**More Than Just Paper: The Book's Big Idea** Right from the start, the book sets a playful yet serious tone. It's framed, in part, as a business proposition to paper companies like Wernham-Hogg in the UK and Dunder-Mifflin in the USA. The core idea is that philosophy, perhaps surprisingly, is a massive consumer of paper. Think about it – philosophers write, revise, argue, and revise again, needing ample paper for their work. So, the author, J. Jeremy Wisnewski, humorously suggests that paper companies should support philosophy because philosophers will always need their product. In return, philosophers might even offer some insights into the workings of these companies and the people within them. It's a delightful way to bridge the gap between the seemingly abstract world of philosophy and the very concrete business of selling paper. The book explicitly states that its pages will explore some of the things philosophers _do_, even if they don't come up with "final answers". The goal is to support your offices because philosophy needs paper. The author even muses about the potential of philosophy for the future of paper and maybe even civilization. And, for any paper companies listening, they might even learn something about themselves or their organizations from the book. Now, before we get too deep, the book also addresses something important: the British vs. American version of _The Office_. Some British fans might be "bitter" about the focus on the American show, while some American fans might be "confused" about references to the British original, featuring characters like David Brent. The author acknowledges the excellence of the British version but asserts that the American version has developed "a life of its own" and isn't just a cheap copy. Plus, Ricky Gervais, co-creator of the British version, worked on and is credited as a producer for the American show, suggesting his approval. The book aims to do philosophy on both sides of the Atlantic, covering topics related to both the Slough and Scranton branches. Other international versions like the French, German, and French-Canadian ones are explicitly _not_ covered, except for a brief mention. So, the book clearly loves both the British and American shows enough to delve into them carefully and critically. The author even gives a special nod to paper itself, jokingly suggesting it deserves the "Michael Scott Award" at the "Dundies" for its role in organizing life, even if not always in rational ways. It highlights how essential paper is, from important documents to simple lists. **Moral Mazes and Managerial Miscues** One big theme the book tackles is moral failure, particularly through the lens of characters like Michael Scott. The idea presented is that getting things "right" morally is tough because there are so many ways to mess up. Philosophers often talk about moral failure in terms of evil (wanting to do wrong), weakness of will (knowing what's right but not being able to do it), and ignorance (not knowing something is wrong). But the book suggests that _The Office_, especially through Michael Scott, reveals another crucial category: **moral blindness**. This is when someone wants to do right, knows the rules, and has the willpower, but _still_ screws up because they can't see what truly matters morally in a specific situation. Michael is presented as a prime example of this moral blindness. We see moments where he fails morally again and again because he seems blind to the ethical weight of concrete situations. Examples include his inappropriate joke about ordering chicken at Hooters, his inability to keep Jim's secret about his feelings for Pam, and his dismissive comment to Toby about conflict resolution. The book contrasts Michael with characters like Andy Bernard from the Stamford branch, who is described as even worse in certain respects. Andy is portrayed as engaging in "malicious self-service," trying to ruin Dwight's career for his own gain, such as by engineering Dwight's temporary departure from the office or planting a false story about Dwight based on a toll booth receipt. Andy's actions are rooted in wanting Michael's favor and removing obstacles to his own advancement. However, the book also points out that Michael isn't a total "moral monster". He's described more like a "paper tiger" – looking fierce from afar but fragile and laughable up close. Despite his cluelessness and attempts to sound good while having "no idea what he's talking about," Michael sometimes _does_ the right thing. Instances include trying to make up with Dwight after a dispute, like promoting him to Assistant Regional Manager (though secretly), or attempting to rectify the situation after Dwight is hurt by the "Drug Testing" affair by making him "official supervisor of security". Even his return to Staples to ask Dwight to come back to Dunder-Mifflin is seen as a humane moment, although he still seems to misunderstand his own actions or motivations. These moments highlight the complexity of his character, being capable of doing right despite his significant moral blind spots. What drives Michael's frequent failures? The book suggests his cluelessness is deeply rooted in his **egocentrism**. He struggles to see things from anyone else's perspective, even when trying to imagine how someone he's firing might feel. His world revolves around himself, especially his job. This egocentricity is fed by the workplace environment where, as the boss, things often _are_ centered around him. The book notes that Michael's difficulty in forming genuine friendships with his employees, as pointed out by Ed Truck, compounds this problem, as they will always see him as the boss. There's a glimmer of hope presented for Michael's potential to overcome his egocentrism: his bond with Jim. Jim, who doesn't always view Michael solely as the boss, has helped Michael out in various situations and offered corrective feedback. The sharing of feelings and trust, like when Jim confesses his affection for Pam on the Booze Cruise, could potentially be a way for Michael to develop emotional connection and learn to be more sensitive, though it would take a long time. Even if he sometimes blew the trust, nurturing a friendship like the one with Jim is presented as a path for Michael to build on and possibly become more considerate. Thinking about moral heroes, the book notes there are no "moral saints" in _The Office_. No one is perfectly decent all the time. However, there are moments of genuine decency, where characters see the needs of others instead of just being self-absorbed. Toby Flenderson is highlighted for his patience, particularly in a memorable scene where he calmly answers Dwight's serious questions about female anatomy, despite being in Human Resources and presumably expecting questions about policy. Toby's reaction emphasizes concern for Dwight's apparent lack of education, showing a moment of understanding and patience. **Love, Relationships, and Ethical Theories** The complex romantic dynamics in _The Office_, especially between Jim and Pam, are also explored through philosophical lenses. The book looks at how different ethical theories might view office flirting and dating. **Utilitarianism**, which focuses on maximizing overall happiness or "utility," comes in different forms. **Act utilitarianism** looks at the consequences of individual actions on utility, while **rule utilitarianism** considers the general effects of rules or guidelines for action. Applying this to Jim and Pam's flirting means considering how it affects _everyone_ in the office and even the company's bottom line. This could involve complex calculations, like trying to weigh Jim and Pam's happiness against potential negative impacts on others or the company, highlighting the difficulty in quantifying and comparing different kinds of "utility". It starts to feel more like complex math than clear right and wrong. Then there's **Deontology**, an ethical theory that focuses on duties and rules, regardless of the outcome. The book suggests that, from a deontological perspective (and humorously, perhaps, from characters like Roy or Angela), Jim and Pam might face objections to their relationship based on rules. However, the text implies that simply flirting might not trigger strong deontological prohibitions, unlike, say, something more explicit ("workplace nookie"). Other ethical areas like virtue ethics are mentioned but left for potential follow-up discussions. **Knowing Thyself, or Not: The Art of Self-Deception** Despite the frequent "confessional" moments in _The Office_ where characters speak directly to the camera, the show is seen as a brilliant, exaggerated portrayal of **self-deception**. Many characters lie to themselves about fundamental aspects of their lives. Examples include thinking their job is meaningful (the staff at Dunder-Mifflin), believing they are powerful and important (Michael and Dwight), or fooling themselves about being in love with the right person (Jim, Pam, Kelly, Toby). The book delves into the self-deception surrounding Jim and Pam's relationship, raising an interesting philosophical (specifically, **epistemological**) problem: how can you simultaneously _know_ something at one level (like Pam being in love with Jim while dating Roy, or Jim still being in love with Pam while dating Karen) and yet vigorously _insist_ you don't know it at another? This highlights the complex nature of knowing and believing when it comes to one's own feelings and reality. Dwight Schrute is another character deeply involved in deception and self-deception. He is often easily deceived by others, like Jim with his pranks. But he also seems to "cooperate" in deception because he desperately _wants_ to believe certain things, like his important title or that his conflicts were tests of his fitness. This raises the question of whether Dwight is deceiving himself. The difficulty here is how someone can be both the deceiver (knowing the truth is false) and the deceived (believing the falsehood) at the same time. One philosophical approach to this is to imagine a "divided" self, perhaps a Rational-Dwight and an Irrational-Dwight, where one part influences the other to believe a desired falsehood. The book also ponders the morality of self-deception. While lying to others is typically seen as wrong, is it wrong to deceive oneself?. It's suggested that perhaps morality primarily governs how we treat others, or that wronging oneself is less serious than wronging someone else. Therefore, self-deception might be justifiable if it's what's best for the person, leading to the counter-intuitive thought that maybe it's sometimes better for others to play along with someone's self-deception rather than cruelly confronting them with the truth. The ancient Greek advice "Know Thyself!" is acknowledged as often good, but potentially not _always_ the best advice, particularly if self-knowledge would lead to misery. Michael Scott's self-deception is described as particularly "endearing" but also epic. He clings to a false self-image as a popular, successful boss, ignoring overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Other characters like Kelly and Dwight also suffer from self-deception about their relationships or positions. This leads to questions about **authenticity** – living a life true to oneself. If authenticity involves self-discovery and traveling one's own route, then characters like Creed, who seem completely at home with his questionable actions and readily admits his flaws, might fit the description better than others. His life doesn't seem chosen by others, but embraced by him. However, the book suggests that inauthentic lives might not be happy ones, and Michael's case raises the surprising idea that if one is incapable of authenticity, perhaps it's better not to try. **Laughter, Humiliation, and the Working Class** _The Office_ often elicits laughter, sometimes through our shared feeling of **humiliation** _for_ Michael Scott, who is largely immune to it himself due to his lack of self-awareness. We laugh nervously and cringe at his transgressions because _we_ feel humiliated on his behalf. This phenomenon of "feeling by proxy" is seen as a key part of the show's appeal, leading viewers to expect and even desire these awkward moments. Philosophers have connected laughter and comedy to morality. Thomas Hobbes saw laughter as an expression of moral superiority, while Henri Bergson argued comedy promotes moral values by humiliating those who disrupt social norms. However, the book pushes back, noting that our laughter at Michael often comes from feeling humiliation ourselves, not from a sense of superiority. The show also offers insights into social class, particularly in the American context. While the British version of _The Office_ was seen as a "pitiless meditation on rules and class," the American version focuses more on individual personalities and escaping work tedium. The American show presents a workforce that often denies the existence of class distinctions, seeing themselves as somehow fundamentally different from traditional manual laborers or those marked as "unprofessional". Their self-image is based on _not_ being something else. This creates a gap between their self-image and the reality of their routinized, "rationalized" office labor, which often lacks initiative or autonomy, becoming just as divided and planned as manual work. Philosopher Karl Marx's ideas about capitalism and labor are brought in here. While the traditional working class he described has changed, office workers now occupy a similar space. Managers' primary function in this system is generating profit ("surplus value") by overseeing and controlling workers' time and processes, which is seen as a core of exploitation. Michael Scott, in his distorted but often genuine belief that "it's the people that matter," fails to fully implement this purely profit-driven managerial logic, setting him apart from managers like the one from the Stamford branch who leaves for Staples. The show highlights the emptiness many workers feel, where meaning is found mainly in interpersonal relationships, if at all. Even creative pursuits like Pam's art suffer from the deadening office routine. Workers can feel reduced to mere "appendages" of the system, thwarted in their drive to develop their full potential. Resistance often takes the form of simply not working hard, or working as little as possible, as illustrated in the warehouse scene. This constant concern about **downsizing** forms the economic backdrop, increasing the existential insecurity of salaried staff. The comedy often arises from the tension between characters' elevated self-images and their less-than-glamorous reality. At its most poignant, the show makes viewers feel the anxiety of this gap, prompting reflection on whether they are similar to characters like Michael Scott. Characters secretly crave downsizing because it might force them to pursue something better, but also fear it because the alternative might just be more of the same. This reflects a sense that dreams are often just dreams, ways to get through the day. The comparison between the office and prison, where the office might offer _less_ "rec time" or better facilities than white-collar prison, further highlights the feeling of being trapped. Ultimately, _The Office_ is seen as observing the strange, growing place of office workers in the contemporary class system. Their struggles to make work meaningful and live fulfilling lives outside of work are seen not just as individual failures but as consequences of their social position. The show subtly suggests that many office workers might be more like Michael or Dwight, whose identities are uncertain away from work, than like Jim or Pam, who seem slightly more detached from the office's defining reality. The humor and the "edginess" of the show often come from standing on the edge of naming the underlying economic structures and class dynamics that remain largely unspoken. **Control, Reality, and Hyperreality** The presence of the documentary camera itself is seen through a philosophical lens, specifically relating to Jeremy Bentham's concept of the **panopticon** and Michel Foucault's use of it to illustrate how power can be visible but unverifiable, leading individuals to police themselves. While the characters aren't always aware of the camera, the moments they are highlight its role as an unseen, controlling view. Another intriguing philosophical concept applied to _The Office_ is Jean Baudrillard's idea of the **hyperreal**. Baudrillard's work explores how appearances can become detached from any underlying reality, creating a new, simulated reality that people mistake for the real thing. In the context of _The Office_, the show itself is a constructed appearance (a simulacrum). It becomes philosophically interesting when viewers lose the ability to distinguish between this television appearance and actual reality, aspiring to live the simulated lives they see on screen. David Brent, the British manager, is presented as a master of the hyperreal. His management style is described as purely hyperreal, disconnected from any original virtues or reality. His actions and words don't refer to genuine qualities but mask the fact that he's not truly managing. This fits Baudrillard's "third order of simulacra," where the sign (like Brent's words or actions) masks the absence of profound reality and has its own simulated existence. By examining characters like Brent, the show, much like Baudrillard's provocative writings, challenges viewers to look critically at the systems and "codes" that shape our social reality and consider what we endorse when we laugh. **Business Ethics: Stakeholders vs. Stockholders** The book dives into business ethics, using Dunder-Mifflin to illustrate the tension between different approaches. A common complaint is that management only cares about the "bottom line," not the people. This leads to the concepts of **stakeholders** and **stockholders**. Stockholders are the owners focused on profit, while stakeholders are anyone impacted by the business, including employees, suppliers, customers, and the wider community. Dunder-Mifflin operates under a **Stockholder Theory** approach, prioritizing profit and the bottom line. Evidence includes choosing the cheapest health care plan or planning downsizing. However, the book argues for a **Stakeholder Theory**, where businesses should consider the impact of their decisions on all affected parties, recognizing that effects go beyond just stockholders, employees, and customers. Within the Scranton branch, we see this tension play out. Michael Scott often favors large national chains for dining and shopping, showing a lack of deep connection to the local community. His employees, in contrast, often favor local establishments. This seemingly small difference reflects a broader split in priorities. Dwight Schrute embodies a conflict between stockholder and stakeholder concerns. He often prioritizes saving the company money, like with the health care plan, and believes in a competitive business environment where rules are essential. He can capably argue for business decisions based purely on profit. Yet, he also has ties to the local community (volunteer sheriff, local sports teams) and understands the importance of customer service, even if inadvertently. His acceptance of a version of stakeholder theory that keeps stockholders separate from other stakeholders makes him a fascinating case study in navigating these competing priorities. Michael, despite his rhetoric about "people," often minimizes the importance of customers when they don't serve his needs and struggles to balance stakeholder and stockholder concerns. His deep need for acceptance can make him inconsistent, sometimes arguing for local connections and service (stakeholder) and at other times dismissing returning customers as "stupid" (anti-stakeholder). His crucial success in landing a large account by connecting with the client on a personal, local level (stakeholder approach) while meeting price demands (stockholder approach) highlights that a balance, sometimes inadvertently struck, can be effective. The show, despite its humor, is seen as offering "real hope for better, and more ethical, business practices" by showing that acting ethically and considering stakeholders can create a better business environment. Successful sales are often tied to understanding the customer's interests and making personal connections. This contrasts with a standard business model that treats employees as replaceable assets. Michael, perhaps subconsciously, pushes against this model, prioritizing "The Faces of Scranton" over pure data. The infamous "watermark boner" incident, involving obscene watermarks on paper, serves as a specific case for examining business ethics. This raises questions about moral responsibility and who should be held accountable. Dunder-Mifflin's initial response of just apologizing and preventing recurrence seems aligned with a Stockholder Theory, focused on minimizing profit loss rather than genuinely making amends. The book questions whether intentional slacking off (like Creed) warrants firing, but also argues that sheer ineptitude (like Michael's inability to be a good manager despite good intentions) should also be grounds for termination, comparing it to a philosophy professor who simply cannot teach. **The Nature of Friendship and Love** Aristotle's views on **friendship** and **love** are also used to analyze the relationships in _The Office_. Aristotle saw love as a relationship of friendship based on mutual awareness and appreciation of another's good. He identified three kinds of friendship: 1. **Friendships of utility:** Based on mutual benefit or services, like business relationships or office alliances for job security. 2. **Friendships of pleasure:** Based on mutually enjoyable experiences, like coworkers going out together if they genuinely enjoy each other's company. The humor often comes from the fact that Dunder-Mifflin officemates often detest each other, so their interactions rarely rise above utility, though they sometimes find pleasure in mocking Michael or Dwight. 3. **Friendships of virtue:** The highest form, between virtuous individuals who desire each other's good. Jim and Pam's relationship sometimes approaches this, showing concern for each other's welfare and appreciating deeper qualities. The book also touches on **equal loving**, a concept from Stoic-Kantian thought, which involves general respect and concern for others simply because they are human, regardless of personal relationship. Figures like Bob Hope or Abraham Lincoln are given as examples. Michael's attempts at charity or celebrating "Diversity Day" could be seen as flawed instances of trying to show this kind of universal concern. Jim and Pam show equal loving to Michael when they support him during the awkward Dundies ceremony. Interestingly, the book notes that Western philosophy has traditionally lacked a term for **selfish love**. Despite this, Michael Scott is presented as a quintessential example of selfishness, often masking insecurity or personal agendas with feigned care for employees. His attempts at various kinds of love – erotic, utility, pleasure, filial – are often undermined by his self-imposed blindness to the needs of others. The book leaves open the question of whether Michael is truly incapable of love, suggesting hope for his character in future seasons. **Deep Philosophical Questions in Unexpected Places** Even seemingly obscure philosophical problems find their way into the analysis. The British quiz episode, where David Brent insists Mr. Spock is half-Vulcan, half-human, not just "Vulcan," is used to introduce the problem of **natural kinds**. This difficult philosophical problem asks whether categories or "kinds" exist independently in nature, or are merely labels we apply. Using examples like chairs and chests (artifacts) and water (a natural substance with a specific atomic structure like H2O), the book explains that while the labels we use are human creations, the question is whether the "jars" or underlying categories themselves exist naturally. Something like "funny" is presented as less likely to be a natural kind, as its definition changes with convention and opinion, unlike water. Even Ricky Gervais's reason for studying philosophy (fewer lectures!) is mentioned as a humorous, if slightly less than wholehearted, entry into the field. The show also prompts reflection on **personal identity** and the **self**. The contrast between a workplace "official self" and a "private self," often revealed in character interviews, highlights how we navigate these spheres. Philosophers have long debated what constitutes the "self". Aristotle's distinction between **substance** (the essential being of something) and **accidents** (non-essential characteristics) is used to discuss change. Michael burning his foot is an accidental change – he's still Michael. Turning a tree into paper is a substantial change. This distinction is applied to Dwight's behavior after a concussion; despite impaired speech, he's still essentially Dwight, suggesting an accidental change, not a change to his core personhood. The theory of **reductive materialism**, which explains mental states through physical processes, could view Dwight's odd post-concussion behavior as purely brain-based. However, Descartes' view that language and rational deliberation distinguish humans from "beasts" is mentioned, raising a philosophical challenge in such cases. Jim's role-playing and imitations, like pretending to be Michael or imitating Dwight, introduce the distinction between **qualitative identity** (looking or sounding the same) and **numerical identity** (being one and the same thing). Michael understands that Jim, despite qualitative similarities, is not numerically identical to him. Jim is also seen as a kind of **dualist**, believing the mind is separate from the body, as shown in his "mind games" with Dwight, particularly in the "Drug Testing" episode where he uses logic to suggest Dwight couldn't remember smoking pot if it erased his memory. Dwight's intense focus on his job title ("Assistant (to the) Regional Manager" vs. "Assistant Regional Manager") is analyzed as a crisis of identity tied to his **ontological status**. He desires the "Assistant Regional Manager" title because it would grant him independence from Michael and improve his standing or reason for existence. The "Diversity Day" episode, where Michael uses labels and stereotypes, illustrates issues related to personal identity and how interacting through stereotypes prevents seeing others as unique individuals. Finally, the book touches upon the inevitable human experience of **death and mortality**. Michael's initial confusion and denial upon hearing of Ed Truck's death are seen as an instance of the common denial of death. Michael's attempts to process grief using Kubler-Ross's stages are presented. His desire for recognition and remembrance, seen in actions like wanting hospital wings named after him or donating to charity, is linked to Søren Kierkegaard's idea of living in the **world-historical** – seeking significance externally as a defense mechanism against the terror of death. Even Michael's claim to have saved his own life is seen as returning to this death-denying desire for significance. While _The Office_ and philosophy might prompt us to question assumptions about existence, confronting mortality ultimately remains a personal task. **Why Does It All Matter?** "The Office and Philosophy" essentially uses the relatable, awkward, and often hilarious world of a paper company to explore fundamental questions about how we live, work, interact, and understand ourselves and others. By examining the characters' moral missteps, their struggles with identity and self-deception, their relationships, and their place within the modern workplace, the book brings complex philosophical concepts down to earth. It suggests that even in the seemingly mundane, there are deep currents of thought to be explored, using the show as a mirror to reflect on our own lives and the systems we inhabit. Isn't it interesting how a comedy show about a paper company can open up so many philosophical avenues? It makes you wonder: What other everyday situations might be ripe for philosophical exploration? How do _our_ own workplaces reflect these ideas about class, identity, or ethics? And, perhaps most importantly, are _we_ more like a Michael Scott, a Tim Canterbury, or maybe even a little bit of a Dwight Schrute when it comes to navigating the complexities of life? These are just some of the further ideas and questions that bubble up when you start thinking philosophically about _The Office_.