And if the snow Queen , Marry Poppins and Game of thrones were great philosophers? It is that invites us to discover Thibaut de Saint-Maurice in his latest book, Of philosophers and heroes (First). An interesting book that analyzes the psyche of our heroes and heroines the favorites. In what Bridget Jones illuminates the concept of self love for Rousseau? Why Harry Potter is a good follower of stoicism? Shared by Robin hood and Camus? The author of Philosophy in the series (Ellipses) shows how many characters of the pop-culture -but not only – are inspired by the greatest philosophical concepts. Ideal for students at the bac philo and other curious…
LE FIGARO. – That means “philosophizing”?
Thibaut DE SAINT-MAURICE. – “Philosophizing”, depending on the point of view of Aristotle, it is “surprising”. And more specifically, be surprised of things that are not surprising, what may seem obvious or what we think we know. Let’s take the example of death. At first sight, it refers to an event that humanity should fear. But we may question this. Death is really something scary? Is it really necessary to be afraid of? Is this not suffer a double penalty as the fear of his or her lifetime? To philosophize, it is to consider that the solutions presented as such are not necessarily relevant and legitimate. In sum, it is “a problem for every solution”.
” A philosophy that would be strictly doctrinal or conceptual would be dry. Remember that Plato was the first to take his examples in the fiction of the time : the mythology ”
It includes the reading of your book, what is obvious is not necessarily obvious. If “at first sight” series, films and novels are fiction, they have in reality genuine messages of philosophical…
It is of the opinion to think, when you look at Cinderella , Harry Potter or The snow Queen , that these stories are strictly fiction and that they, therefore, have the only objective of us to enjoy. However, I am convinced that the good fiction suggests. Obviously, a movie, a series and a novel are not meant to replace a philosophy course, but they will allow you to accompany him. They can help widen a poll. Why such or such character mark me so much? If they touch us and if they become references, it is because each in their own way a problem or arrives at the set.
” READ ALSO – will you Get a no-fault in this test of philosophy?
This book comes at peak for the revisions of the tray. But isn’t it risky to quote a scene of Harry Potter rather than an argument of Epithet?
I think we can mention the two. The philosophers develop arguments, concepts, and time-to-time doctrines. The heroes, themselves, illustrate some of the ideas, problematize a situation of existence, a relationship to others or the world. Thus, it is quite possible to go from a reference philosophical before the illustrate in the universe of a character, and it is quite acceptable from a character to move up to the argument philosophical.
A philosophy that would be strictly doctrinal or conceptual would be a bit dry or academic. Let us remember that Plato was the first to take his examples in fiction of the time, that is to say, in the mythology. In The Republic , Socrates, to sustain the attention of his interlocutors, regularly told stories: the myth of Prometheus, the myth of Phaedra, the heaven of ideas, the myth of the cave… These fictions were used to support the conceptual approach.
In your book, you take the character of Lucky Luke as an example of the duty itself.
Yes. That is what makes them get up in the morning? Why Lucky Luke leaves it in the mission, stop the Dalton at the beginning of each album? What is his motivation? The answer is simple. It does not have one. It is neither money, nor glory, nor the position of sheriff that he covets. It is not his duty to show its force or seduce women. It is, according to all appearances, sincere. And here is what is interesting. He does his duty, that is to say, enforce the law, completely disinterested.
But the duty of “Lucky Luke” has nothing to do with the idea of having James Bond as you tackle in another chapter…
James Bond part by the effect of the reverse position. He allows himself to be seduce by young women, for the pleasure to show that he is strong… But all of these enticements don’t stop to do his duty. These two characters embody the possibility to “make a point” out of pure duty, and not by interest or by what Kant called a “pattern sensitive”, something that will provide enjoyment or satisfaction. Thus, the power, the women, the alcohol, is never sufficient to explain or fill in the motivation of James Bond. It is capable of leaving the most beautiful woman in the world in the early morning in order to continue his mission.
This moral kantian is essential in moral thinking, but it is very often a reproach. If it is consistent, it is impracticable for men. Acting out of pure duty, and this, without any interest, is simply inhuman. It is incompatible with our humanity that is always prey to the passions and emotions. Lucky Luke shoots faster than his shadow, which is a way of signifying that it is beyond our finitude. It is in the moral perfection of this duty is not pure but is completely disembodied.
“We did not revolt never for itself, as a revolt that would be strictly an individualist would be a caprice”
You compare the character of Dr. house to that of Sherlock Holmes, who are both in search of the truth. They apply each a form of maieutics and are in this sense very socratiens.
Yes, they rely on what they can do to give birth in the other. Take the case of Dr. House. It is not, as one would think at first glance, a series medical. Episode 3 of the first season is titled as “The socratic Method”. Its creator, David Shore, is quite lucid on the reference philosophical that it introduces into this character. It is also when he built Gregory House as a double of Sherlock Holmes.
which is singular at House, it is that it is looking for the diagnostic. Therefore, of the truth. However, the symptoms that it must be analyzed are very often presented as lies, symptoms misleading. For what reason? Because the patient that they must cure has lied about his life. This is a point which is recurrent in the series and it is for this reason that Dr. House always send its doctors to investigate his patients. It thus shows that the disease is only a symptom outside of a lie inside. Because of this, Gregory House is not a medical doctor, but a police officer. And, it is, to my mind, the reason for its success. Dr House has managed to synthesize two formulas two sets: medical and police.
You also analyze Robin hood as the archetype of the rebel camusien.
Robin hood is a reference to structure our contemporary imagination. It embodies the revolt against the unjust policy and can therefore illustrate the thought of Camus. This last reminds us that the revolt did not aim to reach to be worthy. Revolt it is already say all that mankind can do better in an existence that is absurd, because it is dedicated to all the failures.
A revolt is enough to embody the dignity of a man and the way in which it can re-establish the collective. Camus has very well summarized in this sentence: “I revolt, therefore we are.” One does not revolt never for itself, as a revolt that would be strictly an individualist would be a caprice.
Or well, it would then take the form of revenge, as in Beatrix Kiddo…
Yes, Beatrix Kiddo, embodied by Uma Thurman in Kill Bill , is doomed to frustration. She knows very well that it is driven by a desire for revenge, incomprehensible, with which he will make or the man she loved, or her child. In this sense, his revolt is a form of despair. This is why, when she kills Vernita Green, his former partner, she does not hesitate to say to his little girl: “I understand very well that one day how you avenge yourself against and that you come to kill me.” Beatrix Kiddo is lucid on the fact that his revenge is unstoppable and completely doomed to failure.
“The best service that we can render to the world is worrying about our own happiness, not for our own benefit but for the world itself”
You also address the friendship aristotelian of the Three Musketeers.
Aristotle is a great philosopher of friendship. It is the friendship that can help us, according to him, to become wise and be happy. He distinguishes three stages: the friendship, by interest, pleasure, and virtue. It is this last that interests us. The success of the Three musketeers is not due in fact to the number of the musketeers, but their relationship. D’artagnan has an interest to link up with Athos, Porthos and Aramis. Their union makes them not only more effective, but also the best. It is together that they become better men, because each of their side, they fall back into their through. The friendship, to be true, is not thought of from itself but from the other. It is not good to “have friends” as one would a car or objects of value, but it is good to “be in fellowship” with others, because they are the ones who will make the best of ourselves.
You are studying finally the happiness through the eyes of Amélie Poulain by convening a meeting Alain.
Amélie discovers that in order for others to be happy, she must decide to be happy. If caring for others is a form of altruism and charity, Amélie is not doomed. Without a doubt, to be happy we need to be convinced that it is done for a god or for a reason… But Amélie is not a character sacrificial.
She understands and that she has a duty to be happy, vis-à-vis those who are not able to do. This, in order to show them that happiness is accessible. I love this idea of Alain which allows to abort the thoughts that worry about his happiness would be selfish. The best service that we can render to the world is worrying about our own happiness, not for our own benefit but for the world itself. To show that this is possible.
” You can also follow Figaro French Language on Twitter.
” Ask all your questions about the French language through our Forum.
” See our section on French language on The Figaro Store.