54 replies to this topic

[Argon]

Is it possible to give what we don't have? - Back to the Paradoxes

Sophist: "Yes. Greedy man gives his cash with sorrow. However, he doesn't have the cash with sorrow, so he gives what he doesn't have."

The question becomes somewhat phylosofical.. Can one attatch a feeling to a physical object, (ie. sorrow to money).. Is there a higher state of awares that would make the money tainted?

Double entandre,,

Yet, while having the cash devoid of sorrow, it is possible to present the gift or payment with such a feeling..

I don't find this creation as a paradox but one of a phylosofical nature.. If one believes that something can be given with malice, and that the malice can extend along with the offering, then indeed the sorrow is attatched to the giving, as well..

The recepient would become the determiner of the intent, regardless of the greedy persons feelings...

[angelesse]

"Yes, greedy man gives his cash with sorrow. However, he doesn't have the cash with sorrow, so he gives what he doesn't have."
Is that even possible?

When you read the sophism, did you try putting an "A" or a "the" in front of greedy thinking it was an error? It's not. It's key to this entire riddle.
Logic tells you to correct the sentence to try and better understand it. Try understanding it the way it is.

By putting an "A" or a "The" forces you to connect the "he" in the sentence "However, he doesn't have the cash with sorrow", with greedy man. There is no connection in the original sentence. The first sentence is just a statement. The Second sentence now talks about a person. Now the 2nd part is saying that this separate person does not have the cash with sorrow. Of course there's no such object as Cash with Sorrow, cash is the object, sorrow is the emotion attached to the object. Since this isn't the greedy man, justified with the "However" in the sentence, he feels no sorrow attached to his cash, so he CAN give what he doesn't have. He just gives the cash.

[Awesmazing]

I've got another solution for this one. During a conversation between two men, one man says something that gives the other man an idea. The first man never had the idea himself but was still able to pass it on to the second man. Unlike sorrow, an idea can vary and be specific amongst other ideas. Sorrow however is the same to anyone that can obtain it. The idea then was formed by the actions in the head of the second man, but could not have existed without the otherwise useless input of the first man. This can also still work for sorrow in the same way. The first man can say something that he feels is harmless but can, in the mind of the second man, create feelings of sorrow. The first man's words could have reminded him of something awful in hes past thus bringing the sorrow. The first man could however be as jolly as can be.

[biostrategem]

2. Is it possible to give what we don't have?

Sophist: "Yes, greedy man gives his cash with sorrow. However, he doesn't have the cash with sorrow, so he gives what he doesn't have."
Discuss this sophism.
=====================================================

The trick is recognizing that sorrow and cash are two nonequal entities. Cash is a measurable bartering mass in Universe. Sorrow is a non-measurable emotional state not contained in Universe but fabricated in the minds of men.

Therefore, sorrow cannot be given, only a state of confusion falsely generated. There is no paradox.

Eric Mumford
Waterford, NY

[urkspleen]

If we're talking about physical things here, than it is definitely possible. Giving can be done in the future, so the person in question just has to get the item first. Here's a great example:

You are going to get a present for a relative for the holidays. It's October, and you don't have it yet. Can you give them the present?

If you said no, you are stupid. No offense, but haven't you ever done something called SHOPPING!!!! You don't have something, so you can go out and get it. Done. Simple. Easy. Tu das el regalo a su padre. Sucks for you if you can't speak spanish, but since I'm nice i'll also wright in pig-latin. Ouyea ivegea hetea resentpea otea ouryea elativerea. I hope thats much clearer.

[val]

maybe it is just plain ambiguity. what does it mean the cash with sorrow? the cash are sorrow or he gives them with sorrow?

[hipowertech]

Okay I understand what you are saying, but.........

Rockefeller when asked how much money he needed to be happy replied "Just a little more".
A greedy person, at least in my personal experience has no joy or happiness in his money, there is always something else he wants or he would not be greedy. So first of all he had no Joy BEFORE giving the money.

Ask anyone who has ever been truly destitute and LATER become wealthy, or even comfortable financially, what are your fondest memories. Usually (maybe not always) they will reminisce about sharing a blanket with their toddler for warmth, or the wonderful flavor of that pot of beans that actually had a slice of bacon in it. I can say this from experience.

True joy or fulfillment is usually received within when we GIVE. So can you give what you do not have? YES. but as soon as you give it, you have it. Let me summa uppa. I give something to another (blanket, food, a hug). What they receive from the gift is joy. In doing so I personally am filled with joy by giving. I now have joy (which I may or may not have had before) because I gave joy to another.

How's that for waxing poetic, or nostalgic, or whatever?

Peace

[Bermo]

Impossible to solve, can be argued either way, words always have more than one meaning. You can spend ages, look at it from every angle, compare it, get opinions. The reality is it can't be solved. But it is a good way to stay alert and exercise the mind.

[Chilli]

How about a boy who is sad because the toy truck he has is not his own?
He gives the toy truck to the boy who owns it, who is given happiness by the return of the toy. The first boy still has no toy and has given happiness that he does not have.

[Adam]

Humph, the government does that all the time...

Tru dat sparkman