Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washington

by Thomas Cathcart, Daniel Klein

Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, authors of the national bestseller Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar, aren’t falling for any election year claptrap—and they don’t want their readers to either! In Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washington, our two favorite philosopher-comedians return just in time to save us from the double-speak, flim-flam, and alternate reality of politics in America.

Deploying jokes and cartoon as well as the occasional insight from Aristotle and his peers, Cathcart and Klein explain what politicos are up to when they state: “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” (Donald Rumsfeld), “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” (Bill Clinton), or even, “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” (Thomas Jefferson, et al).

Drawing from the pronouncements of everyone from Caesar to Condoleeza Rice, Genghis Kahn to Hillary Clinton, and Adolf Hitler to Al Sharpton. Cathcart and Klein help us learn to identify tricks such as “The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy” (non causa pro causa) and the “The Fallacy Fallacy” (argumentum and logicam). Aristotle and an Aardvark is for anyone who ever felt like the politicos and pundits were speaking Greek. At least Cathcart and Klein provide the Latin name for it (raudatio publica)!

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Humor, Comedy, Audiobook, The United States Of America

196 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2008

About the author

Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein wrote the bestselling Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes, which will be translated into more than a dozen languages. Not bad for a couple of philosophy majors from Harvard who tried on various careers after graduation. Tom worked with street gangs in Chicago, doctors at Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and dropped in and out of divinity schools. Dan has written jokes for various comedians, including Flip Wilson and Lily Tomlin. Tom lives on Cape Cod with his wife. Dan lives in the Berkshires with his wife. Together, they are also authors of the politically incorrect book of daily affirmations Macho Meditations."

Reviews

[Hestia Istiviani · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Programmer tuh pasti bisa logika ya, beb?"

Tanyaku pada @hasyemiraws di suatu pagi saat perjalanan ke kantor. Itu pertanyaan yang muncul setelah membaca Aristotle & an Aardvark yg ditulis oleh Cathcard & Klein.

Dalam buku biru ini, duo penulis filsafat sekaligus komedian asal AS membedah komunikasi publik para politikus. Bagi mereka, tokoh publik juga nggak luput dari kesalahan berpikir (logical fallacy). Ketimbang terlihat keren malah berujung membingungkan khalayak ramai. Ya seperti "gim permainan" dengan "gim" apalah itu yang sedang ramai di negara kita 🥲

Cathcart & Klein menjelaskan kesalahan berpikir menggunakan lelucon & ilustrasi satir. Coba geser menuju gambar kedua. Logika sederhana seperti itu sebenarnya sudah sering beredar di masyarakat. Hanya saja, kita nggak ngeh atau malah sibuk menyerang dengan kesalahan berpikir lainnya (paling sering ya ad hominem).

Bagiku, Aristotle & an Aardvark jauh lebih mudah dipahami ketimbang Plato & Platypus. Tingkat ringan & guyonannya masih mirip dengan Heidegger & Hippo.

Kalau baca buku ini, kuncinya adalah tahu perpolitikan di AS. Nggak perlu yang paham banget. Asal pernah dengar beberapa isu seperti perang Irak, kejadian 9/11, Watergates Scandal, bisa lancar jaya bacanya.

Berkat buku ini, aku jadi lebih ngerti jenis-jenis kesalahan berpikir, kenapa kok kita perlu belajar filsafat logika, & bersyukur punya ayah & pacar yang kerjanya sbg programmer (minimal, cara berpikir mereka terstruktur). Beruntungnya lagi, aku membaca sebelum ikutan Bootcamp Academia dari Logos, kelas filsafat sebanyak 13 kali pertemuan). Kayak semacam dapat bekal duluan 😆

[Scott Rhee · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book in 2012, and it probably has more meaning today. Since Washington, D.C. has been overrun with morons, not the least of which is the Idiot-in-Chief Trump, the national dialogue has fallen apart completely. Nobody uses basic rhetorical etiquette anymore and the essential rules of debate (don't insult your opponent, back your statement up with facts, be coherent) are nonexistent. Required reading for anyone who wants to dissect the constant stream of lies from our nation's capital and, specifically, the Oval Office.

How do you know when a politician is lying? His or her lips are moving. Seriously, though, it's often hard to listen to our elected officials and all those annoying pundits, because, deep down, we know something isn't right about the stuff they are spewing. We just can't seem to put our fingers on why.

Well, Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein have spent their lives figuring out how to detect bullshit from our nation's leaders. Philosophers by preoccupation and comedians by accident, Cathcart and Klein provide a compact but useful primer on BS detection in their humorous little book, "Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington".

Through the use of ridiculous quotes from politicians, pundits, and talk show hosts, as well as anecdotes, jokes, and a bevy of political cartoons, Cathcart and Klein illustrate the rhetorical and philosophical concepts of argument (albeit bad argument) employed by those in authority.

They demonstrate examples of Ignoratio Elenchi ("ignorance of the issue" or better known as "changing the subject"), a favorite tactic of former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfield; Fallacy of False Dilemma: the most famous example from President George W. Bush who said, on Sept. 20, 2001, "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists", which, at the time, when emotions were heated, sounded good, but in retrospect is kind of ridiculous, as there is a third option, pointed out by Cathcart and Klein, that being "neutrality"; Weasel words, a semantic talent in which loaded, controversial words are replaced with less-loaded words, without actually changing the meaning, examples: "electronic intercepts" as a substitute for "wiretapping", and "tax simplification" instead of "tax reform"; Arguments from Weak Analogies, which is exactly what it sounds like; The Slippery Slope Argument, or the "give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile" argument that many racist politicians used in the '40s and '50s to argue against giving black people too many rights; the "So's Your Mother" Strategy, in which, when faced with an argument that one is clearly not going to win, the only perceived recourse is to insult and degrade your opponent, a tactic used by former Vice-President Dick Cheney, who, when Senator Patrick Leahy once commented on Halliburton's alleged war profiteering, Cheney responded with a mature, "Go fuck yourself."

These are just a few of the many rhetorical tactics that Cathcart and Klein talk about in the book. As pure entertainment, "Aristotle and a Aardvark go to Washington" is hilarious and worth reading, but it also provides an excellent overview of "Philosophy in Politics 101: the Basics of Political Doublespeak and Equivocation". If you want to improve your own BS detection skills, definitely read this...

[Steven · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book handily deconstructs the flimflammery that passes for politics, and how illogical most of it is. It's not quite as funny as Plato and a Platypus walk into a bar, but that's because the illogic of politicians can often be more intricate than a philosophy text.

Which should scare you.

Still, it's very accessible, and tries to be bipartisan in its ripostes. Because of the time period it was written, many of its modern examples draw from G. W. Bush's administration, but be aware that Democrats are not left unscathed. They're after flimflammery, regardless of political affiliation.

[Sebastian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very, very funny. The authors really hate politicians, but who can blame them?
Cathcart and Klein demystify the speeches of politicians in a humorous and ironic way.
A must read before each campaign.

[Richard · Rating 5 out of 5]

WAY back in my youth I picked up a degree in Philosophy. Years later my daughter gifted me two Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein’s books: Heidegger and a Hippo Walk Through Those Pearly Gates: Using Philosophy (and Jokes!) to Explore Life and Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar . . .: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes. I probably learned more about philosophy from those two books than from all of my courses.

Recently I read Cathcart’s solo book, The Trolley Problem, Or, Would You Throw the Fat Guy Off the Bridge? That got me to look for other books they had written and so picked up Aristotle and an Aardvark Go To Washington. This book was published in 2007 and the main presidential benders of truth it lampoons are Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush II and their appointees.

In Philosophy, Ethics, and Debate courses you learn that there are a number of “mistakes” that one can make in presenting logical arguments. Rather than saying “that is utter bullshit”, philosophers say things like, “Ignoratio Elenchi” (ignorance of the issue), “Argumentum Ad Odium” (argument from hatred), “Argumentum Ad Ignorantium” (argument from ignorance), “Ad Homonym” (directed at the person), “Argumentum Ad Verecundiam” (appeal to authority), “Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc” (with this, therefore because of this), and “Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc” (after this, therefore because of this).

Don’t like Latin? Well, the authors have a chapters devoted to; “The Tricky Talk Strategy”, The “So’s Your Mother Strategy”, “The Fancy Footwork Strategy”, and “The Star Trek Strategy”. Each and every one of these are ways our politicians (and many in business, media, Twitter, etc.) lie but make it seem like they are telling the truth.

This book will make you laugh. Of course, every once in a while you will realize how on the mark the authors are about the low ethical standards of our governmental leaders and you go from tears of laughter to tears of sorrow to outright indignation! And, just when you think Cathcart and Klein have given you their best shot, you get to the appendix, “selected bios of Bullshitters”. This is a short section with funny and insightful vignettes of leading politicians.

Despite being years and several presidents old, the tricks outlined in this book are alive and well today. Reading this book you will not only learn quite a bit about philosophy but also get a “cheat sheet” to use when listening to our leaders orate. Of course, you will also get quite a few chuckles and laughs along the way.

[Jimm Wetherbee · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cathcart and Klein has come up with a follow-up to their Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar, this time with a focus on logical fallacies, rhetoric, and contemporary political discourse. Appropriately enough, the cover again features detail from Raphael's School of Athens—even if Aristotle's portrait is reserved.

Let me get one thing out of the way. I love jokes. Can't tell them worth a wit, but I love 'em. So I end up terrorizing friends, family and colleagues by cornering them with comics and political cartoons from people who can. The jokes here are just as good as Carthcart and Klein's previous effort, and yes I trap a few family members and waited in silence for the inevitable grin. I also confess that I've reread the best bits a number of times.

It should also be stated that the jokes in Aristotle and an Aardvark do a better job of illustrating the authors' points than Plato and a Platypus. This should be no surprise. The jokes that worked best in Plato and a Platypus were those that illustrated fallacies. And why not. Part of what makes a joke funny is the use it makes of the incongruity of meanings found in the same word or phrase or a subtle misunderstanding the suddenly jumps out, seemingly from nowhere.

Now for the other shoe.

Cathcart and Klein, however, make two mistakes that seriously detract from what should have been a no-brainer. First, they tend to look at political discourse as a series of logical arguments, the exclusion of almost all else. There is little recognition of political discourse as a rhetorical art, and when it is, it is almost always seen as a species of persuasion. However, if we have learned anything in the past 100 years or so of marketing, it is there are more persuasive means than rhetoric. Moreover, a fair bit of contemporary political discourse does aim to persuade at all. Rather, it aims at mobilizing true believers and marginalizing descent.

That oversight could be put down the author's focus on philosophy. What is not so easily dismissed is that Cathcart and Klein commit some of the very fallacies they find in politicians. One would think that coming up with fallacious exemplars among the political classes would be like hunting fish in a barrel. Perhaps not.

Lets look at the following exchange Cathcart and Klein record between CNN and Homeland Security
Adviser Frances Fragos Townsend.

CNN: You know, going back to September 2001, the president said, dead or alive, we're going to get [Osama bin Laden]. Still don't have him. I know you are saying there's successes on the war terror, and there have been. That's a failure

Townsend: Well, I'm not sure—its a success that hasn't occurred yet. I don't view that as a failure.

Granted, Townsend is (as Cathcart and Klein state) weaseling a bit. The capture of bin Laden may also be a failure that has not yet occurred. However, Cathcart and Klein go too far in arguing that Townsend essentially defines failure as a success that hasn't occurred. In doing so, they failed to recognize a fallacy they pointed out earlier, that of the false dilemma.

More egregious, is the instance they cite of a valid (albeit unintentionally) valid argument clearly isn't. Here is a dialog between a GOP official and delegate to the Utah Republican Convention regarding completely fencing off Mexico.

GOP Official: What happens when they [illegals] climb the fence.
Delegate: You electrify it. They won't touch it.
Official: But what if they do touch it? You would let them die?
Delegate: It would be their choice.
Official: What about a mother with a baby strapped to her back? Would you let the mother and the baby die?
Delegate: It would be the mother's choice to kill that baby.
Official: Then you're in favor of abortion?

Leaving aside the relative merits (or lack thereof) of either abortion or fencing off Mexico as a method of immigration control the assertion that the above is a valid argument is at a minimum problematic. One could construct a syllogisms in a valid form, save for one thing, the Delegate and the Official are using “choice” in two different ways. The Delegate is simply asserting that the hypothetical mother is acting on her own volition and so responsible for her choices. The Official, however, using “choice” in the sense of a volition that is a constitutional protected or human right. It's called the fallacy of the four-term syllogism.

If you work through Aristotle and an Aardvark long enough, Cathcart and Klein will help you find even more.

[stefan👍 · Rating 4 out of 5]

mockery of politics, exquisite and fun

[Ferda Nihat Koksoy · Rating 3 out of 5]

ARİSTOTELES İLE BİR KARINCAYİYEN WASHINGTON'A GİDER
-Aristo'ya Karıncayiyen "Sen hepsinden akıllı-zeki-mantıklısın, gel ABD'ye başkan ol" der. Aristo ise "Ben PERDE ARKASI adamıyım, Büyük İskender'i bilirsin" diye cevap verir (İskender, Aristo'nun öğrencisidir -FNK-)

-Siyasetçiler kadar, siyasetbilimciler, avukatlar ve medyacılar da aynı teraneyi okurlar. Özellikle hukuk fakültelerinde, kusursuz ama ESNEK-HİLELİ konuşmayı öğretirler.

-Hayatın geneli liseye benzetilir ama siyasette İLKOKUL mantığı uygulanır.

-Siyasetçiler KAPIYA ATEŞ EDİP DELİKLER AÇAR, SONRA DA BUNLARIN ETRAFINA HALKALAR ÇİZEREK, hedefi vurduklarını, başarılı oldularını söylerler.

-El Kaide için Irak'a girmek, Pearl Harbor için Meksika'ya girmek, karanlıkta kaybolan anahtarı lamba altında aramak demektir.
"Ya bizim yanımızdasınız yada teröristlerin" diyen Bush, üçüncü seçenek olan "Bin Ladin gerçekten var mı ki?" sorusunu saklar ve zorlayıcılık peşindedir. "YA ÇİMLERİ BİÇ YADA DERS ÇALIŞ" denilen öğrencinin, "sinemaya-arkadaşlarına vb. gitme" olanakları elinden alınmıştır.

-"Kürtaj karşıtıyım" diyen politikacılar, idam ve Irak savaşı konusunda susmaktadırlar.

-"Karınca ilaçlama ilacının kanserojen olması nedeniyle yasaklanması" talebine; bunu istemenin, "insan öldürebilen otomobilin yasaklanmasını" istemekle benzer olacağını söyleyerek cevap verdi siyasetçiler.

-Doğal olanı mükemmel ve kutsal sayarak "kandırmalar üretir" politikacılar. Kartları öyle bir dağıtırlar ki, sadece kendilerinin istediklerinin konuşulmasını sağlarlar. Karşıtlarına, sahip olmadıkları düşünceleri atfedip, sonra da gerçekmiş gibi saldırırlar.

-Politikacılar, ADALETTEN BAHSEDENLERİ sınıf çatışması yaratmakla suçlarlar.

-FIRSATÇI ZAMANLAMA, siyasetçinin HERŞEYİDİR.

-Politikacılar, İSTATİSTİKLERLE OYNAYARAK düzmece sonuçlar üretirler.

-İSA cennette dolaşırken, bir kenarda hüzünlü oturan bir ihtiyar görür ve sorar: "Cennettesin, ne istiyorsun da mutlu değilsin?". Yaşlı adam, "Oğlumu arıyorum, çok özledim onu" der. İsa BABA benim diye cevap verince, ihtiyar PİNOKYO diyerek sarılır ve dans ederler.

[Molly G · Rating 5 out of 5]

Possibly the first non-narrative nonfiction book I've voluntarily completed. I think part of why I wanted to read this book, after so many years of finding the subject matter not only boring but actually sparking a kind of pain-aversion reflex, was getting sick of the sense of paralysis, impotence, helplessness, of not knowing what to do about current events, because it's so hard to get any sense of objective reality or know which end is up. This is not just me being hopeless: keeping people from knowing which end is up, in any given situation or issue, is a key, deliberate, and unending tactic in politics, not limited to any era or administration. Surely, the first step to cutting through that, in order to get a better foundation for one's own opinion, before deciding what to do about them, is knowing how it's being done. Since rhetoric and logic aren't necessarily taught as formal disciplines nowadays, this book is an excellent primer, introducing the principles, explicating them, and illustrating them, in a way not only thought-provoking and thought-tickling but accessible and memorable: jokes!

(Yes, it's "timely" and ultimately partisan, but that's another debate—and less a literary criticism as perhaps the sign of a successful textual approach, that it would inspire and aid in debate. It's good to bear in mind, though, that it is the structure of debate itself that it mainly address. Soundbites of content are ultimately no more than illustrative. Some reader feedback suggests it bashes one side too much; believe it or not, I had moments of wishing it would go ahead and bash arguments' content thoroughly, rather than stick with an analysis of their logical construction. This is the point of the book: not to address content but construction. It's up to us to figure out what we think about content; the book's purpose is to help us cut through tricks of construction, not to be thrown off that track.)

[J.D. Steens · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is kind of Readers Digesty, with short vignettes on how politicos, their defenders and camp followers "perpetuate their tricks." There's some philosophy thrown in here and there (primarily, Aristotle's logic), and the Aardvak ("Aardy") makes its appearance toward the end of the book. There's some good illustrations about the tricks of the trade (e.g., false either/or dilemmas that exclude all other options) and about how terminology such as "sound science" implies that different perspectives are based on bad science, and the book has numerous cartoons that are very good.

The Bush beating in the book gets a little weary as a too obvious target. The philosophical theme is a stretch. Political B.S. is not about logic. It is more about philosophical values and what it takes (spin and tricks; lies and dissembling) to get elected to promote those values. Because of their highly public position, of course, politicians are fair game. But being a politician - being on point daily, having to weave through complex, conflicting and emotional issues, with an eye toward election, and an eye on the media and audiences that demand sound bites - is a tough job. It's easy to sit on the outside and toss brickbats. The glossary lists selected bios of political "bullshitters," as if non-politicos do not engage in spin, selectivity, and silence, and are less than truthful, in their daily relationships (See,"The Truth About Lying."). And, in the end, are what we see with politicians and ourselves just modern-day manifestations of the deception used by all animals to get what they want?

[ProgressiveBookClub · Rating 5 out of 5]

A hilarious guide to the doublespeak, flimflam and alternate reality of politics in America.

Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, authors of the national bestseller Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar, aren't falling for any election year claptrap — and they don't want their readers to either! In Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washington, our two favorite philosopher-comedians return just in time to save us from the doublespeak, flimflam and alternate reality of politics in America.

Deploying jokes and cartoons as well as the occasional insight from Aristotle and his peers, Cathcart and Klein explain what politicos are up to when they state, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" (Donald Rumsfeld), "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" (Bill Clinton), or even, "We hold these truths to be self-evident …" (Thomas Jefferson, et al).

Drawing from the pronouncements of everyone from Caesar to Condoleeza Rice, from Genghis Kahn to Hillary Clinton and from Adolf Hitler to Al Sharpton, Cathcart and Klein help us learn to identify tricks such as "The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy" (non causa pro causa) and the "The Fallacy Fallacy" (argumentum ad logicum). Aristotle and an Aardvark is for anyone who ever felt like the politicos and pundits were speaking Greek. At least Cathcart and Klein provide the Latin name for it (raudatio publica)!

To learn more, visit The Progressive Book Club: http://www.progressivebookclub.com/pb...

[Jake · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thanks to Memorial Day weekend and a subsequent trip to see my niece graduate from high school, I took in two of these books by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein. As promised on the cover, this work is loaded with humor via jokes, zingers and irony. The authors strive to make the material relevant and palatable for a novice of philosophy.

Moreso than with the audio edition of Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar , I found this recording easier to follow. Adding to my enjoyment, many of the references and politicos mentioned in this book are contemporary and thus fresh in my mind. Some of the ideas, especially when discussing the 2nd Amendment, are loaded and required multiple listenings. Most of the time however, I was able to follow the authors' train of thought the first time. Overall, it was a great way to pass the 1,000 or so miles I logged in my car the last week.

Bottom line: If you enjoy an engaging and witty discussion of politics and the reasoning behind many famous gaffes, this is a fun book to read.

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really enjoyed Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar, so when I stumbled on this at a bookstore the other day, it was a no brainer.

I wish it had a bit more in the way of jokes, honestly. That's about the only bad thing I can say about it, as it accessibly teaches (or reviews) the basic points of rhetoric, logic, and the political manipulation thereof. The problem is, that the book relies on pointing out sort of ridiculous quotes from politicians and pundits for the humor more than relying on actual jokes the way that the previous title did. I imagine that this works pretty well for most people, but as a sort of obsessive politics guy who was already familiar with many of the quotes (and having seen them mocked more thoroughly previously due to The Daily Show, Colbert Report, etc), I wasn't laughing as much as I'd have liked.

I still was laughing though, and it was a fairly enjoyable quick read.

Also, I totally aced the test at the end, so that was nice.

[Marc · Rating 4 out of 5]

A truly pleasant and useful book, Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washington helps and enables its readers to recognize when their intelligence is being insulted. While the examples of erroneous thinking and fallacious reasoning presented here are not by any means exhaustive of the subject matter, they are nonetheless the most common, and it is a public service to put their names in the public consciousness. If the book has a flaw, it is that it is too timely. Most of its examples are culled from the current administration, which, while it has a set a record for creative mendacity that will no doubt echo through the ages, is hardly the only villain in this area.

And there are some really good jokes in here, too.

[Iulia · Rating 4 out of 5]

N-as fi crezut ca o sa invat pentru proba la Logica din aceasta carte. Subiectele sunt diverse, toate avand acelasi scop: sa demaste, intr-un mod comic si ironic, erorile logice din viata politica. Bineinteles, e realizata in principal pe politicienii Americani, insa referirile merg pana la Genghis Khan.

Cu toate acestea, desi suna superficial, cartea nu atinge superficialitatea. E o carte instructiva, insa cinica, foarte potrivita educatiei dupa lectia de "filosdotica". ^_^

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cathcart and Klein give us a tour of logical fallacies through the world of American politics. They are sharp and have some funny stuff here, but would benefit from being up front with their leftward political leanings or bringing more balance to their skewering. The book is also two decades old, written during George W Bush’s administration and is too focused on contemporary fallacies. The book would have aged better if it would have drawn from a broader historical cross section.


For more reviews see thebeehive.live.

[Bahadır Sönmez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Felsefespri mantığı bu sefer tutmamış, ama bir ara tebessüm ettim sanırım.

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

While not quite as charming, funny and clear-headed as similar previous books by the authors, it was still a smart read with many a chuckle, and good antidote against politicians and others who garble logic in order to warp our thinking.

[Jim Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read "Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar" a few years back and enjoyed it. Read "Heidegger and a Hippo Walk Through Those Pearly Gates" and thought it was not bad. So I figured I'd try this one, by the same authors.

The theme in all three books is pretty much the same: the authors use humor to explain philosophical concepts. The humor is very much in the vein of Groucho Marx, Woody Allen, stuff that makes you groan as much as it makes you laugh.

This was probably my favorite of the three. It was the least funny, by far. The jokes were there, but there were fewer of them, they were added almost like a flavoring, certainly not a main focus. Rather than dealing with abstract philosophical concepts or various views on immortality and the afterlife, this one got to tangible, everyday stuff. It's an examination of Bullshit; specifically, an examination of the Bullshit typically spewed by politicos. A look at the logical fallacies and deceptive phrasing that makes for every day spin, stump speeches, press conferences, cable news opinion shows, radio punditry.

Other reviews I've seen on here note that the book leans left. It deals heavily in real life examples, and without doubt it draws more from the ranks of the GOP and their Fox-y supporters than it does from those on the left. I don't know that this is a necessarily a sign of political bias. The book was written in 2008, at the tail end of 8 years of George W. Bush. If you're going to fill a book up with examples of political doublespeak relevant to an audience in 2008, you're going to have a lot George W. Bush. One could also argue that while both sides of the aisle pedal bullshit, one has refined that to an art. It's hard to call that suggestion an insult; Frank Luntz wrote a book and a made a career out of openly teaching his GOP colleagues the art of doublespeak.

That said, the book contains plenty examples of lefty bullshit from Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and others. Not balanced at all, but no one is "off limits."

Overall a good book. A nice, concise reference book, really. An encyclopedia of logical fallacies and historical tricks.

[Erin Reilly-Sanders]

When a friend recommended this as hilarious, I expected a little more humour than I got from it. Yes, it was humor, but the thing that I liked most about it was that it was simply interesting. The idea of examining political statements to explain logical fallacies made the combination of two subjects, which I would probably have never picked up on their own, create a fascinating dialog. The book was well organized and walked you through the basics of logic, making this perfect for the novice, although probably also appealing in it's innovative application to those more knowledgeable as well. As a book on CD though, it was somewhat difficult to follow, as I wanted to go back and "reread" the previous sentence to make sure that I understood it correctly. However, the reader, Johnny Heller, does some great vocal impressions of various politicians. It's easy to see why he is such a popular narrator. In any case, I think Ill be picking up the "prequel" volume "Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar" someday.

[Allison · Rating 4 out of 5]

Radical right wingers probably won't enjoy this book. The more intellectual and interested in politics you are, the more you will like this book. Then again, if you can't laugh at how messed up politics have become, this might not be the best choice for you either.

With that said, Hey! it's an election year! It's almost Primary Time! If the debating and debacling is getting a bit much for you, this baby is hard to put down. Granted, it's not quite as funny as "Plato and the Platypus" but that is only because like it or not, politics are more serious than general philosophical questions.

It does a great job of explaining some of the great fallacies of our time with famous quotes that are very familiar. If nothing else, it manages to remind us with humour that we need to pay attention to the folks we put in office (and do more to make sure we understand who we're electing).

It's the first thing I've read since my father died that I think he would have regretted not having had the chance to read (and that says a lot).

[Amy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reading this, I can now see how & why certain politicians are better than others. It's not how they spin a situation, but rather how they say or in most cases "don't say" something.

My favorite jokes in this book:

Re: One Person's Weak Analogy is Another Person's Perfect Fit:

The reader sees a picture of a tape dispenser and two snails. One snail says [to the other] "I don't care if she is a tape dispenser. I love her."

Two politicians are walking in front of the U.S. Capitol when one says "But how do you know for sure you've got power unless you abuse it?"

In the "Star Trek Strategy", under "Stacking the Truth Tables", we see a picture of Chirac in front of a map of France and the quote reads "Know When to Shut Up".

Finally, under "Acquiring Conventional Wisdom", a radio listener asks: "What is the Exchange of Ideas?" and the Government Official says: "That is when you go into the commissar's office with your own idea and come out with his."

[Nancy Spagnolo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Time to deconstruct the spin of DC with some philosophical analysis and a few laughs. While quite amusing, this book contains some serious information and pits our politicians (circa mid-2000's) and their bullfunky against the rhetorical fallacies outlined by Aristotle. Jokes are sprinkled throughout the book as well because comedy also untilizes the fallacies often. You won't find any criticism of the Obama administration whatsoever because the book predates it. Dubya fans take note, this was written during the depths of the very contentiously debated and still controversial Iraq War and the authors do not shy away from it. Also, some might perceive a liberal bias -which didn't bother me, but some may appreciate a heads up. I loved this book and feel that many who enjoy philosophy, politics, and a good joke would too.

[Charlotte · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoy listening to audio books on my trips back and forth to David City to visit Mom and Dad, and like to choose things that are interesting, yet not so gripping I forget to pay attention to my driving! I spotted this short one on the library shelves and thought it might be fun. The subtitle is "Understanding Politial Doublespeak Through Philosopy and Jokes." and is actually two comedians who share with both nonpolitical, and political stories how various patterns of logic are used to convince or delude others. No political party or historical time period is immune to being used as an example, though conservatives would probably accurately react that they suffer most! It was published in 2008, so missing is applications of the last four years. I found it an extremely entertaining way to see political history in a different light!

[Andrew Pixton · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not as good as its predecessor, Plato and a Platypus. But still entertaining and informative about philosophy and formal logic. This is basically political satire and does what logic is supposed to do: Help you spot the lies and bad thinking that's so much a part of the world around us. Logic enables you to avoid being deceived or manipulated. This focused on logic, or rather, illogic in politics. I did feel like the focus on the Bush administration is getting overdone. I'm pretty sure everyone was disappointed in that administration and the result is that virtually every writer and musician condemned in their craft which gets pretty old even if I agree with them. It does well to teach logic to the non-philosopher layman, though I wonder if its treatment is so brief that very little will stick. Anyway, it's worth it for how short it is.

[Alexander Velasquez · Rating 2 out of 5]

The point of the book is to demonstrate different logical fallacies through real life political examples. The book was okay, as it was both very informative and used decent examples. The book illustrates many informal and formal fallacies including, but not limited to: affirming the consequent, appeal to authority, cum and post hoc ergo propter hoc, etc.

I gave it 2/5 stars for two reasons: 1) The book is not that funny. I laughed twice. Maybe it's just not my humor. And 2) The examples were clearly biased against right-wing politics. I mean seriously. George Bush was like 90% of all the examples. I really wasn't feeling the bias.

I'm sure there are books out there that illustrate logical fallacies through concrete examples that are a lot better, but it was a decent read.

[Adina Dragu · Rating 4 out of 5]

O lectură plăcută, chiar amuzantă, în care se arată că logica nu este o simplă materie anostă şi inutilă, inclusă din greşeală în programa de liceu, iar unul dintre domeniile în care logica poate să pună lucrurile în ordine şi să aducă mai multă lumină este cel al comunicării politice. Am găsit oarecum reconfortant faptul că numeroasele exemple de erori de gândire, mai mult sau mai puţin voite, provin din mediile politice occidentale (SUA, UK, Franţa). Se pare că prostia, ipocrizia şi minciuna sunt practici generale la nivelul oamenilor politici de pretutindeni, deci mediul nostru local nu constituie ceva excepţional. Pentru cine vrea să aprofundeze subiectul, un exerciţiu amuzant ar fi să găsească propriile exemple de erori de logică din cadrul discursurilor oamenilor politici.

[Bryan Murdock · Rating 1 out of 5]

Found this on the audiobook shelf at the library. These guys are apparently pretty knowledgeable of logic, philosophy, and debate, but I didn't like how they completely bashed republicans, and only mildly chastised a few left-wingers. The beginning of the book assured it would be funny, but it only succeeded a few times. More crude than necessary. When they criticized right-wingers for giving John Kerry a hard time about his famous "stuck in Iraq" quote I'd had about enough. When I realized they were using the very logical fallacies they were educating me about in order to make right-wingers look bad, I stopped listening.

[Dave · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have heard the author interviewed along with his collaborator on a prior book, 'Plato and a Platypus walk into a bar: understanding philosophy through jokes' so I picked up this one from a display shelf at our library. I enjoyed the combination of humor with explication of common fallacies and rhetorical techniques used to mislead an audience. I didn't care for the final chapter, because it was merely a litany of snide comments about various politicians, authors, etc. more like a gossip column without discussion of informal or formal fallacies or rhetoric. Had the last chapter been eliminated I'd have given the work 4 stars.

[Cameron · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fun little book that compacts several courses of college philosophy into a joke-filled discussion on political doublespeak. Sure, the jokes are a bit like the one's you would read after a Reader's Digest article, but the discussion is a very good and a very entertaining one. Essentially, it takes all of the famous cleverly (or otherwise) worded statements that we have heard in politics over the past few years and pins a philosophical debate moniker on each of them. Like Clinton's "Depends on what the definition of 'is' is," and Bush's "If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists," and so on, ad infinitum. Very great idea and welcomingly succinct.