Some Interesting Memories: A Paradoxical Life

Rating:
Summary: Some Interesting Memories
Review: I have been a fan of the wonderful Raymond Smullyan for over 20 years, since "What is the Name of This Book?", and I was glad to find that this book is indeed more than a simple compendium of Smullyan's previous books (though, honestly, not all THAT much more than that). My first pleasant surprise was seeing that this book was published by Thinkers' Press, a noted chess book publisher (I am very partial to chess). Sadly, though, there were none of Smullyan's excellent retrograde analysis chess problems in this book (except for the ones on the pictured covers of his other books "Chess Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes" and "Chess Mysteries of the Arabian Knights"), and this book implied that Smullyan hadn't created any such problems since the 1950s. (Smullyan's last puzzle book, "The Riddle of Scheherazade", was rather a let-down on this score too since it had a chess diagram on its cover but no chess problems inside!)

I was also disappointed to read in this autobiographical work simply that he was born "in 1919" without a birthdate. Ever since "WitNoTB?", when Smullyan joked that he did not believe in astrology because he was a Gemini, I've been wondering when his birthday was since I too am a Gemini and I would be proud if our birthdays coincided!

And I was disappointed that Smullyan repeated a lack of rigor that he had made in "WitNoTB?" on the problem of what happens if an irresistible cannonball hits an immovable post. His answer, then and now, is that it is logically impossible for the two to exist in the same universe (the former is defined as a cannonball that knocks over everything it hits and the latter is defined as a post that is not knocked over by anything that hits it). Well, it's true that it is logically impossible for the former to hit the latter, but it hardly follows that it is logically impossible for both to exist in the same universe! It is perfectly possible for both to exist side-by-side in the same universe, just as long as the former never actually hits the latter. Indeed, in our very own real-life universe, there are plenty of both irresistible cannonballs (every cannonball that never hits anything at all, or knocks down what it does hit) and immovable posts (every post that is never hit by anything, or is not knocked down by what does hit it).

And finally, I was bothered by Smullyan's characterization of atheism as blind and static while religions have vision (albeit very distorted) and are dynamically growing toward the truth. Then, in the very next paragraph, Smullyan states that his favorite philosophical view along these lines is Cosmic Consciousness (that certain humans have evolved or developed great spiritual harmony and ability to directly see the truth and beauty in the cosmos), an atheistic philosophy (or at least one not inconsistent with atheism)! (The only example Smullyan gives in this book of someone who actually had Cosmic Consciousness (he elaborates on this in his latest book "Who Knows?") is Walt Whitman. It is interesting to contrast Smullyan's praise of Whitman's Cosmic Consciousness with Isaac Asimov's essay "Science and Beauty", reprinted in Smullyan's friend Martin Gardner's book "The Sacred Beetle and other Great Essays in Science", which chides Whitman for his disdain for the science of the "learn'd astronomer" that discovered vastly more truth and beauty in the Cosmos than Whitman was ever Conscious of.) So, would Smullyan state that an atheist who believes in Cosmic Consciousness is blind? What about an atheist who actually HAS Cosmic Consciousness? Actually, my characterization would be the exact opposite of Smullyan's: it is the religions that are static dead-ends, while it is atheism and science that have vision and are dynamically growing toward the truth! But I can live that discrepancy, since I guess it all depends on what kind of "truth" you are interested in (spiritual serenity and awareness or factual knowledge and awareness).

Don't get me wrong -- overall my impression of this book was quite positive (I hope Smullyan was at least a little bit embarrassed by the cheesy cover, though!), and Smullyan is a towering intellect who could poke a lot more holes in my logical thinking than I could ever quibble in his! The encomiums by other authors didn't add all that much to the book (though I quite liked Douglas R. Hofstadter's, as I am a fan of his as well). If you like Smullyan, or like thinking about mathemetical logic, I would definitely recommend this book.

Rating:
Summary: Repeats his old jokes again and again
Review: Many years ago I got fascinated with Smullian's "What is the name of this book?", and since, have been buying most of the Smullian's books. It turned out however that all those books have been strikingly similar (with the only exception of "5,000 BC"). All the same logical paradoxes, jokes, and anecdotic accounts from the Smullyan's life, which you do not perceive as funny after you read them again and again. This book beats all the previous Smullyian's records on repeating the old jokes and puzzles from his own earlier books, or even older folklore jokes. The only new "original" content here is Smullyan's unending boasting of how talented he is as a musician and magician, and how high other people think of him. I find this narcissism particularly distasteful (although the author himself modestly calls it "honest"). It would be much better for the humanity if, instead of publishing this tasteless compendium, they reissued his marvelous "What is the name of this book?" and "5,000 B.C. and other philosophical fantasies", which are long out of print.

Rating:
Summary: Repeats his old jokes again and again.
Review: Many years ago I got fascinated with Smullyan's "What is the name of this book?", and since, have been buying most of the Smullian's books. It turned out however that all those books have been strikingly similar (with the only exception of "5,000 BC"). All the same logical paradoxes, jokes, and anectodic accounts from the Smullyan's life, which you do not perceive as funny after you read them again and again. This book beats all the previous Smullyian's records on repeating the old jokes and puzzles from his own earlier books, or even older folklore jokes. The only new "original" content here is Smullyan's unending boasting of how talented he is as a musician and magician, and how high other people think of him. I find this narcissism particularly distasteful (although the author himself modestly calls it "honest"). It would be much better for the humanity if, instead of publishing this tasteless compendium, they reissued his marvelous "What is the name of this book?" and "5,000 B.C. and other philosophical fantasies", which are long out of print.