Sci-Phi: Science Fiction as Philosophy by David Kyle Johnson

Sci-Phi: Science Fiction as Philosophy Reviews

• 
  Tony

  The title of this course is a misnomer as it suggests that the subject matter will be philosophical concepts derived from science fiction. Rather, Johnson uses science fiction to illustrate and explore ideas developed by some of the real world's great philosophers. The mislabeling aside, Sci-Phi is a truly enjoyable and thought provoking work that explores a wide variety of subjects such as the existence of free will, science vs. religion, the possibility that we live in a computer simulation, and the ethics of colonialism. Johnson does an excellent job of explaining such complicated concepts and offering varied perspectives on each. However, his surprising tendency to reach seemingly definitive resolutions to some of these fundamental questions can comes across as overly simplistic.
• 
  Thomas

  First I want to say, and I'm only gonna say this once in this review, I know the Great Courses are not, strictly speaking, books. Still, I get them through Audible.com and that makes them books to me.
  
  This one is definitely more than it appears, not just a fun romp. In a series of lectures that are based on science fiction movies and TV shows, it really delves into the big questions of philosophy. I was not only entertained but I had my brain stretched with this one. Definitely worth my time.
• 
  Nici

  Wow that was incredible!
  
  'Sci-Phi: Science Fiction as Philosophy' is a philosophy course which uses scifi movies and shows to teach the concepts. For each of the 24 lectures you are asked to watch a movie or so as homework/preparation.
  
  As I'm very much into both philosophy and scifi this approach was great for me and I really enjoyed it during the first half of the course. I watched many movies that I did not know before and learned a lot about philosophy.
  After a while I found that I enjoy listening to this course a lot more than actually watching the movies so I ended up skipping the watching part and just did the learning part. That's good as well because there's always a summary of the movie given and I did not really miss anything.
• 
  James Tomasino

  There's not nearly enough philosophy OF science fiction in these lectures. Instead it's a survey of philosophies with examples in sci-fi.
• 
  Bryan

  I would have enjoyed having a conversation with the lecturer about the films he covers and the philosophies that inspired them. However, I've had better conversations with my friends about these films and other science fiction films so there is that, but he definitely knew more about the philosophical connections than any of my friends. So in that regard, the course is effective and serves its purpose.
• 
  Markus

  Uninspired and milquetoast
• 
  Terry Pearce

  This is hands-down the best philosophy 'book' I've come across. It's from the Great Courses series, which means it's actually a series of lectures, but what lectures they are. Each one is centred around one or more sci-fi films, books or shows, using them to illustrate a philosophical point or to pose philosophical questions. It works on every level. As interesting riffs on sci-fi you love, it delivers in spades. As clever, balanced and well-reasoned coverage of key points of philosophy, it delivers in spades. Is passionate, interestingly delivered lectures, it delivers in spades. Anyone who loves sci-fi should check this out.
• 
  Peter

  This is a re-upload because Goodreads doesn't think
  the version I originally rated is a book anymore, despite having more reviews and ratings than this entry ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  
  If I hadn't already done
  The Big Questions of Philosophy, I'd be rounding this up to 4-stars. This was a great course in that it explored the philosophical ideas within many popular films and series. It was a great format because it allowed you to engage with the content on a more personal level and made the barrier to entry far less daunting for anyone who might not be as versed in philosophical concepts.
  
  That being said, there were a few issues I had with the content. There were a few topics where the lecturer tended to focus too much on the philosophical aspects more than integrating them into the media that supposedly spawned the discussion. One or two interpretations were questionable and seemed somewhat forced in order to talk about a specific topic. Having done The Big Questions course already, there was quite a bit of overlap in content and the lecturer even referred to that course on numerous occasions. And I think that's ultimately why I preferred that one. It had more depth to its discussions which this one often, but understandably lacked.
  
  All that being said, if you're looking to dip your toes into philosophical ideas and how philosophers think about various topics, this is an easy recommendation. He uses a wide variety of media, meaning you're bound to know quite a few, and some of his interpretations really make you look at the stories in a new light. He also does a great job of tieing the wide range of topics together, giving the course a nice flow.
• 
  Josiah

  An easy intro to philosophy course for science fiction enthusiasts. Its fun, thoughtful, and approachable.
  
  I highly recommend it for anyone who is somewhat interested in both.
• 
  Meredith

  This course uses science fiction films and television series to discuss various abstract concepts in philosophy, physics (quantum mechanics), psychology, and science.
  
  There are 24 Lectures
  1. “Inception” and the Interpretation of Art
  2. “The Matrix” and the Value of Knowledge
  3. “The Matrix” Sequels and Human Free Will
  4. “The Adjustment Bureau”, the Force, and Fate
  5. “Contact”: Science versus Religion
  6. “Arrival”: Aliens and Radical Translation
  7. “Interstellar”: Is Time Travel Possible?
  8. “Doctor Who” and Time Travel Paradoxes
  9. “Star Trek: TNG” and Alternate Worlds
  10. “Dark City”, “Dollhouse”, and Personal Identity
  11. “Westworld” and A.I. Artificial Intelligence
  12. “Transcendence” and the Dangers of AI
  13. “The Thirteenth Floor”: Are We Simulated?
  14. The Orville, Orwell, and the “Black Mirror”
  15. “Star Wars”: Good versus Evil
  16. “Firefly”, “Blake's 7”, and Political Rebellion
  17. “Starship Troopers”, “Doctor Who”, and Just War
  18. The Prime Directive and Postcolonialism
  19. Capitalism in “Metropolis”, “Elysium”, and Panem
  20. “Snowpiercer” and Climate Change
  21. “Soylent Green”: Overpopulation and Euthanasia
  22. “Gattaca” and the Ethics of Reproduction
  23. “The Handmaid's Tale”: Feminism and Religion
  24. Kubrick’s “2001” and Nietzsche’s Übermensch
  
  Listeners are asked to watch a particular film or television show episode prior to each lecture, but as the professor gives sufficient summary, that isn’t strictly necessary.
  
  This course is something best listened to one lecture at time as it throws a lot of abstract ideas around that listeners may need time to chew on and digest. Also, fans of hard science fiction may enjoy it more than fans of soft science fiction due to its science heavy content.
  
  As a casual science fiction fan, I did enjoy this course although I prefer literature to film, so many of my favorite works were omitted. Both A.I. and time travel are discussed at length, which are topics that don’t particularly interest me. I think readers/listeners whose tastes align more with the course’s content and filmography will definitely get more out of it.
• 
  Lamadia

  I did not expect to learn so much from this. I've had bad luck with previous philosophy books and a course in college. I understand now that my previous attempts were actually history of philosophy and didn't discuss any actual philosophy. This course poses a question each lecture that is exemplified by a science fiction movie or TV show (some of which are based on books, but he only assigns the movie, so you can do your assignment faster). The movie or TV show helps to illustrate the question just like a thought experiment does so that we can understand it and the implications. He then discusses what different philosophers have said about the question and walks through a logical argument about it. I now understand that I have been doing kinds of philosophy in my head for many years, but I didn't know it. These kinds of questions are all over science fiction and anyone who has been reading SF will have thought long and hard about these things. Now I have a better grasp of these questions, how to understand them, and the implications of them. It was also entertaining and did the impossible, made me enjoy philosophy. I'm going to check out his Big Questions course next and see if I still like it without all the SF.
• 
  Stacie

  This was really good. The Professor is easy to understand (and his voice is unobjectionable), his lecture formats are clear and easy to follow and, best of all, he takes what I love best about science-fiction (the way it presents a "what if" scenario and then explores how the Human would deal with it) and ties it directly to those 'fusty' 19th and early 20th Century writers that I pretty much wrote off as being no longer relevant, and shows that No, those ideas are still relevant and that they will be as long as people are people.
• 
  Kail

  Not really a philosophy lecture, just a long rambling talk about sci-fi.
• 
  Tyson Adams

  Science Fiction: more than just pew-pew noises.
  
  Science Fiction as Philosophy is a Great Courses series in which each lecture uses an example sci-fi movie or show (plus a few supporting examples) to discuss a philosophical concept. This illustrates both the depth of sci-fi and creates a starting point to draw various philosophical ideas together. David K Johnson presents this broad-ranging series.
  
  The audiobook/lecture series is much like the rest of the Great Courses and includes course notes. The notes book in this instance is presented as a lot of dot points - I don't remember this being the case in other Great Courses. It was incredibly handy for doing the lateral reading.
  
  This was a fantastic series. The lecturer was able to cover a lot of material in a concise and accessible manner. Johnson also managed to retain a sense of humour that we entertaining in what could have been dry and boring subject matter.
  
  It was great to revisit so many of my favourite sci-fi movies and shows to discuss them with a philosophical eye. This was generally well done and interesting. The deeper insights were not necessarily surprising to sci-fi fans but I generally found a bit more depth to the material here than in the usual pop-philosophy discussions.
  
  That said, there were times where the lectures felt like the cliff notes of philosophy, which isn't that surprising for something covering a lot of ground. For some topics, I noticed that material was a shortened version of things like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. So this could feel a bit light on if you are familiar with the philosophy being discussed.
  
  Overall, I really enjoyed this Great Courses series and want to dive into some of the other series David K Johnson has made.
  
  Comments while reading:
  Lots of great material and subject matter. Highlighted a few of my old favourites, like The Thirteenth Floor.
  
  I have so many issues with the Simulation Hypothesis and 20% chance figure. Personally, I think we should dismiss it in much the same way we dismiss the Devil's Veil, Brain in a Vat, Matrix, and other similar ideas. Materialism is a much better explanation, as discussed in a previous lecture/chapter.
  
  My main issue with the idea is that the probability matrix and reasoning are essentially Pascal's Wager (which is predated by several other versions). The problem is that you can use this reasoning to justify just about anything. Replace belief that we're living in a simulation with belief in magic or god or superman or evil superman or the free market. Nonsense can be granted a "logical" and "rational" foundation which could then be used to justify atrocities - e.g. you could justify killing people because it's only a simulation.
  
  Pascal's wager: Believing in and searching for kryptonite — on the off chance that Superman exists and wants to kill you.
  https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%...
  
  The section on militarism vs pacifism vs just war is a little disappointing. It starts strong with the castigation of militarism. The pacifism is covered reasonably, the best bit being the dispelling of the idea of pacifism being about just rolling over to violence rather than finding non-violent ways to address violence/militarism. But then Johnson kinda falls prey of several ahistorical factors and militaristic ideas in being critical of pacifism. Which leads into just war as some sort of compromise between the two.
  
  I disagree here. I'd argue that just war isn't a middle ground but instead a justification for militarism through a pseudo-intellectual justification. Take any of the given requirements of just war and you won't find a single war (or conflict) that meets the criteria. Even going historically (it's meant to be used prior and during) you have to be pretty selective in your cherry-picking to get things to fit. E.g. Hitler and the Nazis were bad, so WW2 was all good... well, except the conditions for WW2 were sown at the close of WW1 and could have easily been avoided, the war supplies to Germany could have easily been closed (although that would have stopped the US companies making big $$ from the Nazis), and the Nazis party could have not been internationally endorsed. In other words, the only reason you can meet Just War is if you turn a blind eye for a couple of decades and wait for atrocities to start happening and use those as a post-hoc reason to go to war (they didn't know about the atrocities until after going to war).
  
  There's nothing like being reminded of how terrible Robert Nozick's philosophy was/is. "Rawls was wrong because people earn stuff, even when they cheated or got lucky, and most actually get lucky, BUT THEY EARNED IT DAMMIT!!"
  
  I think Johnson is way off the mark on the luke-warmerism of Snowpiercer. I'm not sure if this is just a really bad take on his part or if he is unaware of the arguments around geoengineering solutions to climate change. Probably a bit of both. Point being, geoengineering is seen by its critics as offering similar unforeseen consequences as the burning of fossil fuels. This means Snowpiercer exists in a world where delay by the powerful required hubristic action that once again disproportionally impacted the poor. Maybe the problem is that Johnson was trying to discuss something fresher, since Snowpiercer has been written about quite a bit from the class struggle perspective, and was trying to fit within his lecture structure.
• 
  Mikki

  19 Dec 2021: As I'm currently watching the Great Courses video of this material, I thought it would be a good idea to get the handbook. This is fascinating stuff and reading the transcripts after each lecture is a good way of bringing the material back to mind. There are also extra questions which serve to challenge thought processes and stimulate further exploration. To be continued...
  
  16 Jan 2022: both the course and the handbook are excellent. Many excursions into philosophy which used science fiction as resource material, and 'mental gymnastics' as a method to explore along the way. So much more to delve into as I'm fascinated by how we think, how we reason and how we arrive at our understanding of the great questions of life, which are never fully understood but we continue to explore anyway. That's what makes us human - the desire and capacity to use our minds to ponder the great questions of existence, both our own and that of all living creatures (including the probability of extra-terrestrial beings) in our quest to understand why we're here and if there's a higher purpose to having the 'gift of life', what that purpose entails.
  
  There's only so much that one course can include. I will continue to read and ponder and pursue my lifelong learning until my time in this mortal frame on this plane is over. Other books and courses beckon. Onward.
• 
  Mark

  This was fantastic. The collection of issues raised and the examples from science fiction were fantastic and super interesting. I had a great time listening to this and may do so again at some point. The presenter was excellent at clarifying his points and generally used well-thought-out logic. I'd definitely listen to more of this if I could. This would be great for anyone interested in philosophy and/or ethics. Most who like philosophy will also like this a lot. I highly recommend this.
• 
  JT

  Overall, this was interesting. I liked that each chapter had a focus, although he seemed to feel that Star Wars is part of all movies/chapters. He also had very clear bias, but didn't seem to be aware of it. I think if he had just been honest about that instead of concluding that his way is the only logical way would have been easier to listen to - if it weren't for this, I could have really enjoyed the entire collection.
• 
  Sam

  A great series of lectures exploring how Science Fiction is used to delve into a multitude of philosophical issues (e.g. Time, Sentience, Artificial Intelligence, Reality, Self, Morality, etc, etc). There were a lot of examples, a few books, some TV, but mostly movies. Pretty much everything was fairly mainstream and accessible. There is so much more to explore! I hope there is another similar lecture series delving further TV and books.
• 
  Todd Cheng

  A strangely scholastic deconstruction of fictional plots about science. He covers the plots of Star Trek, Dr. Who, Back to the Future, Inception, and just about any other movie or episode that has a going back in time concept or science fiction. He speaks well to the topics, he is a great orator, but not sure this is great academic materials in philosophy. It might be better as sci-fi plot development course and western culture. The philosophy was a stretch for my conception.
• 
  Uli Vogel

  Highly entertaining introduction to SOME basic concepts of philosophy and affected fields of science and technology. I felt the plot clarifications in part a bit to extended but also simplified, especially when you already knew the book or movie he was referring to. Which in most parts I did.
• 
  Linus

  Excellent and entertaining course, digging deep into both sci-fi and philosophy and discussing topics ranging from androids and conscious machines to what happens if you kill your past self. Recommended!
• 
  Mannie Schumpert

  I'm sure a student of philosophy would find some things to critique, but as a lover of sci-fi with a fairly pedestrian interest in philosophy, it's a very, very enjoyable lecture series.
• 
  Isca Silurum

  DNF
  
  The "modesty" of the lecturer completely underwhelming! 😱
• 
  Natassia

  Probably closer to 3.5. I liked the lecturer and I thought he did a good job with the movies he chose. I think it's a bummer he missed out on Jurassic Park, but it was a fun listen.
• 
  Yaaresse

  Rounding up from a 3.50
  
  Positives:
  1. The course uses a wide variety of sci-fi, even some of the older (but still great) movies and shows.
  2. Johnson sets a steady pace and definitely knows -- and loves -- the genre.
  3. The lectures cover a wide range of philosophical questions.
  4. He is not afraid to bring up controversial opinions/questions.
  5. It was nice to hear someone else say out loud that Kubrick's 2001 is just plain bizarre.
  
  Negatives:
  1. OK, this is petty, but it really was annoying to me. The presenter has this verbal tic of starting a LOT of his sentences with "Indeed!" Listening time on this thing is about 16 hours. After about four hours of INDEED!, I was ready to either do violence or invent a drinking game around the tic. I could have gotten through this a lot faster except I had to take "INDEED breaks."
  2. Often, only one side of the philosophical argument is presented. And that side tends to be white, western, male, Christian.
  3. The section on Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale and Feminism and Religion" felt like an afterthought.
  4. Could he really only come up with two women creating sci-fi content (Atwood and Collins)? It highlights how few sci-fi books by women are made into movies/shows, but come on, man, at least mention Shelley's Frankenstein or something by Le Guin.
  
  Overall:
  This is a series of moral, ethical, and metaphysical concepts discussed through the lens of science fiction movies and television shows such as Star Trek, Star Wars, Gattica, Soylent Green, The Handmaid's Tale, Dr. Who, etc. Ideally, one would watch the movie suggested for the topic beforehand, then listen to the coordinating lecture. Dr. Johnson does give a brief synopsis of the work and an analysis of the main themes. He then addresses the philosophical questions or slant that he has paired with that movie or show.
  
  A digression: Our library had exactly ZERO of these movies available through their (many) streaming services. I really didn't expect Star Wars or The Handmaid's Tale given who owns the licensing rights, but I thought they might have a few of the older and less popular movies. Zilch. And after looking to see what kinds of movies they do offer, I think it is safe to say you'd find better offerings in the Glasgow, Montana Dollar General's clearance bin. (Disclaimer: I have no idea if Glasgow, MT even has a Dollar General.)
  
  Never mind. I have seen most of the movies discussed, albeit long ago. Even for the ones I'd never seen before, Johnson's descriptions were thorough enough to follow the discussion.
  
  This coupling is an interesting and engaging way to present philosophy, especially to someone (like me) who took one very basic (and boring) philosophy class in college and that only to fulfill the humanities requirement.
• 
  Koit

  It’s very easy to make (describing) philosophy dull, but in this work Mr Johnson makes it accessible — science fiction movies from the last century are used to illustrate concepts that relate to philosophical topics. The themes that the author covers are really as wide as they can be. The restriction on the sci-fi side is that only movies are brought into the discussion: literature and TV shows are generally excluded with a few mentions.
  
  What specifically makes this work so good is that at no point did I feel as if the author was trying to push his view. He would describe one side, using relevant examples, and then turn to the other side, using other examples to illustrate why that could be considered accurate. Especially the discussions about climate but also many others felt refreshing because the author did not simply repeat what others are saying, but evaluates the validity of generally presented arguments.
  
  It’s a refreshing look at many very well known films, and for that alone reading this is worthwhile. The additional discussion on the potential topics that a film raises, including the validity of those points, only makes it much more worthwhile.
  
  
  This review was originally posted on my blog.
  
• 
  Kellen Blair

  Although this is technically a "Great Course," it's available on Audible and listed here on Goodreads, so we're going to count it as a book. It was one of the most entertaining and thought-provoking listens in a long time. Granted, some lectures felt more like physics lessons than philosophy lessons (although Johnson makes a logical argument for science counting as philosophy), and a few of the lectures (particularly the Star Wars and Star Trek episodes) felt like a thinly-veiled excuse for Johnson to just Geek out. I also wish there had been more classic science fiction literature used as source material (though I understand why Johnson felt he needed to focus on movies and television). But all of that said, every "chapter" was incredibly well-organized and I definitely feel like I have a basic understanding of the big philosophical questions (explained in the most entertaining way I could imagine). I'm still wrapping my head around a lot of it (like the very convincing argument that there's a 20 percent likelihood that our entire universe is a computer simulation). This one will stick with me for a long time! If you haven't already, check out the Great Courses offerings. If this is any indication, they're incredible.
• 
  Christopher Hellstrom

  This was a fun course. I've listened to "The Great Courses" by "The Teaching Company" since 1992 with and this one is in my top 4. (Great Minds of the Western Intellectual Tradition, Joyce's Ulysses, and Will to Power: The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche are my other favorites, ) I love the selections he uses explore philosophical questions (Arrival, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Firefly, Black Mirror and of course Star Trek and Star Wars) I also enjoyed his Great Questions of Philosophy and I hope he makes more courses to explore science fiction and philosophy.
• 
  Wiebke (1book1review)

  I loved looking at Science Fiction from a new angle for me. The lessons are mentioning a lot of movies and shows, that you might be spoiled for or not fully understand if you haven't seen them. Overall I highly recommend this if you are interested at all and unsure.