Skip to content
HomeVideosBooks
AllTopicsTrends
BlogsPodcasts
HistoryListsWatch laterLiked videosFollowing

The videos, books, blogs and podcasts Hacker News keeps recommending, all in one place.

VideosBooksBlogsPodcastsAboutPrivacySettings

Data from Hacker News, HackerTube, HackerBooks, HackerBlogs and Open Library. Credits · Not affiliated with Y Combinator.

HomeVideosBooksBlogsPodcasts
Ctrl K
    Cover of This book needs no title

    This book needs no title

    Raymond M. Smullyan · 1980

    This Book Needs No Title: A Budget of Living Paradoxes is a 1980 collection of essays about logic, paradoxes, and philosophy. From at Wikipedia

    Philosophy
    Open LibraryAmazon
    Stats for nerds
    3recommend
    7mentions
    5people
    2017–2021years
    43% recommend57% neutral

    Mentions per year

    20172018201920202021

    What Hacker News says

    1. genjipressJun 2021
      The best Smullyan book is still "This Book Needs No Title", but all of them are at least fun to read, this one included.
      thread
    2. egypturnashMar 2019
      It's been a good while since I read any of Smullyan's work, but I kinda want to say that the entirety of This Book Needs No Title, along with at least one of his other philosophy books (and maybe some parts of his logic puzzle books) does a pretty good job of expanding on that last line.
      thread
    3. placeboOct 2017
      This reminds me of a great snippet from one of Raymond Smulyan's books ("This Book Needs No Title") that I think best captures the implied and unfounded fear behind these sort of articles. Here's the quote in full:

      “Recently I was with a group of mathematicians and philosophers. One philosopher asked me whether I believed man was a machine. I replied, ‘Do you really think it makes any difference?’ He most earnestly replied, ‘Of course! To me it is the most important question in philosophy.’ I had the following afterthoughts: I imagine that if my friend had finally come to the conclusion that he were a machine, he would be infinitely crestfallen. I think he would think: ‘My God! How horrible! I am only a machine!’ But if I should find out I were a machine, my attitude would be totally different. I would say: ‘How amazing! I never before realized that machines could be so marvelous!’”

      Adding my own thoughts to this, I think what generates these sort of articles is an intuitive and well justified resistance to the belief is "life is just a complex machine" but by using completely mistaken arguments.

      The essence of life, existence and consciousness can never be reduced to any mechanical or even logical processes (although some would like to believe otherwise), but the fact that it can bloom into amazing creations like the human mind or possibly in the distant future ti some human-made artificial mind doesn't detract from it's magic.

      thread
    4. carapaceNov 2021
      "Planet Without Laughter"

      > excerpted from This Book Needs No Title: A Budget of Living Paradoxes by Raymund Smullyan

      https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/smullyan.html

      thread
    5. carapaceDec 2019
      In re: free will, illusion of: see "Planet Without Laughter"

      > excerpted from "This Book Needs No Title: A Budget of Living Paradoxes" by Raymund Smullyan

      https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/smullyan.html

      thread
    6. placeboMar 2019
      This whole thing about character flaws and self control reminded me of the following passage from Raymond Smullyan's "This Book Needs No Title":

      I know one woman who smokes. She says: “It’s not that I have to smoke; I choose to. I could easily give it up any time I wish to, but I see no reason why I should. But I can assure you, I could if I wanted to.” Her husband says to her: “That's only a rationalization! You couldn’t give up smoking even if you wanted to. You are not strong enough to give it up; you have to smoke. So to make yourself feel better, and to avoid having to confess your own weakness of character, you fool yourself into believing that you choose to. But it’s only a rationalization!” I know another woman who smokes. She says: “It’s not that I want to smoke; I can’t help myself! I have tried several times giving it up, but I have failed! I'm afraid I just don’t have a very strong character. I would love to stop, but I simply can’t.” Her husband says to her: “That's only a rationalization! You certainly could stop immediately, if you really wanted to. No, you choose to smoke (after all, nobody is making you) and you feel ashamed and guilty for doing that which you know to be harmful. So to avoid any moral responsibility for your acts, you fool yourself into believing that you ‘can’t help it. But this is only a rationalization.” My only question about all this is: “Why are people so incredibly stupid?”

      Pity he didn't expand on the last line, but I think deep introspection is required to understand what is really under our control

      thread

    Related

    Cover of The tao is silent
    2010–2026

    The tao is silent

    Raymond M. Smullyan
    9 recommend · 11
    Cover of What is the name of this book?
    2011–2025

    What is the name of this book?

    Raymond M. Smullyan
    8 recommend · 12
    Cover of The Blank Slate
    2007–2024

    The Blank Slate

    Steven Pinker
    42 recommend · 100
    Cover of Logical labyrinths
    2014–2019

    Logical labyrinths

    Raymond M. Smullyan
    2 recommend · 2
    Cover of Essentialism
    2014–2025

    Essentialism

    Greg McKeown
    20 recommend · 30
    Cover of Critique of Pure Reason
    2009–2026

    Critique of Pure Reason

    Immanuel Kant
    28 recommend · 180
    Cover of Forever undecided
    2014–2022

    Forever undecided

    Raymond M. Smullyan
    4 recommend · 7
    Cover of Philosophy
    2009–2026

    Philosophy

    Ayn Rand
    4 recommend · 20