Talk:The Simpsons and Philosophy/Archive 1

message: In the journal Christian Century,  Nov 21, 2001, a review of this book which reads: One of the wittiest and most successful shows on TV has attracted some clever commentators. Mark Pinsky, a religion reporter for a daily newspaper, documents the many religious elements in the show, and also notes that religion and religious adherents are fondly observed as well as relentlessly mocked on The Simpsons. Like many fans, he is struck by the way the show, for all its cynicism about mainstream values, often ends up affirming community and family, even a family as wildly dysfunctional as Homer and Marge's. But Carl Matheson, in one of the probing essays collected by philosopher William Irwin and colleagues, thinks the heartwarming aspects of the show merely disguise moral emptiness and a withering "hyper-irony." The comedy is based "less on a shared sense of humanity than on a sense of world-weary cleverer-than-thouness." With its avalanche of one-liners and its knowing stream of allusions to popular culture, the show exists only to advance the cult of one-upmanship--to mock everything and everyone for the sake of the next laugh. All of these writers are right about one thing: the wit and the en durance of The Simpsons are worth pondering.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: I did some minor formatting only, didn't really add any new content or new sources, and also formatted the one existing source in the article with WP:CIT.  Cirt (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor formatting 

message: #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#:The Simpsons And Philosophy, a book of scholarly essays subtitled The D'Oh Of Homer, argues that the appeal of Homer is timeless because he speaks to fundamental conflicts about what gives us pleasure in life. We all occupy different points on the continuum of pleasures - from the noble joys of family (which Homer plainly appreciates) to the debased joy of gorging yourself on doughnuts or beer (likewise). "There is something that is ethically admirable about Homer [even though] he [is] not virtuous with respect to his bodily appetites," Raja Halwani, a Chicago academic writes.
#
#:"-`The Simpsons' is plenty goofy and wacky and has some great side gags, but we consistently try to return to some real emotion," said executive producer Matt Groening, who invented the characters. Gerald Erion, a professor at Medaille College in Buffalo, N.Y., and a contributor to the book "The Simpsons and Philosophy: The Doh! of Homer," said the series contains deep ethical themes that hold up time and time again.  He's particularly impressed with how the show doesn't hesitate to tackle religion, whether it's Homer's guilt over skipping church or Ned Flanders experiencing Job-like tragedies, despite doing everything the Bible tells him to - even the stuff that contradicts other stuff. 
#
#:Read The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! Of Homer (Open Court Publishing Company), edited by William Irwin, to see how the oafish Homer has become a figure of unique cultural importance, his "D'oh!" now a universal shorthand for the existential angst we all encounter when life refuses to go our way. Other questions discussed include: is Bart a Nietzschean? Why can't Mr Burns achieve true happiness?
#
#:In the ultimate vindication of smart-dumb status, the show has been the subject of two recent semi-egghead-y books: Mark I. Pinsky's "The Gospel According to the Simpsons" (which analyzes the show's use of religion) and William Irwin's "The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh of Homer" (Bart meets Aristotle), as well as a philosophy course at Siena Heights University in Adrian, Mich.
#
#:Siena Heights University, in Michigan, is offering the course, called Animated Philosophy and Religion, and basing it on the series. Students who join the course at the Catholic-run college will study Homer's worldview and the use of religion on the show. Set texts will include "The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer", by William Irwin, and "The Gospel According to The Simpsons: The Spiritual Life of the Most Animated Family". Lecturer Kimberley Blessing said: "When the Simpsons book came along, I thought it would offer another opportunity to draw people into philosophy.
#
#:The class at Siena Heights University in Adrian, Mich., has already become one of the most popular on campus. Required reading includes "The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer" by William Irwin, and "The Gospel According to the Simpsons" by Mark Pinsky. The two-credit course called "Animated Philosophy and Religion," is the brainchild of Professors Kimberly Blessing and Anthony Sciglitano. They believe the long-running Fox sitcom has a lot to say about life and how to live it. "I thought it would offer another opportunity to draw people into philosophy," Blessing said. 
#
#:A cartoon oaf may seem an unlikely figure along the arc of philosophical thought, but there he is anyway, on the cover of a new book titled The Simpsons and Philosophy (Open Court, $17.95). The book is the second in what is now a series, a follow-up to another TV-themed study of ideas released last year, Seinfeld and Philosophy. ... "One of the challenges of teaching is to find ways of discussing the material that are meaningful to your students," says William Irwin, a professor of philosophy at King's College in Pennsylvania and editor of both the Seinfeld and Simpsons books. "Pop culture is the common language today and using it is a way of making connections." 
#
#:An anthology, The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer (Open Court), reported religion was an element in 70 percent of randomly selected episodes and the major theme in 10 percent.
*That's about all I got for now.  If that's not enough to expand the article to sufficient WP:DYK size, I don't know what is.  Cirt (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: This article currently fails Wikipedia:Notability (books).  The only criteria that this books come close to fitting is #4, which states that the book is the subject of instruction in multiple schools and universities.  The note for #4 also states that This criteria does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science.  This book hardly qualifies as the subject of these classes, and instead merely one of multiple learning tools to study the actual subject, The Simpsons.
The bulk of this article seems to be more about the concert of studying The Simpsons then it is about what the book actually says.  If you want to discuss Philosophy with The Simpsons, use the book as a resource for an article on that subject.  Don't use the book as an article on the subject. The359 (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm still going to work on it.  After I'm done, we can take this to Articles for Deletion if you still think it doesn't fit notability.  xihix(talk) 21:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be better off merged into an article discussing Philosophy in the Simpsons, using this book as a source. The359 (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could do that too.  But this deserves it's own article.  I'm and willing to fight for it.  Obviously, consensus won't be reached here, might as well take it to the AFD.  xihix(talk) 22:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest you re-read #1 and #4, including the extra notes at the bottom.  Simple reviews of the book do not count for #1, and the book being used in classrooms does not count for #4. The359 (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for sharing your opinion.  Please allow some for the article to be expanded upon.  If you still believe that it is not "notable" after that, then I suggest you take it to AFD.  Cirt (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Upgraded from stub class to "Start" class.  Cirt (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating 

message: Setup an archive, discussion threads with no new posts or activity for over one month will be archived.  Cirt (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: "... more than two hundred and three thousand copies..." - while technically this might be true, it's redundant? Do you suppose it is supposed to be "two thousand three hundred copies"? Or "between two hundred and three thousand copies" or even "two hundred and three thousand copies"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.125.127 (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  more than two hundred and three thousand copies