Breaking Bad and Philosophy: Badder Living through Chemistry

Popular Culture and Philosophy #67

by David R. Koepsell (Editor), Robert Arp (Editor)

Breaking Bad, hailed by Stephen King, Chuck Klosterman, and many others as the best of all TV dramas, tells the story of a man whose life changes because of the medical death sentence of an advanced cancer diagnosis. The show depicts his metamorphosis from inoffensive chemistry teacher to feared drug lord and remorseless killer. Driven at first by the desire to save his family from destitution, he risks losing his family altogether because of his new life of crime.

In defiance of the tradition that viewers demand a TV character who never changes, Breaking Bad is all about the process of change, with each scene carrying forward the morphing of Walter White into the terrible Heisenberg.

Can a person be transformed as the result of a few key life choices? Does everyone have the potential to be a ruthless criminal? How will we respond to the knowledge that we will be dead in six months? Is human life subject to laws as remorseless as chemical equations? When does injustice validate brutal retaliation? Why are drug addicts unsuitable for operating the illegal drug business? How can TV viewers remain loyal to a series where the hero becomes the villain? Does Heisenberg’s Principle of Uncertainty rule our destinies?

In Breaking Bad and Philosophy, a hand-picked squad of professional thinkers investigate the crimes of Walter White, showing how this story relates to the major themes of philosophy and the major life decisions facing all of us.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Pop Culture, Essays, Tv

254 pages, Kindle Edition

First published June 12, 2012

About the author

David is an author, philosopher, attorney, and educator whose recent research focuses on the nexus of science, technology, ethics, and public policy. He teaches at the Delft University of Technology, and lives in The Netherlands.

Reviews

[KamRun · Rating 3 out of 5]

بگذار چون غروب / جاری شوم به وسعت خونینِ خویشتن / بگذار چون شهاب/ تا انتهای تیره‌ی غربت رها شوم/ بگذار چون دریچه‌ای از برج انزجار/ بر قطب انزوایی آرام وا شوم /دیگر مرا نمانده توانی به کاشتن/ تسبیح شد به رشته‌ی هر باد، بذرها/ خیشم شکست در جدل سنگ/ اما هنوز در شط ناآرام باد و شن/ چونان تناوری ابدی کرده‌ام درنگ
رفیق به خون خفته سعید سلطان‌پور

باید اعتراف کنم که داستان زندگی والتر وایت برای آن‌قدر آشنا و تاثیرگذار بود که هربار، بدون مقدار قابل توجهی بغض و اندوه و اضطراب نمی‌توانم به آن فکر کنم و نوشته‌های اکنونم نیز با اشک همراه است. به همین دلیل بیشتر از آنکه بخواهم در مورد کتاب بگویم، می‌خواهم در مورد زندگی والتروایت بنویسم. در مورد کتاب تنها به این مقدار بسنده می‌کنم که مجموعه‌مقالاتی است که بخشی از آن می‌تواند برای کسانی که سیم‌آخر را دیده‌اند و جایی ته دل‌شان لرزیده یا دلشان به حال خودشان سوخته ارزش خواندن داشته باشد

خیال می‌کنم اکثر کسانی که این نوشته را می‌خوانند، پیش‌تر سریال بریکینگ‌بد را دیده‌اند. اما برای آن دسته از دوستانی که احتمالا هنوز والتر وایت را نشناخته و از چند و چون ماجرایش خبر ندارند، خلاصه‌ای از ماجرا را می‌نویسم، اینطور بیشتر و بهتر می‌توانیم با او همدلی کنیم و در این همدلی، به از دست‌رفته‌ها و تلف‌شده‌های خودمان رجوع کنیم. در این رجعت دردناک، واکنش ما می‌تواند آمیخته‌ای از خشم و اندوه و حسرت باشد، روبرو شدن با حقیقتِ خودمان بی‌بها نخواهد بود

والتر وایت حالا یک مرد پنجاه و چند ساله‌است. در جوانی دانشجویی فعال و دانشمندی بالقوه بوده، موسس یک شرکت نوپای دانش‌بنیان. اما حالا بعد از گذشت سی و چند سال از آن روزگار، از آن جوان نخبه و با استعداد، یک معلم شیمی دبیرستان باقی مانده که تا گردن مغروض است.خانه‌اش در گروی بانک و در شرف از بین رفتن است. شغل دومش شستن ماشین‌هاست در کارواش و به خاطربی‌پولی و بی‌عرضگی مورد تمسخر عالم و آدم قرار می‌گیرد، از شاگردانش گرفته تا همسر و فرزندش. یک فرزند معلول دارد و همسرش فرزند دومی را هم ناخواسته باردار است. در این میان روزی متوجه می‌شود که به سرطان پیشرفته‌ی ریه دچار شده است و این اتفاق تکان‌دهنده، او را ظاهرا به این خیال فرومی‌برد که در این زمان اندک، پولی دست و پا کند تا خانواده‌اش پس از مرگ امنیت مالی داشته باشند. راهی که در این میان به ذهنش می‌رسد یک چیز است: پخت‌و‌پز. پختن نامی است که به فرآیند تولید متاآمفتامین می‌گویند. او خیلی زود از یک آشپز آماتور، تبدیل به یکی از سرشناس‌ترین تبه‌کاران آمریکایی می‌شود و از این پس، نام هایزنبرگ را برای خود اختیار می‌کند. هایزنبرگی که زمین تا آسمان با کاراکتر والتر وایت در تفاوت است

هشدار: ادامه‌ی متن تاحدی فاش کننده‌ی پایان سریال است

زمین‌لرزه‌ی وجودی والتروایت
هنگام که والتر وایت از بیماری کشنده و روزهای باقی‌مانده‌اش باخبر می‌شود اولین چیزی که بنظر می‌رسد فکر او را به خود مشغول کرده، آینده‌ی خانواده‌اش است. ما به خیال من این تنها ظاهر امر است. این فکر ریشه در نگرانی‌ای عمیق‌تر دارد. اینکه او به عنوان یک انسان پنجاه و چهارساله و در شرف مرگ، در کجای دنیا ایستاده و وجود خویش را چگونه ساخته است. شاید مخاطب تصور کند انگیزه‌ی او از وارد شدن به دنیای موادمخدر امنیت مالی خانواده‌اش است، اما خیلی زود با دیدن افکار و واکنش‌های وایت در موقعیت‌های گوناگون سریال، پی به حقیقت امر می‌برد. این حقیقت که او تمام این کارها را برای خودش می‌کند. مواجهه غریب‌الوقوع با مرگ، او را در تکاپوی مبارزه‌ی وجودی بی‌امان انداخته است. این رویارویی با مرگ قریب‌الوقوع نقش محوری در تفکر والتروایت و شخصیت خودساخته‌ی هایزنبرگ می‌شود

هبوط به دنیای واقعیت
مواجهه با مرگ قریب‌الوقوع، والتر وایت را به برزخ واقعیت سوق می‌دهد. واقعیت ساختگی او، یعنی تصوری که تا به امروز در مورد دنیای خویش و اصول‌های شخصی‌اش داشته ناگهان فرو می‌ریزد و به‌طور بی‌رحمانه‌ای با واقعیت عریان روبرو می‌شود: اینکه به زودی قرار است نابود شود، در حالی که خیلی پیش‌تر از آن، تمام استعدادهایش تلف شده‌اند و هیچ جایگاهی در دنیا ندارد و بود و نبودش تفاوتی در روند زندگی دیگران ایجاد نخواهد کرد. او همچون ذره‌ای بی‌ارزش و ناچیز زیسته و حالا هم قرار است مرگی حقیر را تجربه کند. مکانیسم دفاع ذهنی او ناگهان بدین شیوه فرو می‌ریزد و او را دچار از هم گیسختگی موقت و آشفتگی روانی می‌سازد. او به یک خودآگاهی عمیق و دردناک می‌رسد و در نهایت هایزنبرگ از دل این خودآگاهی ظهور می‌کند


تصمیم اگزیستانسیالیستی والتر وایت
والر وایت در تمام زندگی به ساز دیگران رقصیده و بیشتر از همه مطابق با میل همسرش رفتار کرده است. این موضوع را می‌توان به وضوح در میزگرد بالشتک که هسرش اسکایلر ترتیب داده مشاهده کرد. با انکه مرگ تجربه‌ای کاملا شخصی و جدا از دیگران است، اما اسکایلر در تلاش است تا حتی کنترل این موضوع را هم بدست بگیرد. شاید برداشت مخاطب این باشد که عشق اسکایلر به والتر وایت سبب شده تا او بخواهد که والتر وایت را تا بیشتر زمان ممکن و به هر شیوه‌ای زنده نگاه دارد. اما بنظر من چنین نیست. این رفتار تنها از خودخواهی اسکایلر که در لوای عشق پنهان شده نشات می‌گیرد.معیاری که اسکایلر با ان والتر وایت را به این نقطه‎ی خفت‌بار رسانده، گرایشی اخلاقی به نام فایده‌گرایی است. فایده گرایی آموزه‌ای است که توصیه می‌کند کار خوب آن است که بیشترین خوشی را برای بیشترین افراد ایجاد کند. حالا هم درمان سخت والتر وایت و مرگ دیرهنگام او می‌تواند خوشی بیشتری برای خانواده‌ی او ایجاد کند. اما سهم والتروایت چیست؟ او که نه توان پرداخت چنین هزینه‌ای را دارد و نه خواهان تحمل چنین درد و زندگی توام با رنجی است؟ از دیدگاه اسکالیر این موضوع طبق معمول اهیمیت ندارد. در همین میزگرد، خواهر اسکایلر سخنی را به زبان می‌آورد که همه چیز را از بنیان تغییر می‌دهد: والت نباید آنچه بیشترین تعداد آدم را خوشحال می‌کند انجام دهد، بلکه او باید فارغ از این موضوع ان کاری را انجام دهد که خودش خواهانش است. زیرا والتر وایت تنها کسی است که در این جمع با مرگ قریب‌الوقوع خویش روبروست. در نتیجه والتر وایت باید در پرتوی آگاهی به میرایی خویش - همچون یک اگزیتانسیالیست واقعی - تصمیم‌گیری کند. هرچند او به درمان بیماری خود تن می‌دهد، ولی تصمیم اساسی و مهم او چیز دیگری‌ست. دازاین والتر وایت در حال شکل‌گیری و ظهور است. به زودی آتشفشانی پرقدرت از وجود والتر وایت فوران خواهد کرد

سرطان بره به جهنم! من بهترین روزای عمرم رو با سرطان گذروندم! اولش انگار تاریخ مرگت رو اعلام کردن. مدام هم پشت گوشت تکرار می‌کنن. ولی از من می‌شنوی هر زندگی تاریخِ خودش رو داره و یه خب روزی هم تموم میشه. مدام هر چند ماه یه بار برای ازمایش میام اینجا و می‌دونم بالاخره یه روز تو یکی از این ازمایش‌ها،حتی شاید همین امروز،بهم خبرای بدی بدن. ولی تا اون روز کی رئیسه؟! من! من اینجوری زندگی می‌کنم

هایزنبرگ به مثابه‌ی ابرانسان نیچه
هایزنبرگ به مرور تبدیل به تبه‌کاری به تمام‌معنا می‌گردد. وارد شبکه‌ی گسترده‌ی توزیع مواد مخدر می‌شود، مانند نقل و نبات آدم می‌کشد و دستور اعدام صادر می‌کند. هایزنبرگ در مراحل آغازین شکل‌دهی شخصیت جدید خود، هنوز به اخلاقیات قدیم خود پایبند است و کارهای غیرقانونی‌اش را به نحوی توجیه می‌کند. برای قتل‌ها بهانه می‌آورد و سعی می‌کند مقتولین را به سبب گناهانشان مستوجب چنینی سرانجامی بداند. اما هایزنبرگ تکوین‌یافته، دیگر اصول اخلاقی گذشته را رها کرده و اصول اخلاقی خویش را بنا می‌کند
اهنگامی که والتروایت از بیماری خود مطلع می‌شود، اصطلاحا دچار نوعی بیداری می‌گردد و در می‌یابد زندگی‌اش از آنچه گمان می‌کرد کوتاه‌تر و ناپایدارتر است و تنها هراسیدن و ضعف او را از نیل به اهداف دوران جوانی‌اش بازداشته است. این نخستین گام به سوی ابرانسان شدن است که به تغییر چشم‌انداز و جهان‌بینی او منجر می‌گردد: نه گفتن به ارزش‌های از پیش موجود. حالا والت برای ابر انسان شدن باید اخلاقیات خود را سوای اخلاقیات دیگران خلق کند. معیار اخلاقی ابرانسان تنها یک چیز است: تمام انچه که اتفاق می‌افتد - خوب یا بد - پیامد اراده‌ی خودِ اوست. آموزه‌ی بازگشت ابدی نیچه می‌گوید که زندگی تماما در لحظاتی رخ می‌دهد که پیش‌تر بی‌نهایت بار اتفاق افتاده و بی‌نهایت بار دیگر هم اتفاق می‌افتد. ابرانسان، عناصر تکرار شونده و بازگردنده‌ی زندگی را بر حست اراده‌ی خویش نظمی نوین می‌دهد. معیار خوب بودن در این اخلاقیات نوین تنها یک چیز است: آنچه که به اراده‌ی ابرانسان می‌آید
با این اوصاف، قربانی‌های مستقیم و غیرمستقیم هایزنبرگ که دیگر از شمار خارج شده‌اند، امری طبیعی‌ست. برای یک ابر انسان همیشه قربانی‌هایی وجود دارد که در سمت ضعیف‌تر طبعیت قرار گرفته‌اند. قربانی کسی است که ارده‌اش توانایی تفوق یافتن بر دیگران را نداشته باشد

هایزنبرگ به مثابه‌ی سیزیف
آیا هایزنبرگ یک جامعه‌ستیز است؟ قطعا اینطور نیست. جامعه‌ستیزی یکی از قدرتمندترین مکانیسم‌های دفاعی ذهن است که از عقلانیت به عنوان ابزار اصلی خود استفاده می‌کند. در این مکانیسم خشم، احساسات دیگر را به طور کامل سرکوب می‌کند تا عقل مجال آن را یابد بدون تاثر از هرگونه احساسی، اهداف شخصی خود را پیش ببرد. با چنین معیار گاس یک جامعه‌ستیز تمام عیار است. اما هایزنبرگ را می‌توان یک سیزیف مدرن نامید. والتر وایت پس از دگرگونی عمیق، در قالب سیزیف ظهور می‌کند. والت بیماری خود را به مثابه‎ی زنگ خطری برای بیداری و تبدیل شدن به انسانی آزاد و پذیرفتن مسئولیت روزهای پایانی زندگی خویش تفسیر می‌کند. انتخاب والتر وایت، بدیل انتخابی کاملا سرراست و عرفی است: قبول قضا و قدر و زندگی و مرگ در چهارچوبی غیراصیل که اجتماع به او تحمیل کرده است. او شادمانه دست به شورش می‌زند. شورشی علیه مرگ، علیه قوانین اجتماعی، علیه همسر پرتوقع و زبان‌دراز خود و به‌طور کل علیه تمام جوانب زندگی ذلیلش. تبه‌کاری والت نوعی جنگیدن رو به جلو است، در حالی که پیوسته رضایت بیشتری از زندگی جدید خود حاصل می‌کند و دست به خلق معناهای بیشتری می‌زند. والت به مثابه‌ی سیزیف به پوچی جهان و مرگ اجتناب‌ناپذیرش اذعان دارد. از نگاه من والتر وایت قطعا خوشبخت است، زیرا او اصالت وجودی خویش را بازیافته و زمام آزادی و مسئولیت انتخاب‌هایش را برعهده گرفته است. حتی آن هنگام که زندگی‌اش از هم می‌پاشد، حتی آن هنگام که عزیزانش پیش رویش کشته می‌شوند، حتی آن‌هنگام که به نقطه‌ی پایانی زندگی‌اش می‌رسد. شک دارید؟ یک بار دیگر سکانس پایانی فیلم را نگاه کنید: آنجا که آژیر ده‌ها ماشین پلیس به گوش می‌رسد و او با لبخندی معنادار دست خونین و نیمه‌جان خویش را به بدنه‌ی آلومینیومی راکتور تولید شیشه می‌کشد. مهم نیست پایان کار ولت چطور باشد. والت به عنوان انسانی اصیل به پایان لبخند می‌زند.

انتخاب با من است، والتر وایت یا هایزنبرگ؟
من والتر وایت را دوست داشتم و دلم برایش می‌سوخت، اما عاشق هایزنبرگ هستم و ذره‌ای دلسوزی برای او ندارم. او پیش از مرگ بیدار شد، زندگی کرد و خوشبخت مرد، حتی اگر همه چیزش را در انتها از دست داد. وقتی دست به مقایسه می‌برم، من بیشتر شبیه والتر وایت بوده‌ام تا هایزنبرگ. سال‌ها تلاش کرده‌ام که با اخلاقی فضیلت‌محور زندگی کنم. باید اعتراف کنم که تصمیم‌گیری‌هایم تا چندی پیش عموما با این معیار بوده که تصمیم و عمل من اول- چه پیامدهایی برای دیگرانی که نزدیکم هستند یعنی خانواده دارد و دوم - جایگاه من را در عرف و در میان اجتماع چطور تعریف می‌کند و در نهایت تاثیراتش بر روی خودم چگونه خواهد بود. اما مدتی‌ست که در این اولویت‌بندی و بطور کل معیار دچار تردید شده‌ام. احساس کوتاهی بالقوه‌ی زندگی در من شدت گرفته و آگاهی به میرایی قریب‌الوقوع، تصمیمی‌گیری ام را تحت تاثیر قرار داده و همه چیز برایم تحت مفهوم زندگی به مثابه امری بسیار بسیار کوتاه قرار گرفته است. این روزها تصورم از زندگی‌ام، مطابق با تمثیل دونده‌ی سارا والر هم‌خوانی دارد. یک دونده‌ی ماراتن را در نظر بگیرید که کیلومترها برای دویدن پیش رو دارد. در آغاز او تصمیم می‌گیرد که با سرعتی دقیق و برنامه‌ریزی شده - پیوسته و آهسته - پیش برود و انرژی خود را حفظ کند. او باید پیامدهای اعمال و انتخاب‌هایش را برای هر کیلومتر در نظر بگیرد و حساب‌شده پیش برود. اما در کیلومترهای آخر اوضاع متفاوت است. در آن زمان باید لباس‌های اضافی‌اش را بکند، بطری آبش را پرتاب کند. حالا دیگر او فرصت دیگری جز این بدست نخواهد آورد. اکنون او باید خود را اماده‌ی شلیک پایانی کند. انتخاب‌های او دیگر نیازمند احتیاط و نگرانی نیست، زیرا چیزی برای از دست دادن ندارد. در واقع هر تصمیم محتاطانه‌ای که در آغاز گرفته، تمام فایده‌گرایی و بی‌اصالتی انتخاب‌های آغازینش که با مفهوم فایده‌ی بیشتر گره خورده، برای رسیدن به چنین موقعیتی و اتخاذ چنین تصمیمی بوده. مسابقه در هر صورت به پایان خواهد رسید، اما این اوست که می‌تواند با مایه گذاشتن از هرانچه که تا کنون کسب کرده، آن را مطابق دلخواه خویش به پایان رساند. حزم و احتیاط، زندگی بر مبنای فایده‌گرایی شاید شیوه‌ای برای آغاز راه باشد، اما پایان کار - اگر بخواهیم پوچی را مغلوب کنیم - نیازمند بیداری و تصمیمی اگزیستانس است که از پی آن می‌آید. وقتی در کیلومترهایی نهایی هستیم، باید بیدار شویم و دست به انتخاب بزنیم

[Arghavan-紫荆 · Rating 2 out of 5]

یه مجموعه مقاله بود از اشخاص مختلف که بعضی جاها حرفهاشون تکراری می‌شد و بخاطر همین کامل نخوندم و در حد مرور تاپیک ها و نگاه کلی ازشون گذشتم.

ازین نظر که سوال برای پرسیدن به آدم میده و زمینه اینکه دقیق‌تر درباره رفتارها و تصمیم‌های شخصیت‌ها فکر کنی رو فراهم میکنه به دردم خورد خوندنش.

ولی قبل از پایان سریال نوشته شده و چون تصویر کلی از تمام داستان اونموقع نبوده بعضی‌جاهاش صحبت بیهوده بود که اگر منتظر فصل پنج میموندن حل می‌شد.

[Paula · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clearly, this book isn't for EVERYONE--but I loved it. I loved it because this TV show is smart, brilliantly written, performed and produced, creative and most of all it explores deep, challenging life-themes--and this book explores many facets of the show in terms both academic and accessible. I hope they update it once the series ends; my single criticism is that because it is already out, it cannot be keeping in mind the entire story-arc, as the story is not yet complete. For that reason, it will absolutely need to be revised (if not rewritten) a year from now.

[kylajaclyn · Rating 2 out of 5]

SPOILERS, YO.
But if you haven't watched Breaking Bad yet, you better call Saul. He has a few choice words for you.

This book was so rife with grammar errors that I could hardly make it through one sentence without stepping on a misplaced comma. I did, however, manage to read the entire book. There was only one chapter out of all nineteen that made me pause for a moment and think, "Hey, that's interesting. What about this? What about that?" It was the one asking, essentially, if Walter White is a bad person (my answer: duh, yes). Therein lies the major problem that I have with this book: it is far too kind to Walter White. But Walt isn't a bad person necessarily just because he is cooking crystal; he is primarily a bad person because he fails to see or take responsibility for how deeply his actions are effecting his entire community and family. More on that later. I didn't feel there was any essay that understood he was a born sociopath, and that the series' goal was to explore his capacity for evil. This was due in part to the book's laser focus on the first season of the series. Every single writer tried desperately to convince me of how completely sorry Walt was/is for his actions, particularly in regards to offing Krazy-8. The truth? Walt was never sorry for his actions. When he realized Heisenberg was inside of him, he never looked back. Was Walt more sorry in the first season than in the other four? Sure, but that's so irrelevant in consideration of all the amazing things this series can and has taught us. However, I still maintain that, for Walt, his empathy only came into play when it could grant him personal gain. The other problem of this book? It was written far too prematurely. The editors wouldn't have missed the mark by waiting until after the finale aired last September to publish this book, and the editing sure might have improved with the extra time. This book was released at the end of season four, leaving out the gold mine of explanations and motives and craziness found in the final season. In fact the main reason I do not buy into Walt's "I did it for my family" excuse is that he fucking SAYS he didn't do it for his family (finally) in the finale... "I did it for myself. I was alive," he utters to Skyler. Contrary to what this book would have you believe, that was the one and only time Walt ever told the truth to his family or himself (well, besides the season 3 episode "Fly," when he makes a drug-induced half-confession to Jesse). Speaking of Jesse, I would say he is the other person Walt said a few true lines to. But this book is severely lacking in chapters on Jesse, treating him as he was seen in season one: a deadbeat junkie without much character development. Except that these writers had seen four seasons of the power of Aaron Paul, and to pretend that the series was all about Walter White is absurd and to miss the point. The only chapter on Skyler is, of course, scathing. I think it is unfair to Skyler as a character and Skyler as a woman character. Of course she wasn't made to be the most likable character in the show but then, of course, NONE of the characters of Breaking Bad were made to be likable (except, I'd argue, possibly Badger and Skinny Pete. And Brock. And Andrea). How can anyone (seriously, ANYONE), hate Skyler but kiss Walt's ass? She didn't do anything worse than he did, and, in fact, her hand was often forced because of Walt's actions. Which brings me to my final point: this book has many opportunities to discuss The Law of Unintended Consequences but fails to do so at every turn (mostly because, again, it focuses squarely on constantly rehashing the basic plot of BB that we already know and focusing on season one). The fact that Walt's actions as a result of joining the drug trade had such a widespread influence on people he knew and people he didn't fascinates me to no end and is a HUGE part of why I loved the show. This is obviously a very philosophical concept (how much responsibility does Walt really have to all of these people, particularly those he didn't know, such as all those aboard Wayfarer 515?). Another reviewer has already said that fans deserve a better book than this and that we could write one ourselves. I agree! I urge you all to take a look at "The Gospel According to Breaking Bad," "Breaking Down Breaking Bad," and the newly released and hotly anticipated unofficial compendium "Wanna Cook?" I have only read one of those three so far, but I hold high hopes that the other two will wipe out the inequities of this one. In the meantime I might get started on my own Breaking Bad book... after all, when it comes to this phenomenal show, there is always more to say.

[Murilo Silva · Rating 4 out of 5]

Acho que um dos livros mais aleatórios que já li, mas é MUITO bom. Por alguns motivos que citarei eu não dei 5 estrelas, mas a leitura vale muito a pena para os fãs da série (e mais ainda pros fãs de filosofia).

Ponto 1. Achei a edição do livro ruim. A organização e capa são maravilhosas, mas a edição com um foco de padronizar os capítulos eu achei que deixou a desejar. Eram apenas detalhes, mas achei que bagunçou o livro.

Ponto 2. Por cada capítulo ser uma análise escrita por pessoas diferentes, acabou que vários repetiam a ótica da análise. Duas que se repetiram vezes de mais foram a do super-homem de Nietzsche, e a ética utilitarista do John Stuart Mill.

[Open Court Publishing]

David R. Koepsell is leading a live discussion regarding this book tonight on goodreads at "Open Court's Popular Culture and Philosophy Series" Group at 9:30 pm central. Check it out...

[Joanna · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read these "...and philosophy" books not as literary criticism/philosophy but as geek essays geeking about the thing they geek over. The quality of the essays are vary wildly (as you would expect), but there are some surprisingly bad clunkers in there. Also, this was published before the series had aired its final season, so it's almost like reading essays about a book that ignore the last five chapters, or talking about a movie you hadn't seen the last 30 minutes of.

1. Walt's Rap Sheet: decent. How much blame, legally and ethically, does Walt have on the deaths he caused? This essay had a clear question, and it provides clear answers. Whether you agree or not... I give it a B.

2. Heisenberg's Uncertain Confession: terrible. Talks about souls (being part of the chemical composition of the body?), St. Augustine, Werner Heisenberg, strict materialism, redemption... and I think there might have been an interesting idea in there somewhere drawing all these things together, but it needed an editor or a friend or something -anything!- to bash it into shape. A big large hammer, maybe. Uh.. and despite my utter lack of physics knowledge I don't think Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle works the way he's trying to make it work. Like, trying to work it to prove human free will and the existence of the soul. Yeah... F for fail.

3. Was Skylar's Intervention Ethical: Ha, talk about a clear question. Unfortunately, a clear answer was less apparent. I liked the humor, but the essay rambled and lost focus constantly. I got the impression that the writer didn't really expect or care that this would be publicly published. One part of the essay was titled "Coercion Due To Chickenshit" to give you an example of the informality, which could work if done well. But this was like a first draft. Poor. C-

4. Finding Happiness in a Black Hat: meh. Writer took on the unenviable task of making existentialism an ethical (as in strongly moral) philosophy. Doesn't seem like it should be that hard (it's philosophy! they're all kinda ethics...) until you try to work out how, logically, a person shouldn't act like a evil shit when living "authentically" (haha scare quotes). I'm not saying it's impossible, but unselfishness is not exactly existentialism's strong suit. And dude... are you sure you wanna use Walter White as an example of how existentialism works as ethical code? Uh... I mean, okay you haven't seen the 5th season but Walter White aka Heisenberg as a arguably goodish individual kinda died at the end of the 3rd. Maybe it works to prove how you can still totally admire Walter White as a badass even when he is acting like an evil shit? I would like the essay more if it actually had the balls to say that. oh and the most important thing. this is what gets me the most in this essay... it ignores Breaking Bad events that are inconvenient to its ideas. Like the last section which lists off ways that Walter White accepts responsibility for his actions and conveniently forgets about the freakin' plane crash and all those lies he tells Jesse (about Jane and Lily of the Valley). Quote: "Walt also accepts consequences for each decision and action he makes as Heisenberg" Haha, like whatevs. D for intellectual dishonesty.

5. Hurtling Towards Death: OMG a decent essay! Unfortunately, it focuses on Heidegger and damn me if there's a philosopher who resonates with me less. I swear, if I come across another essay in this book that theorizes on authenticity, I am gonna have to write an imaginary Dear John letter to the author stating, "It's not you, it's me" and move the fuck on. B+

6. Macbeth on Ice: Shakespeare nerd talking about Macbeth and Breaking Bad. Interesting. A-

7. Walter White's Will to Power: Blah blah blah Nietzsche blah blah. I can't even remember this one, really. B

8. Better Than Human: Eh... at least when that Shakespeare nerd was talking about Macbeth I could follow along. When this writer talks about Mad Men I just get confused. Maybe it'll be interesting to a Mad Men fan? Also more Nietzsche blah blah blah. Damn existentialism why are like all the essays in this book about existentialism C

9. The Riddle of Godfather Gus: Most of this essay was just, like, summaries of what happened in the episodes. Useless. D

10. If Walt's Breaking Bad, Maybe We Are Too: I find myself naturally drawn toward this "consequentialist" way of thinking, so I enjoyed reading about it a bit which I have never done before. But because of my... familiarity? I didn't get any new earth shattering revelations. B+

11. I Appreciate the Strategy: OMG I am existentially fatigued. I blew my wad complaining about it in that first essay that dealt with it and now I can't bother. C because I no longer care

12. What's So Bad About Meth?: Haha, oh philosophy. With a title like that, you might expect... I don't know... facts on meth use. But that sorta stuff is way to specific for these big thinkers. Drugs are illegal. so drugs are bad. Mmmmmkay? C+

13. It's Arbitrary?: A bit better than the previous one in trying to prove the evilness of drug use, but bible quotes? Not really my bag. Also, trying to convince me that "drugs cloud your mind therefore bad" while basically giving a free pass to alcohol is really stupid. I mean, are you trying to prove or disprove the arbitrariness of "this drug okay, that drug bad" or not? C+

14. Does Cooking Make Walt a Bad Guy? OMG this is really decent. Actually written like the author knows something about drug use and doesn't lose focus on reality. So grateful I give it an A.

15. Been through the Desert on a Horse with No Name: I guess it's alright if you are a Lacan fan. I am not. It reads like a college essay. Like, "Use your favorite TV show to demonstrate your understanding of Lacan" instead of... something interesting. C

16, 17, 18, 19. These were decent but I have stopped really caring anymore. ahahhaha.

[Cinematic Cteve · Rating 3 out of 5]

The essence of satisfying narrative involves a transformational change in the protagonist. The hero (or anti-hero) must evolve in some fundamental way over the course of the narrative arc. This is true of great drama today and throughout antiquity.

In the celebrated television show Breaking Bad, meek high school chemistry teacher Walter White faces a terminal diagnosis of lung cancer. Desperate to leave adequate money for his family, the man uses his chemistry skills to manufacture high-quality crystal methamphetamine, a highly addictive drug that he and his partner sell on the streets of New Mexico. Walter chooses to "break bad," which is a colloquialism for raising hell. The transformation is profound, but gradual and often subtle. Like life itself.

With Breaking Bad, "Mr. Chips becomes Scarface," as the show was pitched to several networks before going into production for AMC. This was a radical and untried narrative conceit that allowed millions of obsessed viewers to live vicariously through Walter White while simultaneously feeling revulsion (at least some viewers, anyway) for his calculated viciousness.

The show explores Walter's slow evolution into a ruthless and murderous drug baron, whose genius enables him to escape from wildly complex situations, usually involving competing drug dealers or the DEA.

Devotees understand that Walter's turn from family man to murderer is borne not so much out of what he perceives to be necessary, but that he essentially was a deeply frustrated man all along. He was always capable of evil. And, by the end of the show's five-season run, it became obvious that he rather enjoyed his new life. The show ended on carefully balanced notes of revenge and even modest redemption.

This book in the pop-culture philosophy series was published before the show ended, and so the contributors could not have known the outcome. Many guessed correctly that it would not involve traditional notions of a happy ending, but what every chapter in the book fails to anticipate, much less consider, is that Walter White makes peace with his family and his life before the final credits scroll on a black screen.

The show, at its heart, is concerned with themes of choice, free will and the impossible-to-foresee consequences that result. The contributors to this book understand these themes, although many chapters bend, contort and distort or stretch philosophical method to accommodate their ideas about Breaking Bad.

This is a benign way of saying that the book, while not without interest, often feels rushed to capitalize on what at the time was the most popular show on basic cable. I wish that the show's creator, Vince Gilligan, might have contributed in some way to this book as I feel the complexity of his vision often eludes the philosophers writing about his show.

It's a mistake to confuse free will with destiny. The former leads to the latter, but they are not the same thing. The beauty of free will lies in the idea that every moment is another chance to turn your life around. Walter White makes his choice early on and never really wavers. The fact that he rationalizes his behavior as being for the good of his family is merely delusional thinking. Only over the course of the series does he come to realize that a lust for wealth and power is what drives him. He likes it. He is ultimately a selfish man.

A revised edition of this book would do well to take these ideas into consideration. Walter White always had free will. He just chose to exercise it in furtherance of his own interests.

That is not the examined life. It is the stuff of Greek tragedy. It is the life of a man forever crippled by his own weaknesses and unwilling to transcend them. And that, more than any other factor, is what brings Walter White to his destiny.

[Kaitie · Rating 3 out of 5]

At first I was apprehensive by the introduction of this that it would have a lot of Walt praising and Skylar bashing, the very worst attitudes from the fans, but the actual content of the book lacks that and is better for it. Some of the essays bring up very strong points and are well researched. One of the stronger essays was towards the beginning which broke down the intervention Walt’s family gave him regarding his treatments in the earlier seasons from a professional, something that I didn’t even consider until it was laid out so thoroughly and also one of the few instances of a criticism towards Skylar that is actual criticism and not just hating on her for the sake of it. There are many other interesting essays in here regarding morality and choice in regards to the BB characters, which is fitting in relating to the themes of the show. However because the essays are all from different people some of them wildly contradict each other. It also doesn’t help that this was written before the final season and I think it would have benefited more if it waited until the show was over instead of just speculating on resolutions. This is the first of the Philosophy series that I’ve read and I read it mostly because I’m such a huge fan of the show. It’s mostly hit or miss but still pretty decent.

[Régis Araujo · Rating 4 out of 5]

A obra foi editada por David R. Koepsell e Robert Arp, Koepsell é professor de filosofia e diretor executivo da Secular Society, já Arp é filósofo e autor de vários livros sobre filosofia popular, eles são reconhecidos por seu trabalho na aplicação da filosofia em diferentes áreas da cultura popular, incluindo a televisão.

Ambos atuaram como editores, selecionando e organizando os ensaios escritos por outros filósofos e fãs da série. Eles também escrevem a introdução do livro, contextualizando a relação entre Breaking Bad e a filosofia, e fornecem algumas reflexões ao final do livro.

Ensaio é um tipo de texto que apresenta o ponto de vista do autor sobre um tema específico. Pode ser escrito em diversos estilos, tais como argumentativo, expositivo ou narrativo, seu objetivo é discutir ou explorar este tema de forma clara e organizada. Geralmente segue uma estrutura que começa com uma introdução que apresenta o tema e o ponto de vista do autor, seguido por um desenvolvimento que apresenta argumentos, exemplos e evidências que servem de apoio para o texto, terminando com uma conclusão que resume os principais pontos discutidos e reafirma o ponto de vista do autor.

Assim, no livro, cada capítulo, ou cada ensaio, apresenta uma perspectiva única e interessante sobre um tema específico, como a natureza do mal, a ética do uso de drogas, a justiça criminal e a busca da felicidade. Nele os autores exploram as ideias e conceitos filosóficos e éticos que podem ser extraídos da série, oferecendo uma visão um pouco mais profunda e complexa dos personagens e da trama.

OS EPISÓDIOS DA FILOSOFIA

Outra característica interessante é a divisão por seções a cada 2 ou 3 capítulos (a maioria tem 3), agrupando os textos que compartilham temas semelhantes e abordam as mesmas questões filosóficas levantadas pela série.

Essa forma de organização também ajuda a tornar o livro mais acessível principalmente para quem não têm um conhecimento profundo da filosofia (como ainda é o meu caso), pois permite encontrar ensaios relevantes de forma mais fácil e intuitiva. Ao mesmo tempo, estaa divisão por seções, também ajuda a aprofundar as reflexões filosóficas sobre a série e a criar conexões mais complexas entre os diferentes ensaios e temas.

Cada seção tem um título que reflete esses temas e questões, como “Química e Consciência” ou “O Mal e a Justiça”. Dentro de cada seção, os ensaios são organizados de acordo com a ordem em que os episódios foram exibidos na série, para que os leitores possam seguir a evolução dos personagens e enredos à medida que a história se desenrola.

"NO DESERTO, SOBRE UM CAVALO SEM NOME"

Um capítulo que me marcou bastante foi “No Deserto, Sobre Um Cavalo Sem Nome” por discutir sobre a natureza da realidade. Nele, Oli Mould, geógrafo humano britânico e professor da Royal Holloway, Universidade de Londres, explica como a realidade é única para cada um de nós e como isso é representado em “Breaking Bad”. Ele explora como Walter White e Jesse Pinkman têm suas próprias visões e interpretações da realidade, e como isso influencia suas ações e decisões.

Obviamente, me fez repensar minha própria visão da realidade e como ela é moldada pelas minhas experiências e perspectivas – únicas e muito loucas, se você me conhece pessoalmente é muito provável já tenha me ouvido falar sobre o ter sido sequestrado nos anos 90 (adoro recontar essa história). E olha que eu nem sabia que isso era filosofia!

Este capítulo termina com uma pergunta que é, no mínimo, instigante: “Quando o REAL entra com tudo, será que vamos resolver, assim como Walt, seguir o mau caminho?”.

"A CHARADA DO CHEFÃO GUS"

Agora, o ensaio que mais gostei foi o que fala sobre Gus, capítulo 9 “A Charada Do Chefão GUS”, escrito por Jeffrey A. Hinzmann. Para quem ainda não assistiu a série, Gus Fring é um personagem muito inteligente, calculista e, na verdade, um psicopata. Ele é chefe do tráfico de drogas e é capaz de manipular as pessoas ao seu redor para alcançar seus objetivos.

Num dos episódios da série que fala sobre Gus, Walter White, tenta desesperadamente descobrir o que ele está planejando. O protagonista sabe que o chefão do crime é uma pessoa muito astuta e não confia nele. Então, Walter decide usar a filosofia para tentar entender a mente do psicopata.

A filosofia é o estudo das questões profundas da vida, como o significado da existência, a natureza da realidade e a ética. Mas, como nosso “heroi” não é um filósofo profissional, ele usa uma abordagem bem humorada para tentar decifrar o dono da rede “Los Pollos Hermanos”. Ele faz uma charada envolvendo a lógica aristotélica para tentar entender as intenções de Gus.

A charada é mais ou menos assim: “Um homem vai a um médico e diz: ‘Doutor, dói quando eu faço isso’. O médico responde: ‘Então pare de fazer isso’. O que o homem deveria fazer?”

A resposta é que o homem deveria parar de fazer o que estava causando dor. Claramente uma analogia que sugere que, se você está em uma situação que causa problemas, deve parar de fazer o que está fazendo para mudar essa situação.

No contexto de Breaking Bad, ela, a charada, se aplica tanto a Walter quanto a Gus. Walter está tentando entender as intenções de Gus para que possa proteger a si mesmo e a sua família. Ela sugere que Walter deve parar de tentar entender Gus e, em vez disso, se concentrar em mudar sua própria situação, ou seja, é melhor parar de tentar entender pessoas manipuladoras e psicopatas,

CONSIDERAÇÕES FINAIS...

Para finalizar, no geral, o que mais gostei no livro foi a forma como os autores conseguiram conectar temas filosóficos complexos com cenas icônicas da série. Eles usaram exemplos da vida real e da cultura pop para nos fazer refletir sobre questões profundas, como a natureza da moralidade, a liberdade individual e a importância da escolha.

Ele possui linguagem fácil de entender, sem ser pretensioso ou excessivamente acadêmico. Mesmo que você não seja um especialista em filosofia, tenho certeza de que vai conseguir acompanhar e se divertir muito com a leitura.

Então, se você gostou ou é fã de “Breaking Bad” e quer se aprofundar ainda mais nesse universo fascinante, eu recomendo muito esse livro! Você vai se surpreender com a quantidade de coisas interessantes que vai aprender.

[Tiago Sousa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Um livro interessantíssimo. Ele analisa o comportamento dos personagens da série à luz da filosofia, psicologia, ética e moral através de 19 capítulos escritos por acadêmicos da filosofia, medicina, literatura, etc. Possui excelentes reflexões filosóficas no tocante à responsabilidade direta e/ou indireta de nossas ações e de como nós relacionamos com elas com base nos eventos situacionais da série. Destaque para os capítulos 12, 13 e 14 que fazem críticas contundentes ao dilema da legalidade das drogas com direito até à reflexão teológica e citações bíblicas (pontos altos do livro, na minha opinião). Alguns pontos fracos do livro são: ter sido escrito antes da série findar (escrito no final da quarta temporada) fazendo com que as análises sejam inconclusivas ao não levar em consideração o desfecho genial da história (apesar de quase tê-lo previsto!) e repetições maçantes de eventos do seriado, dado que cada capítulo é escrito por autor(es) diferente(s). No geral, um bom livro para relaxar e fazer pensar, caso "Breaking Bad" seja um de seus seriados favorito e Filosofia uma de suas paixões.

[MrsEnginerd · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book covers up to season 4 of the show and in some chapters tends to get repetitive. I think the editors should have waited for a few more seasons to better capture content and the implications of the main characters' actions.

Overall the discussion is very good and enlightening. We are forced to ponder the morality of Walter's actions and decisions as we equally analyze the rest of the cast and their added value to the plot. Be careful of spoilers and make sure you recall the series well to avoid having to go back to other sources to validate the scenes discussed.

I'm going to check if there is an updated version of the contents that includes the latter seasons. I'm curious to know what the writters think of the resolution of the series.

[Kyle Bishop · Rating 1 out of 5]

Several factual and innumerable typographical errors, generally specious reasoning and lackluster writing with a stunning lack of insight...being a huge nerd about this show, I figured I'd end up slightly disappointed in this book, but it was just so much worse than anticipated.

I knew going in that it came out before the show finished, having been released after the fourth season. But virtually all of the essays seem to focus on only the first season, which offers the least compelling material from both an entertainment and contemplative standpoint.

Diehard fans of the show deserve better. Hell, diehard fans could do better.

[Victoria · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very fun book and I love the series. This one, however didn't have as many essays that were enjoyable and insightful as the last couple I've read ('30 Rock and...' and 'Mad Men and...') Too much was spent analyzing the Neitzschean themes and observations of Walter's development and moral issues surrounding meth's sale and development without anything new being introduced from one essay to the next, at least in my opinion. Will certainly continue to read this series. Looking forward to 'Dexter and...'

[Firas Ghomraoui · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another awesome read from the Popular Culture and Philosophy series. Putting aside the popularity of the original TV series, this book is perfect for those who have pondered ethical repercussions of crime vs self-interest, questions of accountability vs existentialism, or simply pondering "what the hell is meth?".
Note: there obviously are spoilers within this book. Also, this book covers seasons 1-4. However, you might be surprised by the accuracy of some the predictions the authors put forth for scrutiny.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pros: presents moral insight and deepens appreciation of characters and plot. Raises valid philosophical issues relating to character dilemmas. Very good essay present on Camu and Heidegger.

Cons: collection of independent essays that are repetitive in subject matter ( especially on morality of the main character and drug trade). SPOILER. Alert--- watch entire series before reading. I read page one and one of the characters were reported dead before I watched that episode.

4 stars because of the pros given above

[Kayla · Rating 2 out of 5]

I think I originally rated this 3 stars when I made it to the mid-way point, but I have since dropped it to a 2 once I finished it. Quite honestly - it was a bit terrible and embarrassing. It reads like a very amateurish Philosophy 101 except they never really get into any philosophy. Large swaths of essays are dedicated to simply regurgitating scenes from the television show. I was hoping for the opportunity to geek out while waxing intellectual but this book definitely fell short. Shame.

[Ngoc Le · Rating 3 out of 5]

Being a bog fan of the series, I was hoping this would be as good as the ones from the Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture series- and was generally disappointed. Some chapters are just repeats of others, and the insights offered were a little sketchy overall, although there were a few essays which offered interesting interpretations of the series. Only read if you are very interested.

[Mickey · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was a bit disappointed with this book of essays. It felt like there wasn't a good mix. Most essays seemed to be about the ethical questions posed by Walter White's new occupation. I thought the richness of the material (I think it's the best television show ever) should have been explored better. I think it would be good for someone who is mostly interested in ethical theories.

[Jake · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm a tough critic, hence the two stars. The books is a collection of philosophical essays by various authors. The majority of the essays aren't overly convincing and could be skipped. I would say skip this book entirely but for true fans of the series there are a few essays I'd highly recommend (especially the one comparing Walt to Macbeth)

[Rb Rb · Rating 3 out of 5]

Trata-se de um conjunto de artigos de diferentes autores cobrindo da primeira a quarta temporada da série, abordando o desenvolvimento dos principais personagens sob a perspectiva de diversas escolas filosóficas, como o Utilitarismo, o Materialismo e o Existencialismo. Alguns textos são excelentes, mas ao passo que vamos avançando na leitura do livro os assuntos ficam repetitivos.

[Victoria Anzalone · Rating 1 out of 5]

Very few thoughts I haven't already had about the show and typos on just about every other page. Whoever put their name on this (and I suspect everything else in the "[Insert pop culture phenomenon] and Philosophy" series] should be a little embarrassed.

[Shaun · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good book, and very insightful. Glaring copy editing mistakes take it down a star.

[Paula · Rating 1 out of 5]

Fun idea, terrible execution.

[Travis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Always love the pop culture and philosophy books. The only negative, as with most of the others, is the repetitive use of examples and descriptions of characters.

[Alexandra Tobor · Rating 2 out of 5]

Eins der mieseren Bücher dieser Reihe. >:-(

[Arnel Šarić · Rating 3 out of 5]

This one is reviewed in my Breaking Bad Books Special:

http://www.onajkojikuca.com/?p=605

(Bosnian only, sorry!)

[Michael]

One of my favorite TV shows of all time made into a very needed philosophy book? Enough said. Recommended reading.

[Tim · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not as good as some of the other books in this series. Much too repetitive.

[Indah Threez Lestari · Rating 4 out of 5]

65 - 2015