Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

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


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#21 itachi-san

itachi-san

    Senior Member

  • VIP
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3620 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 April 2008 - 09:25 AM

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.



There is a flaw in this logic. Man 1 does not give Man 2 an idea. He gives him spoken or written words. Man 2 then thinks about these words and formulates an idea. The transaction is made with just the words, hence Man 1 gave something he had.

The same applies to sorrow in your argument. Man 1 gives words to Man 2. Man 2 then thinks about it and becomes sorrowful. The giving transaction is over when Man 2 receives the words and before he formulates any ideas about them.
  • 0

#22 solver7734

solver7734

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 13 April 2008 - 12:15 AM

in the first sentence, with sorrow describes the barber.
in the second sentence, with sorrow describes the cash.
the third sentence is false.


HA HA YOU PEOPLE WHO SLAVED HOURS OVER THIS!
  • 0

#23 itachi-san

itachi-san

    Senior Member

  • VIP
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3620 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 April 2008 - 07:00 AM

in the first sentence, with sorrow describes the barber.
in the second sentence, with sorrow describes the cash.
the third sentence is false.


HA HA YOU PEOPLE WHO SLAVED HOURS OVER THIS!



Maybe you should have at least taken a couple seconds to read it. What barber are you talking about? I think you're paradoxically mixing paradoxes.
  • 0

#24 boen

boen

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 22 May 2008 - 07:47 AM

In one way or another, most of us don't have
much time or none at all and yet, we often say:
"I'll give you some time.".

I give you a smile? Well, I can not ripp it of my
face, can I!? I give you freedom, I give you bad look, etc...

So, very often we give something, that we don't have
or can not give at all.

Anyway, we can give good or bad intentions, emotions,
things like cocepts, even if we don't have them phisicaly.
  • 0

#25 sparx

sparx

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 24 May 2008 - 04:47 AM

most of you have just been using give as it is in a figure of speech. 2 of the earliest ppl to reply got it right by sayign that the greedy man isnt giving the sorrow but sorrowfully giving.

in response to the whole "a" man: no. he has to have an antecedant which is in this case the greedy man.
  • 0

#26 silverag47

silverag47

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts

Posted 28 May 2008 - 01:17 PM

sorrow is what replaces the cash, after the process of giving it up

he's not really giving sorrow
  • 0

#27 AliceJH

AliceJH

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 01 August 2008 - 12:32 PM

You could "give" someone else a contagious disease if you yourself had been vaccinated against it but still a carrier, but the other person had not been vaccinated
  • 0

#28 NFI

NFI

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 17 August 2008 - 01:35 AM

You can not give an emotion, such as sorrow for example, to another living creature. This is in part because it is an intangible entity (or idea, if you like that better), and also because no two living beings experience any one emotion in exactly the same way.

Also, someone said that sorrow is a resultant emotion from the act of giving, and did not exist before. This is implied in the statement itself. It says that he does not possess the wealth along with sorrow, which is presumably true.

However, this "paradox" is flawed from its beginning by being more of a play on words than an actual "catch 22" or impossibility.

The man who possesses wealth is condemned as being greedy. Greed itself is a mixture of a personality trait and an emotion. This is why it is considered one of the "Seven Deadly Sins".

The "greedy" man experiences (privately) the emotion of sorrow if he is subjected to the act of giving away his wealth. No transfer of any kind takes place, beyond the physical gifting of the money. Any emotions experienced by the parties involved are felt and realized within their own personal body, soul (if you are inclined to believe in them), etc. and cannot be given in the first place.

You can't give someone love, or sorrow, or joy. You can only hope to produce those emotions within another by interacting with them in a way that will cause them to create that emotion within themselves. Their ensuing association of that particular emotion with you has nothing to do whatsoever with any emotion you feel for them that is not given representation by your actions.

A prime example of this is seen in children who have a "crush" which obliges them to treat the object of their secret affections as if they hate them. Often the child who is being picked on has no idea that their nemesis is enamored of them.

A final example is seen in the adult relationship where one party constantly assures the other party that they love them, and very likely do, but continually act in a manner totally disconnected with that emotion, when interacting with the person they claim to love. It is not so much a matter of which emotions you feel privately, or how deeply you feel them, as it is a matter of how well and how often you choose to act accordingly in your dealings with the people who create these emotions within you by their presence. It should be noted that their presence need not be physical. Simply thinking of a person will often stir emotion as strongly as their actual proximity might.

Edited by NFI, 17 August 2008 - 01:39 AM.

  • 0

#29 VA Slim

VA Slim

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 10 October 2008 - 02:03 PM

He gave up sorrow!!!!

The Greedy man usually gave cash with sorrow, but since he had no more cash to give he was not in sorrow. Therefore He gave up being in sorrow. " he gave what he doesn't have."
  • 0

#30 ledger

ledger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 191 posts

Posted 23 November 2008 - 07:19 PM

I have a headache, but I think it makes sense lol
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users