Doctor Who and Philosophy

With the excitement of a new companion this season, I think it is appropriate to discuss what makes a good companion.  I’ve had many favorites over the years.  My number one companion is Sarah Jane Smith.  She was lively, intelligent, and enjoyed romping around the universe as much as the Doctor.  I really liked Romana I and II because they were the Doctor’s equal, which the same could almost be said for Liz Shaw.  Rose pulled on my emotional heartstrings, and Donna made me laugh.  Amy Pond reminds me of my adventures with the Doctor.  And yes, I like Adric.  I see why some might not, but I imagine must of us we be more like Adric than Cap. Jack.

So, what makes a good companion?  Or, what makes a bad companion?  Is it self-identification, attraction, humor, or something else?  What say you?

So, on Monday April 2, I will defend my dissertation, and in it I engage a peculiar argument concerning how relationships enhance our value.  I’m curious if anyone out there has any thoughts about it.

The argument goes: Each human has a certain amount of value simply by exhibiting certain features common to human nature; this value is not enough to ground a strong notion of human rights; God’s love of humans further enhances our worth; therefore, humans have enough worth to ground human rights.  This argument is designed to make up for certain shortcomings in the rights literature that basis worth on some capacity.  Instead, this approach grounds worth on a relationship.

The example I use in my dissertation is: If Tom Baker befriends me, my value becomes enhanced–people will look at me differently and treat me differently (at least Doctor Who fan will).  My value increases simply because of my relationship with Tom Baker.

I’m open to any thoughts or comments, but here a few starters: 1) Do we need an entity with the power/authority of God to ground human rights; 2) Can Tom Baker ground human rights; 3) Is there some other explanation in philosophy or Doctor Who that might ground human rights?

Massimo Pigliucci writes:

There is so much food for thought in Doctor Who and Philosophy that readers are warmly encouraged to see for themselves just how much bigger this book is on the inside. And remember: “Time travel is like visiting Paris. You can’t just read the guidebook, you’ve got to throw yourself in! Eat the food, use the wrong verbs, get charged double, and end up kissing complete strangers!… Or is that just me?” (‘The Long Game’, 2007).

Follow this link to read the entire review: http://www.philosophynow.org/issues/89/Doctor_Who_and_Philosophy

So, I went to “Gallifrey One 22: Islands of Mystery” and I thought I would give a short report.  First off, since the late 90s I’ve wanted to attend Gallifrey One, but I was too broke and lived too far away.  With the publication of Doctor Who and Philosophy, the time was right to go to L.A. and hang out with fellow Doctor Who companions.  Here are a few rambling thoughts and observations:

For those who’ve never been, the organizers, special guests, and attendees were all great!  As a person who looks for meaning in everything, I found myself overloaded.  I’m still trying to process all that happened.  Last week I taught my students about Aristotle’s virtue ethics and how he understands human happiness.  In short, Aristotle sees happiness as a state of being that can only be known over a long period of time.  Happiness is a matter of living a virtuous/good life; it’s not merely having pleasurable experiences.  The main thing to understand is that a person can’t know that s/he is happy, except when one looks back over his or her life and reflects on whether it was a good life.  I don’t know what this implies, but I know for a fact that I was happy this past weekend.  I got to sit with my wife and a picture of my grandfather (who was my faithful Doctor Who companion as a small kid), talk about my book and philosophy, and to be a part of a wonderful convention. 

Another thing I found out this weekend was that fans love philosophy.  I had so many great conversations, and the panels I was on were really engaging: the one on Doctor Who and Philosophy was out of this world.  Everyone was so exited to talk and discuss immortality, the good, feminism, etc…  We only needed more time and space—where’s the Doctor when you need him?

I hope to post more frequently, but I would love to have guests post.  If you’re interested, leave a post or email the administrator.

Take care and many safe and wonderful journeys!   

Contained within the upcoming book Doctor Who and Philosophy is an interesting dialogue about whether or not certain characters within the DW universe are evil: the Daleks, the Cybermen, the Master, and yes, even the Doctor.  Instead of a discussion on the evilness of a specific character, or group of characters in the DW universe, for this post, I wish to ask whether or not the Doctor’s action in “The Masque of Mandragora” (1976) can be morally justified.

In this episode the Doctor battles a rather nasty manifestation of Mandragora Helix energy that has found a fertile home in the Cult of Demnos, during fifteenth-century Italy.  The Helix energy threatens to stunt the development of human society by preventing the Renaissance from occurring, by plunging humanity back into the dark ages of superstition.

The Doctor concocts a “brilliant” plan to prevent the Helix energy’s triumph, and sets out to enact his plan without making clear to the others, including the audience, what exactly he plans to do.  At the climax of the story, the Doctor battles Hieronymous (the evil sorcerer, and embodiment of the Helix energy), but the audience never sees the outcome of this encounter.  All we see is: after the battle, Hieronymous arrives at the masquerade ball and both orders and participates in the killing several innocent party-goers.  A few minutes later, after disposing of the Brethren of Demnos, the Doctor reveals his rouse: he was masquerading as Hieronymous to trick the Brethren and the Helix energy into destroying themselves. 

The problem is: if the Doctor was Hieronymous, after their encounter near the end of the story, then the Doctor is guilty of both ordering and participating in the killing of several innocent people.  Now, it’s nothing new to have a few people die as a result of the Doctor’s actions (or inactions), but this seems to be something completely different.  In “The Masque,” the Doctor actively kills people in order to carry out his plan of defeating the Helix energy.  Is the Doctor guilty of premeditated murder?  Was this the Doctor’s only option, and even if it was, should he performed this action?  In other words, can his actions be morally justified?            

(Note: Sorry for being gone for so long!)

I have always viewed “The Trial of a Time Lord” as being analogous to the trial and death of Socrates, and episodes 5-8 provide some of the sharpest similarities.  The similarities are seen in three main aspects.  First, the Doctor is accused of putting his companions (and all of those around him) in danger.  The accusation is similar to the accusation waged against Socrates: that he corrupted the youth.  The Doctor corrupts his companions by teaching them that life is much more than simply getting by, and that one should live his or her life to its fullest.

Second, the Time Matrix (at least it is supposed to) serves as the perfect, unchanging, eternal Forms that Plato suggests are the archetypes of the world in which we live.  Like these Forms, the Matrix serves as the measure by which the Time Lords judge what is true and false.

Third, the Valeyard, like those who brought false charges against Socrates, uses the set of laws to prosecute the Doctor for being an “incorrigible meddler.”  But the Doctor, just as Socrates, shows that the truth cannot harm him, and that it is not the laws that are corrupt; rather, it is the prosecutors that distort the laws who are corrupt.

I love all of these episodes in “The Trial of a Time Lord” series.  I think the Doctor and Peri’s relationship had matured, and the episodes had some really nice philosophical meaning nestled in the overall entertaining stories.  It is also nice to see Sabalon Glitz again.

I believe Socrates was the first to discuss the “straw-man” fallacy, where one proposes, and defeats a very weak argument in order to prove one’s own position.  We see these types of arguments all of time, especially on the 24-hour news channels.  They are so common that they seem to be a foundation of both politics and our discussion of politics.

In a very rich philosophical two-part episode “Human Nature” and “Family of Blood” the Doctor finds himself battling against real-life straw-men.  It doesn’t take much for the viewer to see how this serves as an analogy of how the Doctor fights against untruth and injustice.  These straw-men, even though they are easily destroyed, cause a lot of pain and suffering at the beckon of the Family of Blood: so much so that the Doctor condemns the Family of Blood to eternal punishment.  What I find especially interesting is that even though the Doctor defeats the straw-men and punishes the Family of Blood, the Family still pervades our existence (e.g. the image of the little girl in reflections).  So, is the Doctor telling us that “straw-men” can never be completely vanquished; or maybe something more existential, that part of ourselves is a straw-man, and therefore, part of who we are – always vulnerable to being blown away by a strong wind?    

How much does race and gender play in who we are (i.e. our personal identity)?  It is not clear that the Doctor’s personal identity is the same over time, but what if he regenerated into a female Doctor or a Doctor of a different race?  In other words, what implications does race theory and feminist theory have on the Doctor’s personal identity trans-regenerations.

Since it is the 4th of July, I’m curious what side the Doctor would have been on (or maybe was!) back in 1776.  It seems natural to say that he would help the cause of freedom, but there also seems to be something wrong with him fighting against Britain.  Of course, he probably wouldn’t have gotten involved in the actual fighting, but I bet he would have been there for the signing of the Declaration of Independence.  In fact, I think I’m going to go check the signatures to see if there is a John Smith on there!