# 30 Rock and Philosophy This book takes a fascinating approach, using the popular television show _30 Rock_ as a springboard to explore various philosophical ideas. The editor, William Irwin, suggests that television, much like Plato used dialogues in his time, can serve as a popular medium to get people thinking about philosophy. The book aims to be readable, providing surface-level explanations and further ideas for exploration. The core idea is that philosophy can arise from watching something as inherently silly and entertaining as _30 Rock_. Just as Aristotle believed philosophy begins in wonder, the show, with its focus on television and its often-absurd scenarios, can spark that sense of wonder, leading to philosophical reflection. The book suggests that the writers of _30 Rock_, like Tina Fey, might be seen as a collective modern-day Plato, embedding philosophical questions within the show's narrative and shenanigans. Questions like the nature of friendship, morality, reality, and even the meaning of life are woven into the antics of the TGS staff. One significant area the book explores is **Ethics and the Good Life**. It contrasts the seemingly simple moral vision of Kenneth Parcell with more complex ethical frameworks. Kenneth is presented as someone who sees the world in terms of absolute right and wrong, unbothered by the moral dilemmas that complicate the lives of characters like Liz Lemon or Jack Donaghy. His moral universe is one where lying is wrong, stealing is forbidden, and doing good for others is paramount, often leading him to perform virtuous deeds like helping Liz, remaining loyal to Tracy, or sacrificing his own well-being. Kenneth follows a moral code no matter the difficulty. However, the book also introduces the idea of **contextual absolutism**, a view associated with Aristotle. This perspective suggests that while there are moral truths, rules aren't rigid guidelines to be followed blindly in all circumstances. Sometimes, circumstances might demand setting a rule aside, though this should be done carefully. The moral sage, in this view, understands the specifics of a situation and acts appropriately, having potentially moved beyond the need for strict rules. The question is raised whether Kenneth is a rule absolutist or if he occasionally sets rules aside. Examples like Kenneth's attempt to deceive Tracy to save his marriage suggest he _can_ set rules aside, potentially indicating a form of contextual absolutism. Yet, his actions are sometimes driven by loyalty that leads him against his own principles, presenting a central danger of his worldview. Kenneth's simplicity can lead to him being easily manipulated. The show is also examined through the lens of a **Confucian-Aristotelian critique**, particularly focusing on what is termed the "semi-virtuous path". This critique suggests that comedy, while entertaining, isn't morally neutral and can subtly influence our beliefs. Both Confucius and Aristotle emphasized cultivating virtue to achieve happiness. Aristotle, in particular, saw moral virtues as a mean between extremes. The book argues that _30 Rock_ often subtly valorizes being "semi-virtuous" – not the best, but not the worst either. Characters like Jack and Liz are presented as embodying this "semi-virtuous path," suggesting that being truly virtuous might appear naive or ridiculous, using Kenneth's "pure morality" as an example. This perspective might lead to the belief that truth needs to be "massaged". **Justice** is also discussed within this framework, defined as treating or valuing each person or thing as they ought to be. Injustice can arise from treating equals unequally, superiors abusing subordinates, or subordinates failing to submit or being overly servile. Tracy Jordan's insubordination is seen as an example of injustice, failing to submit to reasonable orders, although the show sometimes laughs off his antics instead of denouncing them. Kenneth's overly submissive or servile behavior as a page is presented as another form of injustice, a negative extreme of submission, which Aristotle might call vicious. The show is criticized for potentially failing to make it clear that Kenneth's servility is immoral, giving the false impression that only intentions matter, rather than recognizing his moral duty to understand the limits of his obligations. Virtues like **magnificence and liberality** (proper attitudes toward wealth and money) are also mentioned, suggesting that characters like Jack, who prioritize profit, may fail to embody these virtues fully. The book also touches upon the show's portrayal of **religion and piety**. Jack's nominal Catholicism, Kenneth's "hick Protestantism," and Liz's general spiritualism are examined. Jack's character often pokes fun at religion. Kenneth's apparent piety is often undermined by his perceived naivety and ignorance. Liz's spirituality is linked to following figures like Oprah, representing a general spirituality without much specific content, which the book contrasts with the Confucian and Aristotelian view that piety involves sincere honor toward the gods and is a sign of being admirable. The show, in this view, might valorize Jack's impiety or Kenneth's "foolish" piety over a genuine, wise form of devotion. **Friendship** is another key philosophical topic explored, using Aristotle's classification of three types: based on utility, pleasure, and virtue. Friendships based on utility are those where people associate primarily for mutual usefulness, like coworkers. These relationships are often temporary, dissolving when the benefits cease. Friendships based on pleasure are those enjoyed because the other person is witty or fun to be around, and while pleasant, may not be deep. The book notes that while utility and pleasure friendships are fine, deeper relationships require something more. The deep friendship Aristotle describes involves wishing good things for the other person purely for their sake. The relationship between Liz and Jenna is initially presented as leaning towards utility and pleasure, remaining largely so in the early seasons. In contrast, the relationship between Liz and Jack evolves significantly, exhibiting mutually self-sacrificial behaviors that Aristotle would see as indicators of a deeper, virtue-based friendship, despite their initial adversarial dynamic. This evolution involves tension but is ultimately presented as worth the risk. The nature of **corporations** is also philosophically examined. The book discusses sociologist Robert Jackall's work on corporate culture and philosopher Peter French's argument that corporations can be considered "persons" because they have a decision-making process independent of the individuals within them, making them bearers of rights and responsibilities. This leads to the idea that corporations have a form of "actorship" or will. However, this raises uncomfortable conclusions, such as philosopher Marvin T. Brown's point that if corporations are rational actors, then treating them as tools for our will could be seen as enslavement. The book also touches upon philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre's view that modern businesses focus on external rewards like status and wealth rather than the intrinsic value of the activities themselves. This is exemplified by Jack's focus on profit and status, viewing different company divisions like TV and microwaves as interchangeable ways to make money, rather than valuing the specific activities involved. Adam Smith's ideas are brought in, suggesting a danger in centralizing decisions (like corporate management or government regulation) made by those who lack direct knowledge of the specific activities they oversee. **Social and Political Philosophy** are briefly explored through the lens of Liz and Jack's relationship, contrasting **communitarianism** (emphasizing the value of community and its role in individual selfhood) with **libertarianism** (prioritizing individual freedom and self-interest). Despite their opposing views, their relationship suggests that valuing the community is essential to individual well-being (supporting a communitarian point) and that libertarian self-interest only makes sense if it includes valuing the community that is essential to the self, implying a potential reconciliation between these philosophies. The book delves into the philosophical concepts of **illusion, delusion, and reality**, drawing parallels from Hinduism and Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Hinduism sees the physical world as illusion (maya) and suffering arising from ignorance of the one true reality (Brahman), with enlightenment (moksha) freeing individuals from these illusions. Plato's cave allegory illustrates how people can be trapped by mistaking shadows or illusions for reality, and may even prefer delusion to facing the overwhelming truth of reality. Both traditions agree that this world is an imperfect reflection or illusion, that knowledge leads from delusion to reality, and that finding reality brings happiness. Characters in _30 Rock_ are analyzed through this lens: - Drew Baird lives in a "bubble" of delusion created by his good looks and the privileges they afford him, choosing to remain ignorant of how most people live. - Liz Lemon experiences delusions, such as the belief that she can "have it all" (career, family, love) simultaneously, or that her work is sufficient to satisfy her current needs, denying her need for intimacy. - Jack Donaghy also has delusions, including false beliefs about capitalism, politics, his own creativity, and morality. His pride can prevent him from acknowledging his shortcomings or genuinely apologizing. - Kenneth Parcell is presented as dramatically delusional, seeing the world through a naive, flawed worldview, believing television is pure truth and everyone lives in harmony. His declaration "I can't handle the truth!" is seen as summing up his delusion. The book argues that embracing ignorance leads away from happiness. The concept of **Time and Self** is explored by considering how we relate to our past and future selves. Philosophers like Alfred North Whitehead and David Hume offer contrasting views on personal identity over time: Whitehead suggests continuity (self as a historical thread), while Hume is skeptical, viewing the self as a discontinuous "bundle of perceptions" in perpetual flux. Augustine considered time states (past, present, future) as existing in the mind (memory, sight, expectation). Jack's reflection on his ten-year-old self and his quest to recapture that past happiness raises questions about whether he is the same person and the relationship between past and present selves. Gilbert Ryle's idea of the "elusiveness of 'I'" suggests we are always slightly behind ourselves in consciousness, creating a split between past and present selves that never quite meet. Jack's search for an object from his past (an Apollo Lunar Module toy) highlights a search for a past self and happiness, but he ultimately realizes that part of him is gone. However, he rediscovers a feeling of being a kid through a present experience (laughing at Liz's commercial), suggesting that it wasn't the object but his perspective that changed. The book also notes how encounters with potential future selves (like Liz seeing Rosemary Howard) can reveal that what our past self wanted isn't what our present self wants. Memories, influenced by our present state (Freud's Nachtraglichkeit), provide a sense of continuity, though memory can be inaccurate. The chapter on **taste** uses Liz's experience in Cleveland to discuss different aesthetic values in different places and introduces the idea of **social constructivism**. Social constructivism suggests that concepts or values are not determined by nature but are shaped by social settings and practices. Aesthetic sense is seen as at least partially socially constructed, learned from the community's values and standards. The idea that "you can't question taste," often associated with Tracy Jordan, is discussed as a form of relativism, where all aesthetic judgments are treated as equally valuable. Critics fear that in such relativism, those with power and privilege can dictate standards, potentially upholding oppressive ideas without grounds for opposition. **Epistemology**, the study of knowledge, is explored through Tracy Jordan's often unfounded beliefs. Plato defined knowledge as justified true belief. The book discusses the correspondence theory of truth, where a belief is true if it matches reality. Tracy's false claims serve as examples of beliefs that don't correspond to reality. The concept of justification is also key; having a true belief by accident doesn't count as knowledge. Justification can come from evidence or credible sources like testimony. W.K. Clifford's argument that it is morally wrong to believe without sufficient evidence is presented as a reason to ensure our beliefs are true and justified. Finally, the book examines the concept of **performance of self**, the idea that we play social roles in our daily lives, drawing on Shakespeare's idea of the world as a stage. Philosophers like Nietzsche and Santayana are mentioned as criticizing the vanity and hypocrisy involved in adopting roles. However, role performance can also make characters relatable. Jean-Paul Sartre's concept of "bad faith" is introduced – the idea of lying to oneself by becoming so identified with a role that one ignores one's radical freedom and the terrifying range of possibilities. Kenneth's eager performance as a page is presented as a possible example of bad faith, questioning whether he is genuinely committed or escaping freedom by adhering strictly to the role. Jack's corporate attitude and the "Always Be Closing" mentality (alluding to the film _Glengarry Glen Ross_) are seen as linking identity to external measures like income, another form of role performance. The book suggests that breaking from a role, even briefly, can lead to unexpected sincerity or "good faith". Ultimately, the book suggests that performing roles is a way we cope with or ignore the "near-infinite range of possibilities open to us". In essence, _30 Rock and Philosophy_ uses the characters and plots of this beloved sitcom to make philosophical concepts accessible and relatable. It invites readers to see that deep questions about morality, identity, reality, relationships, and societal structures are not just abstract ideas but are present in the popular culture we consume every day.