The superman in the works of Nietzsche and the first Super‐Man short story is a literal anti‐Christ, but over the years, he became nothing less than the ultimate Christ figure. Nietzsche argued that God does not exist and there is no objective moral law. While this may at first be terrifying news, it makes possible a new, superior type of man: the Übermensch or superman. We can see that Jesus is far from Nietzsche’s superman. Nietzsche’s superman (...) thinks himself brave for rejecting notions like pity, but ends up aligned with Lex Luthor, who, according to Superman, “doesn’t have the courage to change.” Nowadays the Man of Tomorrow has become such a Christ‐type that Superman literature, movies, and television shows regularly make allusions to Superman being a god. It's not surprising that some people have confused Superman as a Christ‐type with Superman as an idol, or even Superman as an anti‐Christ. (shrink)

Lex Luthor despises Superman. He obsesses about Superman. He tries to kill Superman. Luthor takes existentialism to the extreme, though, rejecting ethics and becoming an anti‐hero. In Superman: Secret Origin, Luthor is presented as self‐directed from an early age. Friedrich Nietzsche can help us understand Luthor as an iconoclast, literally one who breaks sacred images. Luthor also explains why he is so obsessed with bringing down Superman. Luthor thinks that Superman interferes with people viewing (...) their lives as an existential project. Lex Luthor underscores the complexities of existentialist philosophy. While he is creative, self‐determined, and autonomous, he is also completely immoral. His willingness to sacrifice anything or anyone takes existentialism to an extreme that Nietzsche, Sartre, and Kierkegaard would reject. And so, we are left to wonder: is Lex Luthor an evil genius and an abomination to existentialism, or might he be a true evolution of what existentialism can become. (shrink)

We all know that Superman stands for truth, justice, and the American way. To explore what kind of justice Superman should stand for, the chapter explores two alternate theories from contemporary political philosophy. On the one hand, according to libertarianism, justice means that the state should ensure that our personal liberty is protected. On the other hand, according to liberal egalitarianism, justice involves the state ensuring not only that individual rights are protected but also that there is a (...) fair distribution of opportunity and resources among us. A popular alternative to libertarianism was provided by John Rawls, the most influential political philosopher in the last hundred years, in his famous book A Theory of Justice. Rawls gave us a way of answering that question and reaching conclusions about what fairness amounts to. (shrink)

Clark Kent may be Superman's secret identity, but Superman is the secret identity of our own cultural inclination to violence. Superman is a part of our mythology, and Girard in particular argues that myth performs a specific function in regard to violence. The hope and faith of the normal people of Earth are fulfilled, as is the mythological formula: Superman returns to meet the imitative violence that is threatening to spiral out of control with violence of (...) his own. Kingdom Come makes heavy use of religious themes. For example, the first image we see of Superman clearly establishes him as a Christ figure. Superman’s hanging of the cape and his revelation about Marvel reminds us of and draws attention to the cycles of violence in our mythology and our history. (shrink)

Superman’s legendary powers include super‐strength, super‐speed, flight, invulnerability, x‐ray vision, heat vision, and super‐hearing. One would think those powers would be enough, but occasionally writers add new ones. This chapter considers one of his less common powers‐the ability to read minds‐and use some basic philosophical thinking about minds to ask why it never caught on as one of Supes's main powers. The chapter explains why, despite mind‐reading’s occasional usefulness, it would be philosophically prudent to eliminate it from Superman’s (...) set of powers. Given that Superman was born on Krypton and raised on Earth, there is no reason to think that he should be confident in guessing the mental states of other beings. (shrink)

On an individual level, it’s hard to see anything wrong with the deeds Superman performs on a daily basis. Superman seems to cast aside his earlier secrecy by openly thwarting a series of petty crimes, such as a purse‐snatching and a liquor store heist. Nietzsche argues that Superman’s constant rescuing of mankind from problems that we could tackle on our own might cultivate weakness in the rescued. Superman’s presence on Earth actually leads humanity down the dark (...) path toward the idle contentment of the last man. If we believe Nietzsche, we might now think that Superman should just leave us alone, let us stand on our own two feet, and learn from mistakes and tragedies in order to better ourselves. Moral philosopher Peter Singer argues that donating as much money as we can reasonably afford to give is the only ethical action to take in the face of human suffering. (shrink)

This chapter discusses that the rivalry between Superman and Luthor is greater than any of those already mentioned because it’s a philosophical one. In the multiverse of philosophical theories, we find two Earths, which we’ll call Earth‐P and Earth‐O. These Earths are so diametrically opposed that one simply has to be a Bizarro version of the other. Using Superman as a guide, the author tries to figure out which is ours and which is the Bizarro World. The (...) class='Hi'>Superman of Earth‐O would never dominate humanity because he would perceive us as his (moral) equals. Superman believes that his upbringing on Earth makes him human, despite his Kryptonian heritage; therefore, he would have to believe that all humans, including his worst enemy, are by nature good. (shrink)

If Plato were here today, he would argue that our knowledge of Superman is based on the unchanging and eternal Superman found in the world of being. Philosophers struggled with Plato’s theory of essences for over 2000 years. No one really challenged the idea itself until Ludwig Wittgenstein changed the rules of the game in his enormously influential Philosophical Investigations, published after his death in 1953. Wittgenstein suggests that at least sometimes it does not make sense to look (...) for a thing’s essence. The different versions of Superman share a family resemblance much like games do. Rather than trying to identify the one true essence of Superman, one can simply say that a candidate for being Superman must have enough of the typical Superman characteristics, though not necessarily all of them or any one in particular. (shrink)

While Superman’s fantastic abilities make him the most powerful being on Earth, his upbringing on the Kents’ farm is what makes him a hero. Unfortunately, moral philosophy often understates the importance of such character. One popular approach to ethics, utilitarianism, asks us to act in ways that maximize the happiness or well‐being of all the people affected. We are not born with virtues (or vices), and this is critical for understanding Superman's heroic personality. The question of how (...) class='Hi'>Superman's upbringing would be affected by landing in another nation was explored in Mark Millar's Superman: Red Son (2004). Instead of truth, justice, and the American way, Hitler's Superman would value the totalitarian ideals of propaganda, obedience, and serving the führer. Imagine how some of the major events of World War II may have been different had Superman been involved with Hitler's cause. (shrink)

Even though he serves the people of Earth as Superman, Clark Kent is still the one who pays income taxes to the US government, who renews his driver's license in Metropolis, and who is (sometimes) married to Lois Lane. In giving up his American citizenship, Superman appears to be denying exceptionalism, the belief that one nation ‐ in this case, the United States ‐ is qualitatively superior in some way to other nations. Superman is inescapably an American (...) icon in that he is deeply embedded in American society. Superman can affect the world in ways that far exceed Appiah's examples of interconnectedness, so the argument for cosmopolitanism is much more compelling for Superman. The question one needs to consider is whether Superman should feel morally obligated to avoid the appearance of impropriety. (shrink)

Everybody knows that Superman is Clark Kent. Nobody knows that Superman is Clark Kent. Located between these two absolute statements is the epistemological limit that separates the superhero fictitious universe from our universe of causal reality. The superheroic double identity is a secret shared by the superhero and the reader of the comic or the viewer of the movie, and quite often the superhero winks at the outside world, thus breaking the 4th wall and establishing this collusive relationship. (...) However, in our hypothesis, we are interested in Superman not as a fictitious archetype, but rather as a fictitious metaphor. We are not interested in his double identity as the matrix of superheroic attributes and narratives, but rather as the differential limit between superhuman and human within the fictional universe. Because, the reader or the viewer may share the secret identity with Superman and also with Spiderman or Batman or any other superhuman, but the secret equivalence of Superman and Clark Kent contains another hidden antithesis. (shrink)

This project proposes, through Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), to analyze how the image of the character Superman is constructed as a product created by the mass media in the film “Superman, the movie” released in 1978. The cinema is one of the greatest pillars of entertainment and capable of significantly influencing human life. Present in many moments and areas of everyday life, in a society with a capitalist economic model, cinematographic content becomes a commodity to win over the (...) general public with an attractive narrative. To achieve the objective of this project, it is necessary to identify how the image of this superhero aimed at mass consumption is constructed. (shrink)

Jennifer Saul’s puzzle, a generalized version of Frege’s puzzle concerning opacity, poses troublesome triads such as: (i) Superman = Clark Kent; (ii) Superman does not wear glasses; (iii) Clark Kent does wear glasses. Proposed resolutions of the puzzle variously deny the identity claim (i) (Graeme Forbes, Joseph Moore, David Pitt); deny one or other of the predication claims (ii)/(iii) (Jennifer Saul, David Braun, Alex Barber, Alessandro Capone); or postulate equivocation (Stefano Predelli, Laurence Goldstein). I myself develop an equivocation (...) account, using the resources of cognitive semantics (e.g. Gilles Fauconnier, George Lakoff, and Ray Jackendoff). My work shares Saul’s psychologistic turn but reaches very different conclusions. Whereas Saul regards (i) as semantically true, and others regard it as false, I regard each of (i–iii) as both true and false (true in one way and false in another). This is not to say that they are lexically, structurally, or illocutionarily ambiguous; but they do possess a kind of pragmatic indeterminacy that generates what I call ambivalence ambiguity. If my account is correct, ambivalence ambiguity is due to inconsistencies intrinsic to our mental models. My mentalist account of linguistic interpretation is both clarified and supported by analogy to cartographic interpretation, and it is additionally supported by virtue of its power to solve problems that confront referential semantics: the notorious aspect problem and the heretofore unrecognized parity problem. (shrink)

Since the birth of the first test-tube baby, Louise Brown, in 1977, we have seen truly remarkable advances in biotechnology. We can now screen the fetus for Down Syndrome, Spina Bifida, and a wide range of genetic disorders. We can rearrange genes in DNA chains and redirect the evolution of species. We can record an individual's genetic fingerprint. And we can potentially insert genes into human DNA that will produce physical warning signs of cancer, allowing early detection. In fact, biotechnology (...) has progressed to such a point that virtually any kind of genetic manipulation, if not already possible, is just around the corner. But these breakthroughs also raise serious ethical and moral dilemmas that we are only now beginning to confront. In Wonderwoman and Superman, noted medical ethicist John Harris offers the first thorough analysis of the moral dilemmas created by the revolution in molecular biology. Covering a wide array of recent innovations, Harris discusses, for example, the moral decisions involved and the consequences of creating egg and embryo banks. Who should be allowed to use such resources? Should recipients be screened? Should such banks be open for public or private use? And does it cheapen life to make embryos available for sale? In another chapter, Harris examines the question of conceiving children chiefly for organ donation, focusing on the recent case of a woman who wanted to have a second child to provide a bone marrow donor for her first child sick with leukemia (she intended to abort the fetus if its bone marrow did not genetically match that of her living child). In this case, the medical staff had to decide whether they should perform in-vitro fertilization, knowing that the mother did not satisfy the clinic's criteria (there was no father), and also knowing the potential for abortion. Discussing the ethics of the mother's choice and the clinic's choice, Harris asks whether it is morally correct to create a child as an organ donor, whether the future child would suffer, whether it is worth any suffering to be born, and who has the right to weigh the various factors (both moral and physiological) involved in making these decisions. Delving into a multitude of issues such as when life begins, when suffering is needless, and whether we should play God, Wonderwoman and Superman provides not only a thought-provoking inquiry into the potential and actual ethical dilemmas created by the many advances in biotechnology, but challenges us to learn to choose responsibly and to face the moral implications of the choices that confront us. (shrink)

Observing Clark Kent, so dressed, entering a phone booth and Superman, so dressed, exiting it, most people say (1) is true, (2) false (1) Clark Kent entered the phone booth and Superman came out. (2) Clark Kent entered the phone booth and Clark Kent came out. Why? Some say it’s semantics: the sentences say different things. Others say it’s pragmatics: uses of the sentences (non-semantically) convey different things. Yet others say it’s differing associations speakers make with the sentences. (...) I defend the plausibility of a semantic explanation of our intuitions, arguing that linguistic competence and the meaning it tracks is constituted by something more like a process than a persisting, relatively unvarying state. While it is an empirical matter which explanation is correct, the picture of competence and meaning as things process like is, I argue, preferable to views of them as static. (shrink)

In een tijd van diepgaand cynisme, beursschandalen en de afbraak van de publieke en de intellectuele moraal is er een type macht nodig dat tot de verbeelding van het volk spreekt en een geluksbelofte presenteert. Daarbij zijn waarden als vriendschap, respect, solidariteit en camaraderie van het grootste belang, zo leren Beethoven, Superman en Spider-Man ons.

_Go beyond the cape and into the mind of the Man of Steel, in time for release of Zack Snyder's _Man of Steel_ movie and Superman's 75th anniversary_ He has thrilled millions for 75 years, with a legacy that transcends national, cultural, and generational borders, but is there more to the Man of Steel than just your average mythic superhero in a cape? The 20 chapters in this book present a fascinating exploration of some of the deeper philosophical questions (...) raised by Superman, the Last Son of Krypton and the newest hero in the Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture arsenal. (shrink)

'You have known me for years, Lois' explains Superman, as I lay aside my copy of Crimmins’s example. 'But there is something you have not yet discovered. You also know me under a disguise. You have not yet realized that this person is I in disguise. On that way of thinking about me, you have different opinions of me. In fact you think me an idiot.' I've just informed Superman that I accept his testimony on the strength of (...) his intelligence. But I confess I don’t quite know how to acknowledge my acceptance of his final remark. (shrink)

Superman (2025) reinscreve o signo “esperança” ao mesmo tempo como gesto ético-contradispositivo e como commodity afetiva da nova fase da DC nos cinemas. Podemos analisar a produção tomando por eixo teórico as críticas de Byung-Chul Han à sociedade do desempenho, à infocracia e à psicopolítica. A pesquisa emprega método multi-paratextual qualitativo: examinou-se o filme, materiais promocionais, críticas de imprensa, declarações de estúdio, dados de bilheteria e depoimentos de fãs, codificados em oito categorias (temporalidade, alteridade, opacidade, negatividade, positividade mercadológica, desempenho, (...) ritual, fandom). Os achados mostram ambivalência estrutural: na diegese, a esperança surge como força relacional — herói-imigrante, ecossistema diverso de meta-humanos, dilemas morais e falibilidade que reintroduzem negatividade fecunda e espírito comunitário, contrariando o cinismo vigente; simultaneamente, a mesma semântica de “heart/hope/humanity” é instrumentalizada pelo marketing (“olhe para cima”) para reativar a marca, fidelizar dados emocionais do público e render US$ 122 milhões na estreia, confirmando a captura psicopolítica dos afetos. A recepção crítica e fandom oscila entre louvar a sinceridade “hopepunk” e criticar a sobrecarga de produtos intelectuais e a performatividade motivacional, evidenciando que a esperança permanece em tensão entre potência transformadora e neutralização mercantil. Conclui-se que Superman (2025) funciona como laboratório contemporâneo da dialética haniana: só preservará seu impacto se continuar a cultivar negatividade e alteridade antes de se …. (shrink)

『산해경』, 『초사』, 『장자』에는 정상적인 인간의 능력을 뛰어넘는 초자연적 존재에 관한 기록이 제법 있다. 이는 후세의 도교에서 말하는 신선과 매우 유사한 특성을 지닌 것이다. 본고는 상기 세 문헌에 보이는 초인들의 사례를 구체적으로 검토함을 통하여, 이것들이 신선과 어떠한 차이점 혹은 일치점을 가지고 있는지를 분석해 보고자 하는 것이다.BR 오늘날까지 전해 오는 상기 텍스트들은 모두가 그 원형으로부터 많이 벗어난 것이며, 오랜 기간에 걸쳐 다양한 시기에 형성된 내용들이 한 데 어우러져 있으므로 그 사상적 성격을 특정 하는 데는 상당한 어려움이 있다. 가능한 한 원형에 가까운 것으로 (...) 판단되는 기술을 중심으로 살펴보더라도 그 어려움은 여전히 해소되지 않는다.BR 『산해경』에는 신선가 혹은 도교의 문헌에 나타나는 신선사상과 관련된 핵심적인 장소와 인물들이 이미 보이고 있다. 그러나 이들은 모두 신선과는 거리가 멀며, 먼 이국이나 타지에 사는 특이한 존재로 묘사되어 있을 따름이다. 그러한 점에서 이는 신선사상을 반영한 것이라기보다는 후대에 신선사상이 대두하는 배경이 된 고대의 환상적 전설에 기반을 두었다고 봄이 타당할 것이다.BR 『초사』의 경우 ｢이소｣와 ｢천문｣에 중국 고대의 신화 전설에 관련된 내용이 풍부하게 나타나는데, 그것들이 대체로 후대의 도가사상과 관련을 가진 것이기는 하지만, 아직 신선가의 소산이라고 단정할 수는 없다.BR 『장자』에는 신선을 의미하는 僊이라는 글자도 이미 나타나 있다. 또한 후대의 도교에서 유행하는 벽곡, 호흡법, 導引같은 신선이 되기 위한 수련법도 나타나 있으며, 도교의 궁극적 목적인 장생불사에 대한 추구와 그 방법도 제시되어져 있다. 장생술을 비롯하여 초인이 되기 위한 일체의 수련법은 도와의 합일을 목표로 하고 있는데, 이 점 역시 신선이 되는 방법과 일치한다. 비록 『장자』의 가치관이 초현실의 세계를 추구하지 않는다고 할지라도, 그 초인 사상의 대부분은 전국 시기 이래의 방선도(신선가) 및 후세 도교의 신선과 일맥상통하는 면을 지니고 있는 것이다. 그러므로 초인의 능력이 신선가의 영향 아래 지금과 같은 형태로 기록되었을 가능성이 있다고 보아야 할 것이다. (shrink)

Some secrets are fine to keep to ourselves, and others are not. At first glance, Clark’s secret seems to be fine, but it may not be if we look further into it. We all know Clark’s big secret: he is Superman. Secrets always belong to someone. This is one of the things that distinguish secrets from information we simply don’t have. Secrecy is morally neutral and can be used for good or bad ends. One other closely linked concept we (...) must distinguish from secrecy is privacy. Clark Kent is a citizen (sort of), but Superman is purely a public persona. In Superman, vol. 2, #2 (February 1987), Lex Luthor figured out Superman’s secret. Superman has confided his true identity to the Kents and Lana. In Clark’s case, there are several reasons for his secret, but the most compelling one is to protect his loved ones. (shrink)

In the present scenario, Superman’s problem is not just a problem of physical effort but one of practical reasoning. A well‐adjusted and fairly moral person will respond to the world in certain kinds of ways that go beyond making calculations of reasons. First, there is the issue of what they will count as a reason at all. Second, there is the matter of when serious deliberation is required at all. Just as we act out of habit in our usual (...) daily routines, so too we can act out of habit in less routine matters. And these habits can be emotional too. Injustice causes us to feel anger on our own or on others’ behalf, exemplified by Grant Morrison’s Superman‐as‐social‐crusader in the new Action Comics. When the circumstances make things clear, a virtuous person just acts. In this sense, Superman is virtuous in his exercise of practical reason. (shrink)

There have been major developments in the understanding of children’s nonhuman concepts, particularly God concepts, within the past two decades, with a body of cross-cultural studies accumulating. Relatively less research has studied those of non-Christian faiths or children’s concepts of popular occult characters. This paper describes two studies, one in Spain and one in England, examining 5- to 10-year-olds’ human and nonhuman agent beliefs. Both settings were secular, but the latter comprised a Muslim majority. Children were given a false-belief task (...) in which they were asked to infer about three humans, three animals and three supernatural beings. Similar false beliefs about humans, with subtle differences in inferences about animals and supernatural beings, were found between the two locations. In London different patterns for God between participants with a family religion, in particular Muslims, and non-affiliates, were identified as well as an association between religious beliefs and practice and inferences about God. Findings are discussed in the light of theory and research on the role of sociocultural inputs in children’s theory of mind development and understanding of agency. (shrink)

Long-established stereotypes tend to dominate the perceptions physicians have of the philosophers and other humanists who serve as medical ethicists. They also alter the views humanists have of physicians, and those that the public have of both. These stereotypes are a formidable barrier to effective working relationships between the two groups of professionals, as well as to public understanding of medical ethics issues. To achieve a better working relationships and to foster more realistic understanding, it is important that the humanists (...) step out of their academic settings, for a time, and become part of the clinical service. (shrink)

It is obvious that the use of these various terms does not result in a miscellany of ideas such as it occurs in many New Age theories. In perennialists’ writings we have come to realize that this is not an attempt to mix traditions together, but is instead an attempt to utilize existing terminology when it is appropriate. The paper has focused at studying the anthropology of perfection in perennial philosophy. It has addressed issues such as the nature of ‘self (...) and the states of self-realization’, selfessness and selfi shness’, ‘the categories of man’, ‘the process of exaltation’, ‘attributes’, ‘qualities’, ‘rights and obligations of the superior man in traditional worldview. In various places of the paper we have resorted to artworks belonging to various traditions and different times to communicate the ideas and worldviews. They show how essential the role of artists and the art they produce is in keeping alive the reverence for perfection and continuity of tradition through their inspired imagination. The superior qualities are not necessarily those of rulers and conquerors. They are rather to be found in mythical heroes, prophets of God and sages of various traditions; those who, in Ghazali’s words, “possess inner vision”. Such individuals hold attributes of perfection; their bodies die, yet their characters live beyond time and space inspiring generations after generations. After all, to be a superior being means starting a never-ending journey of becoming. (shrink)

The core of the study is a critical comparison of Nietzsche’s notion ofÜbermensch, and its transhumanist rewriting into different variants of the posthuman. The first part contextualizes transhumanist thought, primarily in relation to certain evolutionary ideas that, in their totality, exhibit a fundamental anthropological deficit: they speak of the evolutionary overcoming of human, but the limit of sensibility that attempts to imagine a future human being is only the mere negation of what human has been so far. In this way, (...) the posthuman is not removed from the somewhat vague context of the technological “extension” of previous humanity. In this respect, the whole concept is grossly unaesthetic. The second part shows that Nietzsche’s rethinking of the overhuman was intertwined with other anthropological structures, for example, the idea ofMitfreude(‘shared joy’), which is supposed to creatively (in the manner of art) replace the morally misleading notion of compassion. The Übermensch therefore enabled Nietzsche to propose a different conception of intersubjectivity; one that would no longer be reduced to contempt for the human being. The third section traces the causes of the transhumanist failure in productive imagination. It is based on the hypothesis that this failure is driven by an unconscious preference for the figure of the comic book Superman. It postulates, through a Kantian conception of the sublime, that an adequate elaboration of the image of the posthuman cannot do without an affective component that would allow forBejahung(‘affirmation’). Only the artificial will always appear, to some degree, as alien, and therefore will never transcend the limits of reactive adaptation. A living posthuman could only emerge if he offered anthropological techniques of the art of living. Therefore, transhumanism continuously raises anthropological questions, especially regarding the problem of the extent to which the artificiality of art can be identified with technology. Without proper answers, it will not achieve the complexity of Nietzsche’s overhuman, and will always only dilute him into technological supplements. The posthuman will come into being when he is conceived as a grandiose work of art. (shrink)

What are the blissful islands? And where are they? This book takes as its starting-point the chapter called On the Blissful Islands in Part Two of Nietzsche s Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and its enigmatic conclusion: The beauty of the Superman came to me as a shadow. From this remarkable and powerful passage, it disengages the Nietzschean idea of the Superman and the Jungian notion of the shadow, moving these concepts into a new, interdisciplinary direction. In particular, On the (...) Blissful Islands seeks to develop the kind of interpretative approach that Jung himself employed. Its chief topics are classical, psychological, and philosophical, blended together to produce a rich, intellectual-historical discussion. By bringing context and depth to a nexus of highly problematic concepts, it offers something new to the specialist and the general reader alike. So this book considers the significance of the statue in the culture of antiquity, and investigates the associated notion of self-sculpting as a form of existential exercise. This Neoplatonic theme is pursued in relation to a poem by Schiller, at the centre of which lies the notion of self-sculpting, thus highlighting Nietzsche s relationship to Idealism. Its conclusion directly addresses the vexed question of Nietzsche s relation to Plato. This book s main ambition is to provide a cross-cultural, interdisciplinary reading of key themes and motifs, using Jungian ideas in general to uncover a dimension of deep meaning in key passages in Nietzsche. Engaging the reader directly on major existential questions, it aims to be an original, thought-provoking contribution to the history of ideas, and to show that Zarathustra was right: There still are blissful islands! This book will be stimulating reading for analytical psychologists, including those in training, and academics and scholars of Jungian studies, Nietzsche, and the history of ideas. ". (shrink)

The comic book hero Superman grew from a social crusader and a “champion of the oppressed” in the 1930s, to a patriotic and paternalistic fighter for “Truth, Justice, and the American way” in the 1940s and 1950s, to a compassionate Christ‐like savior in the latter part of the twentieth century – and always defending the Judeo‐Christian values upheld by the American majority. Friedrich Nietzsche’s “superman,” on the other hand, firmly rejects the very same values its superhero namesake upholds. (...) While it has been a common trope in the superhero genre and popular culture in general to characterize figures explicitly based on Nietzsche’s Übermensch as inhuman monsters, this chapter argues that Nietzsche’s concept can be reinstated through the character of Superman himself. Like Übermensch, Superman is strong, creative, noble, independent, and life‐affirming, but unlike him, Superman is compassionate and looks out for the little guy. (shrink)

Lois is so easily deceived by Clark’s glasses and mild‐mannered demeanor because identity isn’t nearly as clear as we’d like to believe. In fact, may be there is a strong sense in which Clark Kent and Superman really are two different people. Memory isn't the right place to look for identity, unless we want to agree that Superman losing his memory would mean that he was, in effect, dead. If we look at personal identity as something we just (...) kind of make up about ourselves and others, basically as just using names to avoid confusion and complexity, then we can start to give Lois some slack for never realizing that Superman and Clark aren't the same person. When we name things, we give them a common‐sense version of identity, and Superman and Clark are given two different identities by society and even themselves. (shrink)

When we try to describe pain, we say things like “it feels like someone is sticking a fork in the back of my eye”. We describe pain by describing its cause, not how it feels. We try to make Superman like us because we suffer from the sympathy problem as well. When Superman is made vulnerable to cuts and bruising through kryptonite, there is additional‐and different‐pain caused by exposure to the kryptonite itself. Admittedly, there are less fatal ways (...) that Superman could be made susceptible to pain, but they involve the same psychological complexities as the pain from kryptonite. Humans have always been vulnerable, whereas Superman has very little experience with pain and vulnerability. If Superman has never been frail and mortal, then it would be hard for him to really understand how other sentient beings on Earth feel. (shrink)

The 2016 DC Comics film Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, directed by Zack Snyder, depicts the tense conflict between Batman and Superman as they become embroiled in the perilous plot of LexCorp CEO Lex Luthor. I contend that the film serves as an interesting philosophical device that explores the relationship between partisanship and fake news. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice argues that partisanship makes us vulnerable to the influence of fake news. This paper traces the (...) contours of the film’s argument and compares it to the political realities surrounding the 2016 United States presidential election. (shrink)

This chapter first critically traces the didactic tradition of teaching-as-telling or aggressive teaching, which has remained dominant in the histories of China and Western education, and then explores the Taoist Pedagogy of PathmarksTaoist Pedagogy of Pathmarks as the Tao of inaction as “wait[ing] in silent readiness” (Heidegger in Letters to his wife. Polity Press, Cambridge, 1939/2008, p. 160). As it resonates with the connections among Heidegger, Lao TzuLao Tzu, and Dewey, the Taoist Pedagogy of Pathmarks does not methodize teaching as (...) an industrious process from input to output but celebrates it as being-in-relation in which the Tao of inaction “acts without dominating” (Tao Te Ching, Ch. 81). (shrink)