What do you think?
Rate this book
Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture #1
South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today
If you think Saddam and Satan make a kinky couple, wait till you get a load of South Park and Philosophy . Get your Big Wheels ready, because we’re going for a ride, as 22 philosophers take us down the road to understanding the big-picture issues in this small mountain town.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
34 people are currently reading
2256 people want to read
About the author
Robert Arp
65 books17 followersRobert Arp, Ph.D. (Saint Louis University, 2005), has taught Philosophy at Southwest Minnesota State University, Florida State University, and many schools in Missouri, before doing postdoctoral research in ontology through the National Center for Biomedical Ontology with Mark Musen and Barry Smith at the University at Buffalo.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 54 reviews
July 2, 2013
South Park and Philosophy is a collection of 22 essays, most of which function as basic introductions to the philosophical context for a wide array of issues and topics, as well a handful of fundamental concepts and schools (such as logic, law, and existentialism). Many of the topics that are covered, such as blasphemy, tolerance, artificial intelligence, the problem of evil, and identity, are worth reading, but the most interesting studies are the ones done on contemporary issues, such as feminism and religious pluralism. The collection is framed by the first chapter, which presents South Park as a Socratic experiment that forces us to think about issues in a different, and often uncomfortable, way. Most discussions begin with an attempt to undermine the "commonly-held" notion that South Park is little more than vulgarity.
It would not be worth anyone’s time to go through this essay by essay; most of them are brief and superficial forays into their topic and are fun, if not profoundly illuminating, works. For many, the same basic comments could be made: the methodological rigor is suspect at times and a lot of convenient assumptions are made, but it is made clear from the beginning that this is intended to be an accessible collection, not an arduous and scholarly endeavor. The South Park premise is stretched at times, but most essays tend to work with the material rather than trying to force it in and the show’s use as a gimmick is be expected. The authors’ biases do creep in, sometimes rather obviously, but overall the essays balance the line between “intellectual” and “accessible” fairly well.
Nothing stood out for me as amazing, but that is not to imply that this work was bad overall. I liked enjoyed the exploration of the stem-cell issue, because I never felt that a particular viewpoint was being forced on me and the author had no pretense of an “answer” to the debate. Per Broman’s article on music was different than the rest, intriguing me as someone who knows little about music, and served as a refreshing read near the end, even if its structure seemed haphazard at times. Despite being a carnivore, I found the discussion on vegetarianism interesting, but felt that it ended abruptly without addressing many issues. The gay rights chapter was good, but I disagreed with the author’s theory that "gays want different rights", which seemed like semantics to me. After all, if the right was phrased as the right to “marry a partner of their choosing” rather than the right to “marry a partner of the same sex”, it would be an issue of equal (rather than new) rights.
The only essay that I had issues with was the fifth one, concerning the importance of evidence. Here the author’s biases are more pronounced than anywhere else: he is anti-religion and not afraid to show it. I have no problem with atheism, people are free to believe whatever they choose so long as it does not hurt others, but the author makes little effort to disguise his opinion. Of course, he is trying to argue something, but not all of his statements hold up. For example, he claims that having religious faith “would render any belief whatsoever acceptable”. To me this is a classic slippery slope fallacy: just because one is willing to take a concept like God or the afterlife on faith does not mean they are suddenly going to stop approaching all concepts critically. Having faith about something that cannot be known or proven is different than having faith about things for which evidence is available. I also found that his argument rests on defining God in the Christian way rather than, for example, as Deism might do it, and I believe that his abrupt conclusion that having faith is “mentally lazy” is, itself, mentally lazy. It fails to acknowledge the deliberations and self-examination that lead many people towards faith, which is not always a tool used merely to dismiss the rational arguments of others. Perhaps realizing how he sounds, he does try to end with a less hostile tone, but it does not end up saving this essay.
The collection ends with an essay on Satan in South Park, the purpose of which I could not quite discern, and then a fake interview with Trey Parker and Matt Stone that essentially points out the book’s sporadic quality, as if to say “Hey, at least we know it’s bad!” Overall, this collection is not as terrible as Arp makes it out to be, but offers little more than a basic introduction to philosophy, using popular culture to attract readers and make the content more accessible. Unlike the last book I read, God’s Debris, it probably won’t start any discussions at the bar but, if a reader picks it up acknowledging it for what it is, they will not be disappointed.
It would not be worth anyone’s time to go through this essay by essay; most of them are brief and superficial forays into their topic and are fun, if not profoundly illuminating, works. For many, the same basic comments could be made: the methodological rigor is suspect at times and a lot of convenient assumptions are made, but it is made clear from the beginning that this is intended to be an accessible collection, not an arduous and scholarly endeavor. The South Park premise is stretched at times, but most essays tend to work with the material rather than trying to force it in and the show’s use as a gimmick is be expected. The authors’ biases do creep in, sometimes rather obviously, but overall the essays balance the line between “intellectual” and “accessible” fairly well.
Nothing stood out for me as amazing, but that is not to imply that this work was bad overall. I liked enjoyed the exploration of the stem-cell issue, because I never felt that a particular viewpoint was being forced on me and the author had no pretense of an “answer” to the debate. Per Broman’s article on music was different than the rest, intriguing me as someone who knows little about music, and served as a refreshing read near the end, even if its structure seemed haphazard at times. Despite being a carnivore, I found the discussion on vegetarianism interesting, but felt that it ended abruptly without addressing many issues. The gay rights chapter was good, but I disagreed with the author’s theory that "gays want different rights", which seemed like semantics to me. After all, if the right was phrased as the right to “marry a partner of their choosing” rather than the right to “marry a partner of the same sex”, it would be an issue of equal (rather than new) rights.
The only essay that I had issues with was the fifth one, concerning the importance of evidence. Here the author’s biases are more pronounced than anywhere else: he is anti-religion and not afraid to show it. I have no problem with atheism, people are free to believe whatever they choose so long as it does not hurt others, but the author makes little effort to disguise his opinion. Of course, he is trying to argue something, but not all of his statements hold up. For example, he claims that having religious faith “would render any belief whatsoever acceptable”. To me this is a classic slippery slope fallacy: just because one is willing to take a concept like God or the afterlife on faith does not mean they are suddenly going to stop approaching all concepts critically. Having faith about something that cannot be known or proven is different than having faith about things for which evidence is available. I also found that his argument rests on defining God in the Christian way rather than, for example, as Deism might do it, and I believe that his abrupt conclusion that having faith is “mentally lazy” is, itself, mentally lazy. It fails to acknowledge the deliberations and self-examination that lead many people towards faith, which is not always a tool used merely to dismiss the rational arguments of others. Perhaps realizing how he sounds, he does try to end with a less hostile tone, but it does not end up saving this essay.
The collection ends with an essay on Satan in South Park, the purpose of which I could not quite discern, and then a fake interview with Trey Parker and Matt Stone that essentially points out the book’s sporadic quality, as if to say “Hey, at least we know it’s bad!” Overall, this collection is not as terrible as Arp makes it out to be, but offers little more than a basic introduction to philosophy, using popular culture to attract readers and make the content more accessible. Unlike the last book I read, God’s Debris, it probably won’t start any discussions at the bar but, if a reader picks it up acknowledging it for what it is, they will not be disappointed.
October 29, 2020
I regret ever picking this up
WoAh This was a definite hurricane tortilla
WoAh This was a definite hurricane tortilla
October 6, 2017
1. William Young compare the city of South Park to Athens, where all people though they know what they claim to know, but actually Socrates proved they don't know. As Socrates was charged for corrupting youth, South Park show is excused doing so, but it is one of the rare media that is teaching to think and asking, like Kyle and Stan's dialogue for finding the morality.
Young also claims the language of the show reveales the internal desires of audience and it helps them in Freud way. (Which I oppose, South Park literiture is what it is and it just has a funny aspect fot it's creaters.)
As Arendt says about Eichmann, Cartman is like him, he obbeys the orders and doesn't put himself in other people's perspective and that's what makes an evil out of both of them.
2. Catherine Yu asks "IS IT OKAY TO LAGH AT SOUTH PARK?" and she answers yes, because moral evaluation is independent to aesthetic. Contrary to Hume who believed "When a work of art is morally objectionable, we could never 'relish the composition,' nor would it be proper to do so even if we could."
یو، در همین فصل از قول سوزان ولف میگوید یک قدیس به کمدی برادران مارکس یا نمایشهای برنارد شاو نمیخندد، چون این موقعیتهای خندهدار ناشی از درد و احمق نشان دادن عدهای دیگر هستند، و خندیدن به قربانیان باعث آسیب روانی به قربانیان میشود.
اما انسان کامل اخلاقی ارسطو، به سوث پارک میخندد، و بُعد منطقیاش، او را به کندوکاو در معنی عمیقتر آن وامیدارد!
Yu concludes the imaginative adoption of - for instance - being a racist, in order to be a able to lagh at South Park jokes, doesn't make someone racist. You don't endorse anything!
قبلا در ریویویی بر سینمای فمینیستی مازیار اسلامی، گفته بودم این ایده که برای لذت بردن از مفهومی مثلا سکسیستی، شما باید موقتا دیدگاهی سکسیستی اتخاذ کنید، به مدد لاکان رد شده است.
3. Kevin Murtagh says according to John Stuart Mill's moral principle, known as "utility or greatest happiness", South Park desensitize people to blasphemy, thereby it leads to unhappiness. But he also mentiones that South Park make people think. The society in which people exchange ideas is happier than a society with less social discourse and dialogue.
4. In chapter four, Robert Arp describes some logical fallacies according to South Park.
5. Henry Jacoby disproves Pascal's Wagner by three facts; as Kyle implies, does it really make sense to think that God (who is all good) would allow a loving, honest, helpful, kind atheist to be tormented for all eternity?
And also, which religion? "Only Mermons go to heaven!"
In addition to that, we don't know the outcome of our wager. Pascal says that God rewards believers and punish nonbelievers. But this is just an assumption.
اگر کسی مثل جان ادواردز در اپیزود «بزرگترین عوضی جهان» دربارهی زندگی پس از مرگ و غیره، داستانهایی ساختگی به مردم گفت تا صرفا به آنها آرامش دهد، استن مخالفت میکند، چون این باورهای بدون مدرک، باعث میشوند هرگز جوابهای واقعی به این سوالات دشوار را نفهمیم.
6. "H.L.A Hart, a leading positivist, admitted that morality and the law often deal with similar things, like murder, theft, or doing the nasty with chickens, but there is no necessary link between two."
7. Kenny's life and death can be viewed as absurd, the most popular existential theme. Karin Fry says in Camus view, if Kenny has come to terms with his repetitive death (accepting the absorption of life) then he is happy.
8. Kyle restates Descartes's famous line: "I think, therefore I am." He comes to the conclusion that "The basis of all reasoning is the mind's awareness of itself. What were think, the external objects we perceive are all like actors that come on and off stage. But our consciousness, the stage itself, is always present to us."
9. In one of the best chapters of the book, Paul A. Cantor explains South Park's position about free markets. Parker and Stone challenge the anti-capitalist mentality of America's left wing.
RadioTor, [06.10.17 23:19]
10. Curtis and Erion analyse the show according to Popper's critique of closed totalitarian.
Then they indicate that co-creaters of South Park - as like Thomas Jefferson - are willing to tolerate offensiveness for its greater good.
11. In the 11th chapter, not much related to South Park, John Scott Gray counts some of the reasons why a great percentage of Americans don't vote in the election day.
12. "Is South Park Responsible for the Decline of Western Civilization?"
این فصل استدلال میکند که «تحمل کردن عقاید بقیه» به معنی سکوت و عدم نقد نیست. این ایده را بیشتر میپسندم نسبت به آن توجیهی که میگوید رکیک بودن سوث پارک، «میصرفد» به بار مثبت آموزشی و فلسفی آن.
"Nothing is sacred, and that's what comedy is about."
13. Jacob M. Held discusses gay marridge due to "Follow That Egg!" episode.
14. What are the moral lines when eating animals meat?
15. "To be a person one must possess traits like consciousness, sentience (the capacity to experience pleasure and pain), self-awareness, rationality, the ability to communicate, desire, and the capacity to make choices."
16. "In his famous work Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant argues that actions have moral worth if and only if they proceed from respect for the moral law, and not from considerations of God's laws, love, honor, courage, or the circumstances surrounding the decision. In fact, as Odd as it may sound, it would be immoral for a rational person to act for reasons that included God's laws, love, honor, courage, or the circumstances surrounding the decision. And certainly, gender, race, or class have nothing to do with - and should have nothing to do with - making moral decisions."
چه ایرادی دارد دخترها لباسهای باربیگونه بپوشند؟ این همان آزادی انتخاب نیست؟ ویندی میگوید باید به دختران انتخابهای واقعی داد، و نباید بهطور مصنوعی نسخهی تجاری زنانگی برای آنها ساخت.
کاترین مککینون با پورنوگرافی مخالفت میکند چون زن را به اشیاء غیرانسانی تقلیل میدهد و سکسیسم را تقویت میکند.
فمینیستهای جوانتر اما در پاسخ میگویند این نوع نقد فرض میکند که آن زن ناتوان از تصمیمگیری است و بهتر است ما به او شغل «بهتری» پیشنهاد کنیم، به عبارتی این خود دامنزدن به استریوتایپِ منفعلبودن زنان است.
شاید زنی بدون حمایت خانواده، کسی که جامعه شغل دیگری به او نمیدهد، معتاد است و غیره، قربانی فحشا باشد. اما زنانی که در فرایند «لباسهای تحریکآمیز» پوشیدن ابزار تجارت هستند، چنین شرایطی ندارند. این دستهی دوم - به قول ویندی - جنس زن را تحقیر میکنند.
17. In chapter seventeen, Randall M. Jensen discusses philosophy of mind through Alan Turing's "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" and John Searle's experiment known as "The Chinese Room."
18. Shai Biderman criticises some of the philosophical answers to "Personal Identity" questions. Accoring to South Park's episodes, all Physical, Memory, Psychologic and Behavioral factors, fall short to prove the coherence of a person.
19. David Kyle Johnson talks about evil and God, through the most favorite episode among the book's writers, "Cartmanland."
20. Religious pluralism in John Hick's view is talked in this chapter, according to "The Super Best Friends" episode.
21. In a very different topic in the book, musical function of the show is discussed.
22. The last chapter is focused on the movie "South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut" and talks about Satan and Saddam's relationship.
"And the Number 1 thing to do with South Park and Philosophy other than read it: place on coffee table just before chick comes over so you can appear smart in order to get laid."
Young also claims the language of the show reveales the internal desires of audience and it helps them in Freud way. (Which I oppose, South Park literiture is what it is and it just has a funny aspect fot it's creaters.)
As Arendt says about Eichmann, Cartman is like him, he obbeys the orders and doesn't put himself in other people's perspective and that's what makes an evil out of both of them.
2. Catherine Yu asks "IS IT OKAY TO LAGH AT SOUTH PARK?" and she answers yes, because moral evaluation is independent to aesthetic. Contrary to Hume who believed "When a work of art is morally objectionable, we could never 'relish the composition,' nor would it be proper to do so even if we could."
یو، در همین فصل از قول سوزان ولف میگوید یک قدیس به کمدی برادران مارکس یا نمایشهای برنارد شاو نمیخندد، چون این موقعیتهای خندهدار ناشی از درد و احمق نشان دادن عدهای دیگر هستند، و خندیدن به قربانیان باعث آسیب روانی به قربانیان میشود.
اما انسان کامل اخلاقی ارسطو، به سوث پارک میخندد، و بُعد منطقیاش، او را به کندوکاو در معنی عمیقتر آن وامیدارد!
Yu concludes the imaginative adoption of - for instance - being a racist, in order to be a able to lagh at South Park jokes, doesn't make someone racist. You don't endorse anything!
قبلا در ریویویی بر سینمای فمینیستی مازیار اسلامی، گفته بودم این ایده که برای لذت بردن از مفهومی مثلا سکسیستی، شما باید موقتا دیدگاهی سکسیستی اتخاذ کنید، به مدد لاکان رد شده است.
3. Kevin Murtagh says according to John Stuart Mill's moral principle, known as "utility or greatest happiness", South Park desensitize people to blasphemy, thereby it leads to unhappiness. But he also mentiones that South Park make people think. The society in which people exchange ideas is happier than a society with less social discourse and dialogue.
4. In chapter four, Robert Arp describes some logical fallacies according to South Park.
5. Henry Jacoby disproves Pascal's Wagner by three facts; as Kyle implies, does it really make sense to think that God (who is all good) would allow a loving, honest, helpful, kind atheist to be tormented for all eternity?
And also, which religion? "Only Mermons go to heaven!"
In addition to that, we don't know the outcome of our wager. Pascal says that God rewards believers and punish nonbelievers. But this is just an assumption.
اگر کسی مثل جان ادواردز در اپیزود «بزرگترین عوضی جهان» دربارهی زندگی پس از مرگ و غیره، داستانهایی ساختگی به مردم گفت تا صرفا به آنها آرامش دهد، استن مخالفت میکند، چون این باورهای بدون مدرک، باعث میشوند هرگز جوابهای واقعی به این سوالات دشوار را نفهمیم.
6. "H.L.A Hart, a leading positivist, admitted that morality and the law often deal with similar things, like murder, theft, or doing the nasty with chickens, but there is no necessary link between two."
7. Kenny's life and death can be viewed as absurd, the most popular existential theme. Karin Fry says in Camus view, if Kenny has come to terms with his repetitive death (accepting the absorption of life) then he is happy.
8. Kyle restates Descartes's famous line: "I think, therefore I am." He comes to the conclusion that "The basis of all reasoning is the mind's awareness of itself. What were think, the external objects we perceive are all like actors that come on and off stage. But our consciousness, the stage itself, is always present to us."
9. In one of the best chapters of the book, Paul A. Cantor explains South Park's position about free markets. Parker and Stone challenge the anti-capitalist mentality of America's left wing.
RadioTor, [06.10.17 23:19]
10. Curtis and Erion analyse the show according to Popper's critique of closed totalitarian.
Then they indicate that co-creaters of South Park - as like Thomas Jefferson - are willing to tolerate offensiveness for its greater good.
11. In the 11th chapter, not much related to South Park, John Scott Gray counts some of the reasons why a great percentage of Americans don't vote in the election day.
12. "Is South Park Responsible for the Decline of Western Civilization?"
این فصل استدلال میکند که «تحمل کردن عقاید بقیه» به معنی سکوت و عدم نقد نیست. این ایده را بیشتر میپسندم نسبت به آن توجیهی که میگوید رکیک بودن سوث پارک، «میصرفد» به بار مثبت آموزشی و فلسفی آن.
"Nothing is sacred, and that's what comedy is about."
13. Jacob M. Held discusses gay marridge due to "Follow That Egg!" episode.
14. What are the moral lines when eating animals meat?
15. "To be a person one must possess traits like consciousness, sentience (the capacity to experience pleasure and pain), self-awareness, rationality, the ability to communicate, desire, and the capacity to make choices."
16. "In his famous work Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant argues that actions have moral worth if and only if they proceed from respect for the moral law, and not from considerations of God's laws, love, honor, courage, or the circumstances surrounding the decision. In fact, as Odd as it may sound, it would be immoral for a rational person to act for reasons that included God's laws, love, honor, courage, or the circumstances surrounding the decision. And certainly, gender, race, or class have nothing to do with - and should have nothing to do with - making moral decisions."
چه ایرادی دارد دخترها لباسهای باربیگونه بپوشند؟ این همان آزادی انتخاب نیست؟ ویندی میگوید باید به دختران انتخابهای واقعی داد، و نباید بهطور مصنوعی نسخهی تجاری زنانگی برای آنها ساخت.
کاترین مککینون با پورنوگرافی مخالفت میکند چون زن را به اشیاء غیرانسانی تقلیل میدهد و سکسیسم را تقویت میکند.
فمینیستهای جوانتر اما در پاسخ میگویند این نوع نقد فرض میکند که آن زن ناتوان از تصمیمگیری است و بهتر است ما به او شغل «بهتری» پیشنهاد کنیم، به عبارتی این خود دامنزدن به استریوتایپِ منفعلبودن زنان است.
شاید زنی بدون حمایت خانواده، کسی که جامعه شغل دیگری به او نمیدهد، معتاد است و غیره، قربانی فحشا باشد. اما زنانی که در فرایند «لباسهای تحریکآمیز» پوشیدن ابزار تجارت هستند، چنین شرایطی ندارند. این دستهی دوم - به قول ویندی - جنس زن را تحقیر میکنند.
17. In chapter seventeen, Randall M. Jensen discusses philosophy of mind through Alan Turing's "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" and John Searle's experiment known as "The Chinese Room."
18. Shai Biderman criticises some of the philosophical answers to "Personal Identity" questions. Accoring to South Park's episodes, all Physical, Memory, Psychologic and Behavioral factors, fall short to prove the coherence of a person.
19. David Kyle Johnson talks about evil and God, through the most favorite episode among the book's writers, "Cartmanland."
20. Religious pluralism in John Hick's view is talked in this chapter, according to "The Super Best Friends" episode.
21. In a very different topic in the book, musical function of the show is discussed.
22. The last chapter is focused on the movie "South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut" and talks about Satan and Saddam's relationship.
"And the Number 1 thing to do with South Park and Philosophy other than read it: place on coffee table just before chick comes over so you can appear smart in order to get laid."
August 18, 2015
Definitely interesting and worth reading :)
I had a flashback to an old joke...
"The curtains were blue."
What the teacher thinks: The curtains represent his immense depression and his lack of will to carry on.
What the author meant: The curtains were fucking blue.
It's hard to imagine the creators of South Park having deep philosophical discussion before each scene...however, that is not to say, that the series don't actually have many pearls of wisdom :) This book found a lot of them, pointed them out, explained....I didn't agree with everything said, but then again, if we all agreed, what would we discuss then?
The book, as I said is worth reading, as it illustrates som finer points on examples, that are easy to understand :)
I had a flashback to an old joke...
"The curtains were blue."
What the teacher thinks: The curtains represent his immense depression and his lack of will to carry on.
What the author meant: The curtains were fucking blue.
It's hard to imagine the creators of South Park having deep philosophical discussion before each scene...however, that is not to say, that the series don't actually have many pearls of wisdom :) This book found a lot of them, pointed them out, explained....I didn't agree with everything said, but then again, if we all agreed, what would we discuss then?
The book, as I said is worth reading, as it illustrates som finer points on examples, that are easy to understand :)
June 2, 2007
Well, if you try hard enough you can make an "..and philosophy" book for anything, even "The Brady Bunch and Philosophy." But some pop culture topics lend themselves better than others, and South Park is a perfect fit. Even if you're not a big fan or South Park (or a big fan of philosophy books), but like to constantly re-examine your beliefs, South Park and Philosophy is a fun approach.
While written philosophy is off-putting to many people because it tends to get jargony, abstract, and overly academic--and South Park is off-putting to many people because of its poop jokes and culturally sensitive humor, somehow merging these two together makes for an extremely interesting read.
While written philosophy is off-putting to many people because it tends to get jargony, abstract, and overly academic--and South Park is off-putting to many people because of its poop jokes and culturally sensitive humor, somehow merging these two together makes for an extremely interesting read.
February 28, 2015
It's true that southpark more often than not is trying to explore some philosophical question, and that they try to make you think about society and about life in a meaningful way.
But sometimes this book takes it too far, sometimes it a little bit of a stretch. They would do better to pick episodes to talk about, not specific topics though they do use the show very well to make the points they want/ need to make.
It's interesting how each topic is comprised of different essays by different people- so when one essay is dreadfully boring another one on the very same topic will pick you right up. This saved the book more than a few times IMO. If you're a fan of the show because of it's philosophical nature you may enjoy this but i wouldn't take it too seriously.
But sometimes this book takes it too far, sometimes it a little bit of a stretch. They would do better to pick episodes to talk about, not specific topics though they do use the show very well to make the points they want/ need to make.
It's interesting how each topic is comprised of different essays by different people- so when one essay is dreadfully boring another one on the very same topic will pick you right up. This saved the book more than a few times IMO. If you're a fan of the show because of it's philosophical nature you may enjoy this but i wouldn't take it too seriously.
Read
December 19, 2021UK to March open to be the season and we are you going
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Read
August 16, 2022south park and philosophy is just repackaged philosophy with very little south park, but it is still profound at times.
Currently reading
December 23, 2009I don't have a background or education in philosophy. In that regard, this book has proven to be very educational, and enlightening. However, as a fan of South Park, it is obvious that several of the authors are not frequent viewers of the show. Rather, it's more likely that they were students assigned to write based on South Park, and cherry-picked episodes to suit their philosophical views. Still, an amusing read.
January 8, 2014
Personally I found this book to be entertaining but informative. If you are not a fan or South Park, then this definitely wont be something for you. Many episodes from the TV show are referenced, as is the movie. It talks about subjects ranging from gay marriage, good and evil, and offending Islam.
The final chapter was really nothing but a rundown of the South Park movie, with no references to any philosophy. I must have missed the point of that.
The final chapter was really nothing but a rundown of the South Park movie, with no references to any philosophy. I must have missed the point of that.
August 22, 2014
Some interesting philosophical concepts explained, but didn't connect very well at all with South Park. Also, the authors sense of humor (trying to be funny all the time) was terrible and at times made the book really painful to read.
August 21, 2023
I love South Park so it’s a no brainier. It’s pretty decent for an audiobook but I will buy a physical copy as there was some interesting information I wanted to research.
December 12, 2017
The thing about South Park is that it feels like at first the very disparate viewpoints that often contradict themselves don't lead themselves well to an analysis like this. Which I guess is why the topics are split up as they are, with focus on specific areas, episodes and even "the Book of Mormon", which barely counts as analysis of South Park, because it isn't.
At times, it feels like the essays prescribe to specific points of view, and use random examples to illustrate this. At others, it feels like the essays randomly talk at length about specific philosophical concepts, even forgetting the tangential nods back to the intended discussion topic. But, importantly, this doesn't make the book unpleasant to read.
You would have to be of a very specific mindset to enjoy this though, so this isn't a recommendation. However, it was my sort of thing.
At times, it feels like the essays prescribe to specific points of view, and use random examples to illustrate this. At others, it feels like the essays randomly talk at length about specific philosophical concepts, even forgetting the tangential nods back to the intended discussion topic. But, importantly, this doesn't make the book unpleasant to read.
You would have to be of a very specific mindset to enjoy this though, so this isn't a recommendation. However, it was my sort of thing.
April 1, 2023
This is a sporadically interesting collection of essays examining various aspects of the South Park television series and its impact on pop culture through the prism of philosophy. Often dry and academic, it does nonetheless manage to deliver sporadic food for thought. But since each chapter is written by a different author, on a different topic, you're unlikely to enjoy the entire book equally. Topics include the show's morality, stance on feminism, religious representation, LGBT representation, and Trey Parker and Matt Stone's Libertarian values.
July 24, 2025
This is a well-done, thorough, researched, intelligent, and sometimes uproarously-hilarious work on a topic that has been a long time coming: philosophy through the lens of South Park. It manages to use the show to address such philosophical issues as the problem of evil and of existence, as well as including some fascinating treatments of certain South Park characters. This book inspired my upcoming class on censorship and South Park and so has proven itself as both entertaining and enjoyable as well as an invaluable resource.
May 30, 2024
Letto in traduzione sebbene abbia visto tutte le puntate in lingua originale. Qualcosa mi è sfuggito, qui e là (e pensare che Mr Slave sia tradotto come signor Maso mi ha lasciato basito).
L’unica pecca è, ovviamente, il fatto che si riferisca a puntate vecchie, dunque non aggiornato (ma qui si pretenderebbe l’assurdo). Ah, nella versione italiana manca un contributo. Chissà perché, visto che non è spiegato.
L’unica pecca è, ovviamente, il fatto che si riferisca a puntate vecchie, dunque non aggiornato (ma qui si pretenderebbe l’assurdo). Ah, nella versione italiana manca un contributo. Chissà perché, visto che non è spiegato.
April 21, 2022
DNF at 28%
Unfortunately I just couldn't get into this one. I tried multiple times over a couple of months but I just don't think this is for me. I don't think the book is bad but it didn't grip me at all. That said, I don't feel fair giving it 1 star even though I didn't finish it.
Unfortunately I just couldn't get into this one. I tried multiple times over a couple of months but I just don't think this is for me. I don't think the book is bad but it didn't grip me at all. That said, I don't feel fair giving it 1 star even though I didn't finish it.
April 14, 2023
A good sample of writing philosophy for the public audience. Unlike other introductory books that review philosophers or philosophies one after another, this collection of essays dives into the philosophical problems inspired by South Park episodes. They introduce philosophical theories when it needed in each essay. This helps the reader to see how to argue like a philosopher facing with actual problems. This is the style of all other books in Philosophy and Pop Culture series by Blackwell publishing.
June 29, 2025
some of the chapters contained some interesting arguments and explanations of philosophy using examples from South Park and were even ahead of their time with discourse on AI. however, other chapters seemed repetitive and unclear in their reasoning and fell to summarising episodes to try and illustrate a muddied point.
July 9, 2025
i expected a bit more. Most of these essays barely scratched the surface of the topics from the episodes. However, the book helped me understand the US cultural background that South Park draws from - though that's likely because, as an Eastern European, I'm not well versed in American culture. I struggle to imagine what a US - born person would take away from this book.
October 1, 2022
Libro ottimo, che accompagna adeguatamente nel capire South Park. Si avverte lo spirito libertario che gli autori del libro condividono con gli autori del cartone.
Ci sarebbe bisogno di una nuova edizione che analizzi le stagioni successive all'ultima a cui si riferisce il testo
Ci sarebbe bisogno di una nuova edizione che analizzi le stagioni successive all'ultima a cui si riferisce il testo
May 18, 2024
Well, the writer absolutely played a symphony of philosophers from Plato to Popper and dealt with many of the central themes in South Park.
Did I learn something? I can't really remember it all, it was packed with information and reflections.
3.5 stars
Did I learn something? I can't really remember it all, it was packed with information and reflections.
3.5 stars
January 2, 2021
Had some good bits but over all pretty crap
Read
February 1, 2022yeah dont judge me i got bored & had way too much homework
February 16, 2024
Learned a lot, much deeper than I thought. I would've liked more explorations of the personal philosophy of the characters, not just over arching themes.
Read
June 26, 2024I had no philosophical differences with this book
December 5, 2024
😡🔥😔🔥🤔😔🚫😨😨🥲🤫🌚
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 1, 2016
I've been a fan of South Park for a long time now, and my passion for it has grown throughout the years as I find more details and relevant points in all the episodes, old and new. However, it is really hard to convince other people to take this show seriously when they believe it only consists in what Trey and Matt, very aptly, present in the form of the Terrance and Phillip Show within South Park: a badly-drawn cartoon filled with fart jokes.
Frustration aside, I always thought this show deserved in-depth discussion, so I was really glad to find this book. Most essays within this book made my say "Exactly!" aloud, as well as "I never thought of that," and that's all I could want from a philosophy book. Robert Arp's selection of essays made me find new meaning in South Park, and I'm halfway through a marathon of the series to find all these subtle details.
And that's a plus on this book: it encourages you to rewatch the series, or introduce you to it if you haven't. A book that motivates you to do something with what you are reading is always going to earn praises for me. South Park does that on its own, by encouraging viewers to become aware of their world. Readings that start discussions and other activities are always memorable. Just like the title says, you know, I learned something today. I always do that with South Park. If a book can capture the essence of the show, it's a winner.
Also, eat my balls.
Frustration aside, I always thought this show deserved in-depth discussion, so I was really glad to find this book. Most essays within this book made my say "Exactly!" aloud, as well as "I never thought of that," and that's all I could want from a philosophy book. Robert Arp's selection of essays made me find new meaning in South Park, and I'm halfway through a marathon of the series to find all these subtle details.
And that's a plus on this book: it encourages you to rewatch the series, or introduce you to it if you haven't. A book that motivates you to do something with what you are reading is always going to earn praises for me. South Park does that on its own, by encouraging viewers to become aware of their world. Readings that start discussions and other activities are always memorable. Just like the title says, you know, I learned something today. I always do that with South Park. If a book can capture the essence of the show, it's a winner.
Also, eat my balls.
March 10, 2015
Well, this book felt like a teaching class of basic philosophy, which, in retrospective, was to be expected. Theres plenty of chapters focusing on several topics that are touched by southpark, or that southpark touches, some chapters use an episode to kickstart a conversation on a topic, but dont really go back to have any connection to southpark itself, just explaining something about philosophy that would help you understand the background of other chapters, theres chapters on feminism, vegetarianism, music, logic, death, lies, humor, and profanity. All in all it was a very fun book to read, I feel some chapters could be used on college to start a class on some basic topic and build from there.
October 26, 2020
Some of the essays are really interesting and sum up South Park quite well, highlighting the fact that that the show does have some depth to it. Others are pretty biased and seem to be written by people to suit their own politcal or philosophical stances. For instance the one where the author tries to justify how South Park is pro capitalism by looking at one or two particular shows. However in other shows it may appear that the opposite were true. South Park laughs at everyone!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 54 reviews