Tim LeBon

Philosophy sells. Or at least, one series of philosophy books is selling remarkably well. Over half a million books in Open Court's Popular Culture and Philosophy series have run off the presses, with one title making it to the New York Times Top Ten.

It all started modestly enough in 1999 when Bill Irwin, an assistant professor of philosophy at King's College in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, conceived the idea of writing a book about Seinfeld and philosophy . Since then nine other titles have appeared, encompassing such popular culture icons as The Simpsons, Lord of the Rings, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Matrix, and the two most recent additions , Harry Potter and Woody Allen. The biggest seller remains The Simpsons and Philosophy (over 200,000 copies sold); The Matrix and Philosophy has also sold over 100,000.

This scale of success was not anticipated, as Aeon Skoble, co-editor of the Simpsons and Woody Allen titles, told me. “I think we've all been surprised by the success of the series in general. For the most part, they've all been very favourably received and have been wildly successful, not just in the simple sense of selling well. Students are reading them and getting excited about philosophy, and we even find some professors working bits of them into classes. I've had total strangers email to tell me they've changed their major to philosophy as a result of these books.”

However, the series has its detractors. One contributor to the academic Philosophy in Europe Philos-L list asked “Is this a joke?” when the Harry Potter volume was announced. Another went further, suggesting that “we should all be ashamed” at the trivialisation of philosophy. Indeed my own gut reaction – before I'd actually read any of the series – on seeing The Simpsons and Philosophy at the top of a TPM chart awhile back, was a tinge of sadness. I imagined a cartoon book dragging philosophy down to the level at which Bart himself could understand it.

Bill Irwin, now series editor, gives such reactions short shrift. “Most of the criticism comes from journalists who just assume this is part of ‘the dumbing down of America'. Rarely do actual philosophers criticise the books if they have read them. Real philosophers understand that the books are in the spirit of Socrates, taking people from what they know to what they don't know. The philosophy in the books is like road signs in an unfamiliar city.”

Part of the series' sales success undoubtedly derives from the fact that, unlike most philosophy books, each title has a large and ready-made pool of prospective readers. “The readership for each book tends to be mainly fans of the popular culture icon the book focuses on,” Irwin explained. “Many fans have given a lot of thought to the pop culture icon and appreciate the books for validating it and for showing how it can be used as a bridge to philosophy.”

But are the books real philosophy? As a self-confessed Harry Potter fan, I turned eagerly to Harry Potter and Philosophy: If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts. The jokey subtitle did not bode well, yet when I read the book I soon discovered that it – like others in the series – contained not cartoons but a series of essays written by North American academic philosophers. The style is chatty, the language is jargon-free, but there are some serious ideas being discussed here. The Mirror of Erised leads naturally to a discussion of Nozick's experience machine and the nature of the good life. Aristotle's discussion of friendship is used to illuminate friendships in Harry Potter. The world of magic, so it transpires, is a good platform to introduce such metaphysical topics as personal identity, time-travel, and different realities.

The books seems to satisfy the overall intention of the series, as explained by Skoble: “The aim isn't to dumb down philosophy, nor to equate every pop culture artefact with Shakespeare or Sophocles. Rather, we intend the books to foster greater interest in philosophy, and to be an interesting way to explore certain topics.”

Certainly some essays introduce relatively advanced ideas in a fairly sophisticated way. For example, in the Simpsons volume the essay on Homer and Aristotle contains an exploration of Aristotle's four character types (the virtuous, continent, incontinent, and vicious) that goes beyond what you would normally find in a philosophy primer. Some essays are ideal as teaching aids – and indeed the series has been used for this purpose. An essay provocatively entitled “Thus Spake Bart” carries out an entertaining and enlightening comparison of the Nietzschean übermensch and Springfield's rebel without a cause, before it reaches the inevitable conclusion that Bart is no superman.

In this respect, the series is no different from other books in the same vein, such as the various books on philosophy and The Matrix, and The Tao of Pooh which preceded it. But some contributors argue that there is more to the Open Court series than outreach. Mark Conard, co-editor of the Simpsons and Woody Allen books puts it this way: “The best essays are humourous and entertaining, but have something serious, interesting and thought-provoking to say to philosophical novices as well as to professional academics.”

James South, editor of the Buffy title, suggests the series advances philosophy by providing a detailed analysis of narratives which can help show the significance of committing to certain philosophical positions. “There are two essays in the Buffy book that both tell and show what matters about nihilism. You get a sense not only of the issues surrounding nihilism and the problem of a meaningful life, but also see the toll that a real assent to various views takes on a richly developed fictional character.”

So could any popular culture icon be treated philosophically? Or would Scooby Doo and Philosophy or Friends and Philosophy really be a joke? Funnily enough, Irwin received a proposal for a volume based on the sitcom Friends but turned it down. “Not everything would work. In fact, we pass on far more ideas than we act on.” In truth, though, it's possible for almost anything to be a stimulus to a philosophical enquiry. Friends would obviously lend itself to discussions of friendship, love and the virtues. Yet the more depth to the icon, the more original the philosophy that is likely to result. As Mark Conard says, “There is definitely original work being done in the Woody Allen book. It contains innovative ideas and adds in a serious way to the body of work on Woody Allen's films. The Simpsons book is more about bringing philosophy to a wider audience (and this is only natural, since Allen's films are explicitly philosophical, whereas The Simpsons isn't), but there is still original work being done there, for example in Irwin's essay on allusion.”

So why has all this happened now? Has popular culture become a bit more ironic and reflective, if not overtly philosophical? Is there a new breed of young, open-minded professional philosophers out there? Or was it a good idea just waiting to happen? Probably all of these.

If I have one small complaint it would be the American bias and relative lack of British icons. How about The Hitch-Hikers Guide and Philosophy ? Or Philip Pullman? Or, come to think of it, Monty Python? Now that would be something completely different…

Tim LeBon (timlebon@aol.com) is a philosophical counsellor and author of Wise Therapy (Continuum)

Comment on this article here.