South Park and Philosophy

按有用程度 按页码先后 最新笔记

• 

  第134页

  恭贺新禧totoro (装睡的人，是叫不醒的。。。)

  The First Amendment protects speech, but not absolutely. Despite its plain guarantee of “freedom of speech,” courts, legislatures, and custom have long prohibited certain forms of speech. Notably, and of no comfort to Parker and Stone, obscenity is not protected, and local communities set the standards for obscenity. Besides obscenity, blasphemy itself was punished for some time. In the United S... (更多)

  The First Amendment protects speech, but not absolutely. Despite its plain guarantee of “freedom of speech,” courts, legislatures, and custom have long prohibited certain forms of speech. Notably, and of no comfort to Parker and Stone, obscenity is not protected, and local communities set the standards for obscenity. Besides obscenity, blasphemy itself was punished for some time. In the United States, a contract for leasing rooms as a forum for lectures concerning the potential truth of Christ’s teachings was held to be illegal as late as 1867. (收起)

  2011-08-08 11:53:22   回应

  收藏

  推荐
• 

  第125页

  恭贺新禧totoro (装睡的人，是叫不醒的。。。)

  The philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) argued that political authority comes from the consent of the people. Clearly, the vote is one of the primary avenues by which that consent is granted. When Stan refuses to vote for one of the two new school mascots, one could very easily argue that, in essence, he is rejecting the “authorita” of both of the candidates to represent him. Although Stan might... (更多)

  The philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) argued that political authority comes from the consent of the people. Clearly, the vote is one of the primary avenues by which that consent is granted. When Stan refuses to vote for one of the two new school mascots, one could very easily argue that, in essence, he is rejecting the “authorita” of both of the candidates to represent him. Although Stan might be alone in his protest of the process in South Park, he is joined by nearly half of all eligible Americans in every Presidential election – and by nearly two-thirds during midterm elections. (收起)

  2011-08-08 11:50:16   回应

  收藏

  推荐
• 

  第119页

  恭贺新禧totoro (装睡的人，是叫不醒的。。。)

  Rereading the Bill today, it’s easy to discern a Popper-like conviction that free and unfettered inquiry is the only satisfactory method for gaining knowledge, whether regarding important matters of science, politics, religion, or anything else. “Truth,” Jefferson writes, “is great and will prevail if left to herself; she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fe... (更多)

  Rereading the Bill today, it’s easy to discern a Popper-like conviction that free and unfettered inquiry is the only satisfactory method for gaining knowledge, whether regarding important matters of science, politics, religion, or anything else. “Truth,” Jefferson writes, “is great and will prevail if left to herself; she is the proper and sufficient

  antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate.” Moreover, Jefferson continues, “errors cease to be dangerous when it is freely permitted to contradict them.” There is even something of a divine justification for free inquiry here, as when Jefferson proclaims in his preamble that “God hath created the mind free.” Jefferson concludes the Bill with the bold universal declaration that “the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind.” (收起)

  2011-08-08 11:46:53   回应

  收藏

  推荐

• 

  第67页

  恭贺新禧totoro (装睡的人，是叫不醒的。。。)

  A man named John Austin is going to help us answer these questions. A nineteenth-century legal scholar, Austin described a theory of law that came to be known as the command theory of law, because he saw law as consisting of commands backed by threats. The government tells us not to make love to chickens, so if we decide to make love to a chicken anyway, we are punished (hopefully by being someon... (更多)

  A man named John Austin is going to help us answer these questions. A nineteenth-century legal scholar, Austin described a theory of law that came to be known as the command theory of law, because he saw law as consisting of commands backed by threats. The government tells us not to make love to chickens, so if we decide to make love to a chicken anyway, we are punished (hopefully by being someone else’s “chicken” in the big house!). Each command backed by threat of a sanction is a law, and the entire body of such commands is “the law” – there is no sense of law as a system in Austin’s writings. (收起)

  2011-08-08 11:07:40   回应

  收藏

  推荐
• 

  第68页

  恭贺新禧totoro (装睡的人，是叫不醒的。。。)

  Of course, Austin recognized that the law does not consist of just anybody’s commands, even if backed by effective threats, but must be issued by someone in authority. Austin called this person the sovereign. The word itself doesn’t answer much – can Cartman just declare himself the sovereign (if someone tells him what it means)? If he can’t, someone would have to make him the sovereign, and w... (更多)

  Of course, Austin recognized that the law does not consist of just anybody’s commands, even if backed by effective threats, but must be issued by someone in authority. Austin called this person the sovereign. The word itself doesn’t answer much – can Cartman just declare himself the sovereign (if someone tells him what it means)? If he can’t, someone would have to make him the sovereign, and who could do that but – the sovereign? But who made that person the sovereign? (收起)

  2011-08-08 11:09:34   回应

  收藏

  推荐
• 

  第69页

  恭贺新禧totoro (装睡的人，是叫不醒的。。。)

  That’s how Austin gets into trouble again. His idea of the sovereign was better suited for the days of kings and queens, when these privileged individuals reigned over their subjects, imposing their commands but obeying no one else’s. But this idea doesn’t translate very well to modern democracies. Who is the sovereign, for instance, in the United States – the President? Congress? the Supreme ... (更多)

  That’s how Austin gets into trouble again. His idea of the sovereign was better suited for the days of kings and queens, when these privileged individuals reigned over their subjects, imposing their commands but obeying no one else’s. But this idea doesn’t translate very well to modern democracies. Who is the sovereign, for instance, in the United States – the President? Congress? the Supreme Court? (Use the British parliament and prime minister if you like, guv’na.) OK, maybe the separation of powers confuses the issue, so let’s just say “the federal government.” But the members of the federal government are – in theory, anyway – subject to their own laws, and Austin’s sovereign is subject to no one, not even himself. And who elects these folks – we, the people. So are we the sovereign? It’s enough to make your head spin like Moses at Jewbilee! (收起)

  2011-08-08 11:11:07   回应

  收藏

  推荐

• 

  第101页

  恭贺新禧totoro (装睡的人，是叫不醒的。。。)

  But just as the episode seems to be simply taking the side of those who condemn the Boy Scouts for homophobia, it swerves in an unexpected direction. Big Gay Al himself defends the right of the Boy Scouts to exclude homosexuals on the principle of freedom of association. An organization should be able to set up its own rules and the law should not be able to impose society’s notions of political ... (更多)

  But just as the episode seems to be simply taking the side of those who condemn the Boy Scouts for homophobia, it swerves in an unexpected direction. Big Gay Al himself defends the right of the Boy Scouts to exclude homosexuals on the principle of freedom of association. An organization should be able to set up its own rules and the law should not be able to impose society’s notions of political correctness on a private group. This episode represents South Park at its best – looking at a complicated issue from both sides and coming up with a judicious resolution of the issue. And the principle on which the issue is resolved is freedom. As the episode shows, Big Gay Al should be free to be homosexual, but the Boy Scouts should also be free as an organization to make their own rules and exclude him from a leadership post if they want to.

  Nothing could be more calculated to make South Park offensive to the politically correct than this libertarianism, for if applied consistently it would dismantle the whole apparatus of speech control and thought manipulation that do-gooders have tried to construct to protect their favored minorities. Libertarianism is a philosophy of radical freedom, and particularly celebrates the free market as a form of social organization. (收起)

  2011-08-08 11:28:48   回应

  收藏

  推荐
• 

  第100页

  恭贺新禧totoro (装睡的人，是叫不醒的。。。)

  The genius of Parker and Stone was to see that in our day a new frontier of comic transgression has opened up because of the phenomenon known as political correctness. Our age may have tried to dispense with the conventional pieties of earlier generations, but it has developed new pieties of its own. They may not look like the traditional pieties, but they are enforced in the same old way, with so... (更多)

  The genius of Parker and Stone was to see that in our day a new frontier of comic transgression has opened up because of the phenomenon known as political correctness. Our age may have tried to dispense with the conventional pieties of earlier generations, but it has developed new pieties of its own. They may not look like the traditional pieties, but they are enforced in the same old way, with social pressures and sometimes even legal sanctions punishing people who dare to violate the new taboos. (收起)

  2011-08-08 11:26:05   回应

  收藏

  推荐
• 

  第98页

  恭贺新禧totoro (装睡的人，是叫不醒的。。。)

  But if one is patient with South Park, and gives the show the benefit of the doubt, it turns out to be genuinely thought provoking, taking up one serious issue after another, from environmentalism and animal rights to assisted suicide and sexual harassment. And, as we shall see, the show approaches all these issues from a distinct philosophical position, what is known as libertarianism, the philos... (更多)

  But if one is patient with South Park, and gives the show the benefit of the doubt, it turns out to be genuinely thought provoking, taking up one serious issue after another, from environmentalism and animal rights to assisted suicide and sexual harassment. And, as we shall see, the show approaches all these issues from a distinct philosophical position, what is known as libertarianism, the philosophy of freedom. I know of no television program that has so consistently pursued a philosophical agenda, week after week, season after season. If anything, the show can become too didactic, with episodes often culminating in a character delivering a speech that offers a surprisingly balanced and nuanced account of the issue at hand (收起)

  2011-08-08 11:25:23   回应

  收藏

  推荐