ࡱ> ^Root Entry F[vIk1TableN8WordDocumentqSummaryInformation( {_H  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGIJhOPYTUVWXnZ[\]`abcdefgijlmopzrstuvwx|SN e#/;FNJjku<M U"}'m*,-V0002O568=E??BB|B!CEIKSMMMMMN`'``'#`'`'#`'9  [4@4NormalCJOJPJQJmH <A@<Default Paragraph Font0@0Header  !PJ2@2 Footnote TextCJ8&@8Footnote ReferenceH*(U@!( Hyperlink>*B*.O2.Style10dhhy'NN e#/;FNJjku<M U"}'m*,-V0002O568=E??BB|B!CEIKSMMMMMN`'``'#`'`'#`'9 `'O,`'O,`'9 `'O,`'G(`'9 `'@$`'o]4`'sw `'+`' `'O2`'0`'0`'#`'O2`'`'+`'o]4`'#`'``'O2`'0`'``'O2`'O,`'#`'#`'0`'0`'0`'Wjku<SMMMMMNNN R|KOC|LNRMUnknownWarren ShiblesMMMNX !8@(  Tr  c $ @B S  ?MN8 t9:;;( * !q)r)g,x,--//B2C2W2W2t2t2=<N<~MMMNNNNN9:;;( * !q)r)g,x,--//B2C2W2W2t humor and critical thinking. In this respect, the book has a valuable use. Has the author succeeded in his and the reformulated goals and tasks? What counterexamples may be found to his presentation? This is where the fun begins. We may begin with the title. No explanation was given for the title except that "I think" refers to philosophy and "I laugh" refers to humor (154). Perhaps only a few common readers would know that this is from Descartes', "I think, therefore I am." The Cartesian based title is ironic because (a) Descartes held a now rejected mentalism. Wittgenstein had much fun refuting the notion of "idea," and "think." (b) "I am" or existence is an open-context term and may be regarded as a misuse of language. (c) Therefore, "I think, therefore I am," can be seen as a fallacy and so not lend support, as it supposedly does, to the title. (d) Laughter is not a necessary ingredient of humor, nor can humor be adequately analyzed in terms of laughing. If one does not find this sort of analysis enjoyable, it may be noted that Dewey in How We Think also said that to be playful and serious at the same time is permissible and defines the ideal condition. Now, Paulos is going to kill the "dragon" of theology with a joke. He begins by pretending that God does not even exist (as a cause) (68), (23), is not a miracle (69), is false because not falsifiable (30, 92). Kai Nielsen, Bertrand Russell and John Dewey, among others, have been slaying this and other dragons for years, but the dragon kept alive by feeding on the common folk. One of the best methods of slaying it is by means of humor. The dragon has no sense of humor. It thinks it can put any word together with any other word and still make literal, serious sense. I would call this the "metaphor-to-dragon" fallacy. Paulos wrote, "I think God or nature or the Great Tortoise really does throw dice." The words are put together funny. Is theology imminent? Yes, because he refers there to God. As to the goal of dispelling the feeling that philosophy is not a branch of mathematics, a new paradox arises. Most of the book treats philosophy as mathematical logic, syllogisms [he calls them appropriately, "sillygisms" (25)] and mathematical puzzles. It is basically a mathematico-logical approach to humor. He states, "Logic is the most important theoretical tool we possess." (19) There is, on the contrary, an extensive literature in defense of the view that ordinary language is where our reasoning takes place, and that it cannot be reduced to logic without obliterating thought itself. (cf. Dewey 1964, Ryle 1960, Schiller 1912, 1930, 1932; Wittgenstein 1958, etc.) One of the main points of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations was to reject his Tractatus Logico- philosophicus to render formal logic as rather irrelevant to human understanding, to reduce, as he says, disguised nonsense to patent nonsense. There are all kinds of dragons in the woods. B. Croce (1917:147) stated, "As the science of thought, logistic is a laughable thing." The book title restated becomes, "I use logic, therefore I laugh," or "I calculate, therefore I laugh." Paulos quite correctly quotes Wittgenstein to the effect that a philosophy book could be written which consists merely of jokes. (The source for this, not given, is Malcolm 1958:29.) But symbolic logic is often seen as a series of disguised jokes. Paulos touches on this himself in mentioning that logic consists of tautologies and analytic statements and so is circular, and that logical implication (P implies Q) if applied to ordinary language, often generates nonsense. (20) In symbolic logic, false statements imply any statement whatsoever. Thus, for example, "Paulos' book was written by a woman" implies that Paulos, a man, wrote it. Having regularly taught symbolic logic I do not mind saying that it outrages our understanding of intelligible language and is not a tool which can help us to think better. Wittgenstein made that clear in his Philosophical Investigations (1958). Humor could have been used also to expose the more basic fallacies of the mathematician's notion of infinity and number. This could lead to a revolution in mathematics. (cf. Ayer's Revolution in Philosophy.) There are no adequate theories of mathematics and what is typically said about number is as yet humorously contradictory and inadequate. Humor can be used to expose the mistakes made in logic and mathematics. Paulos does take a few steps toward slaying this mathematical dragon by using the weapon of Gdel's jokes (42, 96-99) combined with Quine's sling shot which uses non-analytic stones (non-circular stones which are especially destructive) (49). Though this does not suffice to slay the dragon outright, it does begin to really make it hop. The main people cited in the book are mathematicians or those who have contributed to mathematics: Wittgenstein, Bertrand Russell, Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson) and Paulos himself. Groucho Marx is cited though he is not a mathematician, but, as the author reveals, somewhat "Marxist." Wittgenstein argued for ordinary language rather than an ideal symbolic logic, but an analysis of Carroll's Alice can do exactly the same thing, and shows that insight may be given by the use of humor in analyzing our uses and misuses of ordinary language. [See W. Shibles "A Philosophical Analysis of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" (1974).] The author cites Pitcher's (1980) article on Alice and nonsense, which is useful in making this point. He has heard of Alice but has not used her humor against the dragon. One performance of Alice and the formal logician dragon would die laughing. There is yet another technique to capture the beast. That is to confuse it and get it to chase its tail. It is called the Liar paradox, which involves fallacies of self-reference. Epimenides the Cretan said, "All Cretans are liars." If the statement is false, it is true, and if it is true it is false. Presumably, although Paulos says nothing about dragons or about this, the paradox will confuse the dragon, its eyes will cross and it will no longer be able to drag-on. It would have been useful if Paulos had summoned up some reserves and shown the full import here, for it would show that (a) logicians lack a sense of humor, and (b) they are dragon-like in their inordinate fear of the paradox. They believe that unless it is resolved it will seriously undermine logic, the basis of mathematics, as well as thinking itself. There may be nothing left. They will not be able to go on: "The most secure foundations of science, indeed of reason itself, seemed to be undermined." (Koyr 1946:344) Accordingly, the Liar problem has been seen in the literature as an impending doom and was referred to as: paradox, self-refutation, vicious circle (The German for this word is Teufelskreis,"devil's circle."), self-destructive, "illocutionary hara-kiri" (Falkenberg 1982:68), contradiction, and insolubilia. "Paradox" derives from the Greek meaning "a miracle," and here, one which haunts logicians. Quine wrote (1966:7), "The paradoxesbring on the crises in thought." He speaks of the paradox as a "catastrophe," "dangerous"; and it is also thought of as "terrifying." (Koyr 1946:344) The titles of journal articles suggest that the paradox is a kind of ghost which stalks logicians in the night: "Return of the Liar," "A New Epimenides," "Drange's Paradox Lost," "The Revival of 'The Liar,'" "Paradox without Tears" (a pun on "tiers"), "The Strengthened Liar," etc. (cf. Martin 1970, bibliography) And, of course, it kills: "Traveller, I am Philetas; the argument called Liar and deep cogitations by night, brought me to death." (Bochen!ski 1961:131) We will get that dragon yet. Paulos thinks the way to do this is by means of constructing two languages, one for dragons (our word) and one for the fodder, ordinary people. (The two languages involve: Tarski's levels of language theory to avoid self-referring statements, or Russell's theory of types. Thus, when the Cretan says, "All Cretans are liars," this statement cannot apply to itself.) Logicians spoke of the problem as a disease, but instead of finding the cure in a better understanding of ordinary language they reject it in favor of an artificial language: Tarski construed himself as treating the disease by replacing ordinary discourse with a sanitized, artificial construction. But those interested in natural language have been dissatisfied with this medication. (Burge 1979:169) In terms of ordinary language we use self-referring expressions all of the time and we understand what is meant without paradox. The same applies with metaphors including those presented by Paulos. Metaphors are intelligible even though literally, logically absurd. The Liar paradox is merely a joke which logicians take seriously. Karl Popper (1954:162) has written a humorous dialogue showing that self-referring expressions are quite useful in language, and that what is a paradox for the logician is, in ordinary language, no paradox at all. He wrote: "Spare me the details of your achievements in the theory of numbers, and speak in a language which I, an ordinary man can understand." And also: Socrates: Who are all these mathematicians: Theodorus never mentioned their names. Theaetetus: Barbarians, Socrates. But they are very able. (ibid.:168) The dragon is fed on Liar paradoxes, but instead of dying is nourished by confusion. (cf. Martin 1984) It may be noted that Popper's insight humor article appeared in the journal, Mind, yet was not cited by Paulos, but also that Mind devoted a whole issue to philosophic humor and any reader should be made aware of this extensive 150 page classical work: (Mind, Christmas number 1901). It begins with a portrait of "The Absolute." Paulos entitles a chapter on the Liar, "The Titl of This Section Contains Three Erors." [sic.] The spelling errors are intended. Ironically, there are unintended misspellings or grammatical errors in the 1985 version of the book on pages 5 (the very first page), 18, 66, 90, 123, 131, 144, 154. The reverse of the title page unintentionally gives the Library of Congress cataloging spelling, "humaor." Now it may be amusing to note that in the 1990 edition most of these errors are still there, e.g. Hemple should be Hempel (90), "relevant" is spelled" relevent" (5), etc. This is of course no real concern, except insomuch as it can be used to analyze and define humor itself. Humor, as we saw, may be defined as an intentional mistake or deviation which is not taken seriously. If we see the irony in the above errors and believe it is not harmful or threatening we can generate humor. And I do not take it as threatening. If, on the other hand, we see the errors as unacceptable and wrong, we may generate blame or anger. One thing lacking in the book is any theory or analysis of humor or humor as an emotion. Humor is certainly not mere laughter, but an assessment of a mistake which causes certain bodily feelings. This is also a definition of emotion. However, the few observations relevant to humor theory hinted at in the book could fit the above definition. The author suggests here and there that humor involves: misinterpretation, a tendency toward debunking, incongruity (153). Thus, humor would be caused by mistakes or deviations. It would, however, have been useful to attempt a classification of humor, give the difference between insight humor and non-insight humor. Such a classification would show that all of the informal logical fallaciesdeviations from desires, the ideal, the practical, etc.generate types of humor. The same would be true of the defense mechanisms such as fixation and rationalization. Insight humor may then be analyzed and would be seen to involve nearly all of these types. Quintilian observed, All forms of argument [and tropes] afford equal opportunity for jests. (Institutio Oratoria VI.iii.65) There can be, for example, insight jokes which involve pun (equivocation), circularity, ad absurdum arguments, context deviations, and in short, any mistake which we can make with (or without) language. This is to say that if we are to analyze thought and humor we must analyze rhetoric and ordinary language. Paulos in a few isolated places hints at this: "Both philosophy and humor evince a keen concern for language and its (mis)interpretation." (153) But his statement that most jokes involve incongruity (153) does not suffice to give insight into the diverse types of humor or insight humor. Incongruity is also a definition of metaphor. In the treatment of Zeno's paradox, a mathematical "solution" is given (111), whereas what the paradoxes show is that it was a mistake to confuse mathematics with reality (cf. Shibles "Zeno: How to Become Turtled," 1971), "time" and "infinity" are metaphysical terms, and ideal numbers and pure mathematics are pseudo-scientific notions, etc. Zeno's paradoxes could have been explored much more for humorous insight. His account of teleological concepts as fallacies and as humorous is good. And it is partly for this reason that I think the author was meant to write this book. Majority rule is appropriately criticized, however, the point should have been stressed so as to be more convincing to the reader. The reader could easily leave the material, thinking that there is not much wrong with the majority rule principle which is the basis of democracy and parliamentary procedure. (cf. Shibles 1993 "The Majority Rule Fallacy") The concern was to show only the mathematician's paradox, not the really significant problems with it. Fishkin and others could, for example, have been cited for further reading, and also many reductions to absurdity could have been produced: Majorities may create acts of tyranny. (Fishkin 1979:5) Nobody but a moral imbecile would really be prepared to deliver himself over body and soul to the majority principle. (Barry 1979:171) (See also Wolff 1970:39-47.) The author did show that the mathematical approach to the "voter paradox" has failed to achieve a satisfactory solution. But, it cannot succeed. The problems with the majority rule involve factors having nothing to do with mathematics, such as intelligence of the voter, concern for the minority, etc. Again, the author vaguely realizes this because he does give throughout the book some stress on context. It could have been added that, as Blair and Pollak (1983) pointed out, one way Arrow's "voter's paradox" could be resolved is to have a dictatorship! Preferential and approval voting could also have been explored. The author wrote, "If one understands the relevant philosophical point, one gets the joke." And this is why the book was written. (5) This sounds circular. If one gets the point of any joke, one gets the joke. If one does not get the point one does not get the point. So if one gets the point of his statement one does not get the point of his statement. This is lucid. If the book is written to show that circular statements are true, the author succeeds. The dragon lives. The public is devoured. In this vein, we may add that one should read the book if one has the time, but should not read it if one does not have the time. If one lack funds for the book it would not be a wise purchase, but if one wishes to make the investment, one may consider buying it. Furthermore, if the book becomes a best-seller it is richly deserved, but if it does not then it is not quite so richly deserved. It is a short book, but that is only a quantitative remark. In sum, I would recommend that one obtain the book, except that I do not know who one is. Now I am not going to say that this book is good or bad, as is so often done in reviews. Good and bad are vague, open-context terms. And we cannot say jokes are in themselves bad or good. There is perhaps no joke so bad that someone will not be found to appreciate it. If the author had given us some criteria for good and bad insight humor we could then tell whether or not his jokes are humorous. What can be said about this book in all truth is that I am enjoying writing about it. The significance of the book is to point out that humor can be used as a tool to give insight. It is a claim. We need now to have further research and work done to show how and what specific techniques are involved in using humor to create and expand knowledge. Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations may be the most important work to date in this regard. Extensive, detailed and serious work of this sort needs to be done. The dragon is dead. Long live the dragon.  John A. Paulos, I Think, Therefore I Laugh: An Alternative Approach to Philosophy. NY: Columbia University Press 1985 (Reprinted 1990 NY: Vintage. NY: Random.) (revised 2000.)  See "Liar Paradox" as disguised joke in the section "Deviation from Truth."  PAGE 1 2t2=<N<~MMMNNNNWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles2hard disk:Documents:humorbook.html:h10cpaulos.html@MM%j<MMZ}$j~MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNA,@@@@@@AAAA4A6A8A:A<ArAt@v@@@@@@A@Ax@@@@@@GTimes New Roman5Symbol3"M Arial7IPAKiel3Times"1hVjd%I U@ !0dOReview of John AWarren ShiblesWarren Shibles [4@4NormalCJOJPJQJmH <A@<Default Paragraph Font0@0Header  !PJ2@2 Footnote TextCJ8&@8Footnote ReferenceH*.o2.Style10dhhy'NN e#/;FNJ RRKOCRLNRM !9:;;( * !q)r)g,x,--//B2C2W2W2t2t2=<N<~MMNNNNN9:;;( * !q)r)g,x,--//B2C2W2W2t2t2=<N<MNNNNWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hRoot Entry F4LE}1TableN,$WordDocumentSummaryInformation( H  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGIJKLMOPY{TUVWXnZ[\]opzrstuvwx|S~@0Header  !PJ2@2 Footnote TextCJ8&@8Footnote ReferenceH*(U@!( Hyperlink>*B*.O2.Style10dhhy'NN e#/;FNJjku<M U"}'m*,-V0002O568=E??BB|B!CEIKSMMMMMmNN`'``'#`'`'#`'9 `'O,`'O,`'9 `'O,`'G(`'9 `'@$`'o]4`'sw `'+`' `'O2`'0`'0`'#`'O2`'`'+`'o]4`'#`'``'O2`'0`'``'O2`'O,`'#`'#`'0`'0`'0`'W`'<jku<SMMMMMNNN RKOCLNRMUnknownWarren ShiblesMMMNX !8@(  Tr  c $ @B S  ?MN8 t9:;;( * !q)r)g,x,--//B2C2W2W2t2t2=<N<~MMMNNNNN9:;;( * !q)r)g,x,--//B2C2W2W2t2t2=<N<~MMMNNNNWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard diskb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c Paulos@~ H<~ ~ Z}+N@@GTimes New Roman5Symbol3 Arial7IPAKiel3Times"1hVbf#I U@ !0dO9Review of John AWarren ShiblesWarren Shibles  `'O,`'O,`'9 `'O,`'G(`'9 `'@$`'o]4`'sw `'+`' `'O2`'0`'0`'#`'O2`'`'+`'o]4`'#`'``'O2`'0`'``'O2`'O,`'#`'#`'0`'0`'0`'Wjku<SMMMMMNNN RKOCLNRMUnknownWarren ShiblesMMMNX !l,B$dHIsV)$]yD&qF@t(  <  # AB S  ?MN@49:;;( * !q)r)g,x,--//B2C2W2W2t2t2=<N<~MMMNNNNN9:;;( * !q)r)g,x,--//B2C2W2W2t2t2=<N<~MMMNNNNWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles2hard disk:Documents:humorbook.html:h10cpaulos.htmlWarren Shibles2hard disk:Documents:humorbook.html:h10cpaulos.htmlWarren Shibles7hard disk:Desktop Folder:humorbook.html:h10cpaulos.html@MM_<MMZ}5B*$j~MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNA,@@@@@@AAAA4A6A8AA<ArAt@v@@@@@@A@A@@@@@@GTimes New Roman5Symbol3"M Arial7IPAKiel3Times"1hVOseF'I U@ !0dOReview of John AWarren ShiblesWarren ShiblesAAA4A6A8A:A<ArAt@v@@@@@@A@Ax@@@@@@GTimes New Roman5Symbol3"M Arial7IPAKiel3Times"1hVjd%I U@ !0dOReview of John AWarren ShiblesWarren Shibles [4@4NormalCJOJPJQJmH <A@<Default Paragraph Font0@0Header  !PJ2@2 Footnote TextCJ8&@8Footnote ReferenceH*(U@!( Hyperlink>*B*.O2.Style10dhhy'N FMicrosoft Word DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8 ՜.+,D՜.+,H hp  'personal copyin Ob Review of John A Title (RZ _PID_GUID _PID_HLINKS'AN{28EDE903-67CB-11D5-BB62-0030653D2D92}AP Oh+'0p  , 8 DPX`h'Review of John ArdeviWarren ShiblesAarrNormalSWarren ShiblesA39rMicrosoft Word 8.0d@G&@Ts@BsI U@DyK F index.html index.html=p index.htmlx:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles2hard disk:Documents:humorbook.html:h10cpaulos.htmlWarren Shibles2hard disk:Documents:humorbook.html:h10cpaulos.html@iio<iiZ}5B*$j~MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNA,@@@@@@AAAA4A6A8A:A<ArAt@v@@@@@@A@A@@@@@@GTimes New Roman5Symbol3"M Arial7IPAKiel3Times"1hVYdF&I U@ ! [4@4NormalCJOJPJQJmH <A@<Default Paragraph Font0@0Header  !PJ2@2 Footnote TextCJ8&@8Footnote ReferenceH*.O2.Style10dhhy'NN e#/;FNJjku<M U"}'m*,-V0002O568=E??BB|B!CEIKSMM1NN`'``'#`'`'#`'9 `'O,`'O,`'9 `'O,`'G(`'9 `'@$`'o]4`'sw `'+`' `'O2`'0`'0`'#`'O2`'`'+`'o]4`'#`'``'O2`'0`'``'O2`'O,`'#`'#`'0`'W`'<jku<SMNNN R2KOC2LNRMUnknownWarren Shibles !9:;;( * !q)r)g,x,--//B2C2W2W2t2t2=<N<MNNNNN9:;;( * !q)r)g,x,--//B2C2W2W2t2t2=<N<MNNNNWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c PaulosWarren Shibles,hard disk:Documents:humor book:hb 10c Paulos@03m<Z}+j~MMNNNNNNNq,p@p@p@p@p@q@q.p@p@p@GTimes New Roman5Symbol3 Arial7IPAKiel3Times"1hVc$I U@ !7 0dOReview of John AWarren ShiblesWarren ShiblesDocumentSummaryInformation8TCompObjX0Tableq%Data 0dOReview of John AWarren ShiblesWarren Shibles [4@4NormalCJOJPJQJmH <A@<Default Paragraph Font0 FMicrosoft Word DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8 ՜.+,D՜.+,H hp  'personal copyin Ob Review of John A Title (RZ _PID_GUID _PID_HLINKS'AN{28EDE903-67CB-11D5-BB62-0030653D2D92}AP Oh+'0p  , 8 DPX`h'Review of John ArdeviWarren ShiblesAarrNormalSWarren ShiblesA38rMicrosoft Word 8.0d@G&@Ts@-I U@DyK F index.html index.html=p index.htmlx7 s <Rjbjb kkM]] Ut8 !""u  ,8#,% 2" 7A4 J JJcJ   5 }W  D. Review by author of John A. Paulos, I Think, Therefore I Laugh: An Alternative Approach to Philosophy Insight humor revisited. Ordinarily one would not review a 1985 book reprinted in 1990, but this one is rather different. In the first place, it deals with a topic so unique that practically no one, linguist or philosopher, has seemed to have been aware of it, namely, insight humor. In the second place it can serve as a review of some of the themes in this book. In the third place it may be interesting to see why this book keeps coming out. It appeared again in a revised edition also in the year 2000. It has not been significantly recognized that Paulos' book is actually concerned with insight humor. Insight humor is not yet understood as an important aspect of humor. Humor is rather thought to deal more with the trivial. His book also shows the uses and misuses of language, but all in all it does not present a clear goal or intention, only that there is: a deep resonance between humor and philosophy. Ideally both activities require, in fact, presupposea free intelligence stepping back from roles, rules, and rote, in order to respond to the world with honesty and courage, [and] to dispel the feeling among some that philosophy is some sort of guide to life, a branch of theology or mathematics, or merely a matter of being stoical in the face of adversity [71]. He claims to be following Wittgenstein, but in fact does not render Wittgenstein's philosophy. (cf. Wittgenstein 1958) He claims to advance philosophic or insight humor, which would be much needed. There is, however, virtually no theory in the book, but rather examples of a number of paradoxes. The statements made about humor are not new, nor are new insights given into the paradoxes. It is not mentioned, but there is already established in the literature the typology "paradox humor." (cf. Shibles 1978, 1995) He also has an earlier book, Mathematics and Humor (1980) which deals with the same topics as the book under review. (On humor in mathematics, see also Wille Humor in der Mathematik1987.) The paradoxes are only briefly presented, and supplied with a few illustrative jokes. No new knowledge is to be found in the book, but merely briefly presented examples of the point that "if one understands the relevant philosophical point, one gets the joke." (5) And there certainly are jokes that the average person would not understand, but the critical thinker would. The paradoxes of time, though not discussed, are a rich source of humor, as is ethics. Only the initiated would see the following as humor: "Time passes," "An infinite line," "Moral value," "It is immoral because it is wrong," "The present is the future becoming the past," "Time dilation is when time slows down," etc. (Shibles 1997, 1978f, 1985b, 1989c, 1997) The book will, then, be of use not to the humor scholar, philosopher or researcher, but to the average lay reader or linguist who is not familiar with these paradoxes, and who has not yet been able to see a connection between&hio  5 /;r s !!m$r$/%6%7%O%%%%%&!&*(1(*+y+z+]._.01V445555Y6]6>>>>> ?q?}?CCCFiF|FFPP~QQQQQQQ1R2RRRRRRRmH jUCJ5 CJOJQJ j0JUj0J6U6Vjku < M"U&}+m.01V4446O9:<AECCdhdhdhdhjku   9 : ; < M !""U&}+m.01V4446O9:<AECCBF|F!GIMOSQQ1RRRRRRRRR4y TidHIsV)$]yD&Pf(7x][^UR (?Q^֍;KPnrJ@b["9>Oɉ/L!$hB3뿌k]=ƺoXsߣ<=Hs|:?4y0Z[ާ?|NzIji ]Hnzwӿћ崉{}뛾zgܸwI?t% _-z>v˧N8c'άP3t`f+|/Wrsϟ(V(nf63'_=tŎqS˰=KGΜ:4gN9q3+㣴_~v|] s^Y4!bfˋ}U M5#W[;'V_^8ux؉3' =v⹙/} G9hyxW6U]ta>"m;vvD,`žlJD,nCbX6Xm5a 7hKbX}X|i;xŰ~@+va=&bIIۓOva>!m/HbX'Xi;uŰ~O*a=^{%.}Űn@Ű~@7 b17AĒlK۷EbX?oiwX $i,Tھ}"zD,ɶS~C"]&moMbX?OKۏ~DbX%.Ű~@WH~FbX%ن_蟤헿$b1p/l e{"d%mKbX?X _$g7!b1փ bIIiX ?$ni"]+m3a>/m~HbX%ٮŰ~@KFbX?='[m$?X ߰ܜ;o˵0؊9 sHɕ jVϹs5ۚ9wAS9vn7mvӜ'&,m-an݂lyoemsz6Y9=lcNOvms۝sz;vל.=m7C3ryC ly˶1c9oh7?܏ sA=0<06aJvh:Ķ06at=JbX?GX (&5tc9 0&:ؾ0ma9#'698ȶ'TdSsF8Om22 猨f36=HnW_>r0"4-qlLZ MI׿5i)?ҦC Sncy;xvͮԵ ct#[oec19~R@prϺ{;ۣ~~+CR<ʬ1fϰoNk޻&x3V~[G=]gr-s|~Jk][YN>֥v0K<]HĻ<&x$pCSDS7C;՜oZߪ(n$4u=tլ|!4g!c+3,6VƙbmjVFlWTRWƩfhڮCS:KU@g+txڷ+fT[f:g+mԙЕRg7 16;fh#kle  K/Z1%og55uU!-4񰕭qO l-vuUhjV*/0n𾥺8B] fh挮`bٛޢ=<7eKx:v(O~vOG5k9LQ x ϨF·Ll̬2f\zc/_XG< Gm(sE(O9³GO?yj|'jXXq/8?> " ICtE$v'HF"-@q݈;KD2\#Hj$BG$.]w6)$Fw9.m'${:\]H Q.BR 4IHH{DBRT4HUH$M$$")r|Ob$)5R# o= ICRvFR"h]$e*" (!A]SH Hx|GKHrI9mHDH*Db[E$U9:?'JdmF9$uW$v'f+%mԹVJ`+VoB{NIUwUTV>_#&4 JlUwU} |[OHr|O* \.\. c<3  ךW>lf.$,acqcRk>\0ibȈk`ĵ,5p#!- (FRki5cu3Y0t7c XYqc0&aqvŢ+12RrFǷ j:Ym'gF1}V`pߔk! TusZoo0œ# O|+{Xo%[N |o#YDSfN|S;vœvdG੐T3<x`K'oUȯ Tw';mî=oCASeNVU=+jdꌿwj;uP-l5:wjw`V'7^=5[uoœ㣳Exzg!i4=5KxQ#> iX_߁}-lY<6#;SU<œ| JAc1~m!~-.k([eݣM kko^hәz]LZ`m[>kѬ#ӟ@cYILg뚁q\!$韁Quø53渦IDSό)`g˙f,=,X*Q-ouif׍h֑IVAODF=Uu;t+xӪ~{iѬ#DF~:`_׌O43bK4}&V 6p>jѬ#S@S )2#SU_ M M  zZ&N d60>qj1Ѭ#D̦0M ̦l*VBt$@C 1jk%qf0$ЙTlDXD %M̦0O{OK| dkrDN݀to)U>ޠKS"PmDߤAMquˈuFn泼UOV!صձ6vv>|q]iqeT#|u3ۜ#Ljju)ͩSbk_ޙ/:h>3>2A[3ƒ>zЧ%ӽAEY^Iu~a{$T{:VgMU]GLUnwlutg"?3_gr]+ײ.Wp\ n%Ulnmk}osv+e;X`xBXy >whÕ|BBv U ,P0T7 U+|Co;VCG&Ή m~)N(g=9Wpx7/poem] Y{B/$8ABz Sg߶c0y{ۤ >[ 3aᙨ: ]ej/9T꓌TX{QVc _XBV e%>9|*.`|:cL=F2k"(YC3>a~js9xt6C󎚡'VlcRXQU#w1QJH>ctd3czj;:Veyn#d5ٙnAu[gߥZW*afe_vVs TPt~i2+,Qq F +C'&Wй .!t꼡2 wMXr@~R+uB< L+aQQTWR^SSsX{JG3bJNܩ* eiȓ~Lַr(go?35*& R jj3h&PשN?:}y;΃p&SX۫)붺G>sE\ (ٴ% +G97MX/aPGhtVI z1ν9ʌ.vjy#A#==5 X{uUFVMC m*+wV|;Y3.JS+,8u»fNkjNa2/̤geX3:Xa;kH\O|Weq&S=|1 FwQ'sW nr(4s- 7*LkXU~( TWqO)mW.y/Z=}h[]zwvl$#0HTL߶3퉱{~r}+#Yަhag{s LRjbjb qkkM],$%%|&|&|&$'d***8**)5"4+J+`+`+`+,,,3333333,)6832|&,,",,,3.|&|&`+`+S+4...,|&`+|&`+3&J&J%J2&J|&|&,3..3|&|&3* ) *-3D. Review by author of John A. Paulos, I Think, Therefore I Laugh: An Alternative Approach to Philosophy Insight humor revisited. Ordinarily one would not review a 1985 book reprinted in 1990, but this one is rather different. In the first place, it deals with a topic so unique that practically no one, linguist or philosopher, has seemed to have been aware of it, namely, insight humor. In the second place it can serve as a review of some of the themes in this book. In the third place it may be interesting to see why this book keeps coming out. It appeared again in a revised edition also in the year 2000. It has not been significantly recognized that Paulos' book is actually concerned with insight humor. Insight humor is not yet understood as an important aspect of humor. Humor is rather thought to deal more with the trivial. His book also shows the uses and misuses of language, but all in all it does not present a clear goal or intention, only that there is: a deep resonance between humor and philosophy. Ideally both activities require, in fact, presupposea free intelligence stepping back from roles, rules, and rote, in order to respond to the world with honesty and courage, [and] to dispel the feeling among some that philosophy is some sort of guide to life, a branch of theology or mathematics, or merely a matter of being stoical in the face of adversity [71]. He claims to be following Wittgenstein, but in fact does not render Wittgenstein's philosophy. (cf. Wittgenstein 1958) He claims to advance philosophic or insight humor, which would be much needed. There is, however, virtually no theory in the book, but rather examples of a number of paradoxes. The statements made about humor are not new, nor are new insights given into the paradoxes. It is not mentioned, but there is already established in the literature the typology "paradox humor." (cf. Shibles 1978, 1995) He also has an earlier book, Mathematics and Humor (1980) which deals with the same topics as the book under review. (On humor in mathematics, see also Wille Humor in der Mathematik1987.) The paradoxes are only briefly presented, and supplied with a few illustrative jokes. No new knowledge is to be found in the book, but merely briefly presented examples of the point that "if one understands the relevant philosophical point, one gets the joke." (5) And there certainly are jokes that the average person would not understand, but the critical thinker would. The paradoxes of time, though not discussed, are a rich source of humor, as is ethics. Only the initiated would see the following as humor: "Time passes," "An infinite line," "Moral value," "It is immoral because it is wrong," "The present is the future becoming the past," "Time dilation is when time slows down," etc. (Shibles 1997, 1978f, 1985b, 1989c, 1997) The book will, then, be of use not to the humor scholar, philosopher or researcher, but to the average lay reader or linguist who is not familiar with these paradoxes, and who has not yet been able to see a connection between&hio  5 /;r s !!m$r$/%6%7%O%%%%%&!&*(1(*+y+z+]._.01V445555Y6]6>>>>> ?q?}?CCCFiF|FFPP~QQQQQQQ1R2RRRRRRRmH jUCJ5 CJOJQJ j0JUj0J6U6Vjku < M"U&}+m.01V4446O9:<AECCdhdhdhdhjku   9 : ; < M !""U&}+m.01V4446O9:<AECCBF|F!GIMOSQQ1RRRRRRRRR4CBF|F!GIMOSQQ1RRRRRRR2x|$$dhdhdhRRR.0268:<rtxz|0J j0JUjU jUmH5* 00P/ =!8"8#8$8%E7  HYPERLINK "index.html" Return to Table of Contents 7 7