'You shouldn't drink too much. The Earth is round. Milk is good for your bones.' Are any of these claims true? How can you tell? Can you ever be certain you are right? For anyone tackling philosophical logic and critical thinking for the first time, Critical Thinking: An Introduction to Reasoning Well provides a practical guide to the skills required to think critically. From the basics of good reasoning to the difference between claims, evidence and arguments, Robert Arp and Jamie Carlin Watson cover the topics found in an introductory course. Now revised and fully updated, this Second Edition features a glossary, chapter summaries, more student-friendly exercises, study questions, diagrams, and suggestions for further reading. Topics include: the structure, formation, analysis and recognition of arguments deductive validity and soundness inductive strength and cogency inference to the best explanation truth tables tools for argument assessment informal and formal fallacies With real life examples, advice on graduate school entrance exams and an expanded companion website packed with additional exercises, an answer key and help with real life examples, this easy-to-follow introduction is a complete beginner's tool set to good reasoning, analyzing and arguing. Ideal for students in basic reasoning courses and students preparing for graduate school.

What is the nature of Hell? What role(s) may Hell play in religious, political, or ethical thought? Can Hell be justified? This edited volume addresses these questions and others; drawing philosophers from many approaches and traditions to analyze and examine Hell.

This volume considers the numerous philosophical ideas and arguments found in and inspired by the critically acclaimed series Breaking Bad. This show garnered both critical and popular attention for its portrayal of a cancer-stricken, middle-aged, middle-class, high school chemistry teacher's drift into the dark world of selling methamphetamine to support his family. Its characters, situations, and aesthetic raise serious and familiar philosophical issues, especially related to ethics and morality. The show provokes a bevy of rich questions and discussion points, such as: What are the ethical issues surrounding drugs? What lessons about existentialism and fatalism does the show present? How does the show grapple with the concept of the end 'justifying' the means? Is Walt really free not to 'break bad'? Can he be redeemed? What is the definition and nature of badness (or evil) itself? Contributors address these and other questions as they dissect the legacy of the show and discuss its contributions to philosophical conversations.

‘You shouldn’t drink too much. The Earth is round. Milk is good for your bones.’ Are any of these claims true? How can you tell? Can you ever be certain you are right? For anyone tackling philosophical logic for the first time, here is a practical guide to the skills required to think critically. From the basics of good reasoning to the difference between claims, evidence and arguments, Jamie Carlin Watson, Robert Arp and Skyler King cover the topics found in an introductory course. Now revised and fully updated, this 3rd edition gives you the chance to develop critical thinking skills that can be used in and out of the classroom. Two new chapters on reasoning in the age of conspiracy theories and fake news demonstrate how to apply reason and avoid being dissuaded by the persuasive power of evidence-free emoting. Features include a glossary, chapter goals, more student-friendly exercises, study questions, diagrams, and suggestions for further reading. Chapter topics, organised around real-life examples such as predicting the weather, a murder mystery and the Ouija board, cover: - the structure, formation, analysis and recognition of arguments - deductive validity and soundness - inductive strength and cogency - inference to the best explanation - truth tables - tools for argument assessment - informal and formal fallacies This entertaining and easy-to-follow introduction is a complete beginner’s tool set to good reasoning, analyzing and arguing.

'You shouldn't drink too much. The Earth is round. Milk is good for your bones.' Are any of these claims true? How can you tell? Can you ever be certain you are right? For anyone tackling philosophical logic and critical thinking for the first time, Critical Thinking: An Introduction to Reasoning Well provides a practical guide to the skills required to think critically. From the basics of good reasoning to the difference between claims, evidence and arguments, Robert Arp and Jamie Carlin Watson cover the topics found in an introductory course. Now revised and fully updated, this Second Edition features a glossary, chapter summaries, more student-friendly exercises, study questions, diagrams, and suggestions for further reading. Topics include: the structure, formation, analysis and recognition of arguments deductive validity and soundness inductive strength and cogency inference to the best explanation truth tables tools for argument assessment informal and formal fallacies With real life examples, advice on graduate school entrance exams and an expanded companion website packed with additional exercises, an answer key and help with real life examples, this easy-to-follow introduction is a complete beginner's tool set to good reasoning, analyzing and arguing. Ideal for students in basic reasoning courses and students preparing for graduate school.

In contradistinction to the many monographs and edited volumes devoted to historical, cultural, or theological treatments of demonology, this collection features newly written papers by philosophers and other scholars engaged specifically in philosophical argument, debate, and dialogue involving ideas and topics in demonology. The contributors to the volume approach the subject from the perspective of the broadest areas of Western philosophy, namely metaphysics, epistemology, logic, and moral philosophy. The collection also features a plurality of religious, cultural, and theological views on the nature of demons from both Eastern and Western thought, in addition to views that may diverge from these traditional roots. Philosophical Approaches to Demonology will be of interest to philosophers of religion, theologians, and scholars working in philosophical theology and demonology, as well as historians, cultural anthropologists, and sociologists interested more broadly in the concept of demons.

This collection brings together new papers addressing the philosophical challenges that the concept of a Devil presents, bringing philosophical rigor to treatments of the Devil. Contributors approach the idea of the Devil from a variety of philosophical traditions, methodologies, and styles, providing a comprehensive philosophical overview that contemplates the existence, nature, and purpose of the Devil. While some papers take a classical approach to the Devil, drawing on biblical exegesis, other contributors approach the topic of the Devil from epistemological, metaphysical, phenomenological, and ethical perspectives. This volume will be relevant to researchers and scholars interested in philosophical conceptions of the Devil and related areas, such as philosophers of religion, theologians, and scholars working in philosophical theology and demonology.

This book engages the problem of evil from a variety of philosophical viewpoints, traditions, methodologies, and interests. For millennia, philosophers, theologians, and people outside of the academy have thought about evil and its relation to religious belief. The Problem of Evil: New Philosophical Directions aims to take this history of thought into evil while also extending the discourse in other directions; providing a multi-faceted collection of papers that take heed of the various ways one can think about evil and what role in may play in philosophical considerations of religion. From the nature of evil to the well-known problem of evil to the discussion of the problem in philosophical discourse, the collection provides a wide range of philosophical approaches to evil. Anyone interested in evil-its nature, relation to religious belief, its use in philosophical discussion, and so on-will find the papers in this book of interest.

This collection brings together new papers addressing the philosophical challenges that the concept of a Devil presents, bringing philosophical rigor to treatments of the Devil. Contributors approach the idea of the Devil from a variety of philosophical traditions, methodologies, and styles, providing a comprehensive philosophical overview that contemplates the existence, nature, and purpose of the Devil. While some papers take a classical approach to the Devil, drawing on biblical exegesis, other contributors approach the topic of the Devil from epistemological, metaphysical, phenomenological, and ethical perspectives. This volume will be relevant to researchers and scholars interested in philosophical conceptions of the Devil and related areas, such as philosophers of religion, theologians, and scholars working in philosophical theology and demonology.

Here, philosophers wittily and expertly uncover amazing philosophical insights from the endlessly fascinating TV show, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Greg Littmann shows how the values of the gang are the same as those of Homeric heroes. Christopher Ketcham argues that the Church should make Charlie a saint, partly because It's Always Sunny is "all about free will." Russ Hamer shows how closely the gang's activities comply with the scientific method. Kyle Alkema and Adam Barkman analyze the way the gang perceives happiness and how they try to get it. Charlotte Knowles considers whether Heidegger would consider members of the gang authentic or inauthentic -- and concludes that they're a bit of both. Skyler King examines the morality of the gang's behavior by the standard of how they respond to extreme suffering. Ethan Chambers agrees that each of the five central characters is a terrible person, but argues that they are not truly to blame for their actions. Fenner Tanswell demonstrates that many of the gang's wrong actions result not from immoral motives but from illogical thinking. And Robert Arp compiles a hilarious list of historical examples where people acted even more foolishly than the Philadelphia Five.

In 1933 the crime writer Erle Stanley Gardner, himself a practicing lawyer, unleashed the character Perry Mason in the novel The Case of the Velvet Claws. Perry Mason entered into public consciousness as a new conception of the role of the defense lawyer, so that millions of Americans came to expect every criminal trial to have its "Perry Mason moment." In the 1950s the Perry Mason TV show had a phenomenal success, and Mason came to be identified with Raymond Burr. Now Perry Mason has again been restored to life in the HBO series starring Matthew Rhys and John Lithgow. Meanwhile, the eighty-two original Erle Stanley Gardner novels continue to sell thousands of copies each week. Perry Mason gave America a new conception of the trial lawyer, as someone who was always loyal to his client and always prepared to use dirty tricks such as misdirection and withholding of evidence to protect the innocent and secure the ends of Justice. The Mason of the novels is less scrupulous than the Raymond Burr Mason, and would sometimes be in danger of going to jail if the trial didn't turn out right-which it always did, largely because of Mason's cleverness. The Perry Mason icon raises many philosophical issues explored by seventeen different philosophers in this book, including: Can we defend Paul Drake's claim (The Case of the Blonde Bonanza) that Mason is "a paragon of righteous virtue" despite his predilection for skating on thin legal ice? Can complex murder cases be solved by facts alone-or do we also need empathy? The most convincing way to give a TV episode a surprise ending is by the guilty person suddenly confessing. But in reality, is a confession necessarily so convincing? Does Perry Mason represent the Messiah? How does the Raymond Burr Perry Mason compare with the more recent TV character Saul Goodman (Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul)? Is it morally okay to mislead the police if this helps your client and your client is innocent? How does Perry Mason help us understand the distinction between natural law and positive law? Do the Perry Mason stories comply with Aristotle's recipe for a good work of fiction? Does life imitate art, when Perry Mason is cited in real-life courtroom arguments? How much trickery can be justified by loyalty to one's client? Can evidence in murder trials be evaluated by probability theory? Perry Mason is officially a lawyer and unofficially a detective. But isn't he really a historian and a psychgoanalayst? Della Street is a competent legal secretary, but is she something more? Mason often says that "Eye-witness testimony is the worst kind of evidence" and occasionally that "Circumstantial evidence is the best evidence we have." Can these claims be defended?

In "The Devil and Philosophy," 34 philosophers explore questions about one of the most recognizable and influential characters (villains?) of all time. From Roman Polanski's "The Ninth Gate" to J. R. R. Tolkien's "The Silmarillion" to Bram Stoker's "Dracula" to Darth Vader to Al Pacino's iconic performance in "The Devil's Advocate," this book demonstrates that a little devil goes a long way. From humorous appearances, as in Kevin Smith's film "Dogma" and Chuck Palahniuk's novels "Damned" and "Doomed," to more villainous appearances, such as Gabriel Byrne's cold outing as Satan in "End of Days," "The Devil in Philosophy" proves that the Devil comes in many forms.
Are there any good arguments for the actual existence of the Devil? Does demonic evil thrive in Gotham City? Can humans really be accountable for all evil? Which truths about the Devil are actual facts? Is Milton correct, in that the Devil believes he is doing good? Through the lenses of Jung, Kant, Kundera, Balkan, Plato, Bradwardine, Aristotle, Hume, Blackburn, Descartes, Lavey, Thoreau, and Aquinas, "The Devil and Philosophy" takes a philosophical look at one of time's greatest characters.

I'm getting something, says Shawn, assuming a look of intense concentration and pressing his fingertips to the sides of his head. Shawn Spencer uses lies, pretense, and distraction to get at the truth. But can pseudoscience and fakery really be so helpful? And if they can be, is it ethical to employ them?
Psych and Philosophy takes an entertaining tour through the philosophical issues raised by a fake psychic. Can faulty logic get to the truth quicker than good logic? Are other people to blame for Shawn's deceptions, because they're more ready to credit him with supernatural powers than with superior natural powers? Is instinct more important than smart thinking--in police work and in life? Is it ethical to tell lies to promote the truth (and protect the public from criminals)?
Almost every episode of Psych revolves around a grisly death, treated humorously by the repartee between Shawn and Gus. The show has much to tell us about human ways of coping with death, as well as about the problem of justified knowledge, the ethics of law enforcement, and the interaction of love, friendship, loyalty, and professionalism.

This volume considers the numerous philosophical ideas and arguments found in and inspired by the critically acclaimed series Breaking Bad. This show garnered both critical and popular attention for its portrayal of a cancer-stricken, middle-aged, middle-class, high school chemistry teacher's drift into the dark world of selling methamphetamine to support his family. Its characters, situations, and aesthetic raise serious and familiar philosophical issues, especially related to ethics and morality. The show provokes a bevy of rich questions and discussion points, such as: What are the ethical issues surrounding drugs? What lessons about existentialism and fatalism does the show present? How does the show grapple with the concept of the end 'justifying' the means? Is Walt really free not to 'break bad'? Can he be redeemed? What is the definition and nature of badness (or evil) itself? Contributors address these and other questions as they dissect the legacy of the show and discuss its contributions to philosophical conversations.

In Avengers Infinity Saga and Philosophy, philosophers explore the momentous issues and the fascinating puzzles raised by Marvel's compelling series of movies: Is the Thanos snap truly an answer to overpopulation and famine, or is it simply indefensible mass murder on a cosmic scale? Are the Avengers who try to stop Thanos dishing out justice or merely fighting a man who is himself just? Captain America or Tony Stark-which leader holds the key to a civilized society? Dr. Strange claims to sees 14,000,605 possible futures, in one of which Thanos is defeated. What does this tell us about the true nature of reality? Sometimes your best just isn't enough. How can we cope with inevitability? How can the Soul Stone and the Binding of Isaac by Abraham help us understand the Infinity War saga? Is Thanos a utilitarian? And if so, is his utilitarian calculus logically sound? Would it be possible for a group like the Avengers to amass enormous power to fight for humankind, without themselves becoming a corrupt ruling class? Can the past Nebula shooting the future Nebula cause her to cease to exist? Can you change the future by communicating with yourself or your family in the past? Can Thanos be seen as the epitome of non-self-serving behavior, or is Thanos masking his own egoism with the lie that his altruistic mission is to bring the universe into balance? Does Thanos show us the danger of living by an absolute moral compass, which allows us to see only what we believe to be "the right" with no variations or nuances?

In contradistinction to the many monographs and edited volumes devoted to historical, cultural, or theological treatments of demonology, this collection features newly written papers by philosophers and other scholars engaged specifically in philosophical argument, debate, and dialogue involving ideas and topics in demonology. The contributors to the volume approach the subject from the perspective of the broadest areas of Western philosophy, namely metaphysics, epistemology, logic, and moral philosophy. The collection also features a plurality of religious, cultural, and theological views on the nature of demons from both Eastern and Western thought, in addition to views that may diverge from these traditional roots. Philosophical Approaches to Demonology will be of interest to philosophers of religion, theologians, and scholars working in philosophical theology and demonology, as well as historians, cultural anthropologists, and sociologists interested more broadly in the concept of demons.

From his cult classic television series Twin Peaks to his most recent film Inland Empire (2006), David Lynch is best known for his unorthodox narrative style. An award-winning director, producer, and writer, Lynch distorts and disrupts traditional storylines and offers viewers a surreal, often nightmarish perspective. His unique approach to filmmaking has made his work familiar to critics and audiences worldwide, and he earned Academy Award nominations for Best Director for The Elephant Man (1980), Blue Velvet (1986), and Mulholland Drive (2001). Lynch creates a new reality for both characters and audience by focusing on the individual and embracing existentialism. In The Philosophy of David Lynch, editors William J. Devlin and Shai Biderman have compiled an impressive list of contributors to explore the philosophy at the core of the filmmaker's work. Lynch is examined as a postmodern artist, and the themes of darkness, logic, and time are discussed in depth. Other prominent issues in Lynch's films, such as Bad faith and freedom, ethics, politics, and religion, are also considered. Investigating myriad aspects of Lynch's influential and innovative work, The Philosophy of David Lynch provides a fascinating look at the philosophical underpinnings of the famous cult director.

The Americans has received numerous critical accolades and won twelve major awards, including: TV Critics Associated Awards, every season placed in the Top Ten TV shows; Critics Choice TV awards, Best Drama Series for 2015; Peabody Award, 2015; Satellite Awards, Best Actress in a TV series Drama, 2014; Television Critics Association, Outstanding Achievement in Drama, 2015 and 2016. The “new Cold War,” along with new fears about Russian espionage, has revived interest in the original Cold War and Russian spies of that time. FX has announced the renewal of The Americans for a concluding two seasons, with the sixth season in 2018 covering the collapse and dissolution of the Soviet Union, and how this affected Soviet spies in the US.

In The Good Wife and Philosophy, fifteen philosophers look at the deeper issues raised by this stirring TV drama.
The Good Wife gives us courtroom battles in the tradition of Perry Mason, with the added dimension of a political intrigue and a tormented personal story. We witness the interplay between common morality and legal correctness; sometimes following one violates the other. Lawyers operate within the law and within legal ethics, yet routinely do harmful things in pursuit of their clients' interests. The adversarial system leads to such strategies as stringing out a case to exhaust the other side's resources and bringing suits ostensibly because of wrongdoing by defendants but really to curtail the defendants as a competitive threat to some important client's interest.
The idea for The Good Wife came from the recurring news drama of wives standing by their husbands when scandal breaks: the wives of Bill Clinton, Elliott Spitzer, and John Edwards. Often these politicians' spouses are themselves lawyers who have had to cope with the gray areas of legal battles and maneuvering. Following her husband's disgrace and imprisonment, Alicia Florrick has to return to the law, which she abandoned for the sake of being a full-time wife and mother.

‘You shouldn’t drink too much. The Earth is round. Milk is good for your bones.’ Are any of these claims true? How can you tell? Can you ever be certain you are right? For anyone tackling philosophical logic for the first time, here is a practical guide to the skills required to think critically. From the basics of good reasoning to the difference between claims, evidence and arguments, Jamie Carlin Watson, Robert Arp and Skyler King cover the topics found in an introductory course. Now revised and fully updated, this 3rd edition gives you the chance to develop critical thinking skills that can be used in and out of the classroom. Two new chapters on reasoning in the age of conspiracy theories and fake news demonstrate how to apply reason and avoid being dissuaded by the persuasive power of evidence-free emoting. Features include a glossary, chapter goals, more student-friendly exercises, study questions, diagrams, and suggestions for further reading. Chapter topics, organised around real-life examples such as predicting the weather, a murder mystery and the Ouija board, cover: - the structure, formation, analysis and recognition of arguments - deductive validity and soundness - inductive strength and cogency - inference to the best explanation - truth tables - tools for argument assessment - informal and formal fallacies This entertaining and easy-to-follow introduction is a complete beginner’s tool set to good reasoning, analyzing and arguing.

WikiLeaks is famous-or infamous-for publishing secret material, including classified government documents, confidential videos and emails, and information leaked by whistleblowers, some of them anonymous, others revealing their identities. WikiLeaks claims to have compiled a database of more than ten million "forbidden" documents. Its founder and leader, Australian activist Julian Assange proclaims that the public is entitled to the truth and that "information wants to be free." WikiLeaks activities have polarized opinion, with some claiming its operations are traitorous and harmful, and others defending its releases as necessary exposure of wrongdoing. In WikiLeaking: The Ethics of Secrecy and Exposure, professional philosophers with diverse opinions and backgrounds deliver their provocative insights into WikiLeaks. If leaking secrets sometimes causes harm, can this harm be outweighed by the benefit of more people knowing the truth? How much of WikiLeaks information is true, and does it matter that some of it might be erroneous or misleading through lack of context? Is the prevalence of leaking an automatic outcome of the value of free expression, as enshrined in the First Amendment? If it's wrong to lie, does this imply that it's always right to speak the truth? Does selective media bias require to be countered by unpredictable leaking? Can there be too much information? And if so, how can citizens protect themselves against information overload? WikiLeaks activists are guided by a code of ethics. How does this compare with the professional ethics of conventional journalists? When French politician Emmanuel Macron included deliberate falsehoods in his emails, knowing they would be leaked, he showed the relation between leaking and "bullshit," as defined by Harry Frankfurt. Can we expect the prevalence of leaking to increase the volume of bullshit? The existence of government necessitates the practice of subterfuge and double-dealing by statesmen, but the culture of democracy calls for transparency. How can we fix the boundary between necessary deception and the public's "right to know"? Leaking exposes what some powerful person wants to be kept secret. Is leaking always justified whenever that person wants to keep their own immoral actions secret, and is leaking not justified when the keeper of secrets has done nothing wrong?

In The X-Files and Philosophy, thirty-six fearless philosophers seek for the truth which is out there, in here, at least somewhere, or (as the postmodernists claim) nowhere. One big issue is whether the weird and unexplained happenings, including the existence of entities unknown to traditional science, might really exist. And if they did, what would be the proper way to behave towards them? Some of these entities seem to flout conventional laws of nature—but perhaps we need to allow for different, as yet undiscovered, laws. If such fabulous entities really exist, what do we owe them? And if they don’t exist, why do we imagine they do? In The X-Files, regular science is represented by Scully and usually turns out to be wrong, while open-minded credulity or pseudoscience is represented by Mulder and usually turns out to be right, or at least somehow on the right track. Scully demands objective, repeatable evidence, and she usually gets it, with Mulder’s help, in astounding and unwelcome ways. What lessons should we take from the finding of The X-Files that respectable science is nearly always wrong and outrageous speculative imagination nearly always right?

In Downton Abbey and Philosophy, twenty-two professional thinkers uncover the deeper significance of this hugely popular TV saga. Millions of viewers throughout the world have been enthralled by this enactment of a vanished world of decorum and propriety, because it presents us with emotional and interpersonal problems that remain urgent for people in the twenty-first century. Why do we attach such importance to our memories and to particular places? What do war and epidemics tell us about life in peacetime and in good health? Is it healthy or harmful for people to feel that they know their place? What does Downton Abbey teach us about the changes in women's roles since 1912? Do good manners always agree with good morals? How can everybody know what no one will talk about? What's the justification for a class of people who pride themselves on not having a job? Should we sometimes just accept the reality of social barriers to love, and abandon the pursuit? What happens when community reinforces oppression? All of these and many other issues are discussed through a detailed examination of the actual characters and situations in Downton Abbey.

In "Homeland and Philosophy," 23 philosophers tackle the issues that Showtime's award-winning show "Homeland" asks us to consider. The drama, which centers on Marine Sergeant Nicholas Brody's release from an al-Qaeda prison, and CIA Agent Carrie Mathison's distrust of his intentions, asks questions of identity, what it means to be a terrorist, the conditions and effects of brainwashing, lying for the greater good, and whether or not courage is a virtue.
But these questions are only a few among many that are explored in the obscure, paranoid world of "Homeland." Through the lenses of Rawls, Kant, Arendt, Foucault, Heidegger, Sartre, and Kierkegaard, among others, "Homeland and Philosophy" considers the ethics of drone warfare; whether or not Carrie Mathison's personality changes and psychological disorder make her an interesting character study in the metaphysics of personhood; at what point privacy is only an illusion; and concepts of torture, punishment, and discipline.

The sharp-shooting authors in "Justified and Philosophy" take aim at many of the same philosophical problems that the "Justified" TV series grapples with. For instance, is Tim Olyphant's character, Deputy U.S. Marshal Raylan Givens, morally justified in using his Wild-Wild-West-style vigilante tactics to clean up Harlan County, Kentucky? After all, the meth dealers, thieves, murderers, and other low-life scumbags all deserve what's coming to them, right? Not so fast, Quick-Draw McGraw What about the law? What about a thorough and complete investigation of matters before dispensing so-called "justice"? What about the idea of the punishment fitting the crime?
Deputy Marshal Givens wears a white hat and fights the "bad guys" so he must be a "good guy," right? His opponents are violent drug dealers, white supremacists, and thieves. Givens carries a badge, but when he shoots or kills people, is it always justified? What other choice does he have? Would any other method be as effective in rural eastern Kentucky where criminal activity is one of the few viable options for making a living?
The coal-mining culture of Harlan County, Kentucky is an important backdrop to "Justified," and the issues surrounding the coal industry are addressed in some chapters. Some of them include health problems like black lung, the dissolution of communities, the reduction in employment alternatives, the destruction of the environment with mountain-top removal and fracking, and the increase in crime and poverty. If Boyd Crowder robs the coal company responsible for exploiting his community, is that justified?
The relationship between Boyd and Raylan dates back to a childhood friendship. Then when they older, they worked in the mines together. One chapter explores the character and motivation of both men and argues that each follows a different moral compass. Another chapter discusses the importance of family to the character of Mags Bennett and how that guides her actions and sense of duty. Another topic of discussion is whether the end justifies the means when Boyd and his gang destroy a meth lab and end up killing one of the meth cookers.
Other chapters delve into a variety of fascinating philosophical themes that emerge in this modern-day cowboy show.