lew@ihuxr.UUCP (08/05/83)
watdaisy!cbostrum described Martin Gardner's "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener" as "most disappointing" and "a waste of time". I feel that this evaluation is unfair, subjective though it is. I sympathize with this reaction since I was also exasperated by Gardner's non-defense of what I regard as addle-brained beliefs. The thing is though, that Gardner is well aware of this type of reaction and discusses it at length. He quotes Bertrand Russell quite a bit as the best articulator of it. Being anticipated in this way took a lot of steam out of my disgust. The book is very personal, but Gardner also discusses the history of the various topics. He is evidently very well read in classical philosophy. He describes not only his personal beliefs, but his opinions of various philosophers and their involvement in various controversies. In some cases, Gardner had personal (if peripheral) involvement, which makes for an interesting perspective. The book has eighty pages of notes which contain some interesting tidbits themselves. One that got a guffaw out of me contained a proof of the existence of God which Raymond Smullyan found in a term paper: "God must exist because he wouldn't be so mean as to make me believe he exists if he doesn't." Smullyan is said to have asked if this is really any worse than St. Anselm's proof. Another note on the game theory angle contains a brief description of two Greek myths which parallel the biblical story of Jepthah. Yet another describes Philip Jose Farmer's "Riverworld" series. ... so please be disabused of the notion that Gardner does nothing but emote for four hundred pages! Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew