What is better - eternal bliss or a simple bread?

[Guest]

Those who actually believe that simple bread is better than eternal bliss are welcome to their bread. I'll take the Eternal Bliss, thank you very much. I think it really ought to be obvious to any reasonable person that the basic assertion is founded upon bad logic.

[Guest]

Well, if you restate the paradox, I believe it is no longer a paradox.

Instead of saying nothing is better than eternal bliss, you would say "There is nothing that is better than eternal bliss." See, 'nothing' is not better than eternal bliss, because nothing is a bad thing when said in context with the slice of bread. What is better than eternal bliss does not exist, or there is nothing that is better, but 'nothing' itself is not better.

Does anyone see any problem with my solution?

[Guest]

This reminds of the famous saying "Practice makes perfect, but since nobody's perfect, why practice?".

[Guest]

What is better - eternal bliss or a simple bread? - Back to the Paradoxes

What is better than eternal bliss? Nothing. But a slice of bread is better than nothing. So slice of bread is more than eternal bliss.

This isn't so much a paradox as it is a false logical deduction based on two completely unrelated truisms.

[rookie1ja]

This isn't so much a paradox as it is a false logical deduction based on two completely unrelated truisms.

as I already mentioned a few times - it is a sophism

[Guest]

What is better - eternal bliss or a simple bread? - Back to the Paradoxes

What is better than eternal bliss? Nothing. But a slice of bread is better than nothing. So slice of bread is more than eternal bliss.

1.) A slice of bread is better than nothing.

2.)There is nothing better than eternal bliss.

But if one reads the above carefully(edited by me) the word NOTHING can be read in two different ways

Something is better than nothing

Eternal bliss cannot be compared to anything nor can anything be better than eternal bliss.

[Guest]

Two ways i reckon this can go...

a) dont think any further, be happy with what you have... bread!

or

b) i dont see nothing being anything so something cant be better than something that isnt there so theres nothing to be better than or at.

really it seems to be a pun (if thats the right word) on the eng lang.

I prefer a tbh

Edited February 18, 2008 by Chris_thinks....

[Guest]

I like the twist on words, but if I look at it correctly, when you say "nothing" it should be given 2 meanings.

[Guest]

Restate the first part: where nothing is better than eternal bliss. Change it to everything isn't as good as eternal bliss. It has the same meaning so I'm not changing anything. Since bread is included in "everything", then Bread isn't as good as eternal bliss.

[Guest]

This paradox assumes that "nothing" functions as an object.

1. Nothing is better than eternal bliss.

2. Bread is better than nothing.

That makes eternal bliss the best thing possible.

Nothing is a void, not an object.

[Guest]

I like the twist on words, but if I look at it correctly, when you say "nothing" it should be given 2 meanings.

Yup

It's suggesting a case of Equivocation.

"What is better than eternal bliss? Nothing. But a slice of bread is better than nothing. So slice of bread is more than eternal bliss."

The first "Nothing" is saying that there is No Thing better than eternal bliss - thus that eternal bliss is the best Thing to have.

The second "Nothing" is saying that it is better to have bread than No thing at all - thus that bread is better than not having anything at all (zilch, nada, not-a-thing.)

The concluion therefore, is equivocating two very different uses of the word "Nothing" in the previous phrase.

[Guest]

It is simply a play on words.

One of my favourites

[Guest]

This is a variation on the "nine tails" paradox:

"No cat has eight tails.

Every cat has one tail more than no cat.

Therefore, every cat has nine tails".

"no cat" has 8 tails.

If there is "no cat" there is no tail. Therefore every cat has one tail, which is one tail more than no tail at all.

[Guest]

Look it's simple:

Bread + jam = short term bliss.

[Guest]

This is no paradox.

Having bread is better than having nothing.

If you have eternal bliss, then you do not have nothing.

Therefor bread is not better than eternal bliss.

You could look at it a similar way:

Have bread to eat, is better than having nothing to eat, (whereby you would be hungry)

You cannot have eternal bliss is you suffer from hunger. so if you have eternal bliss, then you are not hungry,

and therefore it matters not if you have no bread.

So, bread is not better than eternal bliss.

[Guest]

Correct...

(statement)

Nothing is better than eternal bliss

Bread is better than nothing

Bread is better than eternal bliss

Nothing>eternal bliss

Bread>nothing

Bread>eternal bliss

Bread>nothing>eternal bliss

Bread>eternal bliss

[Guest]

Ok ... I see everyone’s input and in truth... a lot are correct.... but think of it as this. The English language is the most complex and difficult of languages. A word such as 'There' or 'Their' 'They're' all pronounced the same.... mean very different things.... or a word such as "Throw" which can mean the obvious.. To toss an object.... or to confuse some thing or someone. Similarly "fling" can mean Throw or ... can mean affair. Had the "paradox" been put into a correct English sentences. Such a "paradox" would not acor. What I mean is. We have taken the assumption that the first nothing (referring to pure bliss) really is the literal meaning of nothing. Rather then taking it in context which is, Bliss is BETTER then nothing. But so is bread. To be quite frank. to determine what is better is purely up to the person. some would prefer the bread... a survival of need and food. Thou others that are willing to give that thought or theory up may chose bliss, thou some may believe that pure bliss would include all life’s luxuries and the need to think of basics irrelevant.

[Guest]

the best way to perceive the sense of these statements is to look at its converse, ie what it says if the sentence is permuted or reversed.

The original sentences were:

What is better than eternal bliss? nothing.

A slice of bread is better than nothing.

In actuality, what the first sentence is saying is that:

Nothing is better than eternal bliss.

But since there wasn't any ambiguity with the slice of bread statement, it is still better than nothing, but that isn't comparable to eternal bliss, since nothing is better than eternal bliss.

call me crazy, but I wouldn't take a leap of faith to decide eternal bliss over a slice of bread.

[Guest]

What is better - eternal bliss or a simple bread? - Back to the Paradoxes

What is better than eternal bliss? Nothing. But a slice of bread is better than nothing. So slice of bread is more than eternal bliss.

There is a problem with this statement. Since nothing is better then eternal bliss. That mean eternal is better than all. But the phrase "better than nothing" is use to describe a slice of bread. That don't automatically make the bread better than eternal bliss. "Nothing" and "Better then nothing" have two different meaning. But if really want to argued that the bread is better than NOTHING, than that still don't mean the bread is MORE THAN eternal bliss. All it really mean is it is only better then NOTHING. This statement is created to confuse the confused. LOL.

If this is still confusing, rephrase the statement:

There is nothing better then eternal bliss. Not even a slice of bread.

but...

A slice of bread is better than having nothing.

[Guest]

One word - Context..

In the context of eternal bliss (a realm apart from this world)

the issue of food is irrelevant.

In the context of this world where physical hunger and physical

food as sustenance are realities, simple bread is better than nothing (starving).

Edited July 18, 2008 by Josh Leon

[Guest]

10/10= Eternal bliss (top marks since there is no better)

0= Nothing

0.001= Bread (better than nothing)

Eternal bliss is the winner.

Your logic is horrible! No offense.

[Guest]

I think that bread is better than eternal bliss bc un happy things make happy things more enjoyable

[Guest]

What is better - eternal bliss or a simple bread? - Back to the Paradoxes

What is better than eternal bliss? Nothing. But a slice of bread is better than nothing. So slice of bread is more than eternal bliss.

This a canonical example of incorrect reasoning. Let us denote a > b to represent a is better than b - if a or b is a collection of things, then a > b means everything in "a" is better than everything in "b". Also "empty" means an empty set - that is a collection of nothing. Then the first statement means,

if there is something x > "eternal bliss" then x is empty

The second one means,

"a slice of bread" > empty.

Now if there is something x > "eternal bliss" is true then x = empty and hence "a slice of bread" > empty =x > "eternal bliss". In short, if there is something x > "eternal bliss", then "a slice of bread" > "eternal bliss". But if there is no such x, then the claim is incorrect.

Edited August 16, 2008 by logician

[Guest]

This is a fun one to pull on children, as they aren't aware of the subtleties of the English language quite so well as we cynical adults. In this clever and playful, seemingly paradoxical statement, the main confusion lies in the inherent differences the word "nothing" takes on due to the context in which it is used, and "nothing" more.

What is better than eternal bliss? Nothing. But a slice of bread is better than nothing. So a slice of bread is better than eternal bliss.

In its first instance, the word nothing is used to denote the contention that "No Thing" is better than Eternal Bliss. Then, the author goes on to submit that having a slice of bread is better than having "Nothing", which is to say that your only worldly possession would at that point be a single piece of bread.

If we agree that both statements are truthful, which is assumed in the logic of the paradox, then we can easily make a distinction between the two instances of the word "nothing", and therefore resolve the problem.

If restated in actual terms, instead of the "play on words" provided by the original statement, we can see that in reality it would read thusly:

Eternal Bliss is the greatest thing of all, but even a simple piece of bread is better than nothing.

Since a piece of bread would certainly be classified as a "thing", and No Thing is better than Eternal Bliss, a piece of bread cannot possibly be better than Eternal Bliss, nor can anything else, for that matter.

A piece of bread is simply better than being utterly destitute of material possessions and hungry as well, which I think we all can agree on.

[Guest]

i think the trick is in the wording nothing in the first case is to be read as no single thing as in everything and in the second case as in not to have any single thing as in anything. but that may be just more confusing.