A Cabinet of Philosophical Curiosities: A Collection of Puzzles, Oddities, Riddles, and Dilemmas

by Roy Sorensen

Will you answer this question in the same way that you will answer my next question? Done? Good!Will you buy this book?. Inside you will discover that your only truthful answer to this second question is affirmative. Logic has made some men rich. Inside this book you will learn of John Eck (who debated Luther in 1519). He Will you answer this question in the same way that you will answer my next question? Done? Good! Will you buy this book? Inside you will discover that your only truthful answer to this second question is affirmative. A Cabinet of Philosophical Curiosities is a colorful collection of puzzles and paradoxes, both historical and contemporary, by philosopher Roy Sorensen. Taking inspiration from Ian Stewart's Professor Stewart's Cabinet of Mathematical Curiosities, which assembled interesting "maths" from outside the classroom into a miscellany of marvels, these puzzles are ready to be enjoyed independently but gain mutual support when read in clusters. The volume ranges from simple examples to anomalous anomalies, considers data that seems to confirm a generalization while lowering its probability, and argues that we are doomed to believe infinitely many contradictions-and that the pain of contradictions can be profoundly stimulating.Inside this book you will learn of John Eck, who debated Luther in 1519. He devised a sequence of contracts that sidestepped usury laws, and German bankers made a fortune from this Triple Contract. Sorensen also recounts how Voltaire set himself up for life by exploiting a fallacy in the construction of a Parisian lottery. There is logic for altruists, too. You will discover how General Benjamin Butler used other-centric reasoning to protect runaway slaves. There are historical snapshots of logic in action, and the book contains tributes to Lewis Carroll, Arthur Prior, and Peter Geach. In addition to short essays, there are dialogues, cures and insults.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Essays

303 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 1, 2016

Reviews

[Nick Jones · Rating 2 out of 5]

I received a copy of this book for free through Goodreads Giveaways.

The subtitle of A Cabinet of Philosophical Curiosities is a bit of a misnomer, with trivia, miscellany, bad jokes, and random quotations outnumbering the puzzles, oddities, riddles, and dilemmas. There are some interesting bits, but the flaws outnumber the good parts. The questions and answers meant to challenge the reader are often incomplete, vaguely worded, or rely on obscure assumed knowledge that the reader might not possess, with the book also demonstrating the incredibly irritating habit of treating open-ended questions that could have a plethora of answers as having one "right" response. The book is unstructured, much of the content doesn't seem to relate to anything, there are pointless stories inserted and topic changes occurring at random, and it really feels like a book constructed from hundreds of notes scribbled on cocktail napkins haphazardly thrown together. There are also a number of mistakes, from typos to listing the form of a logical constant incorrectly, though I feel as if a lack of editorial rigor is a problem across all of publishing these days.

By turns I was bored and annoyed with this book, only occasionally being interested. I doubt that anybody outside of philosophy majors will enjoy it, and even then it's a dicey proposition.

[Cheryl · Rating 2 out of 5]

So far I learned one thing I wish I knew going in: don't read it for progression or narration; each 'episode' basically stands alone.

I've also decided it's much more intended to teach the lay reader about philosophy & logic, and less to give us puzzles & brainteasers. Except that there's a lot of vocabulary we only know if we have taken a course in logic recently.

In fact, I'm tempted to say the book's primary impetus is the professor's desire to reach a wider audience with the tale of his disastrous lecture on Hume's evaluation of miracles, given in the episode titled "Do Butterflies Dream?"
---
Ok done.

I did skim a fair bit of it, those episodes that were heavy on analysis and didn't have a puzzle. But I read enough to know I'm not a fan and don't know anyone to recommend it to. One problem I had is that some of the 'puzzles' only had 'solutions' in the most abstract or equivocal sense.

I did use a few bookdarts:

"If you ask students to estimate the average number of children couples have, they are liable to engage in an impromptu survey. Students report how many children their parents had. However this amount overlooks the couples who had no children."

"In 1995 *The US News & World Report* conducted a poll. Half of their readers were asked: "if someone sues you and you win the case should he pay your legal costs?" A total of 85% of respondents said yes. The other half were asked a differently phrased question: "If you sue someone and lose the case, should you pay this cost? This time only 44% said yes."

A drawing of a cube in front of another shape that is presumably a cube is captioned: "The visual system is plucky. It compulsively tries to identify objects that are almost fully occluded."

A bit of the Islamic belief system is made more clear (assuming Sorenson is reporting accurately). Blasphemy is defined broadly and punished severely according to the Pakistan Penal Code, section 295C, because: "First, ... there is the intrinsic wrong of blasphemy. Second, the blasphemer endangers the community since Allah collectively punishes believers (and infidels) who fail to punish blasphemers."

"Air conditioners were originally dehumidifiers for printing paper."

Thesauric word chain: Ugly, offensive, insulting, insolent, proud, lordly, stately, grand, gorgeous, beautiful."

[Michael Reilly · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is no particular theory or point to this book other than to revel in the pleasure of figuring things out. Sorenson is a philosophy professor. This is his collection of interesting stuff.

A rich Arab dies. He has three sons. He leaves half of his camels to the oldest son, a third to the second son and a ninth to the third son. He leaves 17 camels. The sons argue over what to do. There is no fair way to divide them. They agree to go to a wise Judge and accept his ruling.

The Judge says, "I will give you one of my camels. Now you have 18. The oldest son gets nine, the second son gets 6 and the youngest son gets 2. There is one left over. I will take my former camel back as my fee."


A poster in a hospital emergency room says, "No head injury is too trivial to ignore." Does that mean "However trivial a head injury is, it should not be ignored" or does it mean "However trivial a head injury is, it should be ignored"?

A 1985 poll asked half of the respondents, "if someone sues you and you win, should he pay your legal fees ?" 80% said "yes". The second half was asked, "if you sue someone and lose, should you have to pay their legal fees?". Only 44% said yes.

This book is filled with that type of thing. Sorenson also has stories about philosophical arguments, mistakes by famous philosophers and pieces on interesting way to look at thing. It is a grab bag of conundrums.

At times he gets fairly deep into formal logic, but this is the kind of book that encourages skipping.

Sorenson has obviously spend years collecting these pieces. He has also thought hard about the significance, sense and effect of them. He presents all that work in a very clever and enjoyable format.

[Dkettmann · Rating 4 out of 5]

A solid 3.5 book rounded up to 4. All over the place, but some really nice nuggets in it. Like a random notebook in which someone just jotted down interesting things. Disliked the little quizzes having the answers in the back, would have preferred footnotes or some other method. I skipped them hopping the questions would be recapitulated with the answers and I could enjoy it as an after book digestif, but it was only the answers back there. I passed on spending hours going back and forth but wish I could have easily gained that information.

This would be a good book when you are a bit aimless if you desire for philosophy and looking for something new. Otherwise I would say a good 1/4 of the book was boring or didn't appeal to me but the 1/4 that were very interesting to me made it worth it.

[Sarah · Rating 1 out of 5]

What am I reading? Does anyone think this makes sense? This feels like a guy who is using the biggest words possible because he wants to seem important or intelligent, regardless of the fact that they don't make hypotenuse. It's like when Joey used the thesaurus function on every single word in his essay. Paragraphs are strung together, related only very loosely. And it's 659 pages long, without any addendum-- or answers. The riddles are said to have their answers at the back of the book, but they are conspicuously missing from the ARC.

Reading this is like a fight, trying to tear meaning from each sentence and hold that meaning in balance while trying to string together enough sentences to get to the core thought.

[Diane Graft · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a very odd read. It's as if a philosophy professor had been collecting little tidbits, like riddles, paradoxes, word games, and bits he liked from his favorite philosophers, over his whole career, and writing each of them on an index card meaning to use them in a book someday but never getting around to it. Then, instead of putting them in a coherent sequence, or as examples to illustrate larger points, he just gave the stack of cards to his publisher and said, "Here's my book!" There's a lot of thought provoking things in this book, any of which might have made a good jumping-off point for further discussion, but you won't find that discussion here.

[Georgi · Rating 1 out of 5]

Всеки познава поне един wise guy, който обича да затапва хората с недобре дефинирани загадки и недодялани главоблъсканици. Е, точно такъв симпатяга е нахвърлял произволни загадки, странни истории и безсмислени заигравки със семантиката на изречения в нещо, лишено от всякаква структура и завършеност. Въпреки обещанията, връзката с философията и логиката я няма. Нещо повече - ако някога в живота си сте се сблъсквали дори бегло с математика, ще останете в ступор от някои от глупостите, написани в тази книга.

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this book. Some parts are more suited to "academic philosophy," but others can be read with enjoyment by anyone.

I reviewed this book for the journal Teaching Philosophy. A copy of the review can be found at this link (on scribd) or this one (on my blogspot) :)

[Mouse · Rating 2 out of 5]

I love weird books and esoteric lore. If there's interesting stories, or anecdotes, riddles, and even puzzles, then count me in.
This book however left me feeling more than puzzled and mostly just frustrated. Many of the chapters are just extremely short and left open ended. I tried to get into this book but just couldn't do it.

[E · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fun stuff, mostly accessible--but some of it is very esoteric! A great number of the curiosities include stumpers for the reader to consider (with solutions in back). A bit of everything included: math, logic, philosophy, theology, history. If you like to think, and to get stretched in your thinking, you'd undoubtedly enjoy this book.

[Mike Schneider · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting, but very off-beat.

[Kari Ni · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting book with a witty author, which is worth recommending :)

[Graham · Rating 2 out of 5]

Found some of the extracts fascinating diversions and distractions. However the book randomly progressed in no particular order and required too much concentration which I eventually had to abandon.

[scherzo♫ · Rating 3 out of 5]

Said Plato:
'These things that we feel
Are not ontologically real,
But just the excrescence
Of numinous essence
Our senses can never reveal.'
--Basil Ransome-Davies

[JG · Rating 2 out of 5]

I started reading this book because I really like logical puzzles and riddles, but it disappointed me a little bit.

Although I liked some of the anecdotes and stories that accompanied the riddles, to be honest most were quite boring and some were unrelated. Some logical puzzles are not clearly explained nor fully answered (or maybe I'm just too dumb to understand them).

It has some good things but definitely there are better books on this topic like the ones by Clifford Pickover or Raymond Smullyan.

[Cam · Rating 1 out of 5]

A desultory compilation of puzzles, anecdotes, and jokes. Many of the answers aren't well explained either.

[Arlene S · Rating 3 out of 5]

A playful collection of items (some familiar, some not) from the fields of logic, language, history, mathematics, etc. (e.g. Archimedes, Schopenhauer, Lewis Carroll) with solutions to the puzzles included at the end of the book. Judging from some of the curiosities included, it seems philosophers do love word play ( or often fail to formulate definitions before beginning their thought experiments). Notes to self: do not read too many puzzles in one sitting lest headache ensues, and do not borrow from public library if detailed study is desired (watch overdue fines).

[Beautifulday4makeup The-book-and-Me · Rating 2 out of 5]

I received the ebook on netgalley in exchange for an honest reviewed. First thing: this book was not as I expected. I expected a book filled with funny riddles. This certainly was not the case. It made me think about papers that I head to read on university. I was challenged to change my way of thinking. I like that, but I stays a dry bit of theory... Although the author tried to make it as fun as possible.

[Eduardo Garcia-Gaspar · Rating 3 out of 5]

La obra es como un parque de diversiones en el que se encuentra una colección divertida de adivinanzas, paradojas, curiosidades, humor y en general, curiosidades que echan a andar a las neuronas. Una buen lectura que permite sonreír y rascarse el pelo.

[Hatice · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5* I don't know what I was expecting, but I feel like there were a lot of mathematical questions, which I personally didn't like. You'll probably enjoy this book if you like to train your brain cells in your free time. Turns out, I don't.

[Mills College Library]

160 S7136 2016