What do you think?
Rate this book
Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture #9
Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul
Why doesn't Batman just kill the Joker and end everyone's misery? Can we hold the Joker morally responsible for his actions? Is Batman better than Superman? If everyone followed Batman's example, would Gotham be a better place? What is the Tao of the Bat? Batman is one of the most complex characters ever to appear in comic books, graphic novels, and on the big screen. What philosophical trials does this superhero confront in order to keep Gotham safe? Combing through seventy years of comic books, television shows, and movies, Batman and Philosophy explores how the Dark Knight grapples with ethical conundrums, moral responsibility, his identity crisis, the moral weight he carries to avenge his murdered parents, and much more. How does this caped crusader measure up against the teachings of Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Kierkegaard, and Lao Tzu?
307 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 23, 2008
300 people are currently reading
2629 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 - 30 of 217 reviews
February 20, 2021
(C-) 59% | Very Unsatisfactory
Notes: Not at all captivating, it uses Batman to illustrate philosophical concepts rather than philosophy to illustrate Batman.
Notes: Not at all captivating, it uses Batman to illustrate philosophical concepts rather than philosophy to illustrate Batman.
January 24, 2022
I am not a Philosopher, and truly the only way anyone will get me to read a Philosophy book is to put Batman/Star War in the title or on the cover and making either the subject matter. The book is very informative on philosophical theories, (I will be the first to admit would have been lost on me), and well researched in the world of Batman.
The thing that attracted me to this book was, discussion style format. All of us who are comic book fans love to discuss out favorite stories, characters (their directions, development and decisions), and who would win in a fight between them. I admit my reason for being able to quote Aristotle at my next comic book argument, or point out that well learned and scholars in their field are also comic book/Batman fans.
The book is not a light read and I actually got more then I was expecting for it, on a Goodreads note I was glad to have my 100 book as heavier read. One of the issues that is brought up is Batman being a fictional character, should he be revered, or looked at as an example? Questions like should he kill the Joker fit in with arguments to an for capital punishments in the real world. Also you cannot have a debate about batman without the shadow of death, and the continuing debate of death itself credit to the author and contributors for giving both sides of every argument.
The only reason I did not give this book 5 stars is there are a couple of sections in the middle that were for hardcore linguists or philosophers which I felt went slightly off topic and were over analyzed for my tastes. This could be a personal prejudice on my part as I hate linguistics, but that is me. However this is a great book that use the fiction characters to highlight issues and theories that are in the real world. I personally though the second last chapter using the relationship of Batman and Nightwing to reconcile the debate of Aristotle and Immanuel Kant, was inspired and definitely holds true in the real world.
The thing that attracted me to this book was, discussion style format. All of us who are comic book fans love to discuss out favorite stories, characters (their directions, development and decisions), and who would win in a fight between them. I admit my reason for being able to quote Aristotle at my next comic book argument, or point out that well learned and scholars in their field are also comic book/Batman fans.
The book is not a light read and I actually got more then I was expecting for it, on a Goodreads note I was glad to have my 100 book as heavier read. One of the issues that is brought up is Batman being a fictional character, should he be revered, or looked at as an example? Questions like should he kill the Joker fit in with arguments to an for capital punishments in the real world. Also you cannot have a debate about batman without the shadow of death, and the continuing debate of death itself credit to the author and contributors for giving both sides of every argument.
The only reason I did not give this book 5 stars is there are a couple of sections in the middle that were for hardcore linguists or philosophers which I felt went slightly off topic and were over analyzed for my tastes. This could be a personal prejudice on my part as I hate linguistics, but that is me. However this is a great book that use the fiction characters to highlight issues and theories that are in the real world. I personally though the second last chapter using the relationship of Batman and Nightwing to reconcile the debate of Aristotle and Immanuel Kant, was inspired and definitely holds true in the real world.
October 8, 2015
As more of a philosophy than a comic book fan, I am disappointed. I was expecting an in-depth analysis of the character of Joker and the sociological roots of the crime-haven that is Gotham. Instead, I ended up reading a slightly subtle version of what could easily have been ruminations between the characters of The Big Bang Theory.
This book has more to offer to comic book readers than philosophy aficionados.
This book has more to offer to comic book readers than philosophy aficionados.
May 15, 2015
In a word, lazy.
The editor, Mark D. White, allowed the contributors to cover much of the same ground. Perhaps if they knew what the others were writing it could have a little more originality. Some contributors seem to know almost nothing about Batman, preferring to talk philosophy then adding "just like Batman" at the end. Rather than a book of the philosophy of the Batman myth, this book largely covers basic philosophical concepts then painfully tries to apply it to whatever the contributor knows about the myth.
The first few chapters were interesting but the middle and later chapters are muddled nonsense. I advise reading chapters 1-5, 8, 14, and 20. I almost put the book down when one chapter took 4 pages to explain Bruce Wayne/Batman isn't a real person. If that is all the wisdom your Philosophy Doctorate has given you, I'd ask for my money back.
Citing only the graphic novels, the contributors ignore the movies, the golden age comics, and other sources of Batman lore. Only a couple did their homework! Some of their discussions would've benefited from the material in the movies.
The question of insanity comes up when it comes to Batman and Joker, as it does in the Batman and Psychology book (which is much better BTW). What I find problematic is that the writers seem to ask "what is it to be sane" and "What is insanity" without providing a single answer. There are several widely accepted definitions available, all provided by the disciplines that came up with the word in the first place. For some reason the writers try to pretend that we don't know what sanity is, insisting the question is much too complicated for us non-philosophy commoners.
The chapter entitled "Could Batman have been the Joker?" is essentially an entire chapter explaining what a hypothetical is. Gee, thanks for that lesson.
The chapters on Alfred and Taoism are interesting but are mixed in with what are essentially worthless chapters. The editor could've done a better job coordinating the essays of the different contributors, reducing the amount of overlap and repetition. He could've selected contributors with a better familiarity with Batman or ones that would do their homework. More importantly, the book asks questions that really didn't interest me. I'd say the book could've been 150 pages instead of 280. At least then it wouldn't be as diluted with nonsense.
It gets two stars for the good chapters, of which there are eight.
The editor, Mark D. White, allowed the contributors to cover much of the same ground. Perhaps if they knew what the others were writing it could have a little more originality. Some contributors seem to know almost nothing about Batman, preferring to talk philosophy then adding "just like Batman" at the end. Rather than a book of the philosophy of the Batman myth, this book largely covers basic philosophical concepts then painfully tries to apply it to whatever the contributor knows about the myth.
The first few chapters were interesting but the middle and later chapters are muddled nonsense. I advise reading chapters 1-5, 8, 14, and 20. I almost put the book down when one chapter took 4 pages to explain Bruce Wayne/Batman isn't a real person. If that is all the wisdom your Philosophy Doctorate has given you, I'd ask for my money back.
Citing only the graphic novels, the contributors ignore the movies, the golden age comics, and other sources of Batman lore. Only a couple did their homework! Some of their discussions would've benefited from the material in the movies.
The question of insanity comes up when it comes to Batman and Joker, as it does in the Batman and Psychology book (which is much better BTW). What I find problematic is that the writers seem to ask "what is it to be sane" and "What is insanity" without providing a single answer. There are several widely accepted definitions available, all provided by the disciplines that came up with the word in the first place. For some reason the writers try to pretend that we don't know what sanity is, insisting the question is much too complicated for us non-philosophy commoners.
The chapter entitled "Could Batman have been the Joker?" is essentially an entire chapter explaining what a hypothetical is. Gee, thanks for that lesson.
The chapters on Alfred and Taoism are interesting but are mixed in with what are essentially worthless chapters. The editor could've done a better job coordinating the essays of the different contributors, reducing the amount of overlap and repetition. He could've selected contributors with a better familiarity with Batman or ones that would do their homework. More importantly, the book asks questions that really didn't interest me. I'd say the book could've been 150 pages instead of 280. At least then it wouldn't be as diluted with nonsense.
It gets two stars for the good chapters, of which there are eight.
June 30, 2012
Ideally, the Blackwell series of philosophy-meets-pop-culture books simultaneously makes philosophy fun while adding intellectual gravitas to our guilty little pleasures. Given Batman's long history as one of the most complex, resilient and enigmatic characters in all of comics, I had high hopes for this Brave and the Bold-like team-up between the Caped Crusader and the capeless likes of Aristotle, Kant, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein and Nietzsche.
Batman has become one of the best characters in comics because he has been privileged with the best creators. Over the years, Batman's many talented writers, artists, editors, directors and producers have waxed philosophic over the character as they reconceived and reinvented him for new audiences. Batman's stories have grappled with philosophical issues since the '40s, and writers like Denny O'Neil and Grant Morrison have added layer upon layer to those philosophical underpinnings. As a result, their insights into the character and the cultural phenomenon of Batman are unparalleled.
Rather than offering an exegesis that examines the significance and relevance of the Batman texts themselves, this book instead provides watered-down explanations of generalized philosophical concepts that simply use Batman as an example where any other character could be substituted just as well. For example, I thought Ron Novy's article, What Is It Like to Be a Batman?" was at least a clever play on Thomas Nagel's similarly-titled article about bats, echolocation and the philosophy of mind. But the basic idea that we can never know what it's like to be someone else no matter how much we imitate them doesn't really apply to Batman any more than it does to anyone else.
While the range of philosophical texts that are referenced is fairly extensive, the range of Batman stories that are referenced is not. Frank Miller's version of Batman (from Year One and the Dark Knight Returns) is the most discussed with the Nolan films being a somewhat distant second. Some writers do make slight nods to more obscure bits of continuity in their footnotes, but continue to talk about the character in the main body of the text in only a vague, conglomerate way.
I know the series editors are trying to bring philosophy to the masses and I don't want to knock that, but it's hard for me to figure exactly who the target market is for this book. I would hope that college kids would be reading the actual books by Kant, Foucault, etc. that are cited and discussed throughout, while Batman fans, I think, are far more sophisticated than the authors give them credit for.
Batman has become one of the best characters in comics because he has been privileged with the best creators. Over the years, Batman's many talented writers, artists, editors, directors and producers have waxed philosophic over the character as they reconceived and reinvented him for new audiences. Batman's stories have grappled with philosophical issues since the '40s, and writers like Denny O'Neil and Grant Morrison have added layer upon layer to those philosophical underpinnings. As a result, their insights into the character and the cultural phenomenon of Batman are unparalleled.
Rather than offering an exegesis that examines the significance and relevance of the Batman texts themselves, this book instead provides watered-down explanations of generalized philosophical concepts that simply use Batman as an example where any other character could be substituted just as well. For example, I thought Ron Novy's article, What Is It Like to Be a Batman?" was at least a clever play on Thomas Nagel's similarly-titled article about bats, echolocation and the philosophy of mind. But the basic idea that we can never know what it's like to be someone else no matter how much we imitate them doesn't really apply to Batman any more than it does to anyone else.
While the range of philosophical texts that are referenced is fairly extensive, the range of Batman stories that are referenced is not. Frank Miller's version of Batman (from Year One and the Dark Knight Returns) is the most discussed with the Nolan films being a somewhat distant second. Some writers do make slight nods to more obscure bits of continuity in their footnotes, but continue to talk about the character in the main body of the text in only a vague, conglomerate way.
I know the series editors are trying to bring philosophy to the masses and I don't want to knock that, but it's hard for me to figure exactly who the target market is for this book. I would hope that college kids would be reading the actual books by Kant, Foucault, etc. that are cited and discussed throughout, while Batman fans, I think, are far more sophisticated than the authors give them credit for.
Read
March 20, 2022I love the chapter on Batman Vs. Superman, not the movie, of course. The Dark Knight would triumph over the Kryptonian, SERIOUSLY!!!
May 15, 2009
This book should be renamed "Why did Batman let Robin #2 (Jason Todd) die". Almost every essay is about Jason Todd. Who cares about Jason Todd? Get over Jason Todd.
October 25, 2020
العمل فلسفي بامتياز :يستحضر نظريات الأخلاق من أرسطو إلى كيركغارد مرورا بكانط و نيتشه و ذلك عبر مغامرات باتمان
January 29, 2010
A fun read. Some the essays are mostly discussions of classical philosophical issues with bat-metaphors crammed in ("How does Batman know his batarangs are real?" sorts of things). Some are rather annoying because the author just isn't taking things the least bit seriously ("Oh gosh, I promised my friend I'd have an essay on Batman and it's due this week, well...whatever!"). Others are interesting, light-hearted or serious takes on the intersection of comic books and philosophy. Maybe not surprisingly, I found the best essays to be about Batman's relationships with the other people in his life--there's a good essay about his friendship with Superman, a very good essay about Dick Grayson's transition to Nightwing, and two excellent essays about Alfred Pennyworth. About half of the essays are with the time to read, which isn't bad for a book like this.
December 5, 2016
As philosophers and the field of philosophy involves on thought experiment as speculations, then perhaps one way to best illustrates its ideas is through fictions works, in this case comics (or movies based on it).
And among all comic fictions that maybe have a better depth of character for this speculation, the Batman and its universe is perhaps the best to discuss on moral ethics, state and its functions, virtue and virtuous acts and so on.
Though I can’t justify this; I think Chapt 9 on Moral Exemplar is the one that did the job. So, if you want to read this book, it might be a good thing to start with this chapter and then skimming through the contents page.
And to stress on a point, it is best if one is already accustomed to the stories, mainly before 2008 (it’s comics, animated and/or life-action movie) before reading this; as a major part discussed was referenced back to them. Luckily, I did long before, so I don’t have to revert to them anymore.
And at times when reading this book, I was like “Wo! These people really do take their comics seriously”, just to acknowledge the fanboy-ism perhaps are presence in me and them.
Though, I believe Animes (or Mangas), like for one,
The Law of Ueki ,deals with the fundamental issues like moral ethics, justice and friendship better (feel free to disagree).
Moving on. When dealing with moral issues like killing criminals; let alone the Joker, who kills just for fun or to tempt the Dark Knight out; Joker moral responsibility of his crime -when even his sanity and rational capacity is debated- it’s interesting to see the referred groundwork laid by eminent philosophers are woven in; here Foucault’s Madness & Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. Also, on this case still, others argued on Utilitarian ethics (and Peter Singer max and moderate version) on one chapter, Batman virtue on another.
As one also know that Batman had Robins (yes, plural) as sidekick, thus it was discussed on moral education, the level of education, authority and moral exemplar of Batman in teaching Robins in fighting crime and the virtue needed. Many more was discussed like Alfred roles as Knight of Faith from Kierkegaard Fear and Trembling , identity, conscience and so on.
Best is to read the main philosophical works itself -which often proves difficult- then, an understanding, if not better, can be achieved.
And among all comic fictions that maybe have a better depth of character for this speculation, the Batman and its universe is perhaps the best to discuss on moral ethics, state and its functions, virtue and virtuous acts and so on.
Though I can’t justify this; I think Chapt 9 on Moral Exemplar is the one that did the job. So, if you want to read this book, it might be a good thing to start with this chapter and then skimming through the contents page.
And to stress on a point, it is best if one is already accustomed to the stories, mainly before 2008 (it’s comics, animated and/or life-action movie) before reading this; as a major part discussed was referenced back to them. Luckily, I did long before, so I don’t have to revert to them anymore.
And at times when reading this book, I was like “Wo! These people really do take their comics seriously”, just to acknowledge the fanboy-ism perhaps are presence in me and them.
Though, I believe Animes (or Mangas), like for one,
The Law of Ueki ,deals with the fundamental issues like moral ethics, justice and friendship better (feel free to disagree).
Moving on. When dealing with moral issues like killing criminals; let alone the Joker, who kills just for fun or to tempt the Dark Knight out; Joker moral responsibility of his crime -when even his sanity and rational capacity is debated- it’s interesting to see the referred groundwork laid by eminent philosophers are woven in; here Foucault’s Madness & Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. Also, on this case still, others argued on Utilitarian ethics (and Peter Singer max and moderate version) on one chapter, Batman virtue on another.
As one also know that Batman had Robins (yes, plural) as sidekick, thus it was discussed on moral education, the level of education, authority and moral exemplar of Batman in teaching Robins in fighting crime and the virtue needed. Many more was discussed like Alfred roles as Knight of Faith from Kierkegaard Fear and Trembling , identity, conscience and so on.
Best is to read the main philosophical works itself -which often proves difficult- then, an understanding, if not better, can be achieved.
September 2, 2023
Every generation has a (live-action) Batman, and I think that’s beautiful. Alright, mine now has three Bruce Waynes to choose from (Batfleck, BabyBat and Mr. I AM VENGEANCE, with BabyBat being my one and only, obviously). I’m not counting Christian Bale cause when Batman Begins aired, I was still in kindergarten and did not care for crime-fighting traumatized dudes dressed as giant bats.
So, I think it’s safe to say that Batman has become one of my favorite superheroes of all time. Which is why - after crying for half an eternity over the Gotham finale (aka the Nygmobblepot hug) - I was pretty darn excited for this collection of essays about Batman and Philosophy.
→ Why Doesn’t Batman Kill the Joker? (3/5)
Solid introduction but also redundant. We all know Batman doesn’t kill and why he won’t ever cross THAT line (except maybe in Tim Burton’s and Zack Snyder’s interpretation cause those guys are dumbasses). Also, it focuses way too much on the "trolley problem" and wastes lots of pages explaining the difference between utilitarianism and deontology instead of analyzing Batman’s behavior.
→ Is it Right to Make a Robin? (3/5)
Considering that my least favorite character in the Batman universe is Robin (be it Jason Todd or Dick Grayson or whoever followed after these two), I didn’t much care for this chapter. However, it’s always interesting to pose this sort of question. Is it morally and ethically acceptable and justifiable to train a young and innocent boy to fight crime, exposing him to danger and risking his life for your own cause? I’d say no, especially if the result is… a bore called Robin (sorry, not sorry).
→ Why Batman is Better than Superman (2/5)
Isn’t it obvious? Just kidding. I used to have a Clark Kent phase, too. Or shall I say… a Smallville phase (this show has not aged well). Awwww those were the days. Back then I used to be into that Clark "I’m a literal ray of sunshine-slash-boy scout-slash-cinnamon roll" Kent routine and now look at me. A depressed, damaged man in a bat-suit who likes torture and lives in a city that reeks of corruption makes me happy, how the tables have turned. But let’s be real, Superman will never reach the complexity of Batman, and that’s a fact. He might be an absurdly powerful god-like alien who can end you in less than a second, but as a character??? Best thing about him is his relationship with Lois. Oh, and the fact that he’s a good-natured, trustworthy and reliable puppy. Who am I kidding? I love Clark Kent. I simply love Bruce Wayne more.
Oddly enough, this essay spends a lot of time comparing the Batman v Superman debate to a battle between ice cream flavours which… doesn’t make that much sense, tbh. Yes, yes, it always boils down to personal taste and preference, but these characters represent specific ideas and ideologies. Now tell me, how is that similar to asking if you like chocolate more than vanilla ice cream? Furthermore, this chapter doesn’t even remotely begin to thoroughly compare these two superheroes. Instead, it reads like a manual for kids written by a teenage fanboy trying to bash Superman-fans (wow, that’s so mature *sigh*).
→ No Man’s Land: Social Order in Gotham (4/5)
Ah yes, Thomas Hobbes had to make an appearance eventually. I mean, Gotham is after all the perfect place to compare to the societal structure described in Leviathan. This whole chapter was highly intriguing and eye-opening. I’ve always known that the Batman stories had a lot of social criticism in them, but I didn’t expect it to go this far… Impressive. Also, it’s almost terrifying how the comic Batman: No Man’s Land predicted what would happen a few years later in New Orleans after the Hurricane Katrina destruction.
→ Governing Gotham (4/5)
Very interesting as well, albeit repetitive; this explores the themes of law and order in Gotham City and how Batman - seen as a vigilante - operates outside the law and is therefore thrown into the same pot as the criminals he fights, whereas Jim Gordon - working for the GCPD - struggles to uphold the laws in a city that knows no rules… As a firm believer in the dullness of James "do it by the book" Gordon (except when he’s portrayed by my boy Ben McKenzie) I skipped a few pages to get to the good stuff.
→ The Joker’s Wild (4/5)
So far one of the most interesting entries to this collection of essays. It focuses on the issue of whether or not we can hold the Joker morally (NOT CAUSALLY!!!) responsible for his horrible actions when it’s confirmed that he clearly suffers from a severe mental illness and is thus unable to make a rational choice or use common sense. Whoever is capable of doing that in Gotham, though? I mean… that’s the whole point of this wretched and corrupt city. This made me think a lot about all the various Joker (live-action movie/tv) versions out there.
Here comes my unnecessary and brief live-action movie/tv Joker(s) analysis nobody asked for. Now, I have not seen Cesar Romero as the Joker just yet because I’m honestly too scared to watch the 1966 Batman movie (do wanna see the Nygmobblepot submarine, though). So let’s kick things off with 1989. Tim Burton very much pleads for blaming the clown prince of Gotham, since Jack - before becoming the Joker and hence mentally unstable - deliberately chooses a life of crime and violence. In addition to that, he actually killed Bruce’s parents (still annoyed about that one). Moreover, I think casting Jack Nicholson is proof enough; now that’s a statement right there.
Then there’s Nolan’s philosophical and more existential interpretation of an anarchist who just "wants to watch the world burn" (thanks, Alfred for one of the most accurate lines ever) and who repeatedly explains that he is not insane (which in my opinion is debatable, yet part of the brilliance that is Heath Ledger’s interpretation is the vagueness of his origins and the uncertainty regarding his level of craziness).
Jared Leto’s version, on the other hand, has too little screentime (I’m not complaining) and gives me a gigantic headache, ugh. I do feel like - and it might just be the terrible writing of that trainwreck of a movie - he knows what he’s doing, at least to some extent (take his abuse/manipulation of Harley for example and his Arkham breakout) he simply doesn’t give a sh*t, and neither does the script… He likes keeping up the image of being out of his mind (HENCE THE STUPID 'DAMAGED' TATTOO, no honestly who freaking does that???). Even if he’s ridiculously bad at… being bad, let’s just leave it at that.
Obviously, Joaquin Phoenix is the one who most visibly suffers from multiple mental illnesses as well as delusions and hallucinations, so in the words of Robichaud; Arthur Fleck really can’t be morally held responsible for his actions. To be fair, the audience can’t even be entirely sure if any of those things ever happened in the first place. It might all be taking place in the head of a deeply disturbed human being (*cough cough* Dr. Caligari, anyone?) Talking about an unreliable narrator, huh.
Now, Gotham has two - how should I put it - approaches (cause technically they’re not allowed to use the Joker - one more BS-thing I can blame Suicide Squad for) and they’re both maniacs (ironically… Jerome is part of the MANIAX group). While Jerome’s condition implicitly stems from physical (and perhaps sexual) abuse in his childhood (I can see a pattern here), Jeremiah quite literally turns mad overnight thanks to a plot device called laughing toxin and the idiocy of one (1) precious cinnamon roll called Bruce Wayne. Honestly, Gotham, in general, is a pretty tough call when it comes to holding characters morally responsible for their actions, so I’ll better move on now.
→ World’s Finest Friends: Batman and Superman (5/5)
"This duo is like the captain of the football team hanging out with the creepy Goth kid." Wow. I have never read anything more accurate. I can already picture the fanfiction inside my head… Superman definitely is that type of guy who genuinely befriends everyone whilst Batman is just lurking in a dark corner brooding and thinking "who needs friends when you have the best arch-nemesis a guy can ask for".
This essay primarily explores the nature of the friendship between two unlikely allies. Love it. Ship it. Need it. Superman’s understanding of friendship is similar to the Aristotelian concept of "philia" and is thus a rather extreme but pure form of affection (*shipping mode activated*). Whereas Batman seems incapable of completely trusting anyone (except maybe Alfred), yet he respects and even worships Superman (*shipping intensifies*) for Clark Kent represents something greater than humanity itself - an ideal people should strive towards.
→ Alfred the Dark Knight of Faith (5/5)
Without a doubt my favourite essay in this collection and that’s not just because it doesn’t circle around Batman's guilty conscience or Robin (ugh) or the Joker (I love you honey, but please share the spotlight every once in a while) or because it focuses on one of my all-time favourite Batman characters (the true hero behind it all). No, this chapter represents exactly what I hoped this book would be like; a solid and thorough analysis of a character, situation, dynamic or single plotline from the Batman comics/movies/tv-shows combined with a philosophical approach. Well done. You managed to meet my expectations after 200+ pages.
I feel like Alfred’s exceptionality often goes unnoticed or is taken for granted by people (both in the Batman universe as well as amongst fans) and as someone who is less of a comic-reader and more of a movie/tv show-watcher I felt this growing appreciation for Alfred happening in the film industry over the years; yes, Michael Gough had his moments but as everyone will agree on; Tim Burton doesn’t know how to make a BATMAN-movie to save his life.
Obviously, the tv show version from the 90s was pure genius (oh, the iconic and sassy lines). For me, the shift probably happened when Nolan allowed Michael Cane to become the heart and moral compass of his trilogy while still keeping a touch of the sassiness ("The Lamborghini then? Much more subtle"). Furthermore, I will never get over the excruciatingly painful final scene of The Dark Knight Rises (not the so-not-asked-for Robin revelation, the funeral-sequence, ofc). I'm not the biggest fan of Nolan's approach, but the portrayal of Alfred was top-notch.
I sometimes forget that Jeremy Irons played Alfred, as well. But then again, I often forget that the DCEU even attempted (and failed) to do Batman, so there you go. In all honesty, I’m not entirely sure what Alfred does in the DCEU but his presence didn’t leave a lasting impression. But then there’s my favourite version of Alfred (with Michael Cane being a close second); the sheer brilliance that is Sean Pertwee.
Granted, he gets more screentime than all of the other Alfreds together (one of the benefits of starring in a tv show lol) but thanks to a hundred hours of character development he’s the most layered and three-dimensional butler of them all. In addition to that, his relationship with Bruce is simply chef’s kiss.
At this point, I’m just abusing this review to post my favourite (live-action) batman gifs, sorry, not sorry… My future me will be pleased (or not) when rereading her old reviews. I am, after all, writing these for myself, so I guess... it's whatever.
→ What Would Batman Do? (3/5)
Again talking about Batman as a moral exemplar as well as the difference between deontology and utilitarianism and it’s all getting a tad repetitive. I’m starting to feel like the editor didn’t check if all the contributors wrote about the same stuff. Sometimes it’s hard to tell one chapter from the other since the authors always circle around the same three topics, repeating each others' words. ARE THE VILLAINS EVEN GONNA BE DISCUSSED???? I mean… apart from the Joker, obviously. But, can I finally get an essay on Ed Nygma/Nashton and the philosophical meaning behind his riddles? It’s all I'm asking for.
→ Could Batman Have Been the Joker? (2/5)
Another chapter about Dick Grayson and Jason Todd, honestly who even cares about the various Robins? Not me, that’s for sure (yeahhh, Titans fans, come at me!) Also, the whole Batman could be the Joker, and vice-versa-argument really isn’t necessary or interesting (I mean, technically it would be, but definitely not in the superficial way it is explored in this chapter).
→ Leaving the Shadow of the Bat (2/5)
This is mostly a wrap-up featuring lots of previous statements and the author - once again - focuses heavily on Dick Grayson and Jason Todd. Did I ask for it? Nope. Overall, this collection was a bit of a let-down and way too messy; I even had to skip a few chapters because some of them were extremely similar to one another and it all became too repetitive/redundant. Still, I enjoyed some parts to a great extent. Now it's back to vidding Nygmobblepot until my hands are bleeding hehe :)
September 20, 2014
The last four chapters of this book stopped me from giving it a single star. While the first 16 chapters use way too many exclamation points and cheesy metaphors and beat certain philosophical theories to a pulp, the last four chapters actually explore different areas of philosophy, and the perspectives of these writers are better explained without using unnecessary fluff. Most of the early chapters rush to make their philosophical points and nothing about philosophy should ever be rushed. I wish someone else would rewrite a Batman and Philosophy book, not part of the Blackwell series, and explore less philosophical theories and focus on those that can delve even deeper into the complexity of the character that is Batman.
May 13, 2020
باتمان الشخصية الأكثر تعقيداً في القصص المصورة هل ما يفعله جيد، صائب او فاضل في هذا الكتاب يتم طرح أسئلة فلسفية عن تعامل باتمان مع كل المعضلات الأخلاقية التي تواجهه ومقارنتها مع الفلسفات الأخلاقية كأخلاق الواجب ،الأخلاق النفعية وأخلاق الفضيلة ويتم التطرق لفلسفة نيتشه، أفلاطون واخرون. الكتاب ثري جداً بما يخص الفلسفة ويقدم تحليل وتفسير مفصل لكل سؤال فلسفي يتم طرحه.
كتاب ممتع ومفيد اذا كنت من محبين الفلسفة وباتمان اقتنيه بأسرع وقت واستمتع.
كتاب ممتع ومفيد اذا كنت من محبين الفلسفة وباتمان اقتنيه بأسرع وقت واستمتع.
June 22, 2017
Ocassionally insightful, not entirely compelling.
March 5, 2022
باتمان اصبحت لا اراه مجرد بطل كرتوني او هوليوودي بل هو إسقاطات لمجموعة من القضايا والأطروحات الفلسفية الأخلاقية والتي نعيش جدلياتها في واقعنا..
بصراحة الكتاب حسن كثيرا من فهمي لفلسفة الأخلاق
بصراحة الكتاب حسن كثيرا من فهمي لفلسفة الأخلاق
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 23, 2015
Batman and Philosophy was fun, but I would recommend any reader to skip the fourth part, which has to do with issues of identity. Some of my favorite syntheses that emerged in the readings were among Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and Martin Heidegger vis-a-vis Batman. Here it is in summary form. In some respects, Batman fits the Aristotelian model in that he increases his virtues through their exercise and rears Robin (no innuendo intended) by example. Aristotle advised that if one wanted to be virtuous, one had to practice being virtuous. That is, one learns to be virtuous by doing, just as a cobbler learns to be a better shoemaker by making shoes. Of course, being virtuous or doing the right thing involves, for Batman, adhering to certain basic moral principles. Batman, then, in this respect is a deontologist a la Kant. That is, he thinks the most important issue regarding being moral involves choosing to act in accordance with a moral law one would give herself: 'one ought not kill,' for example, 'one ought to save innocent people if one can,' and so on. Batman also represents some aspects of a Heideggerian philosophy. Batman lives an authentic existence because he does not conform to what most normal people do but instead lives a life according to the projects he thinks are important, projects that namely involve Batman saving other innocent lives. These are just some of the pieces one can glean from the book. Again, the book is fun.
April 21, 2024
Modal logic is the pits and I can’t believe I had to learn about it in a book about Batman.
September 30, 2016
No one knows what it's like /This was the last non-roleplaying book I bought in hardcopy, from the new releases section of Borders, before my wife and I move to Japan. And then it took me eight years to get around to reading it. At least it happened!
To be the Batman /
To be the sad man /
Behind blue eyes…
-The Who, probably
Batman and Philosophy is basically an undergraduate survey course on philosophy through the lens of superheroes. It covers all the standard topics, like utilitarian vs. deontological ethics, Wittgenstein's family resemblance, Singer's argument from prevention, Kierkegaard's knight of faith and the knight of infinite resignation and so on, but using Bruce Wayne and Batman, as well as whether they're the same or not and if so, to what degree; and the cast of characters from 70 years of comics. I know very little about Batman and a bit more about philosophy, but I've never made a formal study of either subject, so there was plenty here in the twenty essays the book is organized into even if a lot of the individual essays were unsatisfying.
My favorite one is definitely "Should Bruce Wayne Have Become Batman?" because it's a question I've heard elsewhere a lot. The argument is basically that if Bruce Wayne had used his time to set up the Thomas Wayne Memorial Charitable Foundation and set up education and retraining programs for Gotham, it would have done a lot more good than dressing up like a bat and extrajudicially beating up criminals one by one. The author makes the point using Pete Singer's argument for feeding famine victims, saying that everyone has a responsibility to alleviate harm unless doing so would harm them more than the harm they would alleviate. Since harm doesn't change based on temporal location, there's no reason to privilege harm occurring nearby as opposed to harm occurring on the other side of the world, so the harm to Batman's parents and himself that requires vengeance is not greater than the harm occurring to Gotham's poor, and therefore Batman should never have existed and Bruce Wayne should have been a non-profit president.
It's that part at the end that really makes this essay stand out. Most of the essays in Batman and Philosophy are wishy-washy, introducing a concept without doing more than explaining it, or offering a choice between A or B, and then ending by saying that I guess it could be either A or B, who really knows what truth is? This one at least takes a stand.
"Dark Nights and the Call of Conscience" actually offers a counterargument to this in an aside to its main point, when it points out that Bruce Wayne becoming a philantrophist would have been giving in to others' expectations of him and not creating his authentic self. It also had an philosophical point that's obvious when you think about it but which I have never considered before--conscience is created. If conscience is inborn, then morality is deterministic. Instead, conscience is a way for people to define themselves against society by demonstrating what things it is that they love and they fear. That's something I want to see explored more.
"Batman's Promise" is about what kind of moral weight we should assign to vows. Again dealing with the question of whether Batman should exist at all, it casts the decision to dress up as a bat and punch criminals and ice-cream eaters in the face in the context of Bruce Wayne taking up his parents mission to make Gotham a better place. It's just that he does it differently than they did. The essay mostly hinges on whether promises should have any kind of moral weight or not, whether the dead can meaningfully be harmed such that we can account for the harm of breaking a promise to the dead compared to the harm to the living of keeping the promise. It doesn't actually satisfactorially resolve it, but that's true of most of the essays here.
"Batman's Confrontation with Death, Angst, and Freedom" is again about choice, but this time about whether Bruce Wayne became the Batman because he was carried along by his past and had no real choice in his actions, or whether he did have a choice in the matter. After dealing with the concept of free will as explained by Martin Heidegger, who rejected the idea of a strict separation between the external world and an internal world that makes "free" choices without any influence, it points out that becoming Batman out of an insane desire for vengeance isn't the only possible result of the Waynes' murder. Heidegger's angst is the confrontation with death that brings to mind one's own mortality and reveals that life is finite. There are other possible responses, like giving away all the Wayne wealth and entering a monastery, or actually being a billionaire playboy instead of using it as cover for fighting crime. The existence of those other possibilities, and the moment of choice to become the bat, imply that Bruce Wayne could have made those choices and therefore that his current career as Batman is not the flailing of a damaged personality but the rational (or at least, somewhat so) choice of a individual.
"Governing Gotham" is an exploration of whether the Batman is morally justified not based on any internal criteria, but whether he is undermining the state. Weber's defining characteristic of the state is a monopoly on the use of force, and by acting outside the bounds of the state, Batman undermines that legitimacy. He makes the city safer by beating up criminals, but not more orderly. Though, there's also the question of whether the state is truly legitimate if it protects evil, through corrupt cops, corrupt politicians, and other forms of corruption. The essay comes down on saying that Batman is justified because of his relationship with Commissioner Gordon, which provides the tacit approval of the state to Batman's extrajudicial assaults and thus allows the state to subsume Batman into its apparatus.
My biggest problem with Batman and Philosophy is how it focuses more on philosophy than Batman. It would work out very well as an introductory text for a survey of Western philosophy, but doesn't actually say that much about Batman while doing so. Furthermore, it keeps going to the same well--the majority of the references are to Batman: Year One, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, and Batman: The Killing Joke, with a few references to the Batman Begins trilogy of movies and very few to anything else. As such, while I know more about philosophy than when I started, I know almost nothing about Batman, and considering his name comes first in the title I think that's an inexcusable flaw.
March 28, 2025
This book has the tricky assignment of trying to please two groups of people (philosophers and Batman fans) and I’m not sure that it threads that needle. A couple of the chapters are very entertaining, but I feel as though some could have been cut out as there’s a fair bit of repetition when it comes to discussing the philosophical concepts. A collection of different authors means different voices, and it’s very hard to strike that balance between unifying the message while not repeating the same thing, so I can sympathize with the difficulty of the task. Ultimately, I believe this would have been better as a series of articles instead of a book. Would only recommend it if you’re interested in Batman or philosophy without being a hardcore fan of either.
September 24, 2022
A philosophical approach to my favorite superhero from DC comics which is Batman, which differentiates Batman from other superheroes that he is not super at anything, he is just a man filled with hatred and his will to revenge for his father and mother. The book discusses the morality of Batman and how the categorical imperative plays a significant role in shaping the idea of good and evil in Batman's world. There are other chapters discussing the identity of Batman as a superhero fighting crime without state's permission unlike Marvel's superheroes or even Superman.
I enjoyed most of the book as it reminds me of wisecreack's videos but there were other chapters which are very poorly written.
I enjoyed most of the book as it reminds me of wisecreack's videos but there were other chapters which are very poorly written.
April 23, 2021
This book is very interesting if you are both a Batman fan and wish to learn about some of the most important philosophical concepts that have developed through the years. Some sections are more engaging than others - the Superman/Batman chapters were the best - but you learn something new each chapter.
Overall a quick and engrossing read.
Overall a quick and engrossing read.
November 21, 2020
Some of these essays were really fascinating and tickle me. Also, lots of ideas of how these concepts relate to other parts of life. A couple essays were kind of incomprehensible. Overall an enjoyable read for any Batman fan.
March 5, 2022
Más entretenido de lo que esperaba cuando empecé a leerlo hace años. No sé ni porqué dejé de leerlo en ese entonces.
December 1, 2024
A series of essays reading like a college assignment applying concepts you learned in class to popular fiction.. but did put me in the mood to enjoy nyc
March 7, 2024
This book seems to disappoint both comic fans and philosophy buffs. I’m both and it disappointed me too. Impressive.
February 16, 2025
Not 100% on my thoughts here, as it was a collection of essays on various philosophical subject matter (some done well and some sloppily)… there was a good dive into a broad range of philosophy 101 subject matter. Also there was some pretty deep dives into the world of Batman’s story and psyche. BUT it never really grabbed and captivated me in either sense.
A lot of the thesis’s presented left a good bit of assumptive lifting on the part of the reader. But this may have been more due to the formatting of this book. I could easily see a number of these essays making a full length text.
Overall, I found it fun and interesting while just gently opening the door for different philosophies that can (and should) be studied more. Best of all… it was about Batman.
A lot of the thesis’s presented left a good bit of assumptive lifting on the part of the reader. But this may have been more due to the formatting of this book. I could easily see a number of these essays making a full length text.
Overall, I found it fun and interesting while just gently opening the door for different philosophies that can (and should) be studied more. Best of all… it was about Batman.
June 19, 2016
Being fond of the Dark Knight [1], dark nights of the soul [2], and the Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture series, this book was an obvious choice to read. For those who are fans of both Batman and philosophy, this book delivers. What it delivers, though, it should be noted, is not entirely straightforward, since the book dwells heavily on questions of identity, given the fact that this is an essential question concerning Batman. As is true in previous volumes of the series, it is clear that many of the authors are writing out of a love of pop culture geekiness as well as the understandable desire to pay off college loans and have some sort of publishing in their curriculum vita by writing insightful articles that reveal at least as much, if not more, about the philosophers themselves and their worldviews as about Batman itself. Such a phenomenon is to be expected, and ought not to bother anyone who reads this book, or any other book in the series.
The contents of the book are pretty straightforward. The book consists of a little less than 300 pages of material divided into six parts that contain 20 essays. The first part consists of questions about the morality of the dark knight, asking why Batman doesn’t kill Joker despite many chances, whether it is right to make a Robin, and the virtuous hatred of Batman. The second part looks at where Batman fits in regarding law, justice, and the social order, with essays about No Man’s Land comparing Gotham to post-Katrina New Orleans, the problems of governing Gotham, and whether Joker can be considered of sound mind and therefore morally responsible. The third part looks at the origins and ethics of Batman, including the promise of Batman to fight against evil, whether Bruce Wayne should have become Batman, and the question of Bruce Wayne as a moral exemplar. The fourth part of the book has four chapters on the identity of Batman, including essays on how anyone can become Batman, whether Batman could have been the Joker using a possible worlds analysis, the use of Wittgenstein’s family resemblance approach to solve a supposed identity crisis, and what is it like to be a Batman. The fifth part of the book contains insights from existentialism and Taoism to examine the approach of Alfred as a supposed dark knight of faith, the call of conscience, and Batman’s confrontation with death, angst, and freedom. The sixth and final part of the book looks at the many roles of Batman, including a discussion of why Batman is superior to Superman, the nature of friendship between Batman and Superman, Aristole, Kant, and Dick Grayson on moral education, and the Tao of the bat from the point of view of a disguised Alfred.
Compared to the previous volumes of the series that I have read, this is a much darker volume, but perhaps that is to be expected given the moral darkness of the Batman universe as a whole. Batman, as a heroic figure, is a very gray figure, a vigilante whose legitimacy is doubtful and who is often scarcely better than the villains that he fights against. It is only in the context of the darkness of Gotham City that he even comes out on the side of good. Keeping up such an identity requires a schizoid approach with regards to other people, a keeping of distance, an inability to feel comfortable with anyone too close, a tendency to desire sidekicks but to have few genuine friends. If Batman does not end up looking evil, he ends up looking sad and somewhat lonely, a poor moral exemplar, and a sign of the darkness of the world that we live in that such characters as he is can be viewed as among the pinnacles of goodness. Yet for those of us who are somewhat darker characters ourselves, Batman is a reminder that being dark need not make one evil, even if it does make one a more complicated character than many people would rather deal with in a dark alley.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
[2] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
[3] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
The contents of the book are pretty straightforward. The book consists of a little less than 300 pages of material divided into six parts that contain 20 essays. The first part consists of questions about the morality of the dark knight, asking why Batman doesn’t kill Joker despite many chances, whether it is right to make a Robin, and the virtuous hatred of Batman. The second part looks at where Batman fits in regarding law, justice, and the social order, with essays about No Man’s Land comparing Gotham to post-Katrina New Orleans, the problems of governing Gotham, and whether Joker can be considered of sound mind and therefore morally responsible. The third part looks at the origins and ethics of Batman, including the promise of Batman to fight against evil, whether Bruce Wayne should have become Batman, and the question of Bruce Wayne as a moral exemplar. The fourth part of the book has four chapters on the identity of Batman, including essays on how anyone can become Batman, whether Batman could have been the Joker using a possible worlds analysis, the use of Wittgenstein’s family resemblance approach to solve a supposed identity crisis, and what is it like to be a Batman. The fifth part of the book contains insights from existentialism and Taoism to examine the approach of Alfred as a supposed dark knight of faith, the call of conscience, and Batman’s confrontation with death, angst, and freedom. The sixth and final part of the book looks at the many roles of Batman, including a discussion of why Batman is superior to Superman, the nature of friendship between Batman and Superman, Aristole, Kant, and Dick Grayson on moral education, and the Tao of the bat from the point of view of a disguised Alfred.
Compared to the previous volumes of the series that I have read, this is a much darker volume, but perhaps that is to be expected given the moral darkness of the Batman universe as a whole. Batman, as a heroic figure, is a very gray figure, a vigilante whose legitimacy is doubtful and who is often scarcely better than the villains that he fights against. It is only in the context of the darkness of Gotham City that he even comes out on the side of good. Keeping up such an identity requires a schizoid approach with regards to other people, a keeping of distance, an inability to feel comfortable with anyone too close, a tendency to desire sidekicks but to have few genuine friends. If Batman does not end up looking evil, he ends up looking sad and somewhat lonely, a poor moral exemplar, and a sign of the darkness of the world that we live in that such characters as he is can be viewed as among the pinnacles of goodness. Yet for those of us who are somewhat darker characters ourselves, Batman is a reminder that being dark need not make one evil, even if it does make one a more complicated character than many people would rather deal with in a dark alley.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
[2] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
[3] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
February 2, 2015
My curiosity has been easily piqued by books in this vein...that is, popular culture and philosophy examinations. I'm interested in them because the characters and worlds of the books that we read, and programs and films that we watch, provide so much insight into the philosophical and theological through-lines of our generation and culture. Batman has long been one of my favorite superheroes, because his existence on the edge between hero and antihero...the way in which he embraces the darkness in order to attempt to use it for good...is simultaneously disturbing and enthralling.
I anticipated Batman and Philosophy to be an interesting and fun read, but didn't think that it would be quite as thought-provoking as it turned out to be. I'll say up front that, if you've done any serious study of philosophy or theology, then you will likely, as I did, anticipate a more academic tone in the writing, but remember that this is geared to a more general audience. I think that's a good thing, because it doesn't become bogged down in the trappings of academic writing, but I don't think that it will feel shallow to any reader. The writing styles, as with any collected volume, vary greatly, and are disappointing at times. While some of the contributors don't shy away from the more formal tone of their discipline, others make attempts at interjecting humor that left me scratching my head more than laughing.
That said, there are extremely well-crafted analyses of the Dark Knight and his world lying behind that forced humor, and I found myself in deep thought more often than not as I worked my way through these pages. In fact, I'll admit that, in all of the thought and exploration and appreciation that I have given the character of Batman through the years, some of the deeper questions raised by the writers of these chapters had never occurred to me. Moreover, once they're presented for your consideration, you're left with that wonderful feeling of having so much more left to think about on the topic.
My favorite chapter was "Alfred, the Dark Knight of Faith: Batman and Kierkegaard", in which Alfred appears as the true hero through the lens of Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling (I've always had an existentialist tendency, I'll confess). I also found the chapter, "Could Batman Have Been the Joker?" and it's exploration of modal logic and possible worlds in relation to the genre of comic book literature at large to be absolutely fascinating. There are thought-provoking discussions of identity, as well...one of the central tenants of many superhero characters. And, of course, the discussion of whether or not Batman is better than Superman...well, that's just fun.
Some chapters dwelt a bit too heavily in a humanist philosophy for my taste, and others left obvious holes in their arguments (debating whether or not Batman was ethically justified in permitting Robin to accompany him ducks the fact that Robin is a moral free agent).
What I found particularly engaging about this collection is that the authors are well-read in the literature. Not only do they display their expertise in their discipline, but each chapter is well-noted with specific Batman story-arcs, including examples and dialogue, to provide cases to which to apply their analyses. In many instances, I found myself digging back through my bookshelves to re-read these stories (and, in one case, purchased a graphic novel that had been glaringly absent from my shelf).
Batman and Philosophy is a surprisingly deep and provocative exploration of the Dark Night Detective and his world, as well as his place in the larger DC Universe and comic book history and thought in general. The book is a light read at under 250 pages, accessible while not boring, and I found myself engaged with each chapter. If you're a Batman fan, and especially if you enjoy philosophical discourse at all, I would recommend you treat yourself to this collection.
I anticipated Batman and Philosophy to be an interesting and fun read, but didn't think that it would be quite as thought-provoking as it turned out to be. I'll say up front that, if you've done any serious study of philosophy or theology, then you will likely, as I did, anticipate a more academic tone in the writing, but remember that this is geared to a more general audience. I think that's a good thing, because it doesn't become bogged down in the trappings of academic writing, but I don't think that it will feel shallow to any reader. The writing styles, as with any collected volume, vary greatly, and are disappointing at times. While some of the contributors don't shy away from the more formal tone of their discipline, others make attempts at interjecting humor that left me scratching my head more than laughing.
That said, there are extremely well-crafted analyses of the Dark Knight and his world lying behind that forced humor, and I found myself in deep thought more often than not as I worked my way through these pages. In fact, I'll admit that, in all of the thought and exploration and appreciation that I have given the character of Batman through the years, some of the deeper questions raised by the writers of these chapters had never occurred to me. Moreover, once they're presented for your consideration, you're left with that wonderful feeling of having so much more left to think about on the topic.
My favorite chapter was "Alfred, the Dark Knight of Faith: Batman and Kierkegaard", in which Alfred appears as the true hero through the lens of Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling (I've always had an existentialist tendency, I'll confess). I also found the chapter, "Could Batman Have Been the Joker?" and it's exploration of modal logic and possible worlds in relation to the genre of comic book literature at large to be absolutely fascinating. There are thought-provoking discussions of identity, as well...one of the central tenants of many superhero characters. And, of course, the discussion of whether or not Batman is better than Superman...well, that's just fun.
Some chapters dwelt a bit too heavily in a humanist philosophy for my taste, and others left obvious holes in their arguments (debating whether or not Batman was ethically justified in permitting Robin to accompany him ducks the fact that Robin is a moral free agent).
What I found particularly engaging about this collection is that the authors are well-read in the literature. Not only do they display their expertise in their discipline, but each chapter is well-noted with specific Batman story-arcs, including examples and dialogue, to provide cases to which to apply their analyses. In many instances, I found myself digging back through my bookshelves to re-read these stories (and, in one case, purchased a graphic novel that had been glaringly absent from my shelf).
Batman and Philosophy is a surprisingly deep and provocative exploration of the Dark Night Detective and his world, as well as his place in the larger DC Universe and comic book history and thought in general. The book is a light read at under 250 pages, accessible while not boring, and I found myself engaged with each chapter. If you're a Batman fan, and especially if you enjoy philosophical discourse at all, I would recommend you treat yourself to this collection.
December 31, 2017
Ok, first of all, and this should be obvious, this book is not a hardcore dive into the topic of philosophy. So stop being a knowledge snob. For that matter, it is not a super hardcore dive into the topic of Batman either. So stop being a comic snob. What it is, however, is a fantastic introduction for the dilettante Batman fan and philosophy newb alike. That is to say, it is for the nerd who knows a little more than the average shlub about Batman, and not a whole damn lot about philosophy. And it does a really good job at being just that.
I have never read a book that made me stop and think as often as this book did, as quickly as I read this book. Granted, I am a lifelong Batman fan. And I am a huge fan of one of the three graphic novels that is focused on in the text (The Dark Knight Returns). Still I feel like this fun little book has achieved its precise goals in A) allowing me to see that many of my core beliefs fall into a certain school of philosophy (no I won't tell you) and B) identifying several threads on the topic of philosophy that I'd like to investigate.
If a book can be lighthearted, interesting, and lead you to new areas of interest, how can it not be worth a read? If nothing else it made me aware there is a book titled "Star Trek and Philosophy: The Wrath of Kant" which I will be reading in 2018!
I have never read a book that made me stop and think as often as this book did, as quickly as I read this book. Granted, I am a lifelong Batman fan. And I am a huge fan of one of the three graphic novels that is focused on in the text (The Dark Knight Returns). Still I feel like this fun little book has achieved its precise goals in A) allowing me to see that many of my core beliefs fall into a certain school of philosophy (no I won't tell you) and B) identifying several threads on the topic of philosophy that I'd like to investigate.
If a book can be lighthearted, interesting, and lead you to new areas of interest, how can it not be worth a read? If nothing else it made me aware there is a book titled "Star Trek and Philosophy: The Wrath of Kant" which I will be reading in 2018!
January 9, 2013
Having read and enjoyed Batman stories since I was young, and having a BA in Philosophy, I know a little more than average about both topics, and therefore found that most of the ideas and level of detail were a little simplistic. However, someone who knows one and not the other (and is interested in the other) would probably get a good deal of good out of this book. I found that I discovered a few things about aspects of some philosophers and ideas that I wasn't clear on before, because of the comparisons and connections made to the Batman universe. Overall, I'm glad I read it and I would recommend it for anyone knowledgeable about one and interested in the other. This would be suitable for public library collections and some high school library collections.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 217 reviews