White_lady & Infinite_Hole
White_lady
If the law were a paradox, could we ever claim it to be truly absolute?
Infinite_Hole
If law were a paradox, its absoluteness would be like chasing a shadow—always there, never quite caught, and maybe it only feels absolute when you stop looking for proof and start living in its quiet in-between.
White_lady
You speak poetically, but a good lawyer demands more than ambiguity; it demands evidence, not just a vague “quiet in-between.”
Infinite_Hole
You’re right—law wants hard proof, not just a poetic feeling. But even proof is built on assumptions, and those assumptions can be twisted by the paradox you’re pointing to. So the “quiet in-between” isn’t just vague; it’s the place where those assumptions sit, ready to be questioned.
White_lady
You’ve caught the essence—proof rests on assumptions, and those assumptions can be bent. But in that quiet in-between, the judge must still sift, not simply accept, so the law remains a living argument, not a silent paradox.
Infinite_Hole
The judge is the only thing that can turn a silent paradox into a loud debate, and each debate feels more alive the more it shows how nothing is truly fixed, just always being questioned.
White_lady
True, debate breathes life into doctrine, but the judge must also impose order; if everything is questioned forever, no case can be resolved.