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

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

he's not really giving sorrow

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

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
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

bahahaha so true

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

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

No and yes, it all depenting on the sitsuation.

A simple anwer: no. B))

Edited by speed
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I do not think it is solved yet.

Please define"gives his cash with sorrow". I'll restate it. Gives his cash WHILE FEELING SORROW. no paradox.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

He did not give "cash with sorrow" because:

1. He only gave cash, if he gave both, the receiver must be the one with sorrow and not him.

2. He didn't have sorrow because he was happy with the situation that he had the money. When he gave the money, he became sorrowful not because he gained sorrow but because he lost happiness. Sorrow is not the replacement of happiness but rather the absence of happiness.

3. So the story was a fallacy, because what he gave was "cash" and the "happiness that is attached to the cash" that's why the recipient must have felt "happy" because of the "cash". He on the other hand lost "cash", and lost "happiness" thus with the absence of "happiness" felt "sorrow".

My two cents' worth...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Just curious...

Has anyone said "trust"? As in you can put your trust in others while no one (not even the person putting trust in others) has put any trust in you...

B))
hehe. I think it just may work.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

well I think he can can give something he doesn't have as long as he pays it off like a loan, plus is the though that counts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

it is possible to give what you don't have.

if you are rich you have plenty. it is possible to give what you dont have. you can give nothing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Of course it's a play on words. He gives the cash with (not 'along with') sorrow.

But if you wanted to entertain the idea that he could actully pass along sorrow with the csh...

"...he doesn't have the cash with sorrow, so he gives what he doesn't have."

This is not true.

Having the sorrow is like HAVING an idea. The sorrow is a condition generated by the act of giving away his money. Thus, when he gives away his money he aquires sorrow and is free to do what he wants with it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

yes, give him nothing for you have nothing

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."

focusing on the question, here are some real life situations to answer the question.

1.

A retired man hires a gardener/pool boy/plumber/mechanic/etc.

He has given a job, while not having one himself.

2. [spoiler=My Favorite :P]A black eye/bruise/cut/etc.

this is something simple you can test in real life hahaha

3.

Anything you own 1 of.

using math, 1-1=0, if I have 1 apple and give it away, I no longer have an apple, so I do not have an apple... now :P

4.

Birth/massage/?

you can give birth/massages, but no one has birth/massages... they "have a baby" or "get a massage" though you get it, you can never have it :P

5.

A Call.

Similar to 4 except that you can "have a call".

So basically, the answer is:

Yes, so long as it is not a physical object. Unless #3 counts.

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 Sophist quote is a word trick, not a logical paradox.

"Greedy man gives his cash with sorrow."

Sorrow here applies to the action of giving.

"However, he doesn't have the cash with sorrow, so he gives what he doesn't have."

Here, sorrow applies to having cash.

"The Greedy man has sorrow when he gives away cash. When he is not giving away cash he does not have sorrow."

This says the same thing without the word trick and there is no "paradox".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

My wife gives something she does not have everyday.

---> goes into store, no cash and no money in the back.

Purchases items with no money. Unfortunately, everyone

else alos does it and we call that CREDIT.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

"A greedy man gives his cash with sorrow. However, he doesn't have his cash with sorrow."

is identical to

"A greedy man gives his cash with sorrow. However, he has his cash with no sorrow."

The correct conclusion is:

If you have something with no sorrow, you will give it away with sorrow.

The sophistic wordplay compares 2 statements. Both contain "his cash with sorrow" ==> "gives" and "doesn't have" are falsely compared as well.

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."

Yes because you can buy your friend a gift you do not own yourself.

Life is confusing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

His sorrow develops when he gives the money away.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

As he gives his money, so does he give part of his happiness... :rolleyes:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

PS: And he doesn't have any happiness at the instant he gives his money..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

this is false to some extent. for to have money gives him joy but to give away money has him feeeling full of sorrow. but only in the play of words can you give away sorrow. if you put logic to it you cannot give away sorrow.

that is when the main idea is sorrow, but when the main idea is money, there is no difference. if he has money he has money, but when he gives it away, then he has none, still you can't give away money if you don't have anymore to give.

therefor in this situation, you cannot give away what you don't have.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

He got the cash with happiness...and he is giving it with happiness only(the man recieving it feels happy). On the other hand...he gains sorrow when he loses it...the sorrow comes from the man he's giving the cash to(he had sorrow as he didnt have cash with him)...so...overall...it is a transaction from both sides...ALWAYS!

No paradoxes here...just an exchange of feelings in addition to cash! ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

lol

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.