The Fool's Paradox
I know viewpoints may vary here. Depends a lot on worldview, attitude, and strategic thinking. Anyway let me present, what to me appears peculiar, a case. I'll then present my views and you can comment.
Scenario 1
Which do you prefer as a friend?
1. A fool
2. A genius
A genius can be good company, someone to learn from but, a big but, it's not wise to be with people who're too smart (think superintelligent aliens). A fool on the other hand will have no deliberate intentions to harm you and will be good fun to be with - a friend, in other words.
Scenario 2
Which do you prefer as an enemy?
1. A fool
2. A genius
Obviously, not a genius. He's to smart and will outmaneuver you and beat you. So, again a fool is preferable - as an enemy. You can beat him easily.
But...
This is paradoxical. A fool suits both as a friend and as an enemy.
How do you solve this paradox?
Scenario 1
Which do you prefer as a friend?
1. A fool
2. A genius
A genius can be good company, someone to learn from but, a big but, it's not wise to be with people who're too smart (think superintelligent aliens). A fool on the other hand will have no deliberate intentions to harm you and will be good fun to be with - a friend, in other words.
Scenario 2
Which do you prefer as an enemy?
1. A fool
2. A genius
Obviously, not a genius. He's to smart and will outmaneuver you and beat you. So, again a fool is preferable - as an enemy. You can beat him easily.
But...
This is paradoxical. A fool suits both as a friend and as an enemy.
How do you solve this paradox?
Comments (53)
This is paradoxical. A fool suits both as a friend and as an enemy.
How do you solve this paradox?
A fool might let you die because he doesn't realize that you are drowning until it is too late, so it would be better to have a smart person as a friend.
A smart person as an enemy would be a challenge, but you would never underestimate him as you might a fool.
A smart person suits both as a friend and as an enemy.
How do you solve this paradox?
So now we have identical twin paradoxes. :P
I actually don't think either are paradoxes, just descriptions of interesting situations.
What should a fool think when he meets someone? Friend/Foe? Which is the best strategy to follow (for a fool)? To avoid everyone or embrace everyone?
Just ask any genius how they deal with the same problem. Most would say that they do the same as any fool would and stay away from people that don't like them.
What should a fool think when he meets someone? Friend/Foe?
Everyone has this problem.
What do you have against superintelligent aliens?
(...other than that there probably aren't any.)
If you're in love with her, there's no reason why there couldn't be a genuinely, fully good, two-sided mutual relationship.
Aside from that, of course there are many activities that can be shared with anyone who is pleasant. And yes, the people you're referring to wouldn't have lots of the kinds of personality-defects that others can, and often do, have.
Often it's the complex devices that go haywire.
For example, a cat or dog won't have all the tiresome psychological problems that would put you off from many or most humans.
But, if you think that all fools are good company, then I suggest that you visit the Reincarnation topic at these forums.
The fool, of course.
...or evade him.
Even if true, it wouldn't be paradoxical. Fools could just be better. But, in general, as a friend, the genius would be more interesting company, and more helpful, in various ways, including as someone from whom you can learn more.
(But we learn important things from our pets. I used to walk our dog, and that dog (choosing the routes) taught me about the outdoors and the exploration of places. And many people report having learned important things from animals.)
Michael Ossipoff
I can't see any paradox in that, nor even anything surprising.
There are many examples where a certain set-up is the best at both extremes of a linear continuum.
eg, which would you prefer to have as the sole enclosure of your body as you pass through a 200 degree oven?
(1) light underwear
(2) a heavily insulated non-combustible airtight capsule with built-in life-support systems
and what about as you pass through a minus 200 degree super-freezer?
All it demonstrates is that many relationships in the world are non-linear.
The best people in the world are fools, and so are the worst people in the world. No paradox here because "best and worst" refer to a different set of qualities from "fool and genius".
So a fool can be a friend or an enemy. I don't think that's paradoxical. If there are two sets, a) the set of all friends and b) the set of all enemies then why can't a fool be a member of both sets
Scenario 1
Which do you prefer as a friend?
1. A fool
2. A genius
A genius can be good company, someone to learn from but, a big but, it's not wise to be with people who're too smart (think superintelligent aliens). A fool on the other hand will have no deliberate intentions to harm you and will be good fun to be with - a friend, in other words.
Scenario 2
Which do you prefer as an enemy?
1. A fool
2. A genius
Obviously, not a genius. He's to smart and will outmaneuver you and beat you. So, again a fool is preferable - as an enemy. You can beat him easily.
But...
This is paradoxical. A fool suits both as a friend and as an enemy.
How do you solve this paradox?"
--TheMadFool
It only seems like a paradox because you are comparing apples to oranges. In Machiavellian type thinking (the typical framework where one deals with an real enemy) the opposite of an enemy isn't a friend but an ally. and having a fool for an ally and or allies is usually not a good thing. Perhaps a very smart person in power may not have too much of a problem being surrounded by fools, but if one is of limited capacity themselves and then they make the mistake of hiring fools to advise them, then it will likely spell disaster at some point.
If you are a king or a leader of some sort it might be useful to talk to or be entertained by a fool or jester, but the people that occupy such positions are not part of the same spectrum as one's advisors, allies, or political enemies.
[Quote=Wikipedia]A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently sound reasoning from true premises, leads to a self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion.[/quote]
A friend is not a foe and the converse is true.
So, when a fool is both a "good" friend and foe, there's a paradox because friend and foe are mutually exclusive classes. There can't be a person who's both a friend and a foe. So, where do we place the fool. Please construct a Venn diagram to understand the paradox. The overlap area between the friend class and foe class is empty. So, no member of the fool class can occupy that region. Hence, the paradox.
But no one's saying that the same individual can be both a friend and a foe.
The proposition is just that, if a fool is a friend, then s/he's a more desirable friend than non-fools.
...and that if a fool is an enemy, then s/he's a more desirable enemy than non-fools.
A dog makes a better junk-yard guard than does a snail.
A dog makes a better sled-puller than does a snail.
That doesn't imply that every dog is both a junk-yard guard and a sled-puller.
Michael Ossipoff
Michael Ossipoff
But...
A fool is both a ''good'' friend and a foe. A fool is both at the same time. That's not possible because no friends are foes.
No, because it's not the same fool. The friend fool isn't the foe fool.
You might as well argue that it's a paradox for a friend and a foe to both be doctors.
I'm talking about ALL fools
The fool can be a good friend, or he can be a good foe. That doesn't mean he is either of them. Since he need not be either of them in your scenario, he isn't paradoxically simultaneously both.
You're not making any sense.
Does this help?
Also, I would prefer a genius as a friend, because I see no reason to expect that the genius would use their super-powers against me, and I'd be concerned that I'd get impatient with the less-intellectually gifted alternative and be rude to them, which would upset them and me.
But maybe that's just me.
Befriend fools, not philosophers.
Argument 1
[I]All[/i] fools are friends
No friends are foes
So,
A) No fools are foes
Argument 2
[I]All[/i] fools are foes
No friends are foes
So,
B) No fools are friends
A) No fools are foes means
C) It is false that Some fools are foes
B) No fools are friends means
D) It is false that Some fools are friends
But we know that:
E) Some fools are foes
F) Some fools are friends
C and E : contradiction
D and F : contradiction
look above
You're obviously going to get a contradiction if you start with contradictory premises.
A) All fools are friends
B) All fools are foes
C) No friends are foes
A, B and C are true
We get the conclusions:
D) No fools are friends
E) No fools are foes
A and D can't both be true. They can both be false:
F) Some fools are not friends. But F contradicts A.
B and E can't both be true. They can both be false: G) Some fools are foes. But G contradicts E.
A, B, and C can't all be true, as that entails a contradiction. If your premises lead to a contradiction then one or more of your premises are false. It's a straightforward proof by contradiction.
1. All fools are my[sup]1[/sup] friends
2. All fools are my[sup]1[/sup] foes
3. None of my[sup]1[/sup] friends are my[sup]1[/sup] foes
4. All fools are someone's friend
5. All fools are someone's foe
6. No-one is a friend to one person and a foe to another
Regardless, 3) is the only reasonable premise.
[sup]1[/sup] Can replace with any individual
No, it's not. It's a Venn diagram, which is what you asked for.
Exactly. How do you solve it?
You can't deny that a fool is a ''good'' friend. He'll not harm you intentionally. Which means: All fools are friends.
You can't deny that a fool is a ''good'' enemy. He's stupid and in fact, if you're his/her foe, all you'll have to do is wait until he commits a fatal mistake. Which means: All fools are foes.
We also know No friends are foes. You can't deny that fools and foes are mutually exclusive classes.
A contradiction naturally follows. That's the paradox.
By rejecting one or more of the premises.
No it doesn't.
No it doesn't.
Your diagram allows for:
1. Some fools are not friends
2. Some fools are not foes
Both 1 and 2 contradict the truths of
All fools are friends
All fools are foes
The above are undeniable. See the post above.
So, the Venn diagram is flawed.
They're not. There are more fools than I have friends. That's a fact. Therefore not all fools are my friends. There are more fools than I have foes. That's a fact. Therefore not all fools are my foes.
Furthermore, they can't all be true, given that it leads to a contradiction.
I don't know why you have suddenly come to believe this. But it's not correct, as Michael points out.
If you really want to grow your understanding, you'd be better off reading carefully what people say, and thinking about it, rather than just automatically arguing against it, because you have fallen in love with an idea you had.
Any fool is a good friend because a fool will not harm you intentionally: All fools are friends
Any fool is a ''good'' foe because a fool is easy to defeat: All fools are foes
Friends and foes are exclusive classes: No friends are foes
Can you deny any of these premises? If you can specify please.
There are millions of fools in the world. I don't have millions of friends. Therefore not all fools are friends.
There are millions of fools in the world. I don't have millions of foes. Therefore not all fools are foes.
You're talking rubbish.
All fools are friends doesn't mean that they actually have to be your friends, as in have to eat, talk, play with you. It's simply that they don't harm you intentionally that makes them friends.
All fools are foes doesn't they have to out to get you. It's just the fact that you can defeat them easily that makes them ''good'' foes. Anyway, the phrase ''A sucker is born every minute'' shows that people are always looking for the next fool to cheat and that's a inimical relationship.
So, you can't deny any of the original premises.
So X is a friend if X doesn't intentionally harm me, and X is a foe if I can defeat X easily.
Then if someone doesn't intentionally harm me and if I can defeat them easily then they are both friend and foe. You've defined "friend" and "foe" in such a way that they aren't exclusive classes.
A) Each fool a friend of someone S1
B) Each fool is a foe of someone S2
C) No foes of someone are also a friend to them
The conclusions:
D) No fools are a foe to anyone
E) No fools are a friend to anyone
I gather this is the intended interpretation of your argument. If not, explain how it isn't.
The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises; all that is necessary is that each friend S1 of each fool is not also a foe S2 to that fool. S1 =/= S2. Feel free to substitute cats and dogs into the argument form and derive nonsense.
I haven't done that. Even if I have, the odd nature of a fool being a friend and foe stands out. It is a paradox.
See above.
You're not making any sense.
That's the paradox
You don't mind if they harm you unintentionally? You would be happy to have as a friend a knife-wielding psychotic that believes he's surrounded by orcs?
Even if that were the case, 'could be a friend' is not the same as 'is a friend', as Michael keeps pointing out and you continue to not understand.
Think of the kindest person you have heard of in this world that you have never met. Would they be a great friend if you knew them? Probably. Are they your friend? No, because you have never met them.
Quoting TheMadFool Really? In the trenches in the Great war, Helmut was Fritz's friend on the German side and Bill was Bob's friend on the British side. Yet Helmut and Fritz were Bill and Bob's foes and vice versa.
Have you never heard the phrase 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'? It's a gross over-simplification but it should at least give you pause for thought.
Really? But you haven't been able to deny any of the premises in my argument:
1. All fools are friends
2. All fools are foes
3. No foes are friends
If you can't do so, the paradox holds.
Quoting andrewk
Well, the general perception seems to be that intent in crimes is a crucial element in deciding the punishment. A simple example in law is the distinction ''death from negligence'' and ''premeditated murder''. Also, ''sorry, it was accidental'' is high up in the world of apologies.
Quoting andrewk
Yes, but Fritz wasn't Helmut's foe and friend. Also, Bill wasn't Bob's friend and foe.
:)