What do you think?
Rate this book
《奇异博士》与哲学：另一本禁忌之书
在本书中，读者能看到我们这个维度的至尊哲人们用尼采的“命运之爱”探讨奇异博士的命运转折，用笛卡尔的身心二元论分析星灵形态，用苏格拉底的“无知之知”教导斯特兰奇医生，用柏格森的观点定义时间，用克尔凯郭尔的终极思想悖论点燃斯特兰奇的思考激情……这不仅是读者与奇异博士的一次次近距离接触，更是当代的至尊哲人们与前辈的跨时空对话，毕竟这些前辈没有像古一法师那般从黑暗维度汲取能量、延续生命。
曾经坚定的科学信念是如何颠覆的？法师的星灵形态代表着什么样的身心关系？奇异博士懂得“爱”吗？我们都在“透过锁孔看世界”吗？多元现实是怎么回事？至高目标和道德原则，如何抉择？多玛姆真的是邪恶的吗？这些问题的答题思路就在这本书中，由思维开放又活跃的哲人们倾情提供——他们还附赠了对于电影续集内容的各种建议。
曾经坚定的科学信念是如何颠覆的？法师的星灵形态代表着什么样的身心关系？奇异博士懂得“爱”吗？我们都在“透过锁孔看世界”吗？多元现实是怎么回事？至高目标和道德原则，如何抉择？多玛姆真的是邪恶的吗？这些问题的答题思路就在这本书中，由思维开放又活跃的哲人们倾情提供——他们还附赠了对于电影续集内容的各种建议。
384 pages, Paperback
Published July 1, 2020
30 people are currently reading
132 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 - 4 of 4 reviews
April 23, 2022
Same review with added excerpts and gifs also on my Blogger here
This is an anthology of 22 essays having to do with the crossover of philosophy and Doctor Strange (including themes from both the 2016 movie and the comics). As with any book which contains a number of essays written by different authors, some of the essays in this book I quite liked, others I liked, others were more meh, and some I actively disliked. Philosophy is also a hit and miss subject for me depending on the specific branch and how it's approached - I tend to really like ethics, and also prefer the more scientific areas of philosophical study (such as speculative physics or various themes in metaphysics), but there's a number of other topics - and specifically also the manner in which they are generally expressed - which are quite liable to either frustrate or bore me in various degrees - an important factor as to why is that I may have a pet peeve about random white dudes stating subjective thoughts, opinions and beliefs as absolute Truths, as philosophers often do :S xD
But anyway xD, some thoughts about the book (warning, LONG xD) -
+1 Like I mentioned above, in this book I especially enjoyed the essays which discussed ethics (virtue ethics, deontology and consequentialism, in this case), as well as those delving into scientific matters and speculative physics. I particularly liked one essay discussing quantum mechanics and the MCU Multiverse, and another one which considered what the plot of the 2016 Doctor Strange movie can tell us about the scientific method, regarding how new empirical evidence can lead to new theories and scientific approaches in our understanding of the world.
+1 Another essay I really enjoyed, written by one of the three female contributors of this book (note on that below), tackles gender and race biases in both philosophy and superhero comics - both worlds historically majorly male and white -, and the ways in which the Doctor Strange movie subverts some of these biases (such as making the Ancient One - an authority and knowledge figure - female, or greatly improving the role and status of Wong as a Master sorcerer in contrast to his role as the manservant of Strange in the comics). The essay also tackles the problem of whitewashing in movies, and overall it was a great feminist and intersectional read.
-1 Unfortunately, gender bias in philosophy and the comic book world, as criticized in this essay, is fully present in this book as well, ironically. Out of 22 essays, it seems that only three were written by women, and if I remember correctly, only one female philosopher is mentioned in the whole book :S
+1 A couple of other essays also accurately commented on how Nietzche was an infamous misogynist and Heidegger supported Nazi mindsets, comments which I appreciated because we need to hold historical figures accountable for their problematic aspects.
-1 Something which I lacked in an essay tackling St Augustine, another infamous misogynist who was quite pedestalized in an essay which discussed more religious interpretations :S - I also fully disagreed with that essay's idea that the journey and character development of Strange mirrored 'St' Augustine's life, but ah well xD.
-1 And regarding social activism topics, I also have to say that I deeply disliked one essay which had the baffling objective of convincing the reader that the servile role of Wong in the comics as the personal manservant of Strange, in itself an issue deeply steeped in classism and a racialized context, is not wrong or problematic at all and actually empowers the character of Wong! We can encounter deep and meaningful friendships when a master/servant dynamic is also involved, such as Frodo and Sam from The Lord of the Rings. *But* the fact that this kind of dynamic might evolve to develop a meaningful interaction does not mean that we should not also be fully critical of the power dynamic and the classism and racialized/gendered aspects of the relationship.
This particular essay I found deeply offensive in its endeavour to claim that it's actually servitude which gives Wong's life meaning and boosts his self-confidence and self empowerment (wtf), and that both parts of the master/servant dynamic get benefits out of the arrangement. It's a neoliberal-oriented 'choice' approach that ultimately completely glosses over the fact that it's a classist and racist system which has made Wong into Strange's servant in the comics, the same as his father was the servant of the Ancient One, and his father before him, and so on. If we take this 'choice' approach and make minimal parallels with say, oppressed women in extremely patriarchal societies or enslaved black people in the USA, I think it becomes clear enough how offensive and illogical this interpretation is - that oppression and a servile function to the privileged groups actually gives your life meaning and that you reap ample positive benefits our of a deeply unequal power dynamic.
Thank Agamotto the role of Wong was vastly improved in the MCU. I can't help but wonder whether the author of this essay would think that now Wong's life does not have meaning because he's a powerful Master sorcerer in his own right, and is now the actual Sorcerer Supreme. Heh.
-1 And now comes the big topic. While there were at least three essays in the book which tackled this matter more accurately, or at least following the reasoning I would have chosen, there is a discourse which I kept finding in several other essays which frustrated me time and time again. According to all these essays, the scientific aspect of Doctor Strange, initially a brilliant neurosurgeon, is something which went hand in hand with his arrogance, narcissism and materialistic view of the world. This materialism and his scientific aspect, as linked to the mechanistic current ('we are made of matter, and nothing more'), would be then opposed to the greater empathy, integrity and altruism that Strange shows as the movie progresses, which these essays repeteadly linked to his newfound 'enlightenment' and 'interest in spirituality' and the broadening of his mind.
While some of the points and philosophical stances described in these essays were interesting from a purely philosophical point of view, it's a huge misconstruction to say that science equals a lack of altruism or a greater materialistic and shallow mindset (wtf), and that it's an 'interest in spirituality' which makes someone more altruistic and empathetic. That's just both offensive and factually wrong.
And it's also a huge false equivalence to link the evolution of Doctor Strange as a sorcerer to the potential higher merits of real world spirituality (and pseudoscience) as opposed to empirical science. The essays seemed to repeteadly link Strange's scathing remarks about the unscientific nature of chakras or acupuncture (I mean, both things *are* objectively pseudoscience) with a narrow-minded view of the world which needed to be expanded. Being open-minded is the actual point of scientific curiosity and the scientific method, and that is exactly what Doctor Strange does - When shown actual empirical evidence that the Multiverse exists, and seeing that in the Marvel universe it is actually possible to draw energy from other dimensions to create 'magic' (thus linking magic way more to technology and science than spirituality), he just expands his view of the universe when shown that there's more to what he had learned, and includes the study of magic to his existing knowledge.
In our world, however, the Multiverse is an actual field of study in speculative physics, yes (and other essay in this book talks about this in the context of cosnology and quantum mechanics), but it *is* speculative. And spirituality, while valid on its own, cannot replace science if what we seek is the empirical understanding the universe. Strange's Sorcerer path *is* undeniably both heavily inspired and linked with Eastern martial arts and spirituality, but the way he studies and harnesses magic is rather more in line with science and technology than with actual spirituality as we would understand it in the real world (as is also the way with many MCU perceptions of magic as science and technology, as also portrayed in the Thor universe). Overall, the whole discourse when these particular essays (and there were a few :S) tackled this topic was a huge false equivalence fest.
-1 I also disliked the way that a couple of essays seemed to need to add the disclaimer that 'religion and science are not incompatible, in fact they are fully compatible because I will now give you some examples of historical scientists who also believed in God or were interested in spirituality or alchemy'. Obviously, individual people are entitled to their personal spiritual or religious beliefs (as long as they don't try to impose those beliefs on anyone else or enforce inequality against oppressed groups, which is the flavour of criticism I go for when I say I'm critical of religion). But the issue regarding the science-vs-religion discussion often doesn't have to do with individual beliefs, it has to do with the fact that enforced religious systems have historically hindered or prohibited science systematically, by imposing unscientific mythological concepts as Truths, and literally persecuting and murdering people who offered advances in science instead of abiding with those religious 'truths' as to the nature of the universe (and also persecuting religious beliefs which deviate from the systemic dogma). The fact that Newton believed in God (totally fine, but irrelevant in this discussion), or that Descartes (rather unscientifically) claimed that God is an innate proof of our reasoning nature (imo, wtf xD) are really neither here not there regarding this issue :S
+1 While discussing the influence of the pacifist-oriented ethics of Eastern martial arts there's a reference and quote to the 1970s series 'Kung Fu', which I really like, so kudos for that!
- And finally, this is more an anecdotic discussion than something I liked or didn't like - There's one essay which discussed mind-body dualism as illustrated in Doctor Strange by the astral bodies. However, the author seemed to keep trying to rationalize the way astral bodies were portrayed in the movie, not just comparing them to philosophical theories of dualism as an interesting exercise, but actually trying to find logical consistency between them, as if the portrayal in the movie would either confirm or discredit said theories of dualism.
While the astral bodies in Doctor Strange are clearly inspired both by spirituality currents and by various philosophical explorations about mind-body dualism, as a fantasy and sci-fi movie it doesn't need to be fully consistent with all these currents, nor do we really need to judge the accuracy of the depiction of Strange's astral body and its properties in regards to what philosophy has had to say about dualism - especially considering that dualism is as of now mostly devoid of empirical scientific proof! The exercise of questioning how Strange's astral body is or isn't consistent with existing philosophical theories of dualism and transference between the mind and the body is certainly interesting for purely academic purposes, but the way the author seemed to be actually thorough and serious about how a fantasy and sci-fi movie with astral bodies confirmed or denied irl philosophical theories of dualism both puzzled and amused me xD
This is an anthology of 22 essays having to do with the crossover of philosophy and Doctor Strange (including themes from both the 2016 movie and the comics). As with any book which contains a number of essays written by different authors, some of the essays in this book I quite liked, others I liked, others were more meh, and some I actively disliked. Philosophy is also a hit and miss subject for me depending on the specific branch and how it's approached - I tend to really like ethics, and also prefer the more scientific areas of philosophical study (such as speculative physics or various themes in metaphysics), but there's a number of other topics - and specifically also the manner in which they are generally expressed - which are quite liable to either frustrate or bore me in various degrees - an important factor as to why is that I may have a pet peeve about random white dudes stating subjective thoughts, opinions and beliefs as absolute Truths, as philosophers often do :S xD
But anyway xD, some thoughts about the book (warning, LONG xD) -
+1 Like I mentioned above, in this book I especially enjoyed the essays which discussed ethics (virtue ethics, deontology and consequentialism, in this case), as well as those delving into scientific matters and speculative physics. I particularly liked one essay discussing quantum mechanics and the MCU Multiverse, and another one which considered what the plot of the 2016 Doctor Strange movie can tell us about the scientific method, regarding how new empirical evidence can lead to new theories and scientific approaches in our understanding of the world.
+1 Another essay I really enjoyed, written by one of the three female contributors of this book (note on that below), tackles gender and race biases in both philosophy and superhero comics - both worlds historically majorly male and white -, and the ways in which the Doctor Strange movie subverts some of these biases (such as making the Ancient One - an authority and knowledge figure - female, or greatly improving the role and status of Wong as a Master sorcerer in contrast to his role as the manservant of Strange in the comics). The essay also tackles the problem of whitewashing in movies, and overall it was a great feminist and intersectional read.
-1 Unfortunately, gender bias in philosophy and the comic book world, as criticized in this essay, is fully present in this book as well, ironically. Out of 22 essays, it seems that only three were written by women, and if I remember correctly, only one female philosopher is mentioned in the whole book :S
+1 A couple of other essays also accurately commented on how Nietzche was an infamous misogynist and Heidegger supported Nazi mindsets, comments which I appreciated because we need to hold historical figures accountable for their problematic aspects.
-1 Something which I lacked in an essay tackling St Augustine, another infamous misogynist who was quite pedestalized in an essay which discussed more religious interpretations :S - I also fully disagreed with that essay's idea that the journey and character development of Strange mirrored 'St' Augustine's life, but ah well xD.
-1 And regarding social activism topics, I also have to say that I deeply disliked one essay which had the baffling objective of convincing the reader that the servile role of Wong in the comics as the personal manservant of Strange, in itself an issue deeply steeped in classism and a racialized context, is not wrong or problematic at all and actually empowers the character of Wong! We can encounter deep and meaningful friendships when a master/servant dynamic is also involved, such as Frodo and Sam from The Lord of the Rings. *But* the fact that this kind of dynamic might evolve to develop a meaningful interaction does not mean that we should not also be fully critical of the power dynamic and the classism and racialized/gendered aspects of the relationship.
This particular essay I found deeply offensive in its endeavour to claim that it's actually servitude which gives Wong's life meaning and boosts his self-confidence and self empowerment (wtf), and that both parts of the master/servant dynamic get benefits out of the arrangement. It's a neoliberal-oriented 'choice' approach that ultimately completely glosses over the fact that it's a classist and racist system which has made Wong into Strange's servant in the comics, the same as his father was the servant of the Ancient One, and his father before him, and so on. If we take this 'choice' approach and make minimal parallels with say, oppressed women in extremely patriarchal societies or enslaved black people in the USA, I think it becomes clear enough how offensive and illogical this interpretation is - that oppression and a servile function to the privileged groups actually gives your life meaning and that you reap ample positive benefits our of a deeply unequal power dynamic.
Thank Agamotto the role of Wong was vastly improved in the MCU. I can't help but wonder whether the author of this essay would think that now Wong's life does not have meaning because he's a powerful Master sorcerer in his own right, and is now the actual Sorcerer Supreme. Heh.
-1 And now comes the big topic. While there were at least three essays in the book which tackled this matter more accurately, or at least following the reasoning I would have chosen, there is a discourse which I kept finding in several other essays which frustrated me time and time again. According to all these essays, the scientific aspect of Doctor Strange, initially a brilliant neurosurgeon, is something which went hand in hand with his arrogance, narcissism and materialistic view of the world. This materialism and his scientific aspect, as linked to the mechanistic current ('we are made of matter, and nothing more'), would be then opposed to the greater empathy, integrity and altruism that Strange shows as the movie progresses, which these essays repeteadly linked to his newfound 'enlightenment' and 'interest in spirituality' and the broadening of his mind.
While some of the points and philosophical stances described in these essays were interesting from a purely philosophical point of view, it's a huge misconstruction to say that science equals a lack of altruism or a greater materialistic and shallow mindset (wtf), and that it's an 'interest in spirituality' which makes someone more altruistic and empathetic. That's just both offensive and factually wrong.
And it's also a huge false equivalence to link the evolution of Doctor Strange as a sorcerer to the potential higher merits of real world spirituality (and pseudoscience) as opposed to empirical science. The essays seemed to repeteadly link Strange's scathing remarks about the unscientific nature of chakras or acupuncture (I mean, both things *are* objectively pseudoscience) with a narrow-minded view of the world which needed to be expanded. Being open-minded is the actual point of scientific curiosity and the scientific method, and that is exactly what Doctor Strange does - When shown actual empirical evidence that the Multiverse exists, and seeing that in the Marvel universe it is actually possible to draw energy from other dimensions to create 'magic' (thus linking magic way more to technology and science than spirituality), he just expands his view of the universe when shown that there's more to what he had learned, and includes the study of magic to his existing knowledge.
In our world, however, the Multiverse is an actual field of study in speculative physics, yes (and other essay in this book talks about this in the context of cosnology and quantum mechanics), but it *is* speculative. And spirituality, while valid on its own, cannot replace science if what we seek is the empirical understanding the universe. Strange's Sorcerer path *is* undeniably both heavily inspired and linked with Eastern martial arts and spirituality, but the way he studies and harnesses magic is rather more in line with science and technology than with actual spirituality as we would understand it in the real world (as is also the way with many MCU perceptions of magic as science and technology, as also portrayed in the Thor universe). Overall, the whole discourse when these particular essays (and there were a few :S) tackled this topic was a huge false equivalence fest.
-1 I also disliked the way that a couple of essays seemed to need to add the disclaimer that 'religion and science are not incompatible, in fact they are fully compatible because I will now give you some examples of historical scientists who also believed in God or were interested in spirituality or alchemy'. Obviously, individual people are entitled to their personal spiritual or religious beliefs (as long as they don't try to impose those beliefs on anyone else or enforce inequality against oppressed groups, which is the flavour of criticism I go for when I say I'm critical of religion). But the issue regarding the science-vs-religion discussion often doesn't have to do with individual beliefs, it has to do with the fact that enforced religious systems have historically hindered or prohibited science systematically, by imposing unscientific mythological concepts as Truths, and literally persecuting and murdering people who offered advances in science instead of abiding with those religious 'truths' as to the nature of the universe (and also persecuting religious beliefs which deviate from the systemic dogma). The fact that Newton believed in God (totally fine, but irrelevant in this discussion), or that Descartes (rather unscientifically) claimed that God is an innate proof of our reasoning nature (imo, wtf xD) are really neither here not there regarding this issue :S
+1 While discussing the influence of the pacifist-oriented ethics of Eastern martial arts there's a reference and quote to the 1970s series 'Kung Fu', which I really like, so kudos for that!
- And finally, this is more an anecdotic discussion than something I liked or didn't like - There's one essay which discussed mind-body dualism as illustrated in Doctor Strange by the astral bodies. However, the author seemed to keep trying to rationalize the way astral bodies were portrayed in the movie, not just comparing them to philosophical theories of dualism as an interesting exercise, but actually trying to find logical consistency between them, as if the portrayal in the movie would either confirm or discredit said theories of dualism.
While the astral bodies in Doctor Strange are clearly inspired both by spirituality currents and by various philosophical explorations about mind-body dualism, as a fantasy and sci-fi movie it doesn't need to be fully consistent with all these currents, nor do we really need to judge the accuracy of the depiction of Strange's astral body and its properties in regards to what philosophy has had to say about dualism - especially considering that dualism is as of now mostly devoid of empirical scientific proof! The exercise of questioning how Strange's astral body is or isn't consistent with existing philosophical theories of dualism and transference between the mind and the body is certainly interesting for purely academic purposes, but the way the author seemed to be actually thorough and serious about how a fantasy and sci-fi movie with astral bodies confirmed or denied irl philosophical theories of dualism both puzzled and amused me xD
June 9, 2023
As with all of these "and philosophy" books - it is not suitable to be read at one go through because each chapter repeats the basics of the movie or the comics and that becomes soon tedious.
The insights and perspectives of respective chapters are often quite interesting. I am just not sure if something already quite obscure (as Dr Strange is) is the right medium for popularization. I would find it often easier to just read a concise summary of the philosophy itself than have the extra overhead with Vishanti and Dornmamu and others.
The most interesting chapter for me was the one about servitude and Wong.
The insights and perspectives of respective chapters are often quite interesting. I am just not sure if something already quite obscure (as Dr Strange is) is the right medium for popularization. I would find it often easier to just read a concise summary of the philosophy itself than have the extra overhead with Vishanti and Dornmamu and others.
The most interesting chapter for me was the one about servitude and Wong.
May 18, 2025
A great read that focuses solely on aspects of the movie and the philosophical niches those scenes and concepts contain. It takes on everyone from Aristotle to Ayn Rand. These essays are by no means lengthy and dull but perfect length for the comic book and philosophy nerds who would pick up a book like this in the first place.
January 17, 2022
Brilliant book! Doctor Strange has been growing into one of my favorite Marvel characters for quite some time. I love how this book explores the philosophical lessons and grounds them in the work of historical philosophers. If you are fan of philosophy and Doctor Strange, you will love this.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews