This paradox, which has its foundation - real or legendary - in antiquity concerns the sophist Protagoras, who lived and taught in the fifth century BC. It is said that Protagoras made an arrangement with one of his pupils whereby the pupil was to pay for his instruction after he had won his first case. The young man completed his course, hung up the traditional shingle, and waited for clients. None appeared. Protagoras grew impatient and decided to sue his former pupil for the amount owed him.
'For,' argued Protagoras, 'either I win this suit, or you win it. If I win, you pay me according to the judgment of the court. If you win, you pay me according to our agreement. In either case I am bound to be paid.'
'Not so,' replied the young man. 'If I win, then by the judgment of the court I need not pay you. If you win, then by our agreement I need not pay you. In either case I am bound not to have to pay you.'
Whose argument was right?
'For,' argued Protagoras, 'either I win this suit, or you win it. If I win, you pay me according to the judgment of the court. If you win, you pay me according to our agreement. In either case I am bound to be paid.'
'Not so,' replied the young man. 'If I win, then by the judgment of the court I need not pay you. If you win, then by our agreement I need not pay you. In either case I am bound not to have to pay you.'
Whose argument was right?
![[Image: cinjin_banner_border.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=oggtheclever.com%2Fcinjin_banner_border.jpg)
