I
picked this word from a Wicket keeper batsman ** who on his debut was given new shorts by his
partner at crease Shrikant Kalyani, who owned a sportswear Company !!
A Sophist
was a specific kind of teacher in ancient Greece, in the fifth and fourth
centuries BC. Many sophists specialized in using the tools of philosophy and
rhetoric, though other sophists taught subjects such as music, athletics, and
mathematics. In general, they claimed to teach arete ("excellence" or
"virtue", applied to various subject areas), predominantly to young
statesmen and nobility. The term sophist comes from the Greek term sophistēs,
which is derived from sophós meaning "wise man", Sophia meaning
"wisdom", and Sophizo meaning "I am wise". It stands for a
"wise maker", that is, one who makes pupils wise.
When
there is National crisis, one must learn to obey orders. When rumours fly around, the first victim is truth – never hear
rumours, never spread them – in fact never post anything without checking its
veracity and usefulness. There are some
who have compulsive obsession of questioning everything trying to show their
intelligence but end up showcasing their stupidity !
This morning
I received call from unknown no. – it was voice recording of the CM of the
State Mr Edappadi Palaniswami urging the citizens to cooperate. I have become a
great fan of Dr C Vijayabaskar, Health Minister of Tamilnadu. Just follow him on twitter – such factual
updates – he is visiting Hospitals, is found with health-workers and is
virtually everywhere – very positive man, energetic and extremely
effective. The Govts – the machinery is really
doing a great job in fighting the virus with most of us cooperating and some ‘covidiots’ trying to impede every
measure.
The
respected PM of the Nation Shri Narendra Modiji has called upon the citizen - On
the 5th of April, on Sunday,
I want 9 minutes from all you, at 9PM.
Listen carefully, on the 5thof April, at 9 PM, turn off all the lights
in your homes, stand at your doors or in you balconies, and light candles or
diyas, torches or mobile flashlights for 9 minutes. I repeat, light candles or diyas, torches or
mobile flashlights, for 9 minutes at 9 PM on the 5thof April. – We have vowed to abide by every effort of
the Govt.
Nine years
back – when India played Pak in the Semis of ODI WC 2011 – the Nation watched –
everyone was at home, streets were empty and nothing else transpired. It was
India’s 3rd attempt in Semis at home – they had lost earlier to
England in 1987 and to Sri Lanka in 1996 – however they had won both the Semi finals
abroad in 1983 and 2003 ~ and playing
Pak always creates a different tension.
On a tense day,
when the Indian batting looked ordinary and Sachin apparently scratched around –
Indian bowlers suffocated Pakistan's
batsmen to set up a 29-run victory in the semi-final in Mohali. Though we were
worried, 260 for 9 was enough as their bowlers did a fine job, but had Pakistan
helped themselves, the target could have been so much more gettable. Sachin
Tendulkar was dropped four times in his 85.
By contrast, India's display in the field was much more professional,
and that was the difference in a match that lived up to the extreme pre-match
hype. The decision to leave R Ashwin out to make room for Ashish Nehra was an
odd choice on a pitch offering plenty of spin, but Nehra and his bowling
colleagues built the pressure and gave Pakistan's batsmen little to attack
after they made a promising start and reached 70 for 1.
Those of us
watching were regretting – Sachin Tendulkar played and missed Saeed Ajmal and
was promptly given out lbw by Ian Gould in the 11th over (Sachin was
23). Time appeared running out and after much deliberation, Tendulkar asked for
a referral; replays suggested that the ball, delivered from an angle, pitched
outside the line of off stump before turning in to hit his front pad in front
of middle. Hawk-Eye suggested that the ball would have gone on to miss leg
stump. Ajmal, after the game, expressed bafflement, claiming he had bowled an
arm ball that went on straight when it had appeared as though the ball had been
an offspinner that spun down after pitching in line. The replay was subject of conspiracy theories
with many YouTube videos showing what the correct prediction path should have
been. Some audaciously even suggested that what was shown in replay was a
different ball !
Years later Saeed
Ajmal recalling the incident said, Ian Gould gave it out, we were sure, Gautam
Gambhir too advised against referring – but Sachin took a chance. It took a long time and decision went against
us. Some others believed Tendulkar's decision to review the decision
was, perhaps, more in hope than in belief. This is no post on that match – but in
Espn Cricinfo Deep Dasgupta - Wicket
keeper batsman ** (played
8 tests and 5 ODIs) wrote that in his assessment,
the Hawk-Eye got it right. It'll fall under the realm of Protagoras Paradox, in that both sides have convincing
arguments.
The
Paradox of the Court, also known as the counterdilemma of Euathlus, is a
paradox originating in ancient Greece. It is said that the famous sophist
Protagoras took on a pupil, Euathlus, on the understanding that the student pay
Protagoras for his instruction after he wins his first court case. After
instruction, Euathlus decided to not enter the profession of law, and
Protagoras decided to sue Euathlus for the amount owed.
Protagoras
(490 BC – c. 420
BC)[1] was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher. He is numbered as one of the
sophists by Plato. Protagoras also is
believed to have created a major controversy during ancient times through his
statement that, "Man is the measure of all things", interpreted by
Plato to mean that there is no absolute truth but that which individuals deem
to be the truth. Protagoras, like those who followed him, charged exorbitant
fees for his services, a story is told of how the great Sophist was once
outsmarted by one of his pupils and this tale has come to be known as
Protagoras’s Paradox.
Protagoras
agreed to instruct a poor young man, Euthalos
- in law and rhetoric free of
charge on the condition that he would pay the Sophist’s fee in full if, and
only if, he won his first court case. Once Euthalos had completed his course of
study with Protagoras he assiduously avoided taking any cases at all.
Protagoras, finally out of patience with the young man, took him to court for
payment.
The
case before the House was put as :
Euthalus owes money to Plaintiff Protagoras as per their agreement.
Protagoras
viewed that :
1)
If he wins the case,
he would legally earn the money to be paid through the Court
2)
If the Respondent
Euthalus wins the case, Protagoras would still be paid as their original
contract was that Euthalus would pay his teacher when he wins his first case !!
Euthalus
held a totally contradictory view. To him
:
1.
If he were to win the
case, the Court’s decision naturally would be to not pay Protagoras
2.
In case he loses,
going by what his master had ordained, he would not have to pay anything as he
had lost the case.
The
paradox thus is – who wins, who is right and who will have to pay ? This argument (for which perhaps no solution was ever offered in antiquity) has
come to be known as the Paradox of The Court (L. Alqvist) and a resolution to
the question is still debated today in law schools as a logic problem. Of course,
there could be more legal angles, and more possible circumstances which when
inserted could change the deliverance.
To me,
as usual the game of Cricket is a great teacher and thanks to Deep Das Gupta
for introducing me to this concept / paradox.
With regards – S.
Sampathkumar
3rd Apr 2o20.
