Paradox of the Court

The sophistry of Euathlos is a well-known paradox of ancient Greek philosophy.

Euathlos was inspired by Protagoras of Abdera (ca. 485-415 BC ) form, the famous orator and outstanding teacher of sophistry. They agreed that Euathlos must pay for his education only when he had won his first trial. But now Euathlos took a different career, so did not conduct processes, hence could not win and was therefore not pay for his education. Then, Protagoras threatened him with legal action, arguing as follows: " Euathlos have to pay in any case. Either according to our agreement, because he wins this trial, or because the court sentenced him to " Euathlos, well -trained sophist Protagoras, held However, on the other hand: "I have to pay under any circumstances, because either I'm losing my process, my training was poor and we should continue the agreement, or the court will decide in my favor. "

In traditional logic is this sophistry is only an apparent paradox, because in it the so-called identity theorem is violated. Euathlos has in this context, not one but two different functional identities: On the one hand he is a lawyer in his own behalf, on the other hand he is a defendant. Whether he has to pay or not, therefore depends on the subjective viewpoint. For supporters of the Sophists, this example is of wonderful elegance.