Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Good old paradox

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2012 6:26:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: The Paradox of the Court, also known as the counterdilemma of Euathlus, is a very old problem in logic stemming from ancient Greece. It is said that the famous sophist Protagoras took on a pupil, Euathlus, on the understanding that the student pay Protagoras for his instruction after he wins his first court case. Protagoras decided to sue Euathlus for the amount owed.

Protagoras argued that if he won the case he would be paid his money. If Euathlus won the case, Protagoras would still be paid according to the original contract, because Euathlus would have won his first case.

Euathlus, however, claimed that if he won then by the court's decision he would not have to pay Protagoras. If on the other hand Protagoras won then Euathlus would still not have won a case and therefore not be obliged to pay.

The question is: which of the two men is in the right?

Can you solve the riddle? (without looking up somebody elses answer popculture)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2012 9:40:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/18/2012 6:26:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: The Paradox of the Court, also known as the counterdilemma of Euathlus, is a very old problem in logic stemming from ancient Greece. It is said that the famous sophist Protagoras took on a pupil, Euathlus, on the understanding that the student pay Protagoras for his instruction after he wins his first court case. Protagoras decided to sue Euathlus for the amount owed.

Protagoras argued that if he won the case he would be paid his money. If Euathlus won the case, Protagoras would still be paid according to the original contract, because Euathlus would have won his first case.

Euathlus, however, claimed that if he won then by the court's decision he would not have to pay Protagoras. If on the other hand Protagoras won then Euathlus would still not have won a case and therefore not be obliged to pay.

The question is: which of the two men is in the right?

Can you solve the riddle? (without looking up somebody elses answer popculture)

Until Euathlus won his first case, Protagoras would lack standing to sue. Being a lawyer, you'd think he would have drawn up a better contract.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2012 11:52:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Depends on whether you grant more authority to the contract or the courts.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2012 2:55:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/18/2012 6:26:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: The Paradox of the Court, also known as the counterdilemma of Euathlus, is a very old problem in logic stemming from ancient Greece. It is said that the famous sophist Protagoras took on a pupil, Euathlus, on the understanding that the student pay Protagoras for his instruction after he wins his first court case. Protagoras decided to sue Euathlus for the amount owed.

Protagoras argued that if he won the case he would be paid his money. If Euathlus won the case, Protagoras would still be paid according to the original contract, because Euathlus would have won his first case.

Euathlus, however, claimed that if he won then by the court's decision he would not have to pay Protagoras. If on the other hand Protagoras won then Euathlus would still not have won a case and therefore not be obliged to pay.

The question is: which of the two men is in the right?

Can you solve the riddle? (without looking up somebody elses answer popculture)

Financial fraud.

Court decision takes precedent.