SQUIRRELS and LAWYERS

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 1, Issue 62, 15 September 1939, Page 2

SQUIRRELS and LAWYERS

FIRST LESSONS IN THINKING ' r. - Past painful experiences have taught us the wisdom of rapidly cschewing the company of those who invade the editorial sanctum with an obvicus "mission/' Such a one bounced in upon us recently; but he only had a "missive.'' This is it;- — "If a squirrel is on the trunk of a tree, and a hunter walks round the tree, but the squirrel keeps moving so that the trunk of the tree is always between him and the hunter, does the hunter walk around th»» squirrel?" You may say "old and asinine" but blows have settled the argument before now. a thing like that sends the mind winging down the years in an attempt to remember a few of those problems that mankind (which takea peculiar delight in, mental selftorture) has worried itself about throughout the ages. A fairly recent example is quoted by Protagoras, a Greek philosopher, who died in the year 411 B.C. It seems that Protagoras contracted to teach the then modern law tl> a disciple named Euathalus, who in return promised to pay for his tuition when he won his first case. Time marched on, but Euatlial'is spent so much of it pursuing the primrose path of pleasure that it seemed a lfl to one chance, against his ever getting a case, much less winning one 5 so in goes Protagoras and sues Euathalus for his fees. As each knew law ? each conducted his cwn case. In court Protagoras rose and addressed the court rather thusly "My Lord, this case is open and shut, for if the verdict is In my favour naturally young Euathalus must pay; if the verdict is against me young Euathalus has won his first case, and must therefore pay me by the.terms of our agreement!" He then sat down with, according to the press report, one of those sarcastic grins which are squeezed dry of all humour. But Euathalus merely yawned, slouched to his and declaimed: "M* Lud, my opponent is right; it does not matter how this case is decided: If the verdict is in my favour naturally I shall not have to pay; whilst if the verdict is against me, I shall not have won my first case, and so Avill not have to pay under the terms of our aforesaid agreement!"' Now then! What's wrong with the alleged log'c? It's not fair to say "It's nuts!" Where does the fallacy lie?