Spider-Man and Philosophy

The Web of Inquiry

Jonathan J. Sanford, William Irwin

• Publisher: Wiley
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9780470575604
• eBook ISBN: 9781118215753
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosophy History & Theory

Untangle the complex web of philosophical dilemmas of Spidey and his world—in time for the release of The Amazing Spider-Man movie

Since Stan Lee and Marvel introduced Spider-Man in Amazing Fantasy #15 in 1962, everyone's favorite webslinger has had a long career in comics, graphic novels, cartoons, movies, and even on Broadway. In this book some of history's most powerful philosophers help us explore the enduring questions and issues surrounding this beloved superhero: Is Peter Parker to blame for the death of his uncle? Does great power really bring great responsibility? Can Spidey champion justice and be with Mary Jane at the same time? Finding your way through this web of inquiry, you'll discover answers to these and many other thought-provoking questions.

• Gives you a fresh perspective and insights on Peter Parker and Spider-Man's story lines and ideas
• Examines important philosophical issues and questions, such as: What is it to live a good life? Do our particular talents come with obligations? What role should friendship play in life? Is there any meaning to life?
• Views Spider-Man through the lens of some of history's most influential thinkers, from Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and Immanuel Kant to Nietszche, William James, Ayn Rand, and Alasdair MacIntyre
  

PART ONE

THE SPECTACULAR LIFE OF SPIDER-MAN?

CHAPTER 1

DOES PETER PARKER HAVE A GOOD LIFE?

Neil Mussett

Spider-Man is a geek. Don’t get me wrong—I call him that with affection. I myself am quite a geek: computer programmer by day, secret philosopher by night. I’m just saying that if Batman weren’t a superhero, he’d spend his days on yachts with supermodels; Superman would work as a pro-bono lawyer; and Wonder Woman would start an animal preserve in Kenya. (Can you tell I’m more of a D.C. guy?) Peter Parker would work at a lab in a university, design Web pages, or teach high school science. We care about Spider-Man because he’s just like us but with special powers. Peter Parker has all sorts of problems: he’s an orphan. He was raised by his older, old-fashioned aunt and uncle. He grew up poor and stays poor in many of the story lines. Even when he does find love, he doesn’t seem to be any good at it. He’s interesting because he doesn’t have it together. Even his superpowers cause problems for him—he has to lie to the people he loves to protect them, and that keeps him from getting close. Other superheroes have their secrets, but for some reason, Peter always feels the consequences more than they do.

The question is, then, would you like to be Spider-Man? Does Peter Parker have a good life? What is a good life, anyway? It seems like a simple enough question. Some answers seem too simple: If I play The Sims video game, I learn that the good life consists of color-coordinated furniture, successful parties, career advancement, and regular trips to the bathroom. Other answers sound good (or at least complicated) but don’t stick with you: when I see an author on this week’s talk show promoting his Secret to Happiness, I can’t help wondering what happened to last week’s secret on the same show.

If philosophy is good for anything, it has to be for the Big Question, the Meaning of Life. There have been a lot of philosophers since Thales of Miletus (ca. 624 BCE) first put in his big plug for water—designating it to be the first principle of everything, by which he seems to have meant that all things really are at bottom water or at least came to be from water. In this paper, I’m going to discuss only five: a Roman slave, a begging friar, a novelist, a psychiatrist, and an academic. Two atheists, and three followers of three different religions. Three of these were imprisoned, two were tortured. Two spent time in concentration camps. One lived under an assumed name to protect the innocent, and we don’t even know the name of another. One never wrote a book, and one wrote more than forty-five. Three have appeared in comic books. Each of these philosophers has given us a complete, and completely different, way to understand ourselves and our lives and a way to find a place for pain and pleasure, other people, morality, and God in the good life.

Paul Kurtz—A Life of Pleasure and Care for Others

I’ll start with the contemporary philosopher Paul Kurtz, partly because he lives near me in Buffalo, New York, but also because I suspect that his answer to the Great Question will most resemble yours. You may not have heard of him, but he’s the author or the editor of more than forty-five books and more than eight hundred published articles. He has popularized the term secular humanism to describe an approach to life that focuses on joyful, creative living, a rejection of all religious claims, and a rational consequence-based ethics.

The good life, Kurtz tells us, has two components: First, the good life is the happy life. What is happiness? Historically, philosophers have described happiness either as pleasure (the hedonists) or as self-actualization (the eudaemonists). Kurtz argues that both are essential to the good life:

If an individual is to achieve a state of happiness, he needs to develop a number of excellences. I will only list these, without explication: the capacity for autonomous choice and freedom, creativity, intelligence, self-discipline, self-respect, high motivation, good will, an affirmative outlook, good health, the capacity to enjoy pleasure, and aesthetic appreciation.1

Does this describe Spider-Man? Peter has certainly determined his own destiny. We know that he’s smart; he actually invents his own web shooters in the comic book. In general, he keeps his cool, but we have seen Spider-Man lose control at times. In Spider-Man 3, we see him go to some strange lengths to embarrass Mary Jane at a jazz club after she breaks up with him. He is young, however, and at the time he was under the influence of an evil spider suit from another planet, so we can forgive him.

Does he enjoy pleasure? His parents are dead. His uncle is dead, and it’s his fault. His aunt is poor, alone, and constantly in danger. In the comic, Peter accidentally kills his first love, Gwen Stacy, when he pulls too hard on his web while saving her from a fall. It does not seem that Peter has enjoyed the “multiplicities of sexuality,” which Kurtz sees as “so essential to happiness.”2 He never seems to have any money. He’s a brilliant scientist, but he doesn’t have the reputation he deserves. J. Jonas uses the newspaper to turn the public against Spider-Man, so Peter can’t even enjoy popular acclaim. I submit to you that it is part of the very essence of Spider-Man that he has a pointedly painful life.

For Kurtz, happiness is important, but we can’t live the truly good life alone. Kurtz insists that each of us needs to develop in ourselves the ethical principles of integrity, trustworthiness, benevolence, and fairness. We also need to “develop love and friendship for their own sakes, as goods in themselves.”3 Finally, we need to “consider all members of the human family to be equal in dignity and value.”4 Not only does Peter Parker place himself in danger to save innocent lives, he’s also a good friend, a loving nephew, and a kind boyfriend. They don’t call him “friendly” for nothing.

It wouldn’t be a discussion of Kurtz’s philosophy without mentioning religion. Kurtz believes strongly that God is a postulation without sufficient evidence.5 Does Pete believe in God? It’s hard to say. God and religion aren’t central to Spider-Man’s story, but some have argued that Peter may be a mild Protestant Christian.6

I think for Kurtz, the jury is out on Peter Parker’s life. On the plus side, he has realized his extraordinary talents and displayed goodwill toward man. On the minus side, his difficult life and obsession with monogamy have robbed Peter of some of the best parts of living. Kurtz might say that Peter is happy; he does have an “active life of enterprise and endeavor,” but Kurtz also believes that life should be fun, and fun seems hard to come by for Peter.7

Ayn Rand—Life and Integrity

Although Paul Kurtz and Ayn Rand (1908–1982) are both atheists, they give incompatible answers to the Big Question. Kurtz wants you to realize that you can be altruistic without religion; Rand wants you to stop being altruistic. Kurtz asks you to develop a “deep appreciation for the needs of other human beings,”8 Rand asks you to “learn to treat as the mark of a cannibal any man’s demand for your help.”9

You may know her through the video game Bioshock, which was inspired by her writings. You may have seen the 1999 movie The Passion of Ayn Rand, based on her life. You may also know her as the star of the comic book Action Philosophers #2 (2005). Steve Ditko, the original artist for The Amazing Spider-Man, had what one author calls a “cultish devotion” to her philosophy of Objectivism.10

Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum was born in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1905, and her family suffered at the hands of the Communist Revolution of 1917. After completing a degree in history, she moved to Hollywood to become a screenwriter. Fearing for her family’s safety in Russia, she changed her name to Ayn Rand when she began to write anti-Soviet stories. She’s most famous for her 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged, about a future in which the producers, the artists, and the entrepreneurs of the world go on strike. (I just checked Amazon.com, and it’s still number one in political philosophy.)

In a lifeless world, she said, there are no choices and no alternatives. With life comes the most fundamental alternative: existence or nonexistence. Matter is indestructible, life is not. A living organism can succeed or fail to sustain itself. If it fails, it dies. Life creates value, that which a living organism acts to attain. Things are good or evil to the extent that they sustain or destroy life. Happiness is achieving one’s values, and “pain is an agent of death.”11

Man has the unique power of rationality. Just as nonrational animals use whatever faculties they possess to survive, man’s rational nature demands a rational means of survival. He has no instinct of self-preservation, no “automatic code of survival.”12 The lower animals have no choice but to act for their own good; man must choose his own actions by thought. “What are the values his survival requires?” she asked. “That is the question to be answered by the science of ethics.”13 Rand’s model for an ethical act was the trade. In a trade, each man must “give value for value.”14 The opposite of the trade would be force, violence, or theft, which would be unethical because it requires the sacrifice of one rational agent for the benefit of another.15

I’m afraid Ayn Rand wouldn’t have had good things to say about Spider-Man. Think about it: Peter Parker has superhuman strength, scientific genius, and the ability to climb walls and see the near future. How does he use it? At first, he uses it to make money as a pro-wrestler (in the comic, he has quite a successful career). When he decides not to intervene i...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Contents
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Part One: The Spectacular Life of Spider-Man?
• Part Two: Responsibility-Man
• Part Three: Spider-Sense and the Self
• Part Four: Arachnids “R” Us: Technology and the Human, all too Human
• Part Five: Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man
• Part Six: The Amazing Speaking Spider: Jokes, Stories, and the Choices We Make
• Contributors
• Index