While defining martial arts is not prerequisite to philosophizing about them, such a definition is desirable, helping us resolve disputes about the status of hard cases. At one extreme, Martínková and Parry argue that martial arts are distinguished from both close combat (as unsystematic) and combat sports (as competitive), and from warrior arts (as lethal) and martial paths (as spiritual). At the other extreme, mixed martial arts pundits and Bruce Lee speak of combat sports generally as martial arts. I argue (...) that the fine-grained taxonomy proposed by Martínková and Parry can be usefully supplemented by a broader definition, specifically the following: martial arts are systematic fighting styles and practices as ways of embodying wisdom. A possible difficulty here is that such views face the charge of overemphasizing the “philosophical” aspect of martial arts. My definition can, however, avoid this apparent problem. If martial arts essentially aim to embody wisdom, this applies no less to the (strategic) practical wisdom of The Art of War than to the (ethical) practical wisdom of the Tao Te Ching. In an extended sense, then, any systematic fighting style, including combat sports, may count as a martial art insofar as it embodies wisdom by improving practical fighting skills. (shrink)

Videogames present deep challenges for traditional concepts of sport and games. Cybersport in particular suggests that sport might be transposed into digital arenas, and videogames in general provide apparently striking counterexamples to the orthodox Suitsian theory of games, seeming to lack strictly prelusory goals and perhaps even also constitutive rules. I argue as follows: if any cybersports count as genuine sports, it will be those most closely resembling uncontroversial core instances of sport, those that essentially involve gross motor skill. Even (...) so, we might reject cybersports as sport by distinguishing physical skills’ domain of execution from their domain of application, sport implying the non-virtual status of both. Although, like chess, videogames appear to lack prelusory goals, chess conventions and nominal descriptions of the object of any videogame suggest the possibility of Suitsian compliance, as does the inclusion of ‘cheat codes’ in videogame programming. Perhaps such... (shrink)

Sport aesthetics is an important but often marginalized field in the philosophy of sport. Kinetic Beauty offers a comprehensive, principled, pluralist introduction to the philosophical aesthetics of sport. The book tackles a wide variety of issues in the philosophical aesthetics of sport, proposing a five-level analysis that coordinates extant scholarship on the same conceptual map, reveals gaps in the literature, and motivates a fresh perspective on stubborn debates and novel topics in the field. This is an excellent resource for professors (...) and students in the philosophy of sport, sport aesthetics, general aesthetics, and the philosophy of art. It is also a fascinating read for those working in kinesiology, sport studies, philosophy, art, and aesthetics. (shrink)

Ever since its discovery nearly thirty years ago, the phenomenon of blindsight — vision without visual consciousness — has been the source of great controversy in the philosophy of mind, psychology, and the neurosciences. Despite the fact that blindsight is widely acknowledged to be a critical test-case for theories of mind, Blindsight and the Nature of Consciousness is the first extended treatment of the phenomenon from a philosophical perspective. Holt argues, against much received wisdom, for a thorough-going materialism — the (...) view not only that mental states are brain states, but (much more controversially) that mental properties are physical as well. Designed not only for philosophers and scientists, Blindsight and the Nature of Consciousness has something to say to anyone interested in the mystery of the human mind and in how philosophers and scientists are working toward solving that mystery. (shrink)

This book symposium on Jason Holt’s Kinetic Beauty: The Philosophical Aesthetics of Sport includes commentaries from Stephen Mumford, John E. MacKinnon and Andrew Edgar with replies from Holt.

Though animal ethics in sport obviously applies most urgently to cases of animals at mortal risk (e.g., hunting and bullfighting) or vulnerable to various types of abuse (e.g., doping and harmful training practices), less obvious domains bear scrutiny as well. Here I examine whether we can strictly take not just riders but horses to be players in equine sports. There is an apparent tension in the concept of equestrian prowess, a peculiar blend of skills and attitudes, between regarding horses as (...) subjects of persuasion or collaboration and treating them as objects of control. As our understanding of animal cognition and behaviour continues to improve, it becomes increasingly clear that animal intelligence and agential capacities are far greater than we formerly presumed. In this light, using Suits’s theory of games, I argue that horses are game players that sometimes consent (or assent) and sometimes refuse to play equine sports. Drawing on recent accounts of horse-rider partnership and on my own equestrian background, I conclude by sketching a utopian vision of what equine sports could be. (shrink)

Blindsight is a hot topic in philosophy, especially in discussions of consciousness. Here I critically examine various attempts to bring blindsight to bear on debates about qualia -- the raw constituents of consciousness. I argue that blindsight does not unequivocally support any particular theory of qualia. It does, however, vindicate the view that there are qualia, despite arguments -- most notably by Daniel Dennett -- to the contrary.

The purist/partisan distinction has dominated recent discussions of sport spectatorship and sport aesthetics. The focus of such discussions, however, has been sport in general or, often implicitly, team sports in particular. Here, using mixed martial arts (MMA) as a case study, we argue that specific aspects of the sport in question can significantly affect how the purist/partisan distinction plays out for viewers. MMA’s status as an individual combat sport mitigates, in illuminating ways, the partisanship displayed so prominently among fans of (...) team sports. We also examine the role of external attitudes – in both the betting subculture of MMA and purist attitudes toward individual combat sports and martial arts – in shaping MMA spectatorship. (shrink)

Unlike hefty anthologies and skinny monographs, this volume offers both concision and breadth: a mesomorphic text. The division of the book into two parts, the first on the nature of sport, the second on rules and values, is a natural one, reaching out from a grasp of what sport is toward an understanding of what it ought to be. In addition to the carefully selected readings, the book includes discussion questions and ideas for further inquiry, laying out the depth of (...) debate in this rapidly growing field. Ultimately, readers will glean a richer understanding of what sport is and why it matters, so much and in so many ways, to so many people. (shrink)

Jon Stewart's continued criticism of the inconsistency and irrationality of the American media, the notion of truthiness has relevance for any fan of The Daily Show. This chapter looks a little bit more closely at two notions of truthiness. Focusing on the first sense, it draws some parallels between truthiness and paradigm cases of motivated epistemic irrationality like wishful thinking and self‐deception. Then, it turns to the second sense to see if relying on our guts in the way Colbert suggests (...) might sometimes be rational. (shrink)

According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Institute, regular Daily Show viewers seem to learn about current events from the self‐billed “fake news” program. The question of how fake news can inform people about real news touches on a question posed by philosophers: How do we learn truth from a work of fiction, something typically full of falsehoods? After all, a typical work of fiction is about pretend characters in pretend situations doing pretend things. Where's the truth in (...) such a story, where's the reality? If fake news is classified as fiction, and if we can understand how fiction conveys truth, then we can understand how The Daily Show conveys real news to its viewers. Along the way, this chapter looks at many examples to see just how The Daily Show pulls this off. (shrink)

Every December we are told there is a war on Christmas. Jon Stewart, however, claims that this war is a farce. In 2005, Fox News correspondent John Gibson published The War on Christmas, and Bill O'Reilly complained about businesses such as Walmart saying “Happy Holidays” to their customers instead of “Merry Christmas.” Christmas celebrations were largely illegal in both England and the Americas during the 1600 s and 1700 s. Christmas made a cultural comeback in the early 1800 s, but (...) not because of religious influences. The holiday's religious elements didn't enjoy a resurgence until it was clear that Christmas was here to stay and Christians renewed their efforts Christianize it. There is no war on Christmas. The events that Bill O'Reilly and Fox News think constitute a war on Christmas are actually just efforts to correct the effects of the Christian war for Christmas. (shrink)

This chapter examines the real status of the scientific theory of evolution and what people mean by intelligent design. More generally, it explores the proper relationship between science and religion, not to mention politics, in early 21st century America. These concepts are examined through the inquiring minds and sharp tongues of Jon Stewart, Lewis Black of the “Evolution, Schmevolution” series, and former Daily Show “correspondent” Ed Helms.

Jon Stewart, a cynic? Perhaps not, according to some die‐hard fans. But it's not difficult to imagine that for many viewers of The Daily Show, even those who enjoy watching the host “speak truth to power,” Stewart is no more than a neatly dressed cynic. The cynics lived in the heart of ancient democracies, confronting accepted habits, unchallenged assumptions, and above all institutional corruption. Their aim wasn't just to avoid what they considered to be harmful pursuits and practices, but to (...) expose and ridicule those traditions that most people unreflectively considered moral and proper. If this chapter looks at Stewart in the context of this “dog philosophy,” it sheds light on the meaning of his role in contemporary culture. (shrink)

This chapter considers The Daily Show's unique capacity to demonstrate, through satire, misuses of reason in politics and the media. It considers examples taken from “Indecision 2004,” more recent examples from “Indecision 2012,” and some from The Colbert Report. The chapter begins by considering The Daily Show's treatment of the more common logical fallacies employed by politicians and their exponents. Next, it discusses various political appeals to emotion exposed by The Daily Show. Then, it considers some of The Daily Show's (...) many forays into the alternative universe of political spin, the systematic, politically motivated use of persuasive language, including “talking points.” The chapter concludes by briefly considering some of the different comedic devices used by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to expose and satirize these kinds of political rhetoric. (shrink)

The authors show that martial arts illustrate how ethical and aesthetic value intersect within and beyond sport. While they do not aim to provide a comprehensive analysis of martial arts in this paper, they do plan to draw parallels between sport and martial arts for the purpose of recognizing how martial arts practice may be both aesthetically pleasing and grounded in ethically relevant aims. The upshot of this paper is not wholly positive, however, since the authors draw attention to ethically (...) repugnant practices connected to ideals of aesthetic beauty and other contentious sport practices as part of the analysis of the connection between aesthetic and ethical value. In light of those shared connections, martial arts might simply reinstate, rather than overcome, troublesome goals and values in sport. (shrink)

The Daily Show has emerged as one of the most influential media sources for political information. The same reliance on satire and parody as a means of social and political critique is on display in the show's spin‐off book, America. Both the book and television show aim to hold up a mirror to the contemporary United States. The lack of meaningful public participation in self‐governance isn't America's only critique of contemporary American democracy. A second theme is the narrow range of (...) demographic groups making up the government. America's final chapter calls attention to some slight imperfections in an otherwise perfect Union—inefficiencies, inequities, injustices, absurdities, hypocrisies, and an overall failure to live up to the lofty ideals expressed in the nation's founding documents. Like America, Earth offers an ironic but impassioned defense of democracy, along with thinly veiled criticism of its historical and contemporary opponents. (shrink)

When America's Thomas Jefferson insists that work hard to perfect the work of the Framers, he exhorts us to carry forth the creative, revolutionary spirit ourselves. In Kevin Bleyer's Me the People: One Man's Selfless Quest to Rewrite the Constitution of the United States, Thomas Jefferson is a constant source of inspiration. Me the People doesn't remain at the level of theory. The chapter on the Judiciary, devoted to Bleyer's improbable lunch with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the Justice most (...) closely associated with the controversial constitutional theory of originalism, is the clear climax of the book. Although Scalia a darling of the Tea Party and a conservative Catholic, evangelicalism does not permeate his legal reasoning. Sure Me the People is a fun book on American history, but it prods the reader comically, by exploiting the comedic value of the fact that so few Americans read the Constitution. (shrink)

Although philosophers acknowledge the significance of blindsight for theories of mind---indeed, some try to trade on it---they have not given the phenomenon the extended treatment it deserves. In helping to fill this gap, I argue that despite attempts to use it in undermining qualia , blindsight supports realism about qualia, and an identity theoretic account of them. ;In Chapter 1 I argue against attempts by Dennett and the Churchlands to use blindsight in undermining qualia. I complement this by criticizing their (...) more general arguments against qualia. ;In Chapter 2 I argue that blindsight in fact supports realism about qualia. To do so I bring together four separate points from the literature and add to them a fifth, adapted from an observation by Jerry Fodor. ;In Chapter 3 I argue that blindsight is best explained by saying that the qualia patients conspicuously lack are causally involved in normal vision. I also argue that this is not ruled out by principled objections of the usual sort, and is best cashed out by identity-theory. ;In the Conclusion I discuss some of the other areas of philosophical concern on which blindsight has been thought to bear: color-theory, intentionality, theories of knowledge, and issues in perception. (shrink)

Sport aesthetics historically has been somewhat marginalized in the philosophy of sport, which is itself a marginalized focus in philosophy—to some degree, not.

This chapter shows how The Daily Show targets those political and religious leaders who claim to receive clear revelations from the divine, either by their own particular religious experiences and practices or through sacred texts. It considers some of the ways Stewart calls into question their apparently unquestionable grasp of the mind of God. Philosophers like the famous English thinker John Locke have made their living by carefully examining not only the nature of the world around us, but also the (...) more puzzling aspects of human behavior. For instance, Locke describes and critiques the sort of “enthusiasm” by recognizing that such religiously convicted individuals: “persuade themselves that they are under the peculiar guidance of heaven in their actions and opinions, especially in those of them which they cannot account for by the ordinary methods of knowledge and principles of reason. (shrink)

This is the introductory chapter of The Ultimate Daily Show and Philosophy: More Moments of Zen, More Indecision Theory, which shows why and how The Daily Show is philosophically engaging and significant. The book is divided into five “segments”. It starts by focusing on fake news: what's distinctive about it, what it does, how it works (“headlines”). Then it segues into discussions of Jon Stewart as a philosopher figure, reflecting deep concerns some of which have existed for‐literally‐millennia (“live report”). Next (...) it describes politics and critical thinking (“field report”), followed by religion and culture (“interview”), and finally discusses topics like The Colbert Report that are “Daily Show adjacent” (“moment of Zen”). (shrink)

Many pop culture pundits find characteristics of Jewish humor in their analysis of Jon Stewart's Jewish identity. Though no one has ever suggested that Stewart's a “good Jew,” Stewart still radiates a Jewish persona. This persona and Stewart's satiric treatment of Judaism echo Martin Buber's philosophy. What links the great humanist and the contemporary television satirist is that both point to the outside world and then explain to others what they should have seen. Our pursuit of Buber begins with Stewart's (...) life as a Jew. While it's impossible to watch The Daily Show without Stewart's Jewish persona being obvious, hearing an echo of Martin Buber's philosophy of engagement requires that we carefully review how Stewart's Jewish persona represents the great humanist. Buber insisted on political involvement and the seamless convergence of religion, ethics, politics, education, and art. (shrink)

Six years ago, the author wrote a book chapter about why intellectuals, especially philosophers, should study and emulate Jon Stewart if they want to return to being relevant public intellectuals. America needs his brand of popular intellectual criticism even more than we did six years ago, as our civic and political discourse has been almost entirely eclipsed by nasty invective and political spin. Indeed, Stewart's fake news is actually one of our last examples of real, engaged political philosophy that was (...) originally cultivated by some of America's best philosophers. But before this chapter looks more closely at Stewart, it considers why Americans hate intellectuals. The fact that most Americans think that smart people are tricky and that dumb people are honest makes it difficult to be a public intellectual in America. (shrink)

Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart are not the only purveyors of fake news, but they are among the few media figures willing to admit it. Fake news looks a lot like actual news. Both The Colbert Report and The Daily Show push fake news beyond satire. As a result, they enact the postmodern condition described in the philosophical works of Jean Baudrillard (1929–2007). In Baudrillard's terms, these shows are only possible in an age when news has become a simulacrum of (...) “news,” an image of “news” radically unmoored from verifiable reality. Both shows force a confrontation with simulated news, turning it against itself, and refusing to let us viewers off the hook. In a postmodern culture that tempts us to deny that there even is a hook, Stewart and Colbert, as anchors, anchor us to the real. (shrink)

This book examines the poet and singer/songwriter through the analysis of various philosophical positions.

In an interview in Rolling Stone magazine, Jon Stewart explained that the point of view of The Daily Show “is that we're passionately opposed to bullshit.” This might explain why Stewart invited Ivy League philosopher Harry Frankfurt to appear on The Daily Show (March 14, 2005) to discuss his bestseller On Bullshit. Philosopher‐comedian Stewart followed up the discussion of the lie/bullshit distinction with the following question, which he posed to Frankfurt but never quite let him answer: “What is the difference (...) between bullshit and political spin?” This chapter briefly considers Frankfurt's second visit to The Daily Show (January 9, 2007) when he discussed a much less sensational topic than bullshit. In his second very little book entitled On Truth—with its gold‐foiled cover that made Stewart think it would contain chocolates—Frankfurt is not very concerned with the “boring” philosophical question about the nature, or definition, of truth. (shrink)

Stephen Mumford argues that aesthetic and moral values in sport are interdependent, focusing on cases where immorality taints beautiful performance. This interdependence thesis is insightful but, I argue, in need of refinement, as its normative implications are unclear and perhaps implausible. I also challenge Mumford’s perspective on the infamous Dynamo Kiev death match. Whereas Mumford claims that the match’s morally oppressive circumstances detract from it so that ‘it was not something knowingly we should have admired aesthetically’, I argue that, on (...) the contrary, and in light of what Mumford says about other cases, such circumstances actually enhance the game’s aesthetics such that it would be wrong not to appreciate it aesthetically. (shrink)

Résumé Steven Burns soutient que les œuvres d'art riches ont tendance à donner lieu à des lectures meilleures plutôt qu’à des interprétations ambiguës. Ce n'est pas une simple affirmation statistique. Burns soutient qu'une telle richesse rendra l'ambiguïté moins probable ou moins durable. Dans cet article, je critique la position de Burns à partir de mon point de vue de champion de l'interprétabilité multiple. Ajouter des détails à une œuvre ambiguë pourrait ne pas lever son ambiguïté, et pourrait au contraire augmenter (...) la gamme d'interprétations tout aussi enrichissantes les unes que les autres. Les œuvres ambiguës sont nombreuses et remarquables, et couvrent diverses formes d'art. Toutes choses étant égales par ailleurs, l'ambiguïté semble ajouter à la richesse de la plupart des œuvres plutôt que la réduire. (shrink)

“Neologism” refers to new meanings that are given to old words (which we might call “paleologisms”). This chapter deals with neologisms in the first sense. Neologisms run the gamut from the atrocious to the sublime. On a more theoretical plane, as every word was a neologism at some point, figuring out how words become words at all—how something becomes a meaningful word in a language—will enrich our understanding of language in general, of what it means to mean. The chapter explains (...) how words get to have the meanings that they do, and how they become the words they are. New words run from the merely cute to the hilarious, and they remind us of two important things: one, an individual's power to create words, to create meaning, is much greater than is often supposed, and two, because of this, it's essential to use that power wisely and sparingly. (shrink)

This second edition of _Philosophy of Sport: Core Readings_ provides an overview of core topics in the field, ranging from fundamental questions about the nature of sport to ethical issues at the forefront of discussions of what sport should be. On the nature of sport, readers will gain a solid understanding of fundamental theories of games, play, and sports, as well as sport epistemology, the esports controversy, and sport aesthetics. Topics in the ethics of sport include performance-enhancing drugs, cheating, gamesmanship, (...) and sportsmanship. This edition has been updated and expanded to include sections on gender and race and to provide broader and deeper coverage of this rapidly evolving area. (shrink)

The three major philosophical responses to religious diversity includes exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism. These isms reflect distinct philosophical attitudes and presuppositions held by religious zealots, secular heathens, and all those wimpy fence‐sitting agnostics in between. To make their significance available to the uninitiated, this chapter explores these philosophical positions through the wisdom of the God Machine's high priests: Stephen Colbert, Rob Corddry, and Ed Helms. By examining the philosophical responses to religious diversity, one can begin to understand how the responses (...) often hinder—but sometimes help—attempts to reconcile contentious differences between the world's major religious traditions. The chapter outlines and provides illustrations of the philosophical solutions to the problem of religious diversity. (shrink)

While The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is certainly entertaining, it can also deliver a deeper analysis of our contemporary media environment. Stewart's analysis echoes that of the celebrated New York University media theorist Neil Postman, whose discerning insights seem to ground some of The Daily Show's sharpest comic bits. Much of The Daily Show's sharpest comedy requires its audience to grasp a Postman‐like criticism of television news. In addition, Stewart himself seems to offer a more general critique of today's (...) televised public discourse that is reminiscent of Postman's in several significant ways. This isn't to say, however, that Postman and Stewart are in perfect agreement. For one thing, Postman argues that the transformation of serious discussion into entertainment is all but inevitable when this discussion takes place on television. Stewart, on the other hand, seems to believe that television can do better. (shrink)

RésuméUne partie des raisons invoquées par Wright en faveur de sa théorie «neutre» de la vérité tiennent à ce qu'il considère comme déficiente à plusieurs égards une approche apparentée proposée par Putnam. Je soutiens ici que ces déficiences affectent soit les deux doctrines, soit ni l'une ni l'autre, mais que celle de Wright est néanmoins supérieure. À mettre ensemble l'explication du prédicat de vérité offerte par Putnam et l'extension qu'il entend lui attribuer, on se heurte en effet à un dilemme (...) : revenir au réalisme traditionnel, ou verser dans un optimisme épistémique radical. Or Putnam rejette explicitement la première branche de cette alternative, tandis que la seconde est extrêmement peu plausible. Wright, lui, évite le dilemme en demeurant en retrait par rapport aux prises de position de ce genre. (shrink)

RÉSUMÉ: Une partie des raisons invoquées par Wright en faveur de sa théorie «neutre» de la vérité tiennent à ce qu'il considère comme déficiente à plusieurs égards une approche apparentée proposée par Putnam. Je soutiens ici que ces déficiences affectent soit les deux doctrines, soit ni l'une ni l'autre, mais que celle de Wright est néanmoins supérieure. À mettre ensemble l'explication du prédicat de vérité offerte par Putnam et l'extension qu'il entend lui attribuer, on se heurte en effet à un (...) dilemme: revenir au réalisme traditionnel, ou verser dans un optimisme épistémique radical. Or Putnam rejette explicitement la première branche de cette alternative, tandis que la seconde est extrêmement peu plausible. Wright, lui, évite le dilemme en demeurant en retrait par rapport aux prises de position de ce genre. (shrink)

As in America, so in Athens, citizens received a basic education that made them literate and gave them simple skills. But if Athenian families wanted their children to be successful, more was needed. This concern with success led to the birth of sophism in the second half of the fifth century BCE. The Daily Show commonly takes on sophists in its satirical news segments. Jon Stewart's primary objects of derision, though, are sophists in politics and the mainstream media. The ironic (...) element in Enter Socrates' and Stewart's method should not be denigrated or underestimated, for it's what helps both of them to attract such large audiences. Based on a shared understanding of the deeper underlying meaning of an ironic exchange, people bond, and bond more closely. In their way, both Socrates and Stewart seek to create a dialogue among people who use their minds in an active way. (shrink)

The Daily Show is simultaneously one of the funniest television programs ever made and one of the most earnest voices calling for political change in the United States. Why engage in political mockery like that seen on The Daily Show? Obviously, we like to be entertained, and The Daily Show is very funny; but like the work of other political satirists throughout history, The Daily Show also serves to promote a political agenda. Yet it's precisely The Daily Show's ability to (...) make us laugh that makes it politically useful—people are reminded about important political issues as a side effect. Jon Stewart and the team behind The Daily Show may not be warriors in anybody's army, but signing up to take and give orders in the regular army isn't the only way to contribute to a war effort. (shrink)

Includes discussion of both The Daily Show and its spin-off show, The Colbert Report Showcases philosophers at their best, discussing truth, knowledge, reality ...

Some theorists, such as Ian Reilly, locate satirical fake news like The Daily Show at the very core of the Fifth Estate. Although The Daily Show exemplifies the Fifth Estate for Reilly, his ideal vision of satirical fake news as linking theory and practice, critique and action, is better reflected by media hoaxsters the Yes Men. To appreciate the function of the fake news elaborating the ethos of the Fifth Estate, it is instructive to consider places outside of North America (...) where Fifth Estate actors are clearly doing something more than journalism critique. The author discovers rather the rightful place of The Daily Show in American political culture, its venerable literary lineage, and how obviously well‐qualified Comedy Central style fake news is to elaborate an ethos for the Fifth Estate. (shrink)

An entertaining and insightful examination of the Emmy-award winning American satirical news show, broadcast on Comedy Central in the US, and on More4 in the UK and CNN International around the world. Includes discussion of both _The Daily Show_ and its spin-off show, _The Colbert Report_ Showcases philosophers at their best, discussing truth, knowledge, reality and the American Way Highlights the razor sharp critical skills of Jon Stewart and his colleagues Faces tough and surprisingly funny questions about politics, religion, and (...) power head on. (shrink)

Despite Stewart admitting his own “socialist” sympathies, The Daily Show often critiques not only right‐leaning but left‐leaning language. Interestingly, despite the show's ironic satire, it aims at greater accuracy as a means to the larger end of truth in general, a stream of thinking termed “modernism.” But in “postmodernism,” truth is seen more as a continuum and a process. The show and its writers “teach that deliberation is not a means to an end but an end in itself. Discussion, dialogue, (...) provocation, and questioning are valued for their own sake—not because they lead to truth but because they foster a community able to discern untruth.” Better, the author believes the show does lead to truer understanding. But more than information, the show promotes transformation—from knee‐jerk habits of mind to mindful self‐awareness. One way it does so is by catching how people try to manipulate opinion using the red herring tactic. (shrink)

This chapter examines the sense of irony along with the parallels between the persona of “Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report” and the character of the “ironist” discussed both by philosophical Romantics in the nineteenth century as well as the American philosopher Richard Rorty (1931–2007). For both Colbert and Rorty, irony can be funny and refreshing, and yet at the same time represents a challenge to our beliefs. The chapter looks at the differences between verbal irony and its more robust (...) counterpart, “existential irony,” and examines the extent to which Colbert fits this description. More importantly, the embracing irony has serious implications for how to deal with political responsibilities in the new and more precarious, “post‐ironic” world. (shrink)

This is the first book to pay MMA the serious philosophical attention it deserves. The book explores topics such as whether MMA qualifies as a martial art, the differences between MMA and the traditional martial arts, the aesthetic dimensions of MMA, the limits of consent and choice in MMA and whether MMA can promote moral virtues.

Jon Stewart often delivers the satire himself, but nearly every episode also features at least one of The Daily Show's numerous correspondents. This chapter focuses on Larry Wilmore, who as Senior Black Correspondent is able to discuss issues of race in ways that a white correspondent probably could not. For example, Wilmore has discussed how the election of Barack Obama could be perceived by the African‐American community in the United States, proposing that peer pressure creates a monolithic voting block among (...) African‐Americans. Other issues discussed by Wilmore include the Trayvon Martin case, whether the Congressional Black Caucus has “maxed out” the race card, and how Obama should “go blacker” in response to the US credit downgrade. (shrink)