I live a good life? How should we govern ourselves? What is the meaning of life? So how do philosophers seek answers to these questions? Are there really answers? Or is whatever anyone thinks just “true for them” because they have a “right to their opinion?” What role does philosophy play in society? And what attitude does philosophy require?
In Chapter 1, William Young argues that philosophy and the TV show South Park share some common aims. Like the philosopher Socrates (469‐399 BCE), South Park is charged with corrupting the youth, inappropriately challenging moral norms, and being a social nuisance. But the accusations are unfounded for both Socrates and South Park. The accusers are actually the corruptors; for example, parents corrupt the youth when they leave their kids to be raised by television without educating them about what they are seeing. Thankfully South Park, like Socrates, teaches us to draw our own conclusions–not merely accept the consensus of the crowd–and to reach those conclusions by considering the perspectives of others. Clearly, Young argues, South Park is not mindless and harmful; the show, like philosophy, is a gadfly, “an annoying pest that goes around ‘stinging people’ with…challenging questions and critical reflections so as to keep them intellectually awake and on their toes.”
Philosophers’ appetite for truth is insatiable, but they do not always agree. To solve their disputes they use logic. In Chapter 2, Robert Arp takes examples from South Park to teach some of the basics of logic including the structure of arguments, the differences between good and bad arguments, and the distinction between inductive and deductive arguments. The lesson concludes with common logical fallacies, illustrated by South Park for comedic effect. In one classic episode, for example, the cartoon version of Johnnie Cochran commits the red‐herring fallacy by suggesting that Chef must not have written the Alanis Morissette song “Stinky Britches” because Chewbacca spent most of his time on Endor: “If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit.”
South Park is not the only show that plays philosopher. Late night talk show hosts can be gadflies as too. In Chapter 3, David Kyle Johnson uses Stephen Colbert to teach us about the philosophical attitude. Relativism (what Colbert calls “wikiality”) and intuitionism (What Colbert calls “truthiness”) are contrary to the endeavor of philosophy. More importantly, Johnson enlists Colbert to dispel a myth that holds back almost every philosophy course–the myth that everyone has a right to their opinion on every subject. Attempts to end philosophical discussion with appeals to “a right to my opinion” only reveal a disregard for truth and a desire to protect entrenched beliefs. Real philosophers must be willing to give up disproven beliefs and embrace the truth.
1 Flatulence and Philosophy: A Lot of Hot Air, or the Corruption of Youth?
William W. Young III
Summary
Though Trey Parker and Matt Stone haven't been killed for it (they did receive death threats after their 200th episode) the creators of South Park have faced accusations much like those that led to Socrates's execution: the corruption of youth and the teaching of vulgar, irreligious behavior. A closer examination, however, reveals that South Park is very much within the Platonic tradition, as Kyle and Stan engage in questioning and dialogue in order to “learn something today.” Moreover, the mob mentality of the parents, along with the malicious yet mimetic evil of Cartman, demonstrates how evil emerges from thoughtlessness: a failure to ask if one can live with oneself, and a failure to out oneself in the place of others. Through its different characters, and even its apparently mindless vulgarity, South Park shows the need for engaging in dialogue and thinking from others' perspectives, in order to pursue wisdom, examine life, and make it worth living.
The “Danger” of South Park
In the episode “Death” Kyle's mother leads a boycott of the boys' favorite cartoon show – Terrance and Phillip – because of its continuous farting, name‐calling, and general “potty humor.” While the parents are up in arms over this “moral” issue, the boys wrestle with the problem of euthanasia for Stan's grandfather, something none of the parents will discuss with them. “Death” brings together many of the central issues that have made South Park successful and controversial – vulgarity, the misplaced moral concerns of American culture, the discussion of controversial moral topics, and the criticism that South Park itself is a “disgusting” show. Since “Death” the criticism of the show has only grown – getting even bigger than Cartman's fat ass – drawing fire for its obscene language, criticisms of religion, and emphasis upon freedom of speech.1
Like the parents protesting Terrance and Philip, critics of South Park make claims that are strikingly similar to those that have been leveled against Western philosophy since its beginnings. It mocks religious beliefs, leads younger folks to question accepted authority and values, and corrupts our children and culture. The “it” in the previous sentence refers to South Park, but in fact, the same criticisms formed the basis for Socrates's (470–399 BCE) trial and execution in Athens, Greece in 399 BCE.2 So, in this chapter we'll explore the heretical possibility that people perceive South Park as dangerous precisely because it is a form of philosophy. The “danger” that South Park poses has to do with its depiction of dialogue and free thinking. In the end we will have learned something: Like Socrates, South Park harms no one. Philosophy and South Park actually instruct people and provide them with the intellectual tools they need to become wise, free, and good.
Oh My God! They Killed Socrates! You Bastards!
In Plato's (428–348 BCE) Apology, Socrates defends himself against two charges: (i) impiety (false teachings about the gods, possibly that they don't exist) and (ii) corrupting the youth of Athens. In reality, Socrates probably had as much chance of winning his case as Chef did against Johnny Cochran's “Chewbacca” defense! What is most important about Socrates's defense, however, is not so much what he says as how he says it. He defends himself by questioning his accuser, Meletus, leading him through a process of reasoning. For example, Socrates refutes the charge of corrupting the youth as follows:
Socrates: You say you have discovered the one who corrupts them, namely me, and you bring me here and accuse me to the jury…All the Athenians, it seems, make the young into fine good men, except me, and I alone corrupt them. Is that what you mean? Meletus: That is most definitely what I mean. Socrates: You condemn me to a great misfortune. Tell me: does this also apply to horses do you think? That all men improve them and one individual corrupts them? Or is quite the contrary true, one individual is able to improve them, or very few, namely the horse breeders, whereas the majority, if they have horses and use them, corrupt them? Is that not the case, Meletus, both with horses and all other animals? … It would be a happy state of affairs if only one person corrupted our youth, while the others improved them. You have made it sufficiently obvious, Meletus, that you have never had any concern for our youth; you show your indifference clearly; that you have given no thought to the subjects about which you bring me to trial.3
Through the analogy with horse training, Socrates shows how illogical the accusations against him really are. Just as a majority of people would injure horses by training them, and only a few good trainers improve them, so too it is likely that a few teachers improve the virtue of the youth, while many others corrupt them. Socrates argues, further, that
