What do you think?
Rate this book
A Brief History of the Paradox: Philosophy and the Labyrinths of the Mind
Roy Sorensen offers the first narrative history of paradoxes, an account that extends from the ancient Greeks, through the Middle Ages, the Enlightenment, and into the twentieth century. When Augustine asked what God was doing before He made the world, he was told, "Preparing hell for people who ask questions like that." A Brief History of the Paradox takes a close look at "questions like that" and the philosophers who have asked them, beginning with the folk riddles that inspired Anaximander to erect the first metaphysical system and ending with such thinkers as Lewis Carroll, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and W. V. Quine. Organized chronologically, the book is divided into twenty-four chapters, each of which pairs a philosopher with a major paradox, allowing for extended consideration and putting a human face on the strategies that have been taken toward these puzzles. Readers get to follow the minds of Zeno, Socrates, Aquinas, Okham, Pascal, Kant, Hegel, and many other major philosophers deep inside the tangles of paradox.
Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
63 people are currently reading
796 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
July 14, 2019
". . . 5, 1, 4, 1, 3---DONE!" exclaims a haggard old man. "You look exhausted what have you been doing?" asks another man. The haggard old man responds, "Reciting the complete decimal expansion of Pi backwards." So goes one of Ludwig Wittgenstein's philosophical jokes.
*****
How much dirt in a hole two meters wide, two meters long, and two meters deep?
*****
The ancient Greek riddle: "What has a mouth but never eats, a bed but never sleeps?"
*****
The riddle of the sphinx from Hesiod's Theogony. Known best from Sophocles's Oedipus the King.
"What goes on four legs in the morning, two legs in the afternoon, and three legs in the evening?"
*****
Two weeks before flying a plane into the World Trade Center towers, Mohammed Atta phoned someone asking help with a riddle: Two sticks, a dash, and a cake with a stick down. What is it?
*****
A Stoic doctrine: "Only those are free who know they are not free."
*****
The Canadian flag harbors a hidden argument. Look at the white area at the top left and right to see two heads tilting at a 45 degree angle at each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of...
*****
Anaximander believed in the uncaused cause. Contemporary evolutionary theory concurs with him on the priority of the egg over the chicken.
Anaximander also tried to find a natural cause for thunder and lightning. A start for science over religion.
*****
Young Augustine's answer to the question, "What was God doing before he made the world?" was "He was preparing hell for people who ask questions like that."
*****
Pythagoras was the first to call himself a philosopher, or "lover of wisdom."
*****
A negative existential is a statement that denies the existence of something. But how can such a statement be true given that there must be something for the statement to be about. So we can say, "Pegasus does not exist." But the IDEA of Pegasus DOES exist. I guess we could say the same for the word God.
*****
Heraclitus says we cannot step into the same river twice. Of course, he means we cannot step into the same water of a river. There is actually only one river.
*****
Diogenes Laertius attributed the following statement to Chrysippus: "If you say something it passes through your lips; now say 'wagon' and it passes through your lips."
*****
Egyptians believed preserving their names meant they could survive after death. So Hatshepsut had her name written all over monuments. After she died, her bitter stepson Thutmose III went on a massive campaign to erase them all.
*****
It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.---Bill Clinton
*****
Albert Camus thought of Sisyphus as a heroic figure because of his willingness to attempt the impossible.
*****
Zeno believed between any two things there must be a third thing.
*****
Zeno's first law of motion states before you can reach a distance you must first reach halfway ad infinitum. Therefore he defended Parmenides claim there was no motion.
*****
Zeno's second law of motion states Achilles to catch up with a tortoise must first make up the headstart and then make up each distance the tortoise travels while Achilles is making up the lead.
*****
Zeno's third law of motion states a speeding arrow at any moment is at rest.
*****
Alfred North Whitehead: "To be refuted in every century after you have written is the acme of triumph . . . No one ever touched Zeno without refuting him, and every century thinks it is worthwhile to refute him."
*****
Meno challenges Socrates by saying if you ask a question and know the answer, you learn nothing. If you don't know the answer, you can't tell if you are hearing the truth. Therefore, you cannot learn anything by asking questions.
*****
Socrates accepted his death sentence. He understood the importance of laws and the judiciary. I was raised the same way, and I have no regrets about that. Disobedience should be selective.
*****
Euclides formulated the paradox of the veiled figure, also known as the hooded man or the Electra. Socrates knew Euclides but did not know him disguised.
*****
Euclides and I are strong believers in the Socratic that all virtues are one thing: knowledge. Or as Socrates put it, "No one does evil voluntarily." Right now our planet is dying from a firestorm of human ignorance.
*****
Euclides was a contentious man who frequently litigated in court. Socrates disapproved. Socrates preferred dialectic debate where the two sides cooperate and follow the argument wherever it leads. Both sides aim for a sincere pursuit of truth.
*****
Master Shuzan said about a bamboo stick: "If you call this a stick, you fall into the trap of words, but if you do not call it a stick, you oppose the fact. So what will you people call it?"
*****
In Epistles, 1:12-13, Paul warned Titus his bishop on the island of Crete: "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true." This is the liar paradox in the Bible. What does it mean if a Cretan tells you that a Cretan always lies?
*****
The paradox of the heap: If you have a pile of sand and take away one grain, you still have a pile. But where is the thin line between a pile and no pile?
Extend that to other issues. How do you know the line between someone who should be executed and someone who should not be? Therefore, no one should be executed.
*****
Alfred North Whitehead: "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
Plato's real name was Aristocles. The nickname Plato means "the broad-shouldered one."
*****
Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) poked fun at logicians who trumpeted contradictions as intellectual disasters. In real life, we patch up a problem. He looked forward to the day when logicians would do the same.
Soon after "dialethic logicians" came around taking their name from Wittgenstein's remark that the liar sentence is a Janus-headed figure both true and false. A dialetheia is a two-way truth.
*****
Aristotle felt prayers are futile. He cites the poet Agathon: "Of this power alone is even a God deprived. To make undone whatever has been done."
Omar Khayyam would write a similar quote 1400 years later:
The moving finger writes, and having writ,
Moves on; nor all your piety nor wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line
Nor all your tears wash out a word of it.
*****
Aristotle's law of excluded middles: There will either be a sea battle tomorrow or there will not be a sea battle tomorrow.
*****
Here is a story about Zeno of Citium (not to be confused with the great Zeno of Elea)
Zeno beats his slave for stealing. The slave protests, "But it was fated that I should steal." And Zeno responds, "And that I should beat you."
*****
B. F. Skinner: "If we are to use the methods of science in the field of human affairs, we must assume that behavior is lawful and determined. We must expect to discover that what a man does is the result of specifiable conditions and that once these conditions have been discovered, we can anticipate and to some extent determine his actions." I fully agree.
*****
Oswald Spengler presented his Decline of the West as a "venture of predetermining history."
*****
The Ship of Theseus Problem was mentioned by Plutarch. If you change everything on a ship, every plank, every nail, is it still the same ship?
*****
You can never, according to the Skeptics, be certain anyone is present by looking at them in good light. It is always possible they have a duplicate.
*****
G. E. Moore (1873-1958) was a proponent of common sense. He admired the subtlety of skeptical arguments, but he also knew they must have a flaw somewhere.
*****
In 1631 a royally authorized edition of the Bible overlooked just one word. The 7th commandment was written as "Thou shalt commit adultery." When the Bishop found out, the Bibles were rounded up and the printers were fined 3,000 pounds.
*****
If you pray for an answer in a test, are you cheating? If you get the answer, that's cheating. Even if you don't, you are still trying to get it from someone else.
*****
In The City of God, Augustine says something exactly like Descartes' Cogito. Descartes claimed he had never heard of it before. His Catholic education makes that unlikely.
*****
Augustine claimed that God created time when he created everything else. God was outside of time. Thus, everything is in the present for him.
*****
By making God immutable, he lacks the necessary requirement of life: that he change. He becomes a force like gravity.
*****
William of Ockham believed that what matters morally is the intention behind the act, not the act itself or its consequences. If you think about adultery, you are just as guilty as someone who commits adultery. Jimmy Carter felt that way.
*****
Socrates asked in the Euthyphro: "Is an act pious because it pleases the gods, or are the gods pleased because the act is pious?"
*****
Jean Buridan's ass starves to death because he cannot choose between two equal piles of hay. Man, ain't that the truth.
*****
During Descartes visit, Pascal tried to convince him that vacuums exist. Later, Descartes would write to Christian Huygens the Pascal "had too much vacuum in his head."
*****
Pausanias mentions a picture painted by Polygnotos in the fifth century showing Palamedeo and Thersites playing dice. According to Greek tradition Palamedeo invented dice to entertain bored Greek soldiers waiting for the battle of Troy. Dice actually go back to the first dynasty in Egypt. Devices with animal bones go back to the Paleolithic era.
The first published book on dice is Gerolama Cardano's De Ludo Aleae in 1663, actually 100 years after it was written.
The numbers 9 and 10 can be made up in two different ways and should result in equal frequency. Here they are: 9=3+6 or 4+5; 10=4+6 and 5+5. Correct?
Story has it that Cardano cast a horoscope predicting the hour of his own death. When he found himself still alive, he killed himself rather than falsify the prediction.
*****
The Monty Hall Let's Make a Deal problem:
You have three doors to choose from. Behind one is a new car while the other two have booby prizes. You select door #2. Monty shows you door #1 has a booby prize. He offers you a chance to switch door #2 for door #3. Should you switch? It shouldn't matter right? 50-50?
*****
Pascal's Wager: Since there is at least an outside chance that God exists, you might as well believe for a shot at getting into heaven and avoiding hell.
So if I offer you $100 to believe I am a werecelery monster and turn into a stalk of celery every night, you can say you believe, but will you?
*****
The Two Envelope Paradox. You are offered a choice between two envelopes: A or B. One envelope will have twice as much as the other. You pick A. You are given a chance to switch. Should you switch envelopes? First peek into your envelope. It contains $10. What's your answer?
*****
Charles Darwin's favorite motto: "Nature does not make jumps." In other words, there are always intermediate species.
*****
Once when David Hume entered a room, d'Alembert made fun of his weight: "And the word is made fles!" But a lady friend of Hume responded: "And the word was made lovable."
*****
In 1827, the pious Swiss painter Leopold Robert assured viewers of his painting "Two Girls Disrobing for Their Bath" that "I have placed the figures in a completely secluded spot so that they would not possibly encounter any observation from onlookers."
*****
Hume conceded that he is "involved in such a labyrinth, that, I must confess, I neither know how to correct my former opinions, nor how to render them consistent."
*****
Hegel rejected the idea that reality is something which UNDERLIES appearance. He said reality is manifested IN appearance. The difference between the word "cloud" and a cloud in the sky is less drastic than "precise" philosophers contend. Reason dictates the structure of reality. Since reason is the ground for what is real, the real is what is rational.
*****
"Paradox is the poisonous flower of quietism, the iridescent surface of the rotting mind, the greatest depravity of all."--Thomas Mann, The Magic Mountain.
*****
Turkish story about 13th century character Nasreddin Hodja: As a judge, he listened to a man complain about his neighbor. He told the man, "You are right." Then the neighbor came to complain. He told the neighbor, "You are right." Hodja's wife heard all this and said, "They can't both be right." He told her, "You are right."
*****
Hegel on his deathbed: "Only one man ever understood me. And he didn't understand me."
*****
Wittgenstein loved American westerns. As do I.
*****
The methodical Wittgenstein scholar Anthony Kenny reports that Philosophical Investigations contains 784 questions; 110 of them are answered and 70 of these answers are MEANT to be wrong.
*****
Wittgenstein claimed his aim was "to teach you to pass from a piece of disguised nonsense to something that is patent nonsense."
*****
Wittgenstein: "The colors green and blue cannot be in the same place simultaneously."
In James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake there is a word "gruebleen."
*****
"Logic chases truth up the tree of grammar."--W. V. Quine.
*****
When Captain Cook's sailors asked the natives what the kangaroo they captured was called, they got the answer "kangaroo." But they were actually not naming the animal. Can you guess what they were actually saying with the word "kangaroo"?
*****
How much dirt in a hole two meters wide, two meters long, and two meters deep?
*****
The ancient Greek riddle: "What has a mouth but never eats, a bed but never sleeps?"
*****
The riddle of the sphinx from Hesiod's Theogony. Known best from Sophocles's Oedipus the King.
"What goes on four legs in the morning, two legs in the afternoon, and three legs in the evening?"
*****
Two weeks before flying a plane into the World Trade Center towers, Mohammed Atta phoned someone asking help with a riddle: Two sticks, a dash, and a cake with a stick down. What is it?
*****
A Stoic doctrine: "Only those are free who know they are not free."
*****
The Canadian flag harbors a hidden argument. Look at the white area at the top left and right to see two heads tilting at a 45 degree angle at each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of...
*****
Anaximander believed in the uncaused cause. Contemporary evolutionary theory concurs with him on the priority of the egg over the chicken.
Anaximander also tried to find a natural cause for thunder and lightning. A start for science over religion.
*****
Young Augustine's answer to the question, "What was God doing before he made the world?" was "He was preparing hell for people who ask questions like that."
*****
Pythagoras was the first to call himself a philosopher, or "lover of wisdom."
*****
A negative existential is a statement that denies the existence of something. But how can such a statement be true given that there must be something for the statement to be about. So we can say, "Pegasus does not exist." But the IDEA of Pegasus DOES exist. I guess we could say the same for the word God.
*****
Heraclitus says we cannot step into the same river twice. Of course, he means we cannot step into the same water of a river. There is actually only one river.
*****
Diogenes Laertius attributed the following statement to Chrysippus: "If you say something it passes through your lips; now say 'wagon' and it passes through your lips."
*****
Egyptians believed preserving their names meant they could survive after death. So Hatshepsut had her name written all over monuments. After she died, her bitter stepson Thutmose III went on a massive campaign to erase them all.
*****
It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.---Bill Clinton
*****
Albert Camus thought of Sisyphus as a heroic figure because of his willingness to attempt the impossible.
*****
Zeno believed between any two things there must be a third thing.
*****
Zeno's first law of motion states before you can reach a distance you must first reach halfway ad infinitum. Therefore he defended Parmenides claim there was no motion.
*****
Zeno's second law of motion states Achilles to catch up with a tortoise must first make up the headstart and then make up each distance the tortoise travels while Achilles is making up the lead.
*****
Zeno's third law of motion states a speeding arrow at any moment is at rest.
*****
Alfred North Whitehead: "To be refuted in every century after you have written is the acme of triumph . . . No one ever touched Zeno without refuting him, and every century thinks it is worthwhile to refute him."
*****
Meno challenges Socrates by saying if you ask a question and know the answer, you learn nothing. If you don't know the answer, you can't tell if you are hearing the truth. Therefore, you cannot learn anything by asking questions.
*****
Socrates accepted his death sentence. He understood the importance of laws and the judiciary. I was raised the same way, and I have no regrets about that. Disobedience should be selective.
*****
Euclides formulated the paradox of the veiled figure, also known as the hooded man or the Electra. Socrates knew Euclides but did not know him disguised.
*****
Euclides and I are strong believers in the Socratic that all virtues are one thing: knowledge. Or as Socrates put it, "No one does evil voluntarily." Right now our planet is dying from a firestorm of human ignorance.
*****
Euclides was a contentious man who frequently litigated in court. Socrates disapproved. Socrates preferred dialectic debate where the two sides cooperate and follow the argument wherever it leads. Both sides aim for a sincere pursuit of truth.
*****
Master Shuzan said about a bamboo stick: "If you call this a stick, you fall into the trap of words, but if you do not call it a stick, you oppose the fact. So what will you people call it?"
*****
In Epistles, 1:12-13, Paul warned Titus his bishop on the island of Crete: "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true." This is the liar paradox in the Bible. What does it mean if a Cretan tells you that a Cretan always lies?
*****
The paradox of the heap: If you have a pile of sand and take away one grain, you still have a pile. But where is the thin line between a pile and no pile?
Extend that to other issues. How do you know the line between someone who should be executed and someone who should not be? Therefore, no one should be executed.
*****
Alfred North Whitehead: "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
Plato's real name was Aristocles. The nickname Plato means "the broad-shouldered one."
*****
Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) poked fun at logicians who trumpeted contradictions as intellectual disasters. In real life, we patch up a problem. He looked forward to the day when logicians would do the same.
Soon after "dialethic logicians" came around taking their name from Wittgenstein's remark that the liar sentence is a Janus-headed figure both true and false. A dialetheia is a two-way truth.
*****
Aristotle felt prayers are futile. He cites the poet Agathon: "Of this power alone is even a God deprived. To make undone whatever has been done."
Omar Khayyam would write a similar quote 1400 years later:
The moving finger writes, and having writ,
Moves on; nor all your piety nor wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line
Nor all your tears wash out a word of it.
*****
Aristotle's law of excluded middles: There will either be a sea battle tomorrow or there will not be a sea battle tomorrow.
*****
Here is a story about Zeno of Citium (not to be confused with the great Zeno of Elea)
Zeno beats his slave for stealing. The slave protests, "But it was fated that I should steal." And Zeno responds, "And that I should beat you."
*****
B. F. Skinner: "If we are to use the methods of science in the field of human affairs, we must assume that behavior is lawful and determined. We must expect to discover that what a man does is the result of specifiable conditions and that once these conditions have been discovered, we can anticipate and to some extent determine his actions." I fully agree.
*****
Oswald Spengler presented his Decline of the West as a "venture of predetermining history."
*****
The Ship of Theseus Problem was mentioned by Plutarch. If you change everything on a ship, every plank, every nail, is it still the same ship?
*****
You can never, according to the Skeptics, be certain anyone is present by looking at them in good light. It is always possible they have a duplicate.
*****
G. E. Moore (1873-1958) was a proponent of common sense. He admired the subtlety of skeptical arguments, but he also knew they must have a flaw somewhere.
*****
In 1631 a royally authorized edition of the Bible overlooked just one word. The 7th commandment was written as "Thou shalt commit adultery." When the Bishop found out, the Bibles were rounded up and the printers were fined 3,000 pounds.
*****
If you pray for an answer in a test, are you cheating? If you get the answer, that's cheating. Even if you don't, you are still trying to get it from someone else.
*****
In The City of God, Augustine says something exactly like Descartes' Cogito. Descartes claimed he had never heard of it before. His Catholic education makes that unlikely.
*****
Augustine claimed that God created time when he created everything else. God was outside of time. Thus, everything is in the present for him.
*****
By making God immutable, he lacks the necessary requirement of life: that he change. He becomes a force like gravity.
*****
William of Ockham believed that what matters morally is the intention behind the act, not the act itself or its consequences. If you think about adultery, you are just as guilty as someone who commits adultery. Jimmy Carter felt that way.
*****
Socrates asked in the Euthyphro: "Is an act pious because it pleases the gods, or are the gods pleased because the act is pious?"
*****
Jean Buridan's ass starves to death because he cannot choose between two equal piles of hay. Man, ain't that the truth.
*****
During Descartes visit, Pascal tried to convince him that vacuums exist. Later, Descartes would write to Christian Huygens the Pascal "had too much vacuum in his head."
*****
Pausanias mentions a picture painted by Polygnotos in the fifth century showing Palamedeo and Thersites playing dice. According to Greek tradition Palamedeo invented dice to entertain bored Greek soldiers waiting for the battle of Troy. Dice actually go back to the first dynasty in Egypt. Devices with animal bones go back to the Paleolithic era.
The first published book on dice is Gerolama Cardano's De Ludo Aleae in 1663, actually 100 years after it was written.
The numbers 9 and 10 can be made up in two different ways and should result in equal frequency. Here they are: 9=3+6 or 4+5; 10=4+6 and 5+5. Correct?
Story has it that Cardano cast a horoscope predicting the hour of his own death. When he found himself still alive, he killed himself rather than falsify the prediction.
*****
The Monty Hall Let's Make a Deal problem:
You have three doors to choose from. Behind one is a new car while the other two have booby prizes. You select door #2. Monty shows you door #1 has a booby prize. He offers you a chance to switch door #2 for door #3. Should you switch? It shouldn't matter right? 50-50?
*****
Pascal's Wager: Since there is at least an outside chance that God exists, you might as well believe for a shot at getting into heaven and avoiding hell.
So if I offer you $100 to believe I am a werecelery monster and turn into a stalk of celery every night, you can say you believe, but will you?
*****
The Two Envelope Paradox. You are offered a choice between two envelopes: A or B. One envelope will have twice as much as the other. You pick A. You are given a chance to switch. Should you switch envelopes? First peek into your envelope. It contains $10. What's your answer?
*****
Charles Darwin's favorite motto: "Nature does not make jumps." In other words, there are always intermediate species.
*****
Once when David Hume entered a room, d'Alembert made fun of his weight: "And the word is made fles!" But a lady friend of Hume responded: "And the word was made lovable."
*****
In 1827, the pious Swiss painter Leopold Robert assured viewers of his painting "Two Girls Disrobing for Their Bath" that "I have placed the figures in a completely secluded spot so that they would not possibly encounter any observation from onlookers."
*****
Hume conceded that he is "involved in such a labyrinth, that, I must confess, I neither know how to correct my former opinions, nor how to render them consistent."
*****
Hegel rejected the idea that reality is something which UNDERLIES appearance. He said reality is manifested IN appearance. The difference between the word "cloud" and a cloud in the sky is less drastic than "precise" philosophers contend. Reason dictates the structure of reality. Since reason is the ground for what is real, the real is what is rational.
*****
"Paradox is the poisonous flower of quietism, the iridescent surface of the rotting mind, the greatest depravity of all."--Thomas Mann, The Magic Mountain.
*****
Turkish story about 13th century character Nasreddin Hodja: As a judge, he listened to a man complain about his neighbor. He told the man, "You are right." Then the neighbor came to complain. He told the neighbor, "You are right." Hodja's wife heard all this and said, "They can't both be right." He told her, "You are right."
*****
Hegel on his deathbed: "Only one man ever understood me. And he didn't understand me."
*****
Wittgenstein loved American westerns. As do I.
*****
The methodical Wittgenstein scholar Anthony Kenny reports that Philosophical Investigations contains 784 questions; 110 of them are answered and 70 of these answers are MEANT to be wrong.
*****
Wittgenstein claimed his aim was "to teach you to pass from a piece of disguised nonsense to something that is patent nonsense."
*****
Wittgenstein: "The colors green and blue cannot be in the same place simultaneously."
In James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake there is a word "gruebleen."
*****
"Logic chases truth up the tree of grammar."--W. V. Quine.
*****
When Captain Cook's sailors asked the natives what the kangaroo they captured was called, they got the answer "kangaroo." But they were actually not naming the animal. Can you guess what they were actually saying with the word "kangaroo"?
August 17, 2012
“A Brief History of the Paradox: Philosophy and the Labrinths of the Mind” by Roy Sorensen was my introduction to the Paradox. Although it was “brief”, it took me quite a while to get through, which is as much a result of me reading several books at one time as anything else. I was determined to shave the number of books I am currently reading down to a manageable number, so I focused on finishing this one.
The topic itself is fascinating, and about halfway through I grabbed a pen and started underlying parts of interest. A lot of it left me frustrated, however. This is a book that could have used an editor. There was a lot that was unclear, and in fact some of the paradoxes were downright baffling I couldn’t make heads or tails of what he was trying to explain. Of course this could be a shortcoming of my comprehension, but after looking at other reviews it turns out I was not the only one.
Zeno’s paradox, probably the most famous after the “Liar” paradox, actually has a deceptively simple solution which I found by looking it up on Wikipedia, and which was never made explicitly clear in the book.
I’m projecting a bit- it is as good as it is, and that’s it. I wish it were better, simply because there was so much interesting stuff in there – had the writing been a little clearer, and slightly more coherent, it would have been more FUN. Even more frustrating, is that there were hints of exciting writing the chapter about Augustine was fantastic, and had me wishing the rest of the book was that fun to read. It could be because Augustine himself seems like an interesting person. His argument against Astrology is one that I heard repeated only a few weeks ago, without realizing that it could be traced back to Augustine:
“Augustine thinks reason plays a role in sorting out astrology by recounting how a slave woman and a rich woman simultaneously gave birth. The slave child and the rick child had very different futures. If their futures were determined solely by celestial conditions at the time of their births, then their futures would have been the same.”
If I had a time machine I would travel back to the 5th century and give the guy a high-five.
“When he understood that he ought not to fornicate, Augustine prayed “Give me chastity and continence, but not yet!”
He sounds like a funny guy.
I wanted to like the book more than I did, and I’m not sure if that is damning with faint praise, or to quote something I heard on Kermode and Mayo’s Film Review, “Praising with faint Damns.”
I have the book sitting at my desk. I’ll pick it up from time to time and re-read it I'm sure. There were some real gems, but some rough patches as well. I'm glad I read it though.
The topic itself is fascinating, and about halfway through I grabbed a pen and started underlying parts of interest. A lot of it left me frustrated, however. This is a book that could have used an editor. There was a lot that was unclear, and in fact some of the paradoxes were downright baffling I couldn’t make heads or tails of what he was trying to explain. Of course this could be a shortcoming of my comprehension, but after looking at other reviews it turns out I was not the only one.
Zeno’s paradox, probably the most famous after the “Liar” paradox, actually has a deceptively simple solution which I found by looking it up on Wikipedia, and which was never made explicitly clear in the book.
I’m projecting a bit- it is as good as it is, and that’s it. I wish it were better, simply because there was so much interesting stuff in there – had the writing been a little clearer, and slightly more coherent, it would have been more FUN. Even more frustrating, is that there were hints of exciting writing the chapter about Augustine was fantastic, and had me wishing the rest of the book was that fun to read. It could be because Augustine himself seems like an interesting person. His argument against Astrology is one that I heard repeated only a few weeks ago, without realizing that it could be traced back to Augustine:
“Augustine thinks reason plays a role in sorting out astrology by recounting how a slave woman and a rich woman simultaneously gave birth. The slave child and the rick child had very different futures. If their futures were determined solely by celestial conditions at the time of their births, then their futures would have been the same.”
If I had a time machine I would travel back to the 5th century and give the guy a high-five.
“When he understood that he ought not to fornicate, Augustine prayed “Give me chastity and continence, but not yet!”
He sounds like a funny guy.
I wanted to like the book more than I did, and I’m not sure if that is damning with faint praise, or to quote something I heard on Kermode and Mayo’s Film Review, “Praising with faint Damns.”
I have the book sitting at my desk. I’ll pick it up from time to time and re-read it I'm sure. There were some real gems, but some rough patches as well. I'm glad I read it though.
Read
May 18, 2023Wanted to finish but couldnt…. Too much math…. Do not assume i know wtf a permutation is…
September 21, 2022
Choppy, unconnected thoughts, unclearly expressed. I quit reading when he presented Lord Dunsany's chess problem in an unnecessarily puzzling way. He omits to mention that you need to recognize that the diagram has been flipped, and is being presented, unconventionally, with Black at the bottom. But I really should have quit much sooner.
Since he doesn't give specific references, just a general Bibliography at the end, one's suspicion grows that's he just casually making it up (i.e. bullshitting) or not crediting the original authors of various ideas.
I would absolutely hate having him as a philosophy professor.
Since he doesn't give specific references, just a general Bibliography at the end, one's suspicion grows that's he just casually making it up (i.e. bullshitting) or not crediting the original authors of various ideas.
I would absolutely hate having him as a philosophy professor.
July 26, 2009
I have read this book 5 times, or more. It is one of my favorites!
June 9, 2020
A very intense and deep read for someone not specialized in philosophy, lot to learn out of this book.
The paradox games and their existence as an introduction and manifestation of human mind, philosophy and reason; the author takes us in a journey to the history of philosophy through paradoxes.
An interesting book that will be revisited after completing other reads about specific philosophers to understand the background and the outcome more clearly
The paradox games and their existence as an introduction and manifestation of human mind, philosophy and reason; the author takes us in a journey to the history of philosophy through paradoxes.
An interesting book that will be revisited after completing other reads about specific philosophers to understand the background and the outcome more clearly
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 15, 2022
concise little history of philosophy from the perspective of the paradox. perhaps a bit meandering, certainly not perfectly agreed upon, and maybe just plain wrong in places. how does a book about the history of paradoxes spend only 3 sentences on kurt godel? half of what he talks about are contradictions and not what i would consider paradoxes, but fun anecdotes anyway.
December 16, 2021
Good comprehensive history of the paradox, and some good general history about philosophy. Sorenson is clear when he is speaking from his own point of view and, in my opinion, he's pretty funny. Not always the easiest thing to read but overall enjoyed.
December 24, 2022
4 stars. Really well written book about philosophy paradoxes. My only issue is that it isnt super accessible for non-philosophy majors, unless maybe youre a logistician. If youre not in those categories, be ready to take a lot of puzzling breaks and be patient with your brain. : )
December 3, 2020
I absolutely loved this. Consistently made me question previously held notions and offered many alternative views. Highly recommend. A great deep dive into historical academia. More please.
August 26, 2025
3.5 stars
October 4, 2025
kitap , adı üzerine paradoksun tarihinden bahsetmektedir (antik yunandan itibaren) ve bu anlatımlar detaylı ve objektif olarak okuyucuya iletilmektedir . şahsen bu yönden kitabı çok yararlı buldum
October 25, 2016
Very intriguing work, beginning with the first conceived paradoxes, making its way to more contemporary thought. Illustrates complexities very clearly, concise, which is mega important because paradoxes are confusing in and of themselves. Fun read for sure
December 20, 2007
This is a good introduction to some of the cruxes that have troubled philosophers over the ages. Since a paradox is considered to be the anathema of a well formed thought then tracing the history of paradoxes leads to subjects were well formed thoughts are hard to come by.
While it does have some elements of history to it the book makes up most of it's content by considering each paradox apart from the general trends of philosophy that hover around it. Which is to say that the author paints philosophy in general as doing it's own things, which occasionally, cause the field of thought to touch upon paradoxes. Notably, although never explicitly, the paradoxes are treated as outside the system of thought itself.
Consider the Zeno's paradox of the arrow. I won't go into detail over it but it's fame has drawn a wide range of thinkers - and interpretations. To understand the paradox then is to know more than Zeno's argument, one must consider the surrounding historical re-formulations of later thinkers as well. These latter day reinterpretations point to the source of the paradox - it is not a matter of actual arrows, or actual movement, or even language games involving an interplay of discrete verbs and infinitesimal adjectives. That Zeno's paradox still, after twenty four centuries, remains unresolved in some of its manifestations seems to imply that it has at its heart something fundamental to the structure of reality which we still have trouble grasping.
That the paradoxes in this book are the collected best hits of the paradoxes makes the reading very engaging - that they are great by virtue of their resistance to solution from all the disciplines of thought which have scrutinized, when coupled to the light touch of deep thinking that typifies a pop philosophy book, makes for some difficult exposition at times.
In short, though the fullness of thought that has played on each of these paradoxes may not find itself completely represented there is a sense imparted of the quality of otherness that these paradoxes have. And though some 'solutions' are vigorously abridged the author does not shy from the difficulties of presentation and covers the wide range with certain flair and satisfying aplomb.
While it does have some elements of history to it the book makes up most of it's content by considering each paradox apart from the general trends of philosophy that hover around it. Which is to say that the author paints philosophy in general as doing it's own things, which occasionally, cause the field of thought to touch upon paradoxes. Notably, although never explicitly, the paradoxes are treated as outside the system of thought itself.
Consider the Zeno's paradox of the arrow. I won't go into detail over it but it's fame has drawn a wide range of thinkers - and interpretations. To understand the paradox then is to know more than Zeno's argument, one must consider the surrounding historical re-formulations of later thinkers as well. These latter day reinterpretations point to the source of the paradox - it is not a matter of actual arrows, or actual movement, or even language games involving an interplay of discrete verbs and infinitesimal adjectives. That Zeno's paradox still, after twenty four centuries, remains unresolved in some of its manifestations seems to imply that it has at its heart something fundamental to the structure of reality which we still have trouble grasping.
That the paradoxes in this book are the collected best hits of the paradoxes makes the reading very engaging - that they are great by virtue of their resistance to solution from all the disciplines of thought which have scrutinized, when coupled to the light touch of deep thinking that typifies a pop philosophy book, makes for some difficult exposition at times.
In short, though the fullness of thought that has played on each of these paradoxes may not find itself completely represented there is a sense imparted of the quality of otherness that these paradoxes have. And though some 'solutions' are vigorously abridged the author does not shy from the difficulties of presentation and covers the wide range with certain flair and satisfying aplomb.
September 22, 2021
I love the concept of paradox because it shows the limit of the paradigm in itself. For instance, when I say "I am a liar", am I being honest? If so, then I am lying..ooppss.. but if I am lying then I am being honest. This is the language limitation. This book covers these paradoxes through time, with well-known philosophers and non-philosophers such as Godel and Turing. It is not a comprehensive book, but it is good reading. I have learned from it and probably I will return to him one in a while.
Another review on my blog here:
http://blog.josedacruz.com/2021/09/20...
Another review on my blog here:
http://blog.josedacruz.com/2021/09/20...
November 3, 2010
This is one of the first serious philosophical texts that i ever read for pleasure. I suppose, like many other philosophy texts, that it can be described as creative non-fiction.This particular book offers a history of the paradox from its ancient roots to how it is presented today, through many colorful anecdotes.As far as my philosophical writing goes this work showed me the power of analogous anecdotes in trying to describe complex concepts.
September 17, 2011
It seems only variations of the liar paradox have survived?!?
I found this book to be difficult to read due to typos, bad use of language and a consistent explanation of all the things that were irrelevant to the actual point of the book, ie paradoxes. Many of the chapters I wasn't actually sure what the paradox was, or where it had been explained.
The book does have parts of interest and can be insightful but they are too few. Not one I would recommend.
I found this book to be difficult to read due to typos, bad use of language and a consistent explanation of all the things that were irrelevant to the actual point of the book, ie paradoxes. Many of the chapters I wasn't actually sure what the paradox was, or where it had been explained.
The book does have parts of interest and can be insightful but they are too few. Not one I would recommend.
February 12, 2009
Absolutely fascinating! Although some of it goes way over my head, there's enough fun stuff that's easily accessible to make it worth reading.
(By the end, being backed into repeated intellectual corners was getting a little tiresome!)
(By the end, being backed into repeated intellectual corners was getting a little tiresome!)
April 11, 2021
A history of philosophical paradoxes from Anaximander to Quine. I love multidisciplinary books but I found the writing frequently muddled, and I would lose track of the historical thread or the precise nature of the paradox at hand.
September 18, 2007
This book was not "paradox for the layman." The paradoxes mostly revolved around mathmatics and symantics, neither of which touched my fancy.
Read
May 8, 2010From this ook I learned the Bertrand Russell came to consider Hegel little more than a punster,
August 15, 2014
“Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.”
― Mahatma Gandhi
― Mahatma Gandhi
Want to read
December 27, 2016I registered a book at BookCrossing.com!
http://www.BookCrossing.com/journal/14338741
http://www.BookCrossing.com/journal/14338741
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews