The Venture Brothers, a long-running Cartoon Network series, often plays on tropes and themes common in action shows and comics. In the clip, from the episode titled “The Lepidopterists,” Henchman #21 and Henchman #24 are discussing their experience working for a villain. Three seasons into the series and countless fellow minions have died, yet #21 and #24 have survived despite their incompetence. At this point they are, in a fourth wall-breaking manner, aware of their status as recurring characters. This episode has them working with an up-and-coming henchperson, Henchman #1. #21 and #24 are dismissive of possible dangers because they have survived so far and claim that #1 will likely die despite his efforts to complete the mission and survive. The clip offers students a questionable example of induction which dovetails into a conversation about Hume’s problem of induction.
Find the video here:
I have taught David Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding a few times in introductory philosophy classes. While the problem of induction, §4 of Enquiry, is a classic issue, I find that the standard examples of the sun not rising tomorrow or eating bread which does not nourish may be too abstract for students. Students seem to dismiss these examples as merely impossible. As a result, students will follow the argument, but do not take it seriously. So, I sought material to make the problem of induction more accessible. The clip above operates on an understanding of the henchperson trope, which most students are aware of and can be explained easily. The henchperson is a character that is quickly dispatched to display the power or threat of another character or event; think of the nameless characters that are beat up by a hero. After showing the clip, I ask the class to explain what #21 and #24 believe about their role of henchpersons and why. The clip begins with #1 thinking the floor might have a trap. The key lines that follow are:
#21: You still don’t get it. 24 and I have been on like a thousand missions. We’ve been shot at, been dipped in acid.
#24: Brock Samson hit me with a car, drove right into my kidney. Here I am!
#21: Yeah! We could walk across this floor and nothing would hit us. But, then like this huge log would swing down and take your head off.
Students quickly recognize #21 and #24’s shared belief: that this dangerous mission will be like the other “thousand missions” they survive while the more eager or useful henchpersons are killed. Likewise, students realize the underlying logic of #21 and #24’s belief is an expectation that future events will be similar to past events: a uniformity principle. Students know the trope of henchpersons being expendable and dying, so students are aware that #21 and #24’s uniformity principle is problematic. They may recognize that the uniformity principle does not follow, but may not understand why.
This example shines when addressing the second horn of Hume’s argument. When the question shifts to what justifies #21 and #24’s uniformity principle, students see the circularity of justifying the uniformity principle with past experience, i.e. another example of the uniformity principle. If the class is having difficultly, I will map out the argument which results in a circle with labels like “past missions” and “future missions.” Students’ skepticism towards the standard examples appears to be grounded in a feeling that the examples are absurd, but their skepticism towards #21 and #24 is based on a feeling that #21 and #24’s train of thought is absurd. This change of approach allows the students to criticize an example of induction without addressing assumptions they make on a daily basis and are second nature to them. So, once we finish criticizing #21 and #24, I can pull the rabbit from the hat; I can show that the problems they had with #21 and #24’s argument equally applies to arguments and expectations that they make in everyday life.
Possible Readings: Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
This section of the Blog of APA is designed to share pedagogical approaches to using humorous video clips for teaching philosophy. Humor, when used appropriately, has empirically been shown to correlate with higher retention rates. If you are interested in contributing to this series, please email the Series Editor, William A. B. Parkhurst, at parkhurst1@usf.edu.
Patrick Miller
Patrick Miller received his PhD at the University of South Florida and was the treasurer of University of South Florida’s Graduate Assistants United. His philosophical focus is on early 20thcentury continental philosophy, with an emphasis on Georges Bataille and Martin Heidegger, and socio-political philosophy.
Excellent, thanks for this!