The Big Bang Theory and Philosophy by Dean A. Kowalski

The Big Bang Theory and Philosophy Reviews

• 
  Nikki

  I love TBBT -it's one of my favorite shows- so I bought this rather mindlessly, not really looking at what this book is actually about. Turns out it's about a wide range of philosophical issues that are discussed by using characters and situations of TBBT. In itself this sounds like a pretty good idea, but the execution just wasn't great. First of all, did anyone actually edit this? Because the different articles aren't in sync at all. The birth and death dates of Aristotle were mentioned like 5 times, the first 3 times in the first 3 articles. I mean, seriously? Another example: in several articles they first say 'Rajesh' and then shorten it to 'Raj' for the rest of the article. Surely this needs to be done only once? Also, certain quotes were used ad nauseam. There's 5 seasons to choose from, the pickings can't be that slim. I know these comments aren't about the essence of the book, but this just annoyed me to no end. It made me feel like I was reading something that had just been hastily slapped together. As far as the articles themselves go, there were some really interesting ones, but the majority were just not engaging. I'd say the first articles are the best, after that the quality goes steadily downhill. (Just taking a look at the notes makes this very clear).
• 
  Amy

  The non-quitter in my head is tempted to finish but at some point, you just need to admit when something bores you. Despite a wealth of material to choose from, The Big Bang Theory and Philosophy scrapes the surface of philosophy and the show. Easy reading I guess, but not entertaining or academic enough to keep me focused.
• 
  Nicole

  In großen Teilen eine wortwörtliche Nacherzählung der Serie. Neues gibt es hier kaum. Wer in Nostalgie schwelgen will und ein paar Gedanken des Autors zu den einzelnen Episoden lesen will ist hier richtig
• 
  Kristina

  The Big Bang Theory and Philosophy: Rock, Paper, Scissors, Aristotle, Locke is somewhat amusing and interesting only if you are a fan of the show. If you are a student of philosophy or thinking of dipping your toes into philosophy (but are not a fan of BBT) then I recommend you do not read this book. I’m mildly interested in philosophy, but am no expert so I can’t (and won’t) write critically about whether I think the philosophical theories of Aristotle, Locke, et al were applied properly. However, as an obsessed fan of BBT, I can judge the essays as how the content related to the characters and I have to give most of them a D. Many of the essays are extremely frustrating as the authors (even if they profess to be fans) have only a passing familiarity with the characters. If you are going to write an essay about the characters, you should know the show very well and have seen the episodes more than once. At the very least, you should quote lines from the show accurately and not misspell the actors’ names (Kaley Cuoco’s name is spelled Kayley in the footnotes for the “Penny, Sheldon, and Personal Growth” essay) (and yes, I read the footnotes).
  
  What I found quite common with many of the essays is that the authors had a topic or a point they were trying to prove and they often quoted characters out of context or cited one specific action of the character to force this philosophical point irregardless of the fact that it doesn’t work logically. The writers often provided examples to support their theses from only two or three episodes (out of the four seasons they had available at the time the essays were written), and usually the same ones. The "philosophical" theories the authors applied were often negative: Sheldon is not capable of friendships or that the guys are complete dorks incapable of any kind of social activities. The authors neglected repeatedly to show the many positive examples that disprove the philosophical points they wanted to make. Most of the essays are extreme generalizations and I got very angry reading many of them—I have cranky notes written in the margins of many of the pages. There are at least five of them I found to be particularly egregious and I intend to write a lengthy letter to the editor (Dean Kowalski) who oversaw this sophomore effort.
  
  Many of the essays had a somewhat snotty tone and they managed to make philosophy boring. If this is an example of how all the books in the “…and Philosophy” series are written, I probably won’t read another one (well, okay, I may have to read the Battlestar Galactica and Lost books). Just because the authors have seen the show and claim to like it doesn’t mean they understand the characters or are qualified to write essays about them. What outraged me the most about several of the essays is they continually portrayed geeks/nerds as abnormal: “geek/nerd” culture is not acceptable and the kinds of activities/forms of socializing they participate in aren’t “normal” or can’t be considered as the right kind of socializing because it involves intellectual/geek-friendly activities. We all have our activities we are comfortable doing and find pleasurable. Just because Sheldon and his group of friends socialize by playing intellectually-motivated games or ponder scientific questions or like comic books and fantasy games doesn't make their socializing any less “normal” than people who like to go to bars and drink and listen to bands. Unfortunately, this faulty premise is the basis for most of the essays in this book. Because Sheldon is the most obviously socially-challenged character, there is a whole essay (“Feeling Bad About Feeling Good: Is It Morally Wrong to Laugh At Sheldon?”) which puts forth the theory that Sheldon is autistic and this author (who did not establish any professional credentials that qualify him to make this diagnosis—yes, he’s a fictional character but damn, this pisses me off) uses the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders used by licensed psychiatrists and psychologists) to list the symptoms of Asperger’s syndrome. Then he (of course) cites examples from episodes that prove his diagnosis. The author concludes quite smugly that yes, Sheldon does have Asperger’s but that’s okay because Sheldon makes it work for him and is successful because of it. It’s okay for us to laugh at him, the author concludes, because it’s okay to laugh at smart people. I hated this essay. I despise the premise that just because a person is highly intelligent, enjoys intellectual pursuits, can’t be bothered with meaningless small talk, doesn't see any logic to Christmas and gift-giving, and doesn’t like to hang out at bars obviously has some kind of mental disorder and should be diagnosed and cataloged. This type of reasoning is extremely offensive. I’m offended not just for Sheldon, but for myself. I am an intelligent person (no where near Sheldon-level intelligence but intellectual) and I identify with Sheldon’s distaste for idiotic small talk, hanging out at bars, and Christmas with its obligatory gift-giving. That doesn’t mean I should be diagnosed in the DSM. The whole message of this book is that the BBT guys (and sometimes Amy and Bernadette) are social morons because their primary social activities involve intellectual or geeky/nerdy games. I see nothing wrong with this. They, like other people, have friends. They socialize with their group of friends frequently. They do go out to restaurants and bars. They just aren’t as comfortable in those places as they are in a lab building killer robots or playing the Mystic Warlords of Ka’a fantasy card game. None of the characters (including Sheldon, who, despite his frequent comments about not understanding and being repulsed by relationships, is often with his friends) are creepy, Unabomber-type loners. They enjoy the company of people. Are they particular about who they want to spend time with and talk to? Yes, they are, but who isn’t? I don’t want to spend a lot to time listening to someone yammer on and on to me about a tv show I think is stupid or an activity I’m not interested in—or, to show a bit of Sheldon arrogance, talk to someone I consider uninteresting or not very intelligent. I’m with Sheldon on this—I’ll be polite, but I don’t want to talk to you. I've better things to do.
  
  The worst essays: “Aristotle on Sheldon Cooper” (One), “You’re a Sucky, Sucky Friend” (Two), “The Big Bang Theory and the Use and Abuse of Modern Technology” (Three), and “Feeling Bad About Feeling Good” (Four). Several others I disliked too, but these four really pissed me off. The authors’ goals were to prove their philosophical points no matter what and they used very limited evidence (and almost always limited to negativity) to prove their points. The authors revealed themselves to be smug and detestable and overly pleased with their so-called philosophical knowledge. The two essays I liked are actually the more technical ones that explained the physics of the show without making gross generalizations regarding the characters. Those are: “Sheldon, Leonard, and Leslie: The Three Faces of Quantum Gravity” and “The One Paradigm to Rule Them All: Scientism and The Big Bang Theory.”
  
  The two quotation errors in the book are in the first essay, “Aristotle on Sheldon Cooper: Ancient Greek Meets Modern Geek.” On page 9, Littman quotes Sheldon as dismissing sex as good for nothing but “nudity, orgasms, and human contact” (“The Dumpling Paradox, 1.7). No, Leonard says that. It’s his sarcastic response to Sheldon’s comment that as far as he knows, “sex has not been upgraded to include high-def graphics and enhanced weapon systems.” If Littman had bothered to check his dialogue (transcripts can be found at
  http://bigbangtrans.wordpress.com/) as the other authors did (they cited this website in their footnotes), he would have discovered his mistakes. The second error is on page 18. In order to show that Sheldon does not value friendship, Littman cites two examples. The second example is from “The Bad Fish Paradigm” (2.1). Littman incorrectly describes the scene as Howard asking Sheldon why he didn’t stop his friends from spying on his date with Penny. No, Leonard had the date with Penny. Raj and Howard were spying. Littman quoted the dialogue incorrectly too. If he’s going to paraphrase the conversation, fine, but don’t put quotation marks around the sentence--that indicates a direct quotation. What Littman wrote:
  
  Howard: “How could you just sit there and let them spy on me?”
  Sheldon: “They were very smart! They used my complete lack of interest in what you are doing.”
  
  The actual conversation:
  Leonard: “Sheldon, how could you just sit there and let them spy on me?”
  Sheldon: “They were clever, Leonard. They exploited my complete lack of interest in what you were doing.”
  
  Yes, the wording is similar, but the point is—if you’re going to quote dialogue from the show, do it accurately. Don't guess. It's sloppy.
  
  The Big Bang Theory and Philosophy is not a great book for either fans of the show or anyone interested in philosophy. Most of the essays are overgeneralized nonsense written to prove negative personality traits about the characters and that is maddening. Almost all of the essays don't recognize the gradual growth of the characters (most significantly, Sheldon) throughout the seasons. The Sheldon of season one never would have pulled a naked Penny from her bathtub, had the patience to pick out an outfit she thought was cute enough to wear, dressed her in said outfit, driven her to the hospital despite his terror of driving, and stayed with her at the hospital. Granted, his attempt to soothe her was unsuccessful (and creepy) but season three Sheldon made the effort. An emotionally distant, incapable of friendship, uncaring Sheldon would not have done that--and that's the only Sheldon the authors of this book insist exists.
• 
  literaturaffin

  Sie hätten es vielleicht lieber „Sheldon und die Philosophie“ nennen sollen. Der Fokus lag auf ihm und seinen „Marotten“. Möglicherweise weil er für sie der spannendste Charakter gewesen ist, aber für mich nicht. Da wäre eindeutig noch Potenzial nach oben gewesen.
  
  Mich hat es gestört, dass immer und immer wieder dieselben Dialoge aufgegriffen wurden, aber um andere Dinge klarzustellen. Geschuldet dem Umstand, dass die Autoren lediglich mit dem Wissen bis zum Ende der vierten Staffel arbeiten konnten.
  
  Das letzte Kapitel war wirklich sehr interessant, gerade was mein Studium angeht. Ich hab auch einige Namen daher wiedererkannt und konnte einige „Theorien“ sehr gut einordnen. Also aus soziologischer Sicht nicht minder interessant als aus philosophischer.
• 
  Evan Micheals

  Michael and I have been binge watching the Big Bang Theory recently. We both enjoy the humour and the science references. We both see our inner Sheldon. Michael was sleeping with me due to his diabetes, so I decided to listen to this book with him in the hope of influencing him to share my interest in philosophy. He has got better control and is back in his own bed.
  
  Like all the previous philosophy and pop culture series this book is split into several essays. It investigates the nature of evil, friendship, science, semiotics, religion, and of courses ethics and virtue. I like the series, but I have to say this was a weaker book. Nothing grabbed my in a unique way that made it especially memorable of inspired further study. I wonder if that is a function of having read a lot of philosophy over the past few years and that I have not read a book of this series for a while (and they repeat a lot of the same themes)
  
  We will continue to watch The Big Bang Theory until we reach the end. It has become something that Michael and I enjoy together. I will keep working on how to trick him into finding Philosophy as interesting as I do.
  
• 
  Valter

  Although I'm a big fan of both TBBT and philosophy, I found this book disappointing.
  The first half is fun, rich in TBBT citations and jokes, but hollow about philosophy.
  The second half is more serious, less jokes and more thoughtful. But I didn't found much more substance here. The only chapter I really enjoyed is the last, about gender.
  
  If you love TBBT and you are new to philosophy, then you could enjoy this as an introduction.
  But if you're already versed in the topic, you won't likely find much new to discover.
  
  I understand this is "pop philosophy" but, in this regard, I found much more interesting "The Hunger Games and Philosophy"
  
  The Hunger Games and Philosophy: A Critique of Pure Treason
  
  My rating:
  3,5 stars for the abundant TBBT jokes and references.
  2 stars for the bland philosophy.
  Total = 2,5 stars.
• 
  Cadence

  I very much enjoyed the philosophy classes that I took in college and I watch The Big Bang Theory nearly religiously, so this book seemed like a pretty good fit for my bookshelf. I was wrong. The first few essays kept me engaged, but after that I started the grow bored. Both the science and the philosophy in the majority of the essays felt very watered down. I was hoping for something much more than this book turned out to be.
• 
  Ricarda

  Dieses Buch vermittelt auf witzige Art und Weise philosophische Fragen und Argumentationen. Selten ist es so amüsant, über philosophische Themen zu lesen! Die Idee, Beispiele aus der Big Bang Theory zu nehmen, ist einfach grandios! Bitte mehr von sowas!
• 
  Rodney Bond

  It is really a book on assorted topics of philosophy that could be used in a college setting. It just uses the personalities and actions of the characters to discuss the topics.
• 
  Jeremy

  I wasn't too happy with this book, a book that is often utilized for an intro philosophy class. It's a whole series of exploring philosophy in pop culture. Although the idea is neat, I didn't find this to be executed well.
  
  Everything is split into chapters and encapsulated. It's not meant to read through like a story. There's no growth throughout the book. Each chapter stands for itself.
  
  Which wouldn't be bad, except there's a lot of repetition. Each chapter references scenes and dialog to make its point. Often this would be the same dialog written or the same scene referenced with the same level of detail, as if I never read it before.
  
  Part of this repetition is because this book has many different authors who write each chapter. So each chapter has a slightly different style and that inconsistency can be hard to follow.
  
  When philosophy is brought into it, there's some interesting ideas, and some stretching, but it is interesting to see something like a TV show brought into the realm of literature.
  
  Thus, a good core idea is damaged because of bad writing. The few typos I saw, very easy to detect, really frustrated me because the fluctuating quality of this book makes it difficult to rate.
• 
  Furrydestroyer 420

  As an intellectual fan of the high IQ show "the Big Bang Theory", I was rather amused by this philosophical dive into the libtard cultural marxist propaganda the show attempts to educate its viewers with. The fact that funny smart man Shelldon says the funny word "BAZINGA!" had me on the edge of me seat as I cannot contain my excitement when I hear that word because I have the neurological abilities of a 5 year old. In fact, I am so mentally slow, that I actually like this show, BAZINGA EPIX MOMENTS FORTNIGHT EPIC STYLE LOL FUNNY. ANYWAY, this is the greatest book for any intellectual fan of both "The Big Bazinga Theory" and philosophy as a whole. Many people doubt the existence of GOD but this book showed me that he created it since no one else is smart enough to fully understand the intellectual funny jokes in this intellectual funny show. Not to mention Shelldon is a gamer who stomps libtards and likes to say the N-word and the bazinga word when he is near a minority. EPIC STYLE 2019 BEST MEMES COMPILATION #FUNNY #ROFL #LMAO #SCREWYOULIBTARDS #BIGBINGTHEORYFORLIFE #NOMINORITIESALLOWED #EPICCCCCMOMENTS
• 
  Kelly Funk

  Are you a science nerd like me? Do you have an easier time understanding multivariable calculus than the musings of Plato or Aristotle? Can you quote at least every episode of the first 4 seasons of The Big Bang Theory? Then, this is the book for you! While still not easy to understand, a lot of the philosophical principles at least start to make sense when explained in terms of fish night lights and dumpling paradoxes; however, the quotes and examples do start to repeat throughout the chapters. With such a gold mine of episodes and memorable, laugh out loud quotes, the author’s of these individual chapters should have been challenged to come up with a veritable smorgasbord of fodder for our enquiring minds.
• 
  Paulo

  Um livro para Geeks e fãs da série.
  
  Em que pese o fato de ser muito bem escrito, a quantidade de informação sobre e a partir do seriado, torna-o enfadonho para quem não é fã do mesmo.
  
  Trechos longos a respeito da amizade, comparando-a com Aristóteles ... Todavia, a análise soa um tanto quanto superficial.
  
  Sobre a série, excelente, Conquanto à filosofia, nem tanto ...
  
• 
  Danielle Robertson Rath

  I enjoyed almost all the essays in this book but it's tough to read this book in large doses - there's just too much information to process. This book only covers seasons 1-4 of the show, which is unfortunate because I believe the characters have evolved enough to provide fodder for even more philosophical analysis. Ultimately this is a good read for fans of the show.
• 
  yesterday

  Ein köstliches Buch für Fans der Serie - besonders, wenn man die Folgen teils mehrmals gesehen hat (Nachmittagsfernsehen sei Dank). Die viele Zitate und genauen Wiedergaben der Szenen regen zum Schmunzeln an, man ist wieder mitten drin unter den vielseitigen Nerds und entdeckt auch den einen oder anderen Witz, den man vielleicht doch noch überhört hatte.
  
  Aber auch an Philosophiewissen allgemein kommt man hier nicht vorbei, füllt also auch die eine oder andere Wissenslücke auf und hat am Ende auch Leuten die The Big Bang Theory nicht kennen (ja die gibt es) noch etwas zu erzählen.
  
  Schwieriger wird es da schon zu sagen ob auch Nicht-Fans das Buch lesen können. Ja, schon. Wie es ihnen damit dann geht, ist schwer zu sagen. Vielleicht aber kann das Buch auch generell naturwissenschaft-Interessierten Freue bereiten, egal ob sie die Serie so genau kennen oder nicht.
• 
  Tomos Llywelyn Edwards

  Boy, the "Radiohead exchange" from "The Work Song Nanocluster" sure is repeated over and over again, huh?
  
  Not a bad book. Some chapters are interesting to read (even if they don't exactly blow one's mind) but some are really hard to get through. Specifically the arduous "science" section. Yawn.
• 
  Nirmal Mathew

  I didn't find anything I was looking for in this book with this enticing title.
• 
  Jeanne Lawrence

  FUN for fans of the show! I really enjoyed this book.
• 
  Kira

  It’s really not as deep as they want it to be
• 
  Zara

  -> actually 2.5 stars
• 
  Christina

  -----I READ THE GERMAN TRANSLATION------
  
  In short: I expected more. Mostly superficial, basic, common-knowledge philosophy. A large part is retelling entire scenes of the series. A lot of rambling, but in my opinion nothing substantial.
  
  Disappointed. I love TBBT and I love philosophy, so when I saw this book at the store I just had to buy it. The beginning was promising and I really enjoyed the part about Sheldon's alleged Asperger's syndrome and the ethics of laughing about it.
  Sadly, it just went downhill from there. Most of the issues discussed were primitive, non-controversial and simply not interesting. Definitely not what I expect from a book about philosophy. A lot of the chapters were one sided, with no actual discussion of view points; they read more like a heavily biased argumentative essay. I read the first half of the book about a year ago, so I don't want to talk too much about it (but I do think it is telling, that pretty much the only thing I remember is the Asperger's part). I resumed reading the book a few days ago and just finished it, despite my urge to just put it aside and never pick it up again. The chapters I read over the last few days were incredibly boring, bland and forgettable. An interesting debate could have been the religion-science conflict between Sheldon and his mother; however, the discussion felt rushed, too short and too superficial. (I do recognize though, that it is probably hard to discuss these issues in detail in a single chapter of a pop culture philosophy book.)
  Another thing that bothered me was, that the chapters were often overlapping, discussing the same aspects, the same scenes and the same quotes. Of course you can analyze a certain scene from different philosophical sub-disciplines and that can lead to an interesting analysis, but describing the scene in detail every time it is mentioned is something that could have been avoided.
  On top of that, at least the last chapters (I don't recall having that impression with the first half), felt like they consist of 70% retelling of the series and only a bit of generic philosophy woven in. I know this is a book about TBBT. That's why I bought it. But that is the point. As an author/editor, you could assume that the majority of the buyers purchase the book because they like the series. There is no need to retell entire scenes or ramble on about the relationships between characters. We know. We watched the show.
  
  Then there were some minor mistakes that bothered me, but that I could have easily ignored were the rest of the book interesting at least.
  
  I did end up giving it two stars (I know my review sounds like a one-star-review), because some chapters are better than others.
  But in the end, I wouldn't recommend the book to anyone, especially not if you already have basic philosophy knowledge. But even if you don't: there are better ways to get started.
• 
  Joy Shak

  Didn't care for this one. It got very repetitive after the first few chapters. I think I gave up around 35% :(
• 
  Danna

  I bought this on a whim at the Hayden Planetarium gift shop, not looking too closely at the content. I love the show, it seemed an appropriate souvenir, and I figured it would be entertaining enough.
  
  The idea has great potential: introduce various schools of philosophy by way of pop culture. Sadly, I was singing "Where Have All the Editors Gone?" throughout most of the book. The chapters didn't seem to hang together well, with more than a little bit of overlap within the subject matter. With four seasons to choose from at the time these essays were written, I was surprised to see the same few references are used repeatedly, and often inaccurately. For this book to work, the authors needed to recognize that avid fans of the show would be their target audience, so they should be as familiar with the show as the fans. Instead, I was constantly irritated by having beloved characters I know well explained to me as if I'd never heard of the show. I also grew weary of the gross over-generalizations made after citing one small facet of a character's behavior and forcing it to fit whatever point the author was trying to make. (I won't even try to describe my loathing of the chapter about autism. To paraphrase Star Trek: "Dammit, Jim, you're a pop-culture philosopher, not a neuroscientist!")
  
  And then there were the no-brainers: Descriptions of characters would reappear as if the readers had not already been informed of those details, references to nicknames were oddly placed and inconsistent, Kaley's name is spelled wrong in a footnote...sorry, BBT&P. Only one star for you.
• 
  Nick

  I wasn't too happy with this book, a book that is often utilized for an intro philosophy class. It's a whole series of exploring philosophy in pop culture. Although the idea is neat, I didn't find this to be executed well.
  
  Everything is split into chapters and encapsulated. It's not meant to read through like a story. There's no growth throughout the book. Each chapter stands for itself.
  
  Which wouldn't be bad, except there's a lot of repetition. Each chapter references scenes and dialog to make its point. Often this would be the same dialog written or the same scene referenced with the same level of detail, as if I never read it before.
  
  Part of this repetition is because this book has many different authors who write each chapter. So each chapter has a slightly different style and that inconsistency can be hard to follow.
  
  When philosophy is brought into it, there's some interesting ideas, and some stretching, but it is interesting to see something like a TV show brought into the realm of literature.
  
  Thus, a good core idea is damaged because of bad writing. The few typos I saw, very easy to detect, really frustrated me because the fluctuating quality of this book makes it difficult to rate.
• 
  Robert D. Cornwall

  If you are a Big Bang Theory (TV show not the scientific theory) then you will like this book. In fact, you don't have to be a big philosophy fan to enjoy the book -- you just have to have an interest in the show and its characters. So, did I like it? Of course, I'm a big fan of the show.
  
  This book is part of a series of books that use essays to explore philosophical topics through interacting with an expression of popular culture. In this case The Big Bang Theory.
  
  In the course of 17 chapters gathered into four sections, we engage philosophical topics that range from the nature of the intellect to friendship. Each chapter is a separate entity and so they don't build on each other. Thus, this is the kind of book you can dip into whenever and however you wish. If nothing else you'll gain a greater appreciation for the complexity of the characters, even if at times they are stereotypes.
  
  As one might supposed the central character in the book is Sheldon Cooper and to a lesser extent -- Penny, though all the primary characters figure prominently.
  
  So, if you want to do a bit of philosophy and be entertained all at the same time -- here's a book for you (and me!).
  
  
• 
  Tiffany

  I can't wait to read this! It was a surprise Christmas present... I didn't even know it existed! Awesome -- The Big Bang Theory, nerds, and philosophy geekdom :)
  
  ------------------------
  
  This one didn't start off all that promising. It felt like some of the essays were either trying REALLY hard to fit into the Pop Culture and Philosophy umbrella or were saying the most obvious things so that they weren't insightful (like, a high schooler with no philosophy training could B.S. their way through writing the essays) at all. Luckily, it picked up after a while. Even if it hadn't gotten better, it still would have at least gotten a couple of stars for being nerdly and about The Big Bang Theory; but the fact that it *did* get better, with more insightful essays and deeper philosophical thinking, bumped it up to 4 stars. Not the Best book in the series, but definitely worth reading.