Superhero Thought Experiments: Can Comics Provide Philosophical Insights?

This former graduate student is unintimidated by academic studies.  The idea that superheroes can provide insights into philosophy may sound strange to some. Yet I have an interest in quirky academic works that make forays into popular culture, and would like to encourage this behavior. The last time I blogged about an academic study that dealt with television, movies and comics, it was Speculative Blackness by André M. Carrington  which I was delighted to review here.  So I hoped to make some useful discoveries when I agreed to read and review Superhero Thought Experiments by Chris Gavaler and Nathaniel Goldberg. I received a digital copy free of charge from the publisher.

                       

When I looked at the authors' profiles on Goodreads, I discovered that they had contributed to two critical anthologies dealing with comics that interested me. The first is Superheroes and Philosophy: Truth, Justice and the Socratic Way. Cool! I play on team Socrates. Then there is actually a philosophy anthology devoted to my favorite superhero, Wonder Woman and Philosophy!  I wouldn't have discovered these books, if I hadn't read this one.  So that's an extra benefit of reviewing this anthology.  The main benefit of this book, is that it gave me the opportunity to reflect on my own views of the superheroes that the authors discuss.

In his introduction, Gavaler attempts to define superheroes.  He says that "there is no single necessary or sufficient condition, but only a list of potential ones".  I would start from the word superhero, and would ask two questions.  How is this individual a hero?  How is the individual super?  If the individual is not a hero, he, she or they might be a villain. It could also be that he, she or they might be someone who wants to live an ordinary life, and doesn't want to be involved in saving anyone.  If the individual has no superpowers he, she or they might be a costumed vigilante.  This is a category for some of the greatest most legendary heroes such as Robin Hood and Zorro.  I have no trouble categorizing Batman and Green Arrow as heroes who aren't superheroes.  I still love them.

I can agree with Gavaler and Goldberg's conception of the early Batman as solely centered on his oath to fight criminals without considering the consequences of his actions to ordinary civilians.  Yet one crucial point that is important to my conception of early Batman, is that Bruce Wayne was  grieving when he swore that oath.  This is psychology rather than philosophy, but if philosophy doesn't take a character's context into consideration then it's of limited use for analysis of fictional characters.  Batman's context was that he was traumatized by the violent death of his parents when he committed himself to his mission.  This is the reason why Batman is "imprisoned by his past", as the authors of this book say.   If Batman was too narrowly focused on stopping criminals in his early phase, I would consider his trauma the contextual explanation for his behavior. I also believe that empathy is the bedrock of ethics.  You can't think of the ethical implications of your actions on others without empathy.  Batman's empathy was inhibited by his trauma.

In the chapter about Twin Earths, the authors ask us to imagine an Earth devoted to corruption and chaos called Earth 3.  I don't need to imagine it.  I believe that we live on a planet in which an increasing number of societies are already living in the corruption and chaos of Earth 3, while a few are trying to hold back the corruption and chaos.  Chaos is a consequence of corruption.  When everyone can bribe their way out of following the law, order isn't possible.  The result is chaos.  The supervillains in charge of Earth 3 are portrayed as battling the police.  Yet it seems to me that in a world where corruption reigns, the police would be corrupt.  The only people who would battle these supervillains would be vigilantes who would be generally  regarded as foolish or insane.  They would also be likely to pay the price of their convictions with their lives.

There is a discussion of retcons  (retroactive continuities) which involve changing events in the past, and reboots which involve throwing away the entire continuity and starting a new one.  Gavaler and Goldberg consider whether names or backgrounds are more essential.  My perception is that they are discussing identity.  How do we define identity? People change their names for a variety of reasons without believing that they have become someone else.  Some name changes reflect a self-perception that this individual has become someone else, but  I believe that memories which encapsulate your background are your identity.   This is illustrated by Marvel's Thor being depicted as having been punished by Odin with amnesia that caused him to forget that he was Thor.  There is a science fiction novel that I read this year which also shows that memories are identity by positing beings that embody extracted memories. It's called Mem and I reviewed it here.  I  viewed Mem  as a flawed book, but it's nevertheless a powerful one on the subject of identity.

I was amused by philosopher Donald Davidson's thought experiment in which a swamp creature convinced everyone he knew that he was Donald Davidson.  Apparently, Donald Davidson didn't believe that the swamp creature's ability to write articles was a sign of sentience.  I have entertained the notion that a great number of academic journal articles without an iota of original thought weren't written by sentient beings. Yet it could be that like the authors of these unreflective articles, the swamp creature was aware that he needed to publish or perish.

There are some aspects of this book that I have neglected to mention in this review.  I confined myself to the observations that I considered most relevant and significant on the subject of superheroes. Even though I didn't always agree with Gavaler and Goldberg, I did consider Superhero Thought Experiments interesting and thoughtful.