Sci-Phi: Philosophy from Socrates to Schwarzenegger

The only problem I had other than not agreeing with all of his philosophical points of view is that there is a book titled "the philospher at the end of the universe" (philosophy explained through science fiction films) by Mark Rowlands. I bought both, now I have 2 copies of the same book. Other than that error, the philosphical ideas presented were explained as well as an immature and slightly ignorant philosopher like me could almost understand. The point however is that philosphy is a debatable subject, with pros and cons to subscribing to anyone idea. So as for me I will take the middle road agreeing with those aspects of each philosphy I agree with while at the same time understanding and sometimes finding validity in the contradictating philosphy. All in all I was happy about the book and feel a little smarter for it. It wasn't a boring book about philosphy provided your not expecting explosions, alien races conquiering our planet, and just want to know a little about topics such as (why be moral),(is it possible to have a personal identity),(how do we know the world around us isn't just imaginary), (why death isn't that bad, as it can give meaning to our life). Or if you want to have some ammunition for anyone that thinks science fiction is dumb, or (gasp) people that like it are dumb. The author likes Arnold Schwarzenegger movies to explain some of his ideas, the typical violent blockbusters that make artsy fartsy people turn their nose up. So read the book a few times but I recomend discussing it with people thats why he wrote it, I guess.

Just finished reading the book The Philosopher at the End of the Universe by Mark Rowlands. The feature of the book is that it uses many sci-fi movies to elaborate on the various theories of philosophy, making the dry subjects much more interesting to read. The author said that the book is equivalent to university year one course on philosophy. I did not study philosopher in college. So comments from those who know better are welcome. The theories discussed include the meaning of life, reality, identity, free will and morality. Each topic has one or two chapters and relates to a movie. One of the topics I like is on reality. The author refers this to the movies Matrix trilogy where the perceived reality was actually a virtual world projected by a computer with intelligence to the minds of captive men. It is not simply a case of virtual reality. A normal human in the movie spent the entire life in the world falsely created for him and never knew anything else, so to him it was the real world. There was a paradox in that Keanu Reeves was Mr Anderson in the virtual world, but he was also Neo who fought kung fu in the virtual world. In the last episode, we saw Agent Smith transformed into a person in the "real" world. This called into question which is the real and which is the virtual world. The concept was not created by the Wachowski brothers. I recall seeing several movies deploying the same concept. There is Existenze where players entered a virtual reality game. There is also the Thirteenth Floor where a laboratory resided there worked on virtual reality so real that a murder was committed inside the virtual world; it then turned out that the laboratory was actually a virtual reality created by another group of supreme scientists. The concept of reality, or the lack of it, dated back to 300 BC from the Greek philosopher Pyrrho who said that it was impossible for human to know things in their own nature. We also know well the story of Chuang Tzu at about the same time (300 BC) on the dream of the butterfly, where he questioned whether the butterfly was the dream of Chuang Tzu, or Chuang Tzu was the dream of the butterfly. The thought was made famous by Rene Descartes of the seventeenth century. He proposed that it is possible what we call the world does not really exist; that it is merely a dream. Descartes hypothesized that the world could be ruled by an evil demon who is very powerful and decides to deceive all mankind for fun. All we perceive through our senses are only what the evil demon makes us believe. In fact, nothing of what we believe is true. Indeed there is no world as such, as every feature of the world is supplied by the demon in trickery. Descartes was arguing for the theory of scepticism, which is a view that we cannot have any real knowledge. We may think there is a world around us, but we really don't know it at all; we merely believe it very strongly. However, this is not the goal of Descartes' argument. Having proposed

Who knew that we would see big-screen heroes like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Keanu Reeves, and Tom Cruise take their rightful places beside the likes of Descartes, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and Plato? And I don't mean at the Oscars! In this book Rowlands has brought together several areas of popular interest: philosophy, movies, and science fiction, in a way that benefits all three. It is a rollicking romp through often-dry philosophical fields such as the meaning of life, theory of knowledge, the mind-body problem, personal identity, free will, and ethics. While the tone is tongue-in-cheek, the content took me deeper down the rabbit-hole of philosophy than many such popular offerings.

This was a great book. It made me appreciate these movies on a whole new level, (with the exception of the Matrix which I now enjoy for the FIRST time!) By applying philosophical concepts to movies the author brilliantly breaks them down into proverbial 'apples & oranges'. Be warned though... once you pick it up its hard to put down half way through a chapter! So allow the time! If I had to have a criticism it would be that some (maybe one, two at most) chapters go a little into overkill... but hey! Better a little more than a little less. Hope this guy writes another book along similar lines!

Let me begin by saying that I met the author, Mark Rowlands, on several occasions while he was teaching at University College, Cork, in Ireland. Let me also say that I was extremely jealous when I first came across this book in a bookshop in Cambridge, England. For years I have shown my students clips from science-fiction films such as "The Matrix" (re: Descartes's first Meditation) and "The Terminator" (re: machines without sensation -- Descartes again) and "Total Recall" (re: Descartes's first Meditation again, and Locke's memory theory of identity) when teaching my Modern Philosophy course. But Rowlands beat the rest of us to it and wrote a book in this vein -- an introduction to philosophy by way of popular science-fiction films. This Winter Term (2005), for the second year in a row, I will be assigning this book for my Modern Philosophy course. (Last time I had to order the books from England; this time they are available in the US). In 2004 my students enjoyed the book tremendously and it proved very useful, especially the sections on Descartes (chapters 2 and 3 on skepticism about the external world and the mind-body problem -- "The Matrix" and "The Terminator"), Locke (chapter 4 on personal identity -- "Total Recall" and "The Sixth Day") and Hume (chapter 5 on free will -- "Minority Report"). The author, Rowlands, is known best for his work in the philosophy of mind and applied ethics (especially the ethical status of animals). I believe that the earlier parts of the book, dealing with philosophy of mind, metaphysics and epistemology, are easily the best. The final parts of the book dealing with ethics -- chapter 6 on "Hollow Man" (why should we be ethical?), chapter 7 on "Independence Day" and "Aliens" (should the scope of ethics extend to aliens?) and chapter 8 on "Star Wars" (good vs. evil) -- are not quite up to standard. Somewhere in between, standard-wise, are the parts dealing with the meaning of life -- chapter 1 on "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" and chapter 9 on "Blade Runner". The book is written primarily for undergraduates. It normally does a nice job of presenting philosophical ideas and problems in an appealing and direct fashion. You can tell that the author is part of the generation that grew up watching Star Wars and then Buffy, but has a D.Phil from Oxford and can write about supervenience or Doug Lenat's CYC project. This makes it all sound far too serious and educational, however. The most important thing about this book is that it is funny. It's funny about philosophy, and it's funny about films too. Exhibit A: ""Minority Report"... also has Tom Cruise in it, not a man you normally associate with complex philosophical issues. I mean, scientology? Give me a break." (p. 121) Rowlands is nothing if not irreverent, and you will laugh out loud while reading this. So far, I have found only a few factual errors (references are to the English Ebury Press 2003 paperback edition). Heidegger's "Being and Time" wa