What do you think?
Rate this book
Everything I Know I Learned From TV: Philosophy For the Unrepentant Couch Potato
Everything I Know I Learned From TV uses characters we all know and love and their TV worlds to explain the great questions of philosophy. The only qualifications you need to join in are ownership of a sofa, a remote control, a sense of humour and an enquiring mind. The philosophy discussed is very much 'life' philosophy, answering the questions we all want to How do you define what is a good life to lead? The Simpsons disagree over the right way to live with Nietzsche and Diogenes on hand to take sides. What is real happiness? Aristotle fights Descartes for the heart and mind of Sex and the City' s Carrie Bradshaw. Can a good person do a bad thing? Kant and Socrates pay a call on Tony Soprano and his latter-day Mob to talk moral philosophy. Where does love end and friendship begin? Rachel and Ross ask Plato about the philosophy of emotions and wonder if they're just good friends. Is the pursuit of self-knowledge a good thing? Socrates helps Niles and Frasier Crane and their dad deal with the relative merit of the examined and the unexamined life. And much more.
288 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2005
17 people are currently reading
155 people want to read
About the author
Mark Rowlands
36 books149 followersMark Rowlands was born in Newport, Wales and began his undergraduate degree at Manchester University in engineering before changing to philosophy. He took his doctorate in philosophy from Oxford University and has held various academic positions in philosophy in universities in Britain, Ireland and the US.
His best known work is the book The Philosopher and the Wolf about a decade of his life he spent living and travelling with a wolf. As The Guardian described it in its review, "it is perhaps best described as the autobiography of an idea, or rather a set of related ideas, about the relationship between human and non-human animals." Reviews were very positive, the Financial Times said it was "a remarkable portrait of the bond that can exist between a human being and a beast,". Mark Vernon writing in The Times Literary Supplement "found the lessons on consciousness, animals and knowledge as engaging as the main current of the memoir," and added that it "could become a philosophical cult classic", while John Gray in the Literary Review thought it "a powerfully subversive critique of the unexamined assumptions that shape the way most philosophers - along with most people - think about animals and themselves." However, Alexander Fiske-Harrison for Prospect warned that "if you combine misanthropy and lycophilia, the resulting hybrid, lycanthropy, is indeed interesting, but philosophically quite sterile" and that, although Rowlands "acknowledges at the beginning of the book that he cannot think like a wolf... for such a capable philosopher and readable author not to have made the attempt is indeed an opportunity missed."
As a professional philosopher, Rowlands is known as one of the principal architects of the view known as vehicle externalism or the extended mind, and also for his work on the moral status of animals.
His best known work is the book The Philosopher and the Wolf about a decade of his life he spent living and travelling with a wolf. As The Guardian described it in its review, "it is perhaps best described as the autobiography of an idea, or rather a set of related ideas, about the relationship between human and non-human animals." Reviews were very positive, the Financial Times said it was "a remarkable portrait of the bond that can exist between a human being and a beast,". Mark Vernon writing in The Times Literary Supplement "found the lessons on consciousness, animals and knowledge as engaging as the main current of the memoir," and added that it "could become a philosophical cult classic", while John Gray in the Literary Review thought it "a powerfully subversive critique of the unexamined assumptions that shape the way most philosophers - along with most people - think about animals and themselves." However, Alexander Fiske-Harrison for Prospect warned that "if you combine misanthropy and lycophilia, the resulting hybrid, lycanthropy, is indeed interesting, but philosophically quite sterile" and that, although Rowlands "acknowledges at the beginning of the book that he cannot think like a wolf... for such a capable philosopher and readable author not to have made the attempt is indeed an opportunity missed."
As a professional philosopher, Rowlands is known as one of the principal architects of the view known as vehicle externalism or the extended mind, and also for his work on the moral status of animals.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
February 7, 2019
”Minusta Carrie välttelee omaa esimodernia minuuttaan. Hän on virallisesti modernismin ilmentymä. Muistammehan vaikkapa hänen viimeiset sanansa viimeisessä jaksossa. - – 'Tärkein suhde on se, mikä ihmisellä on itsensä kanssa.' – – Aivan kuin hän ei olisi oppinut yhtään mitään.”
July 5, 2010
I'm never quite sure how to award star ratings to books, music or movies. What makes a 5-star better than a 4-star, or when does a 4-star become a 3-star and on and on. What I would say is that this is quite a lightweight book, and upon consideration, that's actually a good thing.
I originally gave it four stars, then thought, well, it's lightweight. Surely that's grounds for one star less? Then I considered what I'm currently reading, which is A. C. Grayling's What Is Good? Now, these two books are setting out to do the same things, essentially: inform the casual but interested reader about broad, historical strands of philosophical thought through the ages. They both take on ideas about ethics, schools of thought, etc.
The difference is that Rowlands uses eight incredibly popular television series as teaching aids. So, 24' forms the backdrop to his chapter about justice, while Aristotlian and Cartesian points of view are pivoted over Sex and the City>. Seinfeld, The Simpsons and The Sopranos are similarly sites of discussion.
Grayling, thus far, has rounded on 'Oriental' religion as his bête noir. So so you get your explanations of Stoics, Epicureans and Cynics all with an undertone of 'Christianity ruined all this wonderful, progressive thought'. He's got an axe to grind, but from a starting point that I just can't quite buy.
So, back to the matter at hand. Rowlands's book. It certainly does grab the attention and provide an excellent overview of the subjects to hand, complete with illustrations drawn from the TV shows in question. You might be a little bit lost if you've not actually seen the series from which he draws, but then again, you're probably not the people he has in mind as his reader. It's all well explained, full of all the names you might need to chase up and investigate further. And more than that, you do feel that Rowlands has an excellent grasp of the subject matter, both the philosophy and the TV shows. In fairness, it doesn't always work quite as well as it could, but it really is a good starting point for TV buffs looking for justification for their couch potato ways and a yen for philosophical thought.
That's my ramble for now.
I originally gave it four stars, then thought, well, it's lightweight. Surely that's grounds for one star less? Then I considered what I'm currently reading, which is A. C. Grayling's What Is Good? Now, these two books are setting out to do the same things, essentially: inform the casual but interested reader about broad, historical strands of philosophical thought through the ages. They both take on ideas about ethics, schools of thought, etc.
The difference is that Rowlands uses eight incredibly popular television series as teaching aids. So, 24' forms the backdrop to his chapter about justice, while Aristotlian and Cartesian points of view are pivoted over Sex and the City>. Seinfeld, The Simpsons and The Sopranos are similarly sites of discussion.
Grayling, thus far, has rounded on 'Oriental' religion as his bête noir. So so you get your explanations of Stoics, Epicureans and Cynics all with an undertone of 'Christianity ruined all this wonderful, progressive thought'. He's got an axe to grind, but from a starting point that I just can't quite buy.
So, back to the matter at hand. Rowlands's book. It certainly does grab the attention and provide an excellent overview of the subjects to hand, complete with illustrations drawn from the TV shows in question. You might be a little bit lost if you've not actually seen the series from which he draws, but then again, you're probably not the people he has in mind as his reader. It's all well explained, full of all the names you might need to chase up and investigate further. And more than that, you do feel that Rowlands has an excellent grasp of the subject matter, both the philosophy and the TV shows. In fairness, it doesn't always work quite as well as it could, but it really is a good starting point for TV buffs looking for justification for their couch potato ways and a yen for philosophical thought.
That's my ramble for now.
December 5, 2023
A fun book, largely made for entertainment. I tried to not take it too seriously but I did notice a couple of things. Firstly, the author deals with philosophy in quite broad strokes of generalisation. Often there are unspecific references to philosophers and notions. This causes an issue as terms can be rather loose considering they jump around so much in philosophy, and ideologies so much from the Greeks to present day. For example, the use of modern and pre modern is so wide and unspecific it could really mean anything. Secondly, the tangent on metaphors and analogies is rather stupid. To criticise Plato or Freud for their analogies is boldly ignorant. Freud is certainly intended as analogies and stated as such, his models do not represent a life like quality. It is a theory. That is a poor reading, not a mistake of the author. Plato is writing in BC, perhaps context is rather important? I refer to the point where the author called Plato a fascist for his ideas presented in the republic. While it may be similar to fascist states and served as a model, this is rather like calling classical music rock n roll. In criticising who has license to state such models that is hypocritical of the previous statement of anyone can philosophise. The issue of models and actuality may be a problem of psychology rather than philosophy, for philosophy is entirely thought based. It is not a science.
August 25, 2024
Entertainment & Engagement: Great
The book is well-written, making extensive use of pop culture references to clarify its points. The author's humorous and engaging style keeps the reader entertained throughout.
Educational Value: Excellent
Outstanding. I learned more about philosophy from this book than from any other I've read.
Effort, Accessibility & Aesthetic Impact: Good
Good. While the chapters are long, the writing is accessible and well-structured. The philosophical concepts are complex, but the author explains them as clearly as possible.
Practical Application: Great
Great. The book covers happiness, leading a good life, and morality. Although it doesn't offer much concrete advice, the insights provided are valuable for understanding various aspects of life.
Value for Writers: Excellent
Excellent. This book is indispensable for exploring themes like morality and human nature, especially in relation to well-known story structures. It will help writers think more deeply about their storytelling and generate ideas for character development.
Additional Notes:
In my OPINION, this is one of the best books I have ever read.
The book is well-written, making extensive use of pop culture references to clarify its points. The author's humorous and engaging style keeps the reader entertained throughout.
Educational Value: Excellent
Outstanding. I learned more about philosophy from this book than from any other I've read.
Effort, Accessibility & Aesthetic Impact: Good
Good. While the chapters are long, the writing is accessible and well-structured. The philosophical concepts are complex, but the author explains them as clearly as possible.
Practical Application: Great
Great. The book covers happiness, leading a good life, and morality. Although it doesn't offer much concrete advice, the insights provided are valuable for understanding various aspects of life.
Value for Writers: Excellent
Excellent. This book is indispensable for exploring themes like morality and human nature, especially in relation to well-known story structures. It will help writers think more deeply about their storytelling and generate ideas for character development.
Additional Notes:
In my OPINION, this is one of the best books I have ever read.
June 5, 2025
Lo que parece un libro ligero acaba siendo una invitación a mirar con otros ojos lo que consumimos a diario. Porque sí, entre risas enlatadas y criaturas sobrenaturales también caben Aristóteles y Nietzsche.
Me encantó cómo desdibuja la frontera entre cultura alta y cultura pop. Al final, pensar es pensar, lo mismo da si el punto de partida es un diálogo de Platón o un capítulo de Los Simpson.
Me encantó cómo desdibuja la frontera entre cultura alta y cultura pop. Al final, pensar es pensar, lo mismo da si el punto de partida es un diálogo de Platón o un capítulo de Los Simpson.
October 10, 2021
No es el mejor libro del autor ni por el que recomendaría conocerlo. En este libro en más de una ocasión compara peras con manzana, mezcla temas de la forma menos pensada, hace interpretaciones demasiado personales sobre grandes pensadores y no siempre llega a conclusiones integrales.
July 28, 2020
Foi minha porta para começar a pensar feito gente.
November 9, 2021
Filofiaa, jossa rautalankana toimivat tutut tv-sarjat. Hauska paketointi, mutta filosofia on silti haastava laji. Kolme ja puoli tähteä.
February 23, 2016
Yeah - it's a great idea: combine something with a reputation for being dull and boring with something that is reputed to be interesting and vital. I gave away my TV nearly three decades ago - it was just too dull and boring for me, and besides that I was always out enjoying myself with friends. The only interesting things on TV were the adverts. Has anything changed since then? I still don't own a TV so go figure.
Philosophy on the other hand is relatively more interesting - just so long as you steer away from Sartre and Existentialism, which doesn't just bore me - it depresses the heck out of me. Guess what this book is chock full of! Yeah - you guessed it: modernism. Okay - maybe you didn't guess that, but you're close enough. Hey - one depressing branch of philosophy is much the same as another to me.
Modernism is, according to the author, what characterises our time and is a combination of three things:
- individualism (I above everything else)
- relativism (there's no a true way of personal realization)
- voluntarism (every one should choose his own way).
The way he puts it is that the blight of modern life in the West, and increasingly in other parts of the world, is that we are such selfish gits that society is falling apart.
He seems to put much more credence on a pre-modern(ist) philosophy (and he mentions Islam in this context) that focuses on the links between people. This tends to form people into a co-operative unit that is much happier because of it. When everyone is pulling in the same direction - there is much more chance of overall happiness.
Unless they're heading towards the edge of a cliff of course.
So - we (in the West) are all modern together. Everyone is really, really selfish and just accumulating 'things' (because 'things' make you happy - right?), and in the process we are consuming the planet faster than it can replenish itself.
And that's it really.
Oh - some TV shows are mentioned as exemplars of ... selfishness.
And that really is that.
Like I say - depressing and boring.
Philosophy on the other hand is relatively more interesting - just so long as you steer away from Sartre and Existentialism, which doesn't just bore me - it depresses the heck out of me. Guess what this book is chock full of! Yeah - you guessed it: modernism. Okay - maybe you didn't guess that, but you're close enough. Hey - one depressing branch of philosophy is much the same as another to me.
Modernism is, according to the author, what characterises our time and is a combination of three things:
- individualism (I above everything else)
- relativism (there's no a true way of personal realization)
- voluntarism (every one should choose his own way).
The way he puts it is that the blight of modern life in the West, and increasingly in other parts of the world, is that we are such selfish gits that society is falling apart.
He seems to put much more credence on a pre-modern(ist) philosophy (and he mentions Islam in this context) that focuses on the links between people. This tends to form people into a co-operative unit that is much happier because of it. When everyone is pulling in the same direction - there is much more chance of overall happiness.
Unless they're heading towards the edge of a cliff of course.
So - we (in the West) are all modern together. Everyone is really, really selfish and just accumulating 'things' (because 'things' make you happy - right?), and in the process we are consuming the planet faster than it can replenish itself.
And that's it really.
Oh - some TV shows are mentioned as exemplars of ... selfishness.
And that really is that.
Like I say - depressing and boring.
June 22, 2012
It took me a while to get into this book. Even though I am a Buffy fan, the first chapter was probably my least favourite. I read the chapters that covered shows I have never watched and I still enjoyed those. At first, I was a bit disappointed that this book was more about philosophy and less about how it related to each show, but I eventually adjusted to that. Sure, some of the concepts made my head spin but the author's humour and down-to-earth way of writing kept me entertained. I was unimpressed at his swipe at vegetarian food but thankfully, that was small and brief. If you are looking for an 'easy read', I would not pick this book up. Philosophy, no matter how well it is written, is never easy reading.
June 13, 2013
Interesting book and concept. This book tries to explain philosophy, or rather modernity, by using TV shows as examples. Brilliant. I really liked this book; it was entertaining, although I would have liked it better had there been more shows that I've actually watched from beginning to end. Anyhow, that is my problem (or the problem of my taste in TV shows). It made me realize how depressing the concept of modernity really is. At least to me. Although, ever since I read the chapter on Friends I feel like someone has put a hole in my Mondler ship. Nevertheless, it was an interesting read.
March 12, 2014
O livro tem algumas informações interessantes e outras que achei um pouco exageradas, difícil realmente pensar os personagens das sérias por essa análise feita. Na verdade, não gostei de muitas coisas no livro. Acabei dando 3 estrelas pela análise de "Seinfeld" e "Simpsons", que foram as únicas que achei pertinentes e me agradaram bastante. Então, eu acho que por essas duas análises já vale a pena a leitura do livro. E bom, é a análise do autor, ele supõe com base nas pesquisas e conhecimentos dele, não necessariamente essa análise está correta, é um modo de enxergar, de analisar as séries.
January 24, 2016
A very interesting idea, making an effort to define 'modernism' and link this with other philosophies and '-isms', by reference to what a lot of us are watching on our TV screens in this TV age. Though I didn't get quite as much from it than I might have otherwise done (some of the chapters were about TV shows that I hadn't seen very much of - and I skimmed or skipped some of this), what I did read was good - though perhaps not fully realised as theories.
June 10, 2014
I bought this and started reading it - expecting a casual funny read - but it was very in depth and complex and just became too hard to read after a couple of chapters. It's only the tv series it chooses to discuss that are funny.
That is not to say it wasn't a good book. if you are a student or a fan of philosophy then this may be just right for you.
That is not to say it wasn't a good book. if you are a student or a fan of philosophy then this may be just right for you.
March 11, 2007
Not as easily digestible as the title might imply. Covers Buffy, The Sopranos, Seinfeld and more. Can a good person do bad things ? What is love ? What is selfishness ? What is obligation ?
August 30, 2011
An entertaining and insightful examination of the philosophical dilemmas modern man faces in a postmodern world.
May 8, 2016
É até legal, mas já tive melhores
March 14, 2022
A little too heavy for me right now.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews