Immovable vs. Unstoppable

"Pare, just a little question: Who will win, unstoppable force or immovable object?"

I received this three days ago from my friend, the awesome Raymond Lazaro :'D, and I was already in bed when I read this.
I answered in my (tired) head :'p : no one will win. Or, if someone has to win, then either or both.

First: Why no one? Because it is the clashing of two contradictory forces that has (for the simplification of this discussion) no other reason for it existence than to be one thing: in this case, either an unstoppable force or an immovable object. If both meet, then they will simply cease to exist. The unstoppable force did not stop, because its non-existence means there is nothing to move anyway; the immovable object died as well, as such, it did not go anywhere than where it was. (It's like asking the question: If God can do anything, can He make a rock that is so heavy that He cannot lift it? The question sort of negates itself.) Which brings us to the second scenario: either or both will win.

In this win-lose-or-win-win scenario, if the "success" in this "struggle" depends on the purpose of either, then either or both will win. How? If the will or purpose of the unstoppable force is to vanquish the immovable object, regardless of its own existence, then the unstoppable force wins; and vice versa.

This is just my take. I wonder what else it could be?
(Sorry, I don't any deep life lesson in this... contemplation. Nachts!)

--- ---

EDIT: 12-09-2009, 22:35 -- eureka!

I have some amazingly deep philosophically spiritual unforgettable life lesson about this:

If an absolutely stubborn guy clashes against an absolutely persistent girl about, for example, what shirt color the guy should wear, a blue or a red one, neither the blue shirt nor the red one would exist. :'D Easy. Neither won. But in this case, i.e., a social phenomena, both lost.

[In philosophy no feelings are hurt (they--feelings and philosophy--are merely concepts). But in the real world, people believe in feelings. People have feelings.]

... darn, does this make sense? ;'DDD


pmm012 said...

hey.. remember the last scene between joker and batman in THE DARK KNIGHT? i remember joker says to the batman: "This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object...You are incorruptible..You won't kill me because of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness. And I won't kill you because you're too much fun. You and I are destined to do this forever..." or something like that.. anyway.. you get my point.. i think this falls on the no-win scenario, just a perpetual clash with no resolution

Lorgen Shadoufang said...

Ah darn I don't remember that, man... but
+So here I'm thinking, Batman is the immovable object, and Joker's the unstoppable force. Batman's self-righteousness will always thwart Joker's plans. But Joker is more than just WHAT he's doing, but also WHY he's doing them, and one of the primary reasons is FUN. Joker will always do things for fun, and if it's not fun for him anymore he will stop at what he's doing. Or dispose of whatever he's playing with. But he never gets bored playing with The Bat. So if he won't kill Batman, and Batman doesn't kill Joker, they will always... play.

+In individual clashes, someone loses (e.g., Joker gets jailed, Batman makes a compromise), but in the bigger picture, yes no one wins. That's how I see it :')
Thanks for dropping by Paolo, always a pleasure ;')