"Man is the measure of all things", this is the famous saying of the famous Greek sage Protagoras, which has been passed down to this day. And one of his lawsuits is also quite famous. Proficient in law and sophistry, he took in a poor student named Jurasus. Protagoras, the teacher, promised Jurasus, a student who could not afford to pay the tuition, to go to school for free first, and then pay when he won his first lawsuit after graduation.
Who knows, this student never goes to court after graduation, and he never pays the teacher.
So, the teacher went to court and sued the student.
Unexpectedly, this student has won the true inheritance of the teacher, and his sophistry skills and the teacher are already in the middle of the match.
The student said in court: If I lose this lawsuit, then I haven't won the lawsuit yet, and I don't have to pay the teacher; If I win the case, that is, the court rejects the teacher's request, then I still don't have to pay. In short, I don't have to pay if I win or lose.
In this regard, the teacher retorted: If the student loses the lawsuit, since I have lost, it means that my request is legitimate, then the student must pay the money; If the student wins the lawsuit, he has won the first lawsuit, and the student still has to pay the money. In short, students have to pay money regardless of whether they win or lose.
The judge is in a dilemma, and the gavel cannot fall.
The lawsuit dragged on for a long time, and to this day, the teacher-student dispute is still a famous sophistry paradox.
It seems that litigation is not a solution to disputes
What do you think of this little story of the sophistry and paradox between teachers and students? Is it the teacher who makes sense or the student who makes sense? Let's see in the comment section.