Candid Plots: Nationalism Paradox

Can a particular group claim to be Nationalist?

nationalism paradox


Paradox of Purposes

Yes, mistakes, misery, laundry, everything has a purpose. But,

If everything has a purpose, then a purpose too will have a purpose, and so on ad infinitum. [Paradox of Purposes]

So, does there exist any thing to which we can point and say, I understand its purpose. Because to understand its purpose we have to understand its purpose’s purpose and so on. The possibility of a definite purpose can yet exist if we can establish that this series of purposes, of an object or an event, is a convergent series i.e. each subsequent purpose keeps getting smaller and sum of all these purposes is a finite purpose. But then, the present purpose is the one which is derived from the subsequent purpose. So, the following purpose is the one which keeps getting bigger i.e. the Higher purpose. It surely looks as if it is a divergent series.
You see, the purpose of this keyboard is to type. The purpose of typing is to communicate. The purpose of communication is to establish relationships. The purpose of relationships is to bring misery. The purpose of misery is to create balance. The purpose of balance is to make things go longer. The purpose of anything staying longer is to, well, i don’t know.
By the way, that’s a nice insight i.e. We write to create balance.

Paradox of the Selfless Lovers

We have a situation, where,
2 people, X and Y, love each other selflessly and their happiness lies in the happiness of the other.
In such a case,
The motive for each of the X’s action which may have an influence on Y is Y’s happiness. But X knows (X should know) that Y loves him/her selflessly, so Y’s happiness lies in the happiness of X. Again, X’s happiness is in the happiness of Y and so on.

Now if the action in consideration is such that it has a direct correlation (or negative correlation) with both, ‘Happiness of X’ and ‘Happiness of Y ‘, then a decision can be taken. But if the action is such that it has a direct correlation with one and a negative correlation with the other, a decision can never be taken. Hence, the paradox.

That brings us to the conclusion that a sacrifice can never be made in a mutual selfless love relationship. One will make a sacrifice in case he/she doesn’t know for sure that the other also loves him/her selflessly or that he is proud of his love, in which case, he doesn’t love selflessly.

Then it seems absurd that those who make sacrifices for each other are considered selfless lovers.

Paradox of the Murder Mysteries

In Black Coffee by Agatha Christie (novel by Charles Osborne) Barbara Amory points to Hastings how in detective stories it is always the least likely suspect who turns out to be the murderer. Though the-least-likely-suspect-ploy is referenced within the story here even otherwise as reader of detective stories we know it to be the general rule. Murder mysteries are more of a game between the reader and the author rather than being mere engagement between their heart and soul.
So, how do we really follow a murder mystery. We don’t compare every witness’ account of the events neither are we mulling over those little and nicely masqueraded hints that are going to be pointed at by Mr. Poirot at the end. Methods and Order, Naah. What we actually do is that we are racing towards the end and hoping and hoping that the end will come out as a big surprise. In fact that is how we judge a suspense/ thriller. How big is the surprise! And for the end to be a surprise the killer has to be the one whom we suspect the least at the moment of the big revelation.
This is interesting as we see that ‘The least likely suspect’ hypotheses, which the reader as well as the author follow, is but a paradox.
The least likely suspect is the most likely to be the killer. But as he is the most likely suspect now, he becomes the least likely suspect. But again, since he has become the least likely, he is now the most likely and so on. So the variables, ‘the least likely suspect’ and ‘the most likely suspect’ will keep inter-changing themselves infinitely before any logical determinate conclusion is made.
Now for a surprise to happen, and we do get surprised, ‘the least likely or the less likely (set of) suspects’ must exist at that particular moment but then it can not exist because they are indeed indeterminable.