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

Quite frankly, this question shouldn't be under paradoxes because it isn't a paradox. If a man makes shoes for a living, he may not own any shoes himself. He owns a business that sells shoes.

[Double Liar Paradox (Jourdain's paradox)]

On 7/19/2007 at 10:48 PM, Guest said:

I don't quite understand the fascination with 'paradoxes' of this sort, which basically come down to which of the two statements are true, if any.

 

I am blue.

I am red.

 

Am I blue or red? Maybe I'm green. Doesn't matter, both cannot be true.

 

The truth is on the other side.

The other side holds no truths.

 

Or is that just it? We enjoy 'trapping' the mind in a room with mirrors on both the wall we are facing and the wall directly behind, and looking at the infinite reflections that result?

 

I just don't get it. Can someone tell me what I am missing?

 

I am reminded of the "bullet that pierces all vs. armour that cannot be pierced" contradiction. Similar situation, both just cannot exist. One is right, the other is wrong, or maybe both are wrong, but the contradictory elements cannot both be right.

In the case of the "bullet that pierces all vs. the armor that cannot be pierced" contradiction, I think some amount of scientific logic can be applied. In a situation where two equally powerful forces clash, the outcome is neutral. The bullet would not pierce the armor and the armor would not damage the bullet. This makes the statement that the bullet can pierce all and that the armor cannot be pierced false. However I don't think it's a true paradox. 

As for what the fun is in paradoxes, it's that they make you think more deeply than the common riddle. While normal riddles make you think outside the box, paradoxes make you throw the box away and start looking under a bowl. It completely changes the game by making it an insolvable riddle that stretches the mind to its limits. Some people don't enjoy puzzles, but for puzzle people, there is no greater puzzle than the paradox.