What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ultimate Star Trek and Philosophy: The Search for Socrates
Reunites the editors of Star Trek and Philosophy with Starfleet’s finest experts for 31 new, highly logical essays Features a complete examination of the Star Trek universe, from the original series to the most recent films directed by J.J. Abrams, Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) Introduces important concepts in philosophy through the vast array of provocative issues raised by the series, such as the ethics of the Prime Directive, Star Trek’s philosophy of peace, Data and Voyager’s Doctor as persons, moral relativism and the Federation’s quest for liberation, the effect of alternate universes on reality and identity, the Borg as transhumanists, Federation Trekonomics, Star Trek’s secular society, and much, much more…! An enterprising and enlightening voyage into deep space that will appeal to hardcore fans and science fiction enthusiasts alike Publishing in time to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the original TV series
352 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 7, 2016
36 people are currently reading
270 people want to read
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
September 11, 2016
A solid collection of essays spanning philosophy, psychology and the rest of the humanities gamut. A few contributions felt a bit structurally flimsy, and the concluding sections on theology got a little too in love with their own metaphysics. The number of final sentences which utilised some horrible Trek-related pun also got a bit much.
Overall, though, a prime tome of Star Trek essays for the discerning pop culture philosopher. Pieces on transhumanism, moral integrity, utopian futures and the power of humanism were aplenty, and quite accessible to both the layman and the veteran researcher. One for the bookshelf.
Overall, though, a prime tome of Star Trek essays for the discerning pop culture philosopher. Pieces on transhumanism, moral integrity, utopian futures and the power of humanism were aplenty, and quite accessible to both the layman and the veteran researcher. One for the bookshelf.
February 25, 2019
I really enjoyed this book. There are a wide variety of perspectives on Trek and we get a great look at the different philosophies and beliefs that have popped up throughout Trek history. The nature of the show is ideal for exploring all kinds of ideas and it's awesome to see these ideas tackled in one book. Star Trek is also the kind of the show that is often up for interpretation, so once again ideal for a book about philosophy. I particularly enjoyed "Destroying Utopias: Why Kirk Is a Jerk," "Resistance Is Negligible: In Praise of Cyborgs," and "Romanticism in 'A City on the Edge of Forever'" specifically and all the articles on the Q Continuum and the Borg more generally. Definitely worth checking out!
November 30, 2017
A good overview of how western philosophy has been explored in the Star Trek series. This book is best appreciated by someone who has seen the various movies, the original series, next generation, deep space nine, voyager, and enterprise. This book would make an interesting college intro or seminar philosophy class. Topics discussed: religion, humanism, capitalism, communism, utilitarianism, consciousness, and many more.
December 21, 2020
ReedIII Quick Review: Wonderful thought provoking book for all Star Trek fans. Forces the psychological contemplation of “what if … ” and “why … ”. Good discussion topics that are better with Star Trek knowledge.
March 10, 2018
An interesting read, reminded me of my time as an undergraduate media studies major at university.
December 5, 2025
Overall, I do find these essays insightful to thinking more deeply about the themes in Star Trek and other fictional universes. At least for me, the essays were hit or miss and some seemed to overlap at least somewhat. I ended skipping some chapters that did not look interesting.
However, some really stood out as well, specifically:
1. The Moral Psychology of a Starship Captain
2. “Make It So”: Kant, Confucius, and the Prime Directive
3. Destroying Utopias: Why Kirk Is a Jerk
5. “The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few”: Utilitarianism and Star Trek
6. Vision Quest into Indigenous Space
Chapter 3 on "The Moral Psychology of a Starship Captain" explored the type of personality needed to be a star ship captain. It’s not something anyone can do. The author brings in Aristotle to show important character traits that need to be balanced, including pride. Too little pride is actually seen as bad thing for a starship captain. Proper pride enables a person to be self-possessed, maintain self-respect, and remain confident when others are doubting. Nevertheless, the author also shows how hard being a starship captain can be, with almost all the captains having periods of private doubt, remorse, or regret about their decisions. As someone who has been in a leadership position before, I can relate. I’ve had similar feelings at times, but of course not about such high-stakes and grand things as our starship captains. By itself, these are nice, but then the chapter distinguishes itself even more by showing ways in which the captains took steps to resolve these and what would have been the alternatives if they never taken the captain's chair.
Chapter 4 on "'Make It So': Kant, Confucius, and the Prime Directive" shows how Kant and Confucius might handle the Prime Directive based on their philosophies. Although the chapter is about the Prime Directive, I feel some of it could be applied to other things too. As the chapter says, the virtuous person understands that moral decisions can't always be made in advance. New social, cultural, and technological innovations create new moral problems for which we have no preexisting rules. Admiral Confucius would have you understand the Prime Directive well enough to know when to bend or even break it. Kirk, Janeway, and Sisko would agree with him. Admiral Kant would have you always adhere to the Prime Directive, because a rule that can be violated isn't really a rule at all. Spock and Worf would agree with him.
The chapter on “‘The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few’: Utilitarianism and Star Trek” talks about how the characters in Star Trek often prioritize personality loyalty and friendship over utility. It also notes how Star Trek adventures have a habit of not showing harm happen to the many when a hero chooses to prioritize the needs of the few. For example, no battles are lost when Kirk hijacks the Enterprise to search for his dead best friend nor when Spock agrees to rescuing Chekov from the FBI without dooming the Earth. In my understanding, this is one of the challenge of utilitarianism. It’s hard to really calculate well. If our characters had time to save their friends, maybe the risk and/or time sensitivity of the fighting the other battles and saving the Earth was actually not that much.
The chapter on “Destroying Utopias: Why Kirk Is a Jerk” went deep into individual and community choices and self-actualization, but it’s too complicated to summarize in this review.
Chapter 19 on "Vision Quest into Indigenous Space" was really deep. It focus on the characters of Wesley Crusher and Chakotay. It brought in the writings of mythologist Joseph Campbell (1904–1987) and famous psychologist Carl Jung to describe how mythological characters are personifications of energies from the collective unconscious, and that they constitute metaphors for psychospiritual realities. The author further goes on to point out how many cultures have words to refer to this mysterious spirit energy. For example, Wesley befriends some who guides him on his vision quest. His guide says “[O]ur culture is rooted in the past, but it is not limited to the past. The spirits of the Klingon, the Vulcan, the Ferengi, come to us just as the bear and coyote, the parrot.” These are culturally specific expressions of archetypal energies of the collective unconscious. After reading this chapter, I can’t help but think back on my own experiences and those of others, reflecting on how they may express archetypal energies of the collective unconscious.
Lastly, my wish list for Star Trek philosophy chapters for future books:
1. A deeper exploration of Vulcan spirituality and meditation
2. Same as above, but for the Bajorans
2. Some chapter(s) about the Ferengi and Cardassians
However, some really stood out as well, specifically:
1. The Moral Psychology of a Starship Captain
2. “Make It So”: Kant, Confucius, and the Prime Directive
3. Destroying Utopias: Why Kirk Is a Jerk
5. “The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few”: Utilitarianism and Star Trek
6. Vision Quest into Indigenous Space
Chapter 3 on "The Moral Psychology of a Starship Captain" explored the type of personality needed to be a star ship captain. It’s not something anyone can do. The author brings in Aristotle to show important character traits that need to be balanced, including pride. Too little pride is actually seen as bad thing for a starship captain. Proper pride enables a person to be self-possessed, maintain self-respect, and remain confident when others are doubting. Nevertheless, the author also shows how hard being a starship captain can be, with almost all the captains having periods of private doubt, remorse, or regret about their decisions. As someone who has been in a leadership position before, I can relate. I’ve had similar feelings at times, but of course not about such high-stakes and grand things as our starship captains. By itself, these are nice, but then the chapter distinguishes itself even more by showing ways in which the captains took steps to resolve these and what would have been the alternatives if they never taken the captain's chair.
Chapter 4 on "'Make It So': Kant, Confucius, and the Prime Directive" shows how Kant and Confucius might handle the Prime Directive based on their philosophies. Although the chapter is about the Prime Directive, I feel some of it could be applied to other things too. As the chapter says, the virtuous person understands that moral decisions can't always be made in advance. New social, cultural, and technological innovations create new moral problems for which we have no preexisting rules. Admiral Confucius would have you understand the Prime Directive well enough to know when to bend or even break it. Kirk, Janeway, and Sisko would agree with him. Admiral Kant would have you always adhere to the Prime Directive, because a rule that can be violated isn't really a rule at all. Spock and Worf would agree with him.
The chapter on “‘The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few’: Utilitarianism and Star Trek” talks about how the characters in Star Trek often prioritize personality loyalty and friendship over utility. It also notes how Star Trek adventures have a habit of not showing harm happen to the many when a hero chooses to prioritize the needs of the few. For example, no battles are lost when Kirk hijacks the Enterprise to search for his dead best friend nor when Spock agrees to rescuing Chekov from the FBI without dooming the Earth. In my understanding, this is one of the challenge of utilitarianism. It’s hard to really calculate well. If our characters had time to save their friends, maybe the risk and/or time sensitivity of the fighting the other battles and saving the Earth was actually not that much.
The chapter on “Destroying Utopias: Why Kirk Is a Jerk” went deep into individual and community choices and self-actualization, but it’s too complicated to summarize in this review.
Chapter 19 on "Vision Quest into Indigenous Space" was really deep. It focus on the characters of Wesley Crusher and Chakotay. It brought in the writings of mythologist Joseph Campbell (1904–1987) and famous psychologist Carl Jung to describe how mythological characters are personifications of energies from the collective unconscious, and that they constitute metaphors for psychospiritual realities. The author further goes on to point out how many cultures have words to refer to this mysterious spirit energy. For example, Wesley befriends some who guides him on his vision quest. His guide says “[O]ur culture is rooted in the past, but it is not limited to the past. The spirits of the Klingon, the Vulcan, the Ferengi, come to us just as the bear and coyote, the parrot.” These are culturally specific expressions of archetypal energies of the collective unconscious. After reading this chapter, I can’t help but think back on my own experiences and those of others, reflecting on how they may express archetypal energies of the collective unconscious.
Lastly, my wish list for Star Trek philosophy chapters for future books:
1. A deeper exploration of Vulcan spirituality and meditation
2. Same as above, but for the Bajorans
2. Some chapter(s) about the Ferengi and Cardassians
April 30, 2019
Star Trek is a series and overall franchise that I have heard of but never got the opportunity to get into. Here is my situation with this. When I was a child, I was more of a Star Wars(SW) kid, since it was easier to understand and had a lower barrier of entry. Allow me to explain. When I was a child, the prequel movies had not come out yet, so there were only three SW movies. Now that I am older, I regret not getting into ST, but at the same time, I don’t know where to begin. Do I start with The Original Series with Captain Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, and so on? Do I begin with The Next Generation series with Captain Picard, Data, Q, and all of them? There are three other mainline series as well, with Voyager, Deep Space 9, and Enterprise. Now I know Enterprise is a prequel to the original series, but I also heard it wasn’t as good. I also don’t perceive myself as having the time to watch that many shows. Don’t even get me started on the movies. In any case, that is my position on ST.
This book is a fusion of philosophy and popular culture, taking the themes from a series, in this case, it is Star Trek, and applying philosophy to the stories. ST is a fertile field of study for this as I am now being made aware. All of the series have their Captains and some way to push the envelope and make discussions happen. With the Original Series, if I remember correctly, some executives chided Gene Roddenberry because they didn’t think a woman would be able to become an officer on a futuristic space ship. A lot of the episodes were open-ended in the sense that there wasn’t a clearly correct answer. It deals with moral quandaries that go deeper than good and evil; there are shades of gray. This can be explored really well since Science Fiction allows for a large cast of human-like characters that have different philosophies and ideals. Take the Borg for instance. The reason why they are perceived as evil is that they take away the autonomy of an individual. They are a cyborg entity that exists to assimilate all life and technology on the road to perfection. This allows for some good episodes.
In any case, the book is really good and introduced me to a number of things through Star Trek. The book has 31 essays divided among five main sections. The sections are organized according to a theme. There isn’t really much else to say about it.
This book is a fusion of philosophy and popular culture, taking the themes from a series, in this case, it is Star Trek, and applying philosophy to the stories. ST is a fertile field of study for this as I am now being made aware. All of the series have their Captains and some way to push the envelope and make discussions happen. With the Original Series, if I remember correctly, some executives chided Gene Roddenberry because they didn’t think a woman would be able to become an officer on a futuristic space ship. A lot of the episodes were open-ended in the sense that there wasn’t a clearly correct answer. It deals with moral quandaries that go deeper than good and evil; there are shades of gray. This can be explored really well since Science Fiction allows for a large cast of human-like characters that have different philosophies and ideals. Take the Borg for instance. The reason why they are perceived as evil is that they take away the autonomy of an individual. They are a cyborg entity that exists to assimilate all life and technology on the road to perfection. This allows for some good episodes.
In any case, the book is really good and introduced me to a number of things through Star Trek. The book has 31 essays divided among five main sections. The sections are organized according to a theme. There isn’t really much else to say about it.
November 22, 2019
Unfortunately I'm starting to think the publishers/editors are starting to spread the pop culture and philosophy series a bit too thin.... especially the "Ultimate" volumes that expand on earlier entries. I really felt this volume had too much overlap between essays. In fact at one point I remember thinking to myself, GOD (the secular non Judeo-Christian entity imagined by Roddenberry mind you) NOT ANOTHER chapter on how the prime directive is Kantian or Spock's "needs of the many" is Utilitarian. Or let's talk about the contrast Hugh/Seven of Nine bring to the ruthless Borg collectivism. Isn't the job of the producers or editors to guide contributors on how to produce unique content? Or is it more like, just write any crap about philosophy and Star Trek you want, we know it will sell.
That said there are some absolute gems in this collection. Especially Walter Robinson's treatise of the native American themes in Trek. He actually calls out the inaccuracies in TOS of depicting Navajo, Mohegan, and Delaware tribes living in wigwams and tepees in the same setting while exploring the philosophy of native American inspired episodes without teetering into the realm of pedantic-ism. Dara Fogel's Holodeck chapter is quite clever as well as it explores the Godelian "strange loop" of the Moriarty ship in a bottle paradox and the implications that might have on our own version of life. And also a few ones that nail the teleological/deontological dualisms. Just I don't need 1/2 this book to be on those dualisms.
That said there are some absolute gems in this collection. Especially Walter Robinson's treatise of the native American themes in Trek. He actually calls out the inaccuracies in TOS of depicting Navajo, Mohegan, and Delaware tribes living in wigwams and tepees in the same setting while exploring the philosophy of native American inspired episodes without teetering into the realm of pedantic-ism. Dara Fogel's Holodeck chapter is quite clever as well as it explores the Godelian "strange loop" of the Moriarty ship in a bottle paradox and the implications that might have on our own version of life. And also a few ones that nail the teleological/deontological dualisms. Just I don't need 1/2 this book to be on those dualisms.
December 28, 2022
Star Trek is such a great canvas—for moral questions. And so philosophy. This is why I still prefer the original series. Born of the radio drama era, it was a series of morality plays. Centered on questions and in some ways people would fear to explore publicly now. I mean, within 25 years of WWII with soldiers and victims in the audience, and in the midst of the civil rights movements, you are exploring that?!
Thoroughly enjoyed it in reruns as a kid, watching with my own WWII chief grandfather.
Before reading this, I read the tv series Lost and Philosophy. While Lost became increasingly amorphous, the book was excellent. It posed questions I had not thought of. And yet came from deep tradition in its exploration of these, in its starting point anyway. It rather shocked me, until I looked at the authors. And their deep roots in the loam of classical and catholic philosophy.
The ultimate Star Trek and philosophy seems shallower in so many ways. I’m still exploring it. Part of it is that the book is — almost unavoidably I suppose — more focused on later serieses, which are less focused on the little but intriguing morality plays and so big questions of TOS.
Part of it must be the authors and their roots. Tho I have yet to read these.
I’ve gotten a few good things. But it just seems all over the place and unchallenging, again by comparison to the other book. Was really looking forward to this, but meh. I feel like subtracting an additional star for the opportunity lost here (from 2 stars to 1).
Thoroughly enjoyed it in reruns as a kid, watching with my own WWII chief grandfather.
Before reading this, I read the tv series Lost and Philosophy. While Lost became increasingly amorphous, the book was excellent. It posed questions I had not thought of. And yet came from deep tradition in its exploration of these, in its starting point anyway. It rather shocked me, until I looked at the authors. And their deep roots in the loam of classical and catholic philosophy.
The ultimate Star Trek and philosophy seems shallower in so many ways. I’m still exploring it. Part of it is that the book is — almost unavoidably I suppose — more focused on later serieses, which are less focused on the little but intriguing morality plays and so big questions of TOS.
Part of it must be the authors and their roots. Tho I have yet to read these.
I’ve gotten a few good things. But it just seems all over the place and unchallenging, again by comparison to the other book. Was really looking forward to this, but meh. I feel like subtracting an additional star for the opportunity lost here (from 2 stars to 1).
August 14, 2024
I really enjoy the, "...and Philosophy", series of books. Star Trek is definitely an interesting one to cover. The shows and movies encounter so many moral and ethical situations. Also while dealing with alien races, and life or death choices.
Does Data have a soul?
If they don't have money in the future are they capitalist?
Did the Klingons kill their gods?
What happens to your person when you go through the transporter? Are they the same person?
Borg perfectionist! Cybernetic servited!
Are we in a holideck simulation?
The reason for the prime directive!
There's a lot of material and it gives you a good reason to go back and watch the shows and movies with philosophy in mind. You're studying how to become a better person with Star Trek and philosophy.
Does Data have a soul?
If they don't have money in the future are they capitalist?
Did the Klingons kill their gods?
What happens to your person when you go through the transporter? Are they the same person?
Borg perfectionist! Cybernetic servited!
Are we in a holideck simulation?
The reason for the prime directive!
There's a lot of material and it gives you a good reason to go back and watch the shows and movies with philosophy in mind. You're studying how to become a better person with Star Trek and philosophy.
April 28, 2025
I am not sure why I even decided to listen to this audiobook as I hate philosophy and have not read Socrates (or maybe I have but do not remember), but this book was enjoyable to this Star Trek fan. I learned a lot more about how moral and relevant issues found their way into Star Trek episodes. Other television shows also do this, however it was interesting to see how some of my favorite episodes reflected current events of the time, for example the 911 attack and Zindi storyline in Enterprise.
September 7, 2021
A very nice collection of essays about philosophical questions and issues in Star Trek and a good introduction to philosophical concepts especially for those Trekkies who know the Star Trek catalog nearly by heart. The authors give a lot of references and examples from every Star Trek Show and movie until about 2015/16. They also see some decisions made by characters in the show critical, which works to further explain certain concepts and moral dilemma.
June 9, 2023
Philosophy and Star Trek, what a fun way to nerd out.
I really liked the way they used a different scenarios to manifest a different philosophical trends, for someone who aspires to know something about philosophy and loves Star Trek, it is a fun read.
I especially liked the way they got into ontology and theology in the last part. I did feel a little patronized in some parts, but overall it was an interesting read.
I really liked the way they used a different scenarios to manifest a different philosophical trends, for someone who aspires to know something about philosophy and loves Star Trek, it is a fun read.
I especially liked the way they got into ontology and theology in the last part. I did feel a little patronized in some parts, but overall it was an interesting read.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 17, 2021
These were interesting enough as I read them, but they didn't stick in my mind at all, and I don't remember any of what we talked about in this book. I think I'm giving up on the whole series after this. I keep saying the same things about them.
March 29, 2022
Excellent read, combining the best of Star Trek (all series sans Discovery and Picard) and Western (and to a smaller degree) Eastern philosophy. Highly recommended to anyone keen on going where "No Man has Gone Before"!
March 16, 2025
By using the series' characters, stories, and futuristic scenarios, this book demonstrates how Star Trek engages with timeless philosophical debates. It also highlights how science fiction can be a powerful medium for exploring and understanding complex philosophical concepts.
May 5, 2018
It was long and became a little stale after 39 or so essays, but was still somewhat interesting. It was not as good as Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy, but really, what could be?
October 3, 2023
More like 3.5! Very interesting but many of the essays tend to repeat themselves (issues either these series). Good reference to all Trek
Read
October 28, 2016791.4575 S7955 2016
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews