Paradox

THE MEGARIAN IDENTITY CRISIS 75to linger on an interesting issue. If one side errs, the other sidegood-naturedly corrects the mistake in a constructive manner.The aim of both sides is a collaborative, sincere pursuitof truth.Lawyers debate for the sake of persuasion. The truth isirrelevant. Each side in a legal contest is allocated a setamount of time to present his case (as measured by a waterclock). So they are always in a hurry and are prevented frompursuing interesting digressions. A lawyer has no hope ofnurturing a fresh idea because. . . his adversary is standing over him, enforcing his rights;the indictment, which in their phraseology is termed theaffidavit, is recited at the time: and from this he must notdeviate. He is a servant, and is continually disputing abouta fellow-servant before his master, who is seated, and hasthe cause in his hands; the trial is never about someindifferent matter, but always concerns himself; and oftenthe race is for his life. The consequence has been, that hehas become keen and shrewd; he has learned how to flatterhis master in word and indulge him in deed; but his soulis small and unrighteous.(Theaetetus 173)To be persuasive, lawyers act as if they believe whatthey are asserting. Any lawyer who is ready to lie for hisclient is also prepared to deceptively argue for him. Theobvious way that an argument can be deceitful is throughthe assertion of premises one does not believe. The moresubtle way is to “infer” what one does not believe to followfrom those premises (in the hope that the jury will join inthe fallacy).