Paradoxes

As a beginner in the study of philosophy, I have frequently read that the study of paradoxes is a waste of time, that paradoxes add little to the appreciation of philosophy as a whole. Perhaps that's true. Prof. Sainsbury in his introduction even warns us that the study of paradoxes is said to have led to the premature death of Philetas of Cos back in the old days. I made the mistake of thinking that as a beginning student of philosophy I would be capable of fully appreciating this book and absorbing its contents. In fact, I am not, and could not. However, I can say without hesitation that it wasn't Professor Sainsbury's fault. He writes very clearly and without affectation, presenting the material as well as anyone could. Perhaps he makes some errors in his analysis of the paradoxes, but others will have to judge that, not I. In addition to the "fun" of paradoxes, he also relates them to more general problems of philosophy, which I was better able to absorb. For example, in discussing Newcomb's paradox and rational behavior, he has this to say: "A clear perception of the advantages of being a one-boxer cannot give you a REASON for becoming one - even if that were in your power. Atheists might clearly perceive the comfort to be derived from theism, but this does not give them a REASON for believing that God exists. The light of reason cannot direct one toward what one perceives as irrational. To adopt a position one regards as irrational one needs to rely on something other than reason: drugs, fasting, chanting, dancing, or whatever." This is one of the better and more succinct descriptions of the relationship between reason and religious belief that I have read, even though I don't completely agree with it. Reason can take one part-way toward a belief in God, even if total belief is ultimately irrational. But at least one understands what Prof. Sainsbury has to say on the subject, and it's a minor point, anyway. Highly recommended, for those who can handle it.

Philosophy begins in wonderment. Sometimes it ends there, too.Good paradoxes aren't just for entertainment (although they _are_ vastly entertaining; check out any of Raymond Smullyan's books for proof of that assertion). Each of them opens a door to all sorts of fascinating issues of tremendous philosophical importance.Mark Sainsbury's fine introduction, in its heavily revised second edition, is a set of keys to those doors. For example, his discussion of Zeno's famous paradoxes doesn't just inform the lay reader what they are; it explains why they're important even today: because they call into question whether the now-standard mathematical analyses of the paradoxes adequately capture our ordinary understanding of space. That is, the paradoxes can be resolved in the ideal space of mathematicians, but that doesn't _necessarily_ mean they can be resolved in the space in which we really live.In difficulty, the exposition is about one notch higher than in William Poundstone's _Labyrinths of Reason_, so you may want to read Poundstone first if you're new to this subject altogether. But do get around to this one. It's a solid account, from a more or less "analytic" outlook (though that term probably suffers from all the "vagueness" problems discussed in Sainsbury's second chapter).Sainsbury will also introduce some topics Poundstone doesn't cover -- notably, and perhaps most interestingly, Graham Priest's "dialethism" -- a logic in which, Priest claims, it's possible for some contradictions to be true[!]. Sainsbury doesn't agree but nevertheless concludes that he doesn't have a knockdown argument against it. (Be aware that Sainsbury's account has been criticized by other philosophers, including Priest. Follow up with Priest's own books if you get interested in this subject.)Sainsbury also doesn't hesitate to offer his own resolutions of the paradoxes, but he warns the reader not to accept his resolutions blindly. In fact there are several about which I continue to disagree with him (not an unusual phenomenon when the subject is paradoxes), but he's changed my mind on a couple.Overall, then, this is a well-written and cogently argued presentation, highly recommended to anyone interested in paradoxes and their relevance to philosophy.

I am now using this text for a Problem Solving course.I came across this text as a graduate student some years ago. Indeed, the problems presented in this text literally left me unsafe to drive on more than one occasion. The problems raised are philosophically intoxicating. The author should be commended for his clarity and ability to bring the issues to the forefront of discussion and thought.The text is well written for both student and teacher alike.

While the topic of the book is paradoxes, this book can easily be used for a 20th century analytic metaphysics course. Sainsbury is easy to understand and lays out the various issues clearly and concisely. My only problem with the book is his last chapter on dialetheism. His exposition is clear, but it is not as accurate as it could be. Anyone reading this chapter would be advised to read some of Priest's original works, and Priest's response to Sainsbury given to the Aristotelian Society.

If you want to learn or teach about Logical Paradoxes, this is the book you must raed. I have read many books on this topic, and to my opinion, this book is the best. The paradoxes and their solution (or dissolutions) are presented very clearly.