Purpose of this Blog

This website started as an outlet for students in Adriel M. Trott's Public Philosophy Senior Capstone course. It is now a website for sharing information about Wabash philosophy, studying philosophy in general and as an outlet for the Philosophy Club to engage.

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

The Walking Dead

In a world in which we have not encountered the actuality of "zombies," outside of someone drowning themselves figuratively in bath salts, they have become an increasingly hot topic in the pop culture realm. 


The Walking Dead is a hit TV series aired on AMC every Sunday night at 9 eastern. Having watched every episode of the show since it first premiered, I have found myself constantly engulfed in the happenings and decisions that take place within the show. I tend to love shows that make me think about how I myself might solve a similar problem if I was faced with a similar situation. This show had done this for me up until about the half-way point of last season. The show began to hit a "lul" or maybe a more proper term, dead spot (no pun intended). So I decided to take a look at viewership over time to see how my interest compares, and not surprisingly it has only increased since it first premiered on October 31, 2010. In December of this past year, it had reached a record 16.1 million viewers at the same time that Sunday Night Football was airing. This would presumably not make sense considering the obvious fanbase that the NFL has. It was then that I realized that this might not be a coincidence that the NFL and The Walking Dead have such a huge viewership. I have entrenched myself in sports for my entire life, so in no way am I arguing against the sport of football, however it may be possible that we as a society love the idea of chaos and fight. No matter how big or small the chaos or fight may seem, we love to figuratively stick our nose in and see what's going on. This is where I have lost a lot of interest in the The Walking Dead as well as the NFL

The Walking Dead sets up a very nice Platonic setting in which the main character, Rick Grimes, is played out as the philosopher-king, and Shane Walsh is playing the part of Thrasymachus.


In Plato's Republic he battles Thrasymachus to a point of physicality in that it isn't as much about Thrasymachus fighting with Socrate's argument as it is Socrates himself. This plays out very nicely in Shane's battle with Rick. Rick is the thinking and decision making mind for the group of survivors while Shane is the act now, decide later member of the group. Joseph Campbell's article goes more in-depth with this notion of the philosopher-king and I believe it to be a great insight for myself and possibly others who may have lost interest.

It would seem to me that for those of us who have found ourselves just watching the show in passing and not really becoming a part of it, or even becoming interested in it, it's because of the chaos and fighting that it has lost it's spunk. Obviously a show with zombies is going to include fighting when the zombie's character eats people. Fighting in the sense of little spats amongst the group that last for three episodes is the type of fighting that has become uninteresting and mind-numbing. The chaos falls in line with this notion of fighting in-so-far-as the philosopher-king does more acting out and less thinking now. Rick has to constantly defend and argue with the group about every single little decision that he makes, whether it's for himself, another person, or the entire group. He is no longer truly thinking and being the leader as he is the guy under the sheriffs cap waiting to be replaced by his son.

As a society I believe that we (I don't speak for everyone) have began to love the idea of acting and doing the reminiscing or thinking afterwards as opposed to the other way around. The Walking Dead has taken up this very mindset in my opinion and therefore has lost my interest as a show that I will cancel plans to make sure I see. I'm not arguing that Plato's Republic is what keeps someone interested in a show, but it's possible that a more thought-based society would be worth giving consideration to.

2 comments:

  1. So, I signed myself out again instead of publishing my comment. Very poor user-interface, but still my fault I suppose.

    So, I had a question for you, I have a question for you. Is it your claim that the culture of violence and our constant spectatorship of it is the reason that you have become disinterested? I just want to be sure before I ask my next question.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Recall that when we first began the Plato course, we discussed the distinction between persuasion and force; that these are two manners by which people engage with and influence others. In the Derrida reading for today, I was struck by the same dichotomy: illocution v perlocution, or constative v performative statement. The former of each of these pairs seems to signify declaration, description, speech/communication that represents its own speech act; the latter of each pair seems to signify suggestion. Let me set up an analogy: illocution is to constative statement and force as perlocution is to performative statement and persuasion/convincing.

    All of this to frame the following question:

    Is the philosopher king to be responsible for persuasive activity? Or should he be declarative, too? Can you persuade with declaration?

    But more to the point: would the day-to-day interaction among a philosopher king and the rest of the people be just as important a focus in our understanding of the philosopher king? Does this save the Walking Dead for you?

    ReplyDelete