Godel Escher Bach

[Fifty]

So this is one of those books you hear a lot about. I read it fairly recently, and found it titanically sucky. The philosophy was unpersuasive, the attempt to write "cutely" was just annoying (and neither artistic nor clever), the stuff about logic was unnecessarily unclear, the entire book could have been distilled into about 50 pages, etc. etc.. I can see its use for like some junior high kid who is into mathy-ish stuff, because from that standpoint it might be a cute book to read that would spur further interest in the subject, but I cannot see anything good about the book beyond that.

It also struck me that this is the type of book that I think certain types that are well-represented in OT would love. So, does anybody here love it (or at least not find it titanically sucky) and if so, could you explain to me why it doesn't suck?

edit: was just reading the amazon reviews of it and found this one particularly good: "This grossly overrated book has little to recommend it. Rather than clarifying the important ideas of Godel, Turing, and others, H makes them _harder_ to understand by embedding them in a hodge-podge of unfunny jokes, half-baked analogies, and bad writing"

 

[Till]

Gödel vs Hilbert could make an awesome book. Hilbert has the looks for a real villain. The plot could could be about his evil programme to conquer all of Math, before Gödel steps in at the last minute...

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I agree that it's an overhyped book, but I loved it when I first read it, and I still think it's a good book for getting started on a number of the odd ideas such as recursion, logic, Godel, attractors, etc. It is not, however, something that should be read as a supplement to books focusing on one of these topics.

 

[El_Machinae]

I haven't read it.

If it's better for an intellectual teenager to read (than a serious philosophy student), then I have a question.

Does it give an interpretation or slant to reality which might be too formative on a young person? In that, the teenager might find it tough to unlearn some of the falsehoods or poor logic? I'm thinking of a problem analogous to the problem that happens when a teen reads some Anne Rand.

I remember CGaggon64 enjoying the book: but he was in high school

 

[angeleyes]

You're right, its much much much to elaborate.

 

[Fifty]

Does it give an interpretation or slant to reality which might be too formative on a young person? In that, the teenager might find it tough to unlearn some of the falsehoods or poor logic? I'm thinking of a problem analogous to the problem that happens when a teen reads some Anne Rand.

I wouldn't say that it's harmful. Unlike Rand, Hofstadter is at least a respectable person in his field and a good thinker overall. I guess it depends on how you approach the book. I don't think you should approach it as trying to advance an argument. Hofstadter claims its about consciousness or something, but its far too horribly written to be worth even considering its argument, if it has any. Better to just read it as this fun little story that will hopefully make a teenager become vaguely interested enough in the subject it addresses.

Also, its a good intro for interest in logic, and some mathy-ish stuff. Although it tries to be philosophy, it is HORRIBLE philosophy. Not quite at Rand's level, but close. If you want a good intro to philosophy pick up The Problems of Philosophy and The History of Western Philosophy, both by Bertrand Russell. Russell is obviously a real philosopher unlike Hofstadter, and furthermore he is an infinitely more gifted writer.