James Bond and Philosophy (Popular Culture and Philosophy) 
asked by smiling on November 27, 2006 12:26 AM
“Bond. James Bond.” Since Sean Connery first uttered that iconic phrase in Dr. No, more than one quarter of the world’s population has seen a 007 film. Witty and urbane, Bond seduces and kills with equal ease — often, it seems, with equal enthusiasm. This enthusiasm, coupled with his freedom to do what is forbidden to everyone else, evokes fascinating philosophical questions. Here, 15 witty, thought-provoking essays discuss hidden issues in Bond’s world, from his carnal pleasures to his license to kill. Among the lively topics explored are Bond’s relation to existentialism, including his graduation “beyond good and evil”; his objectification of women; the paradox of breaking the law in order to ultimately uphold it like any “stupid policeman”; the personality of 007 in terms of Plato’s moral psychology; and the Hegelian quest for recognition evinced by Bond villains. A reference guide to all the Bond movies rounds out the book’s many pleasures.
Reviews
0%
0%
The Open Court Press series Popular Culture and Philosophy has reached twenty-five volumes and this book is one of the most interesting.
There are a slew of Bond books out now to coincide with the appearance of the "new Bond," Daniel Craig. (I've seen good and bad reviews of the film Casino Royale, so if I see it in the theater before it comes out on DVD it will be to watch Judi Dench as M. Her M is more intelligent - - and more vicious - - than any master criminal 007 ever went up against.)
Like other books in this series, it uses it's popular culture subject to illuminate philosophical ideas, not the other way around. (It's Heidegger's views on why technology makes us human that matter, not how Q always knows exactly what kind of gadget 007 will need.)
The most important essays to me were the ones blending political and moral issues that are pertinent today. Just what kind of "democratic oversight" is necessary before you give an agent a "license to kill" (or torture, or waterboard)?
It's fascinating that M's real-life counterpart in MI5 just announced that the so-called war on terror would last at least a generation. The implication is, "You need us." Of course lately the terrorist suspects MI5 has shot and/or killed have been completely innocent. Like the man shot and killed by a US sky marshall for running off the plane while the victim's wife (who was with him on the plane) told everyone he was on medication.
Blair's in trouble for selling honors in exchange for political contributions and may soon be getting a visit from the police himself. But for now the police (at least the secret departments) and Blair's government are propping each other up.
It reminds me of what someone supposedly said when he saw Napoleon's foreign minister on the arm of the secret police chief. "Vice supported by crime."
But I suspect several of the authors in this book would disagree with me about current politics. What I took from the book may not be what you will.
Most of the philosophers find something in the Bond stories (if not in Bond himself) to defend. But not all of them. I especially liked Dean Kowalski's essay looking at Bond from the viewpoint of Eastern philosophy. I also like the fact that the Philosophy and Popular Culture series seems to try to include as many women and other varied perspectives as they can.
There are so many interesting ideas in the world, it is enough after all.
There are a slew of Bond books out now to coincide with the appearance of the "new Bond," Daniel Craig. (I've seen good and bad reviews of the film Casino Royale, so if I see it in the theater before it comes out on DVD it will be to watch Judi Dench as M. Her M is more intelligent - - and more vicious - - than any master criminal 007 ever went up against.)
Like other books in this series, it uses it's popular culture subject to illuminate philosophical ideas, not the other way around. (It's Heidegger's views on why technology makes us human that matter, not how Q always knows exactly what kind of gadget 007 will need.)
The most important essays to me were the ones blending political and moral issues that are pertinent today. Just what kind of "democratic oversight" is necessary before you give an agent a "license to kill" (or torture, or waterboard)?
It's fascinating that M's real-life counterpart in MI5 just announced that the so-called war on terror would last at least a generation. The implication is, "You need us." Of course lately the terrorist suspects MI5 has shot and/or killed have been completely innocent. Like the man shot and killed by a US sky marshall for running off the plane while the victim's wife (who was with him on the plane) told everyone he was on medication.
Blair's in trouble for selling honors in exchange for political contributions and may soon be getting a visit from the police himself. But for now the police (at least the secret departments) and Blair's government are propping each other up.
It reminds me of what someone supposedly said when he saw Napoleon's foreign minister on the arm of the secret police chief. "Vice supported by crime."
But I suspect several of the authors in this book would disagree with me about current politics. What I took from the book may not be what you will.
Most of the philosophers find something in the Bond stories (if not in Bond himself) to defend. But not all of them. I especially liked Dean Kowalski's essay looking at Bond from the viewpoint of Eastern philosophy. I also like the fact that the Philosophy and Popular Culture series seems to try to include as many women and other varied perspectives as they can.
There are so many interesting ideas in the world, it is enough after all.
reviewed by waltersmith on November 27, 2006 12:37 PM