Yes, its about critical thinking based off of popular pop fiction, there is an X-man one, a harry potter one, and a Monty Python one. Each one has its charm and critiques how the popular pop fiction shaped our current culture. Honestly Rebecca Housel (one of the authors) is a great professor I had while in college. I would even go as far as to recommend reading the book even if you hate twilight such as myself.

u/Parivill501 · 3 points r/askphilosophy

Harry Potter and Philosophy maybe?

u/Tintinnuntius · 1 point r/harrypotter

Have you seen these three books (1, 2, 3)? I haven't read them, so I can't tell you which is best, but even just looking at the table of contents might give you some ideas.

u/YourRaraAvis · 1 point r/harrypotter

Thanks!

The topic has been a little "done to death." There are actually two books out, Harry Potter and Philosophy: If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts and The Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy: Hogwarts for Muggles. Of the two, the second is much better, in my opinion (the first was published before the series was finished and contains a fair handful of out-and-out errors-- Winky is Dobby's sister, for instance-- and some theories are proven misguided by the subsequent publications), mostly because the latter is really "Harry Potter and Philosophy, while the former is "Harry Potter and Philosophy." However, both books are collections of essays, not in-depth reviews, and no one has really done what struck me most: so I think there's room for me.

My topic is very broad right now: The distinction between the Soul, the Mind, and the Body in Harry Potter. As you can imagine, there is a ton of evidence to go through. I can't even be sure each exist: a Horcrux is just a soul, and the recipient of the Dementor's Kiss is just a body, but there's no clear-cut case of "just a mind" (the closest, I think, is a portrait: because clearly the soul has "gone on." But then why does Dumbledore cry? An Inferi clearly has no soul; yet it has a body and is able to act autonomously/make decisions. Should the mind then be classified as a function of the body? Yet the Horcrux in the diary certainly has the capacity for rational thought-- and even if you argue that's a result of the spell Riddle placed on the diary, the necklace was still cognizant enough to attack Harry. And so on.).

Some of the main categories: the soul as a distinct object (Horcruxes, the Dementor's Kiss, possession), consciousness without body (portraits, photographs, ghosts), trans-spatial identification (Animagi, Metamorphmagi, Polyjuice potion, werewolves, transfiguration), immortality/resurrection (the Philosopher's Stone, unicorn blood, Horcruxes, the Resurrection stone, priori incantatum), life after death (King's Cross station, "death is but the next great adventure," Harry's mother saying he's "been so brave", e.g.), and right now, a bogus category I'm calling "sensing" (I have a vaguely formed postulate that in the magical world, a distinct entity, be it the soul, the mind, the "identity," what have you, must exist, because so many things appear to interact with that entity: patronuses, for instance, seem to personify that entity and cannot be disguised; the sorting hat looks into your "mind" but seems to identify your "soul"; wands choose the wizard; boggarts, amortentia, thestrals, the Mirror of Erised, etc.).

So yeah, that's HP&P, as I have affectionately named it. I'll stop rambling now and go take my medication in the corner.

Related categories:

Reddit mentions of Harry Potter and Philosophy: If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Found 5 comments on Harry Potter and Philosophy: If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts:

Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature