest compilation ruminates over the best animated series ever. I have been an avid fan of "The Simpsons" since its inception, and a practicing philosopher for the past 4 years. I found this book to be thought-provoking and entertaining.

You're not going to find significant philosophical breakthroughs in this book, and you won't find deep insights by watching "The Simpsons," but as a companion to the show, this book will shed new light on the characters and situations found throughout the series.

Mostly, I would recommend this book to anyone taking a first-year philosophy course who wants to see how philosophy can make fun things more profound, and profound things more fun. Yes, there is fun to be had in serious academia -- it should not all be dry and boring. Irwin has collected a number of papers that make for philosophical fun for all.

I have been a Simpsons fan from the get-go. I watched the very first episode, the Christmas Special, in the lounge of my freshman dorm, and I have been an enthusiast ever since. The D'oh of Homer, edited by Irwin et al., is an organic product of the attraction the show has to the brainy among us.

The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh of Homer is compilation of Simpsonian essays written by working philosophers (as far as I can tell, "working philosopher" is an oxymoron) on various subjects. The text is divided among four sections: The Characters, Themes, Ethics and The Simpsons and Philosophers. I would propose a secondary classification scheme as well: (1) those essays that use familiar Simpsons personalities and situations as examples within a discussion of philosophical ideas and (2) those that try to extrapolate philosophical meaning from the show itself.

The chapters that I found most enjoyable where those of the former type, the ones that (re)introduced various ethical philosophies or values of critical commentary using the Simpsons to support their positions. Those essays about Nietzsche, American anti-intellectualism, allusion (a topic especially relevant to the Simpsons), and television's sexual politics were among my favorites.

There were some real stinkers, too. A few of the authors of these collected essays seemed to think that a TV show should present a consistent philosophy, which the Simpsons clearly does not.

Overall, I would recommend The Simpsons and Philosophy. For people who have never even thought about philosophy, this book would, in many respects, be a worthwhile introduction. However, as de Tocqueville predicted, some in our democracy will not appreciate such high browed pursuits, even when directed to a cartoon.

Ever think of Bart Simpson as a Heideggerian thinker? Ever wonder which Simpsons cast member is the most moral? Ever ponder what to make of the religious characters in Springfield? After reading The Simpsons and Philosophy, these ideas will certainly spring to mind the next time you catch a new episode or rerun of The Simpsons!

Many Americans regard the popularity of the long-running hit animated series, The Simpsons, as evidence of the demise of American values and intellectualism. This collection of philosophical essays about Springfield proves that not only is this view incorrect, but perhaps narrow-minded as well. The Simpsons is not a cartoon for children, but rather a satire of society in general. The authors choose topics that arise from various episodes of the series, and use these stories to elucidate important philosophical concepts for the reader.

My favorite essay concerns Lisa Simpson, and the contrasts between her portrayals of an intellectual but still a little girl. The essay helped me understand better the concept of intellectualism in American society, and also Lisa's role on the show.

Overall, this book is a humorous, off-kilter look at what is perhaps the funniest (and maybe even most intellectual!) show on television today.

I reread this book recently on my Kindle (had the original paperback) and found it still one of the best examples of how one can use pop culture to introduce a broader audience to philosophy. There is no denying that the Simpsons has been one of the best shows on American tv for the past couple of decades, and it is so intelligently done that pretty much every major issue in philosophy can be introduced by example, picking on the right Simpsons' episode or character. Of course, as always with edited books, the writing is uneven, with some chapters barely worth a look (the one on Heidegger, for instance). But the editors pulled this off very nicely nonetheless, and in fact the whole idea eventually flourished in a large series of available titles with a similar scope. The book could also be used in introductory philosophy classes to show the students the obvious truth: philosophy is highly relevant to everyday life, and it can even be fun!

The cover of the book prominently features the following quotation from Publisher's Weekly: "Each essay provides a hilarious but incisive springboard to some aspect of philosophy." The first part of this statement is false. None of the essays are funny, let alone hilarious. Many of the essays are, however, in addition to being a "springboard to some aspect of philosophy," interesting, relevant, and thought provoking. I especially enjoyed the essays "Homer and Aristotle" by Raja Halwani, "Lisa and American Anti-intellectualism" by Aeon J. Skoble, "Thus Spake Bart: On Nietzsche and the Virtues of Being Bad" by Mark T. Conard, "Springfield Hypocrisy" by Jason Holt, and also "Enjoying the So-called `Iced Cream': Mr. Burns, Satan, and Happiness" by Daniel Barwick. The 15th essay, "The Function of Fiction" The Heuristic Value of Homer" by Jennifer L. McMahon was interesting and well-written, but really has nothing to do with The Simpsons specifically. This essay should have been the first essay in the book, to set the tone for the rest of the book and also to show why the analytical essays included in the book are worth writing and reading.

This is the 2nd book I read in the Philosophy and Popular Culture series, after the recently released The Matrix and Philosophy. Compared to the essays collected in that book, the essays here are much less profound and much less relevant to the stated subject. A few of the essays in The Matrix and Philosophy really have nothing to do with The Matrix, and probably 4-8 of the 18 essays in The Simpsons and Philosophy would be just as good without any Simpsons references, which suggests that they're really not about The Simpsons at all. I wish that essays more specific to The Simpsons, similar to the first two essays included in the book (the ones mentioned earlier by Halwani and Skoble), would have flushed out the rest of the book, instead of essays not specifically about The Simpsons. McMahon's essay mentioned above and the final essay in the book, "What Bart Calls Thinking" by Kelly Dean Jolly are interesting essays, the former moreso, but are not really specifically relevant to The Simpsons any more than they are to other television programs (not even necessarily cartoons). Also, while The Matrix is a single work that surely everyone who wrote an essay in The Matrix and Philosophy watched, it seems unlikely that those writing essays in this collection have viewed all, most, and probably not even many of the over 200 episodes of The Simpsons. Indeed, the essays "Popular Parody: The Simpsons Meets the Crime Film" by Deborah Knight and "Hey-diddily-ho, Neighboreenos: Ned Flanders and Neighborly Love" by David Vessey each focused on only one episode of The Simpsons. This might have been okay if the episodes were representative of Simpsons episodes, but the general plot and theme of these two episodes are at least quite uncommon in The Simpsons and probably unique. Vessey could have, and should have in my opinion, wrote a more general essay on Flanders' character. Instead, his essay focuses on the silly idea of whether one needs to try to baptize others to save their eternal lives. The essay, I think, was probably about as good as could be being based on this lame idea, and I can only imagine how much better it would have been if it would have been based on bigger, more generalizable aspects of The Simpsons, such as a more complete study into the character of Ned Flanders.

The 4th essay, "Marge's Moral Motivation" by Gerald J. Erion and Joseph A. Zeccardi is particularly egregious in that the authors make blanket generalizations about the show based on events that occur only once or rarely, suggesting that while they are not regular viewers of the show, they are trying to pass themselves off as such. For instance, they write of Marge, "As the wife of an occasionally unemployed, incarcerated, and dimensionally-confused husband, Marge has relatively little to work with financially" (Page 49). These 3 ideas either occur rarely (unemployed or incarcerated) or only once (dimensional-confusion).

I gave this book 3 stars because while I really enjoyed some of the essays, such as the ones I listed above by Halwani, Skoble, and Conard, some of the other essays were mediocre or worse, were only relevant to The Simpsons in the most general of ways. If you've already read much philosophy the ideas in this book, both those tying The Simpsons to major philosophical ideas and those not really about The Simpsons, then this book probably won't give you many additional insights into either The Simpsons or philosophy. Also, some of the analysis presented in the essays really isn't grounded in higher-level philosophy but rather just common-sense observations and connections that could probably be made by just about any intelligent viewer of The Simpsons.

Sometimes the most difficult matters can be presented in a funny way. It's good to reflect about philosophy in our daily life. So, if you like philosophy, if you like to think, if you see the Simpsons, and if you don't have enough time to take seriously Kant (to read Kritik der reinen Vernunft), that's your book.

For any fan of The Simpsons, even mildly interested in philosophy, this is a must buy. Be warned though, it is not solely about punch-lines and descriptions for which to live vicariously through once more. Although often cited and referenced, the jokes of the show are not the issue. The issue being addressed, to oversimplify and generalize, is how The Simpsons can illustrate various ideas of a philosophical nature. Don't be thrown off into simply dismissing it as the foolish fare of the masses. This is serious philosophy, but grounded in the Simpsons in order to enhance the reader's appreciation of it, and to make it more enjoyable. For those of you, like myself, who are interested in philosophy, yet with little of a philosophical background, this book can at times seem abstract and hard to follow. But, bear with it! By the end of the essay, the point has been clarified, and you can walk away with the ability to articulate briefly what has been discussed.

And above all, it's just good fun. It's enlightening, yes, and that enhances it, but it's also a great read that pulls you into it and has you fully engrossed, leaving you wanting more by the end.

I recommend it to Simpsons fans with at least an openness to or moderate interest in philosophy, and philosophy readers with a desire for a good read.

Basically, "The Simpsons and Philosophy" sums up my entire life. I'd been philosophizing about/during/with _The Simpsons_ long before I'd even heard this book existed. Once it was released I was quick to get it.

Unfortunately, I was not thrilled with the book's content. I've also read the other installment in this series, _Seinfeld and Philosophy_, and the more essays I read in the _Simpsons_ version, the more I sadly realized that this was just an attempt to cash in on the success of the earlier version with a lesser-quality rip-off.

Not that the book is all bad. There are some high points. Springfield's ambivalence towards Lisa's intellectualism is illustrated carefully and humorously. Some of the forays into the moral structure of the Simpson universe were successful. Unfortunately, though, the majority of the book was not.

Many of the scholars who contributed (very successfully) to _Seinfeld and Philosophy_ were invited back this time around, but it is painfully clear that many of them have never really watched _The Simpsons_ in the careful way they have _Seinfeld_. The book gets off to a rough start with an Aristotelian evaluation of Homer's ethics, in which Homer is shown to be, more or less, a monster. Any true fan of the show has to feel a little uncomfortable with that assessment. Several other aspects of the show are analyzed in similarly unfamiliar ways.

The few essays that do show sufficient knowledge of _The Simpsons_ tend to be, well, not really philsophical, while the philosophically sound essays are devoid of Springfieldian prowess. Essays dealing with gender roles and family structure belong more under the heading of Sociology than Philosophy, etc.

If you really, _really_ love _The Simpsons_, you should get this book. If you're looking for a philosophical primer, however, or a flippant jaunt into the hilarity of the series, don't look here. You'll be disappointed.