“At this moment in time, I never said them things” – Glenn Hoddle
The words uttered by Glenn Hoddle on his sacking as Manager of the England Football team - for claiming that disabled people were being punished (ie. bad karma) for leading a reprehensible earlier life - present a paradox. This short article attempts to throw light on this conundrum which has puzzled a number of commentators. Let us try to break down the problem, first by considering how Hoddle might have avoided the paradox by judicious rephrasing. Second, we will attempt a deeper analysis taking Hoddle’s statement in a more holistic – and less linguistic – sense. By this twin approach we hope to resolve the paradox.
First let us reflect on what Hoddle might have said. He could have rephrased the statement as
“Up until (rather than “At”) this moment in time (i.e. until now) I have never said them things.” This would not necessarily imply that Hoddle may not say them things in the future. In turn this possibility raises a question mark over his use of the absolute term “never” – which negates the idea of saying them things between now (at this moment in time) and infinitely in the future. The paradox would therefore remain, even with the helpful addition of “Up until”.
As a further refinement, Hoddle could have said
“Up until this moment in time I have not said them things”. This is a statement without, at first sight, an inherent contradiction. The use of the term “up until this moment in time” is essentially redundant, however, if the denial is to be taken in good faith. If Hoddle had simply said “I have not said them things” then we would have had no reason to suspect that he
had said them things – or more importantly to suspect that he was positioning himself to say them things at a future moment in time. The apparent precision of the statement “up until this moment in time” (implying no such statement made from the moment of time at Hoddle’s birth through to the moment in time of his denial) carries the implication that at a future moment Hoddle
might say them things. A less worthy interpretation could be that Hoddle attempted to add authority to his denial by prefacing it with spurious accuracy, pinpointing it to a single ‘moment’.
But this is superficial analysis. The fact is that Hoddle did not use “Up until” and he
did use “never”. The real issue behind the paradox is the combination of two measures of time – the infinitely small and the eternal - in the same sentence. By saying “at this moment in time” Hoddle leads us to focus on the single moment – the nano-second – on which the denial (of saying them things) is buttressed. Yet at the same time Hoddle challenges us to contemplate the infinitely large. For he asks us to accept that at that very moment “I
never said them things”.
Hoddle is therefore asking us to accept that at a particular moment in time an assertion of infinite duration can be made. This is the essence of the paradox. It asks the reader both to engage with the infinitely small and the infinitely large in one phrase. Hoddle could have served us better with a more forensic statement as follows:
“At all moments in time I never said, nor would I say, them things”.
And yet … have we underestimated Hoddle? Let us assume for arguments’ sake that he never said them things – neither in the past nor will he in future. If that is statement is true, then it is true for all moments in time. If it is true at all moments in time then it is true at
this moment in time. It may not be a complete statement but that does not make it untrue. If this axiom is accepted then what we are looking at is not a paradox but an incomplete, but not untrue statement. Hoddle may have felt it ill-behoved him to make statements of the infinite as a Football Manager and his apparently paradoxical references to single moments of time could have been, if conceived only subliminally, expressions of humility.
In other words – and this is the nub - them very things that Hoddle denied saying smacked of an arrogance, in diametric opposition to the humility implicitly exhibited by Hoddle by the wording of his denial. This is perhaps more one for the psychologists than philosophers and I leave this anomaly to others more qualified than me to contemplate.
copyright Professor Imran Gravitas 2005