Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

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

55 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

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."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

This is more of a play on words. The greedy man is not actually giving his sorrow away. He is keeping it for himself. Therefore this paradox does not make sense since the paradox has to do with the sorrow, not the money.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Depends on what is meant by "have."

[1] If have means "own," then yes. I can give someone

something that I do not own. e.g. if I stole it.

To give something, one only needs the ability to determine who

controls it. If I control it, I can pass its control to someone else.

So ...

[2] If have means "possess the control of" then no.

As stated, the paradox arises from the different antecedents of

"with sorrow." Sorrow is the consequence of giving, not a possession

before the act. But the language permits that interpretation by

its form.

Cute.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

absolutely it is not possible..

how come?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I was going to solve this butt...

Headswabby and bonanova already did it.

well done

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

There is another solution.

As long as you have something. You can give nothing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Yes I do it every day in every way. I give love I do not own love or possess it so there for it is not mine to give

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Yes - you can give your "all" while not having it "all".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

There is another solution.

As long as you have something. You can give nothing.

Oo. I like that. Very philisophical

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

"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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

Tru dat sparkman

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.