Guest Posted May 28, 2008 Report Share Posted May 28, 2008 sorrow is what replaces the cash, after the process of giving it up he's not really giving sorrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2008 Report Share Posted August 1, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 17, 2008 Report Share Posted August 17, 2008 (edited) 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 August 17, 2008 by NFI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 I have a headache, but I think it makes sense lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2008 Report Share Posted November 25, 2008 Humph, the government does that all the time... bahahaha so true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 6, 2008 Report Share Posted December 6, 2008 (edited) Is it possible to give what we don't have? No and yes, it all depenting on the sitsuation. A simple anwer: no. Edited December 6, 2008 by speed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2009 Report Share Posted March 2, 2009 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 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... hehe. I think it just may work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 24, 2010 Report Share Posted March 24, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2010 Report Share Posted March 25, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 13, 2010 Report Share Posted May 13, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 14, 2010 Report Share Posted May 14, 2010 yes, give him nothing for you have nothing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2010 Report Share Posted August 1, 2010 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 ]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 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 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2010 Report Share Posted August 1, 2010 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". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 29, 2010 Report Share Posted September 29, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 23, 2010 Report Share Posted November 23, 2010 "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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 His sorrow develops when he gives the money away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 As he gives his money, so does he give part of his happiness... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 PS: And he doesn't have any happiness at the instant he gives his money.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omthkkr Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiming Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Humph, the government does that all the time... lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.