A paradox in which the attempt to escape makes escape impossible.
Origin
The title of Joseph Heller's novel, written in 1953 and published in 1961, (properly titled 'Catch-22' - with a hyphen). The first chapter was also published in a magazine in 1955, under the title 'Catch-18'.
The paradox is presented as the trap that confined members of the US Air Force. In logical terms the 'catch' was that, by applying for exemption from highly dangerous bombing missions on the grounds of insanity, the applicant proved himself to be sane (after all, that's what any sane person would do). If anyone applied to fly they would be considered insane. Either way; sane or insane, they were sent on the missions. This might be described logically as, 'damned if you do and damned if you don't', 'the viscous circle', 'a chicken and egg situation', or 'heads I win, tails you lose'.
In the book, this is explained thus:
Yossarian looked at him soberly and tried another approach. "Is Orr crazy?"
"He sure is," Doc Daneeka said.
"Can you ground him?"
"I sure can. But first he has to ask me to. That's part of the rule."
"Then why doesn't he ask you to?"
"Because he's crazy," Doc Daneeka said. "He has to be crazy to keep flying combat missions after all the close calls he's had. Sure, I can ground Orr. But first he has to ask me to."
"That's all he has to do to be grounded?"
"That's all. Let him ask me."
"And then you can ground him?" Yossarian asked.
"No. Then I can't ground him."
"You mean there's a catch?"
"Sure there's a catch," Doc Daneeka replied. "Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy."
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
The phrase is now often misapplied to any problematic or unwelcome situation.
2006-07-16 03:38:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by Linda 7
·
5⤊
0⤋
Well, a good example is with jobs and experience. You can't get some jobs without experience...but getting a job gives you the experience. There shouldn't be a catch 22 in the workforce, because we're not born with the experience. We get the education first, and so of course, we all lack the experience at first. So the catch 22 is just something that makes you stuck where you are.
2006-07-16 04:39:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by cassicad75 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Joseph Heller wrote a book called "Catch-18" but "Mila 18" had just come out and Heller changed it to "Catch-22"
"There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle. 'That's some catch, that Catch-22,' he observed. 'It's the best there is,' Doc Daneeka agreed."
2006-07-16 03:38:03
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Dont get me wrong Wilt was a GREAT player. Probably the best Center ever. But they come from different eras. MJ was with a lot of talent in his position and Wilt was physically way ahead of everyone even though he had some competition. He was more dominant but Jordan was a small guard and could get his shot off against anyone, could obviously play defense, and pass pretty well. He could score in every which way. When deciding a great player you gotta go far beyond stats. MJ is a legend and will not and can not be surpassed in my opinion. Also it is very debateable to say Jordan had the ball more. Part of the reason wilt had that 50 ppg year was because his teamates just let him ISO in the post every time down the floor. Jordan was a good play maker. I think Jordan was a great perimeter defender, but Wilt was obviously better in the paint.
2016-03-27 07:29:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It comes from the book "Catch 22" by Joseph Heller, which is a fascinating and brilliant book about the stupidity of war. The phrase is coined by one of the characters in the book then used on and off by several of them. No-one ever explains it properly. So there is no real logic to it.
In practise it means, damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
Respect to dukalink for quoting it. Lovely. What happens to Orr in the end is one of the best bits in the book, and gives a new meaning to both sane and crazy
2006-07-16 03:34:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by wild_eep 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
A situation in which a desired outcome or solution is impossible to attain because of a set of inherently illogical rules or conditions.
A contradictory or self-defeating course of action.
For example: You can't get a job without experience and you can't get experience without a job. This is a classical catch 22 situation.
2006-07-16 04:44:09
·
answer #6
·
answered by Blue Chip 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is the name of a 70's novel, and it means in the available choices you have before you that both (or more ) are problematic.
An extreme examle would be - your child has wandered down railroad tracks and a train is coming. You can pull a switch and have the train hit your child and save the train's passengers, or have the train crash and spare your child. A "Catch-22" either way the situation is difficult.
2006-07-16 03:39:24
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It comes from the Book Catch 22 by joseph heller.
2006-07-16 03:36:15
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Unfortunately, I don't think a decent French translation is even possible for the book, "Catch-22." If you understand American colloquialisms, it is absolutely hilarious!
2006-07-16 03:39:23
·
answer #9
·
answered by szydkids 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
An amazing book is "Catch 22"..!!
2006-07-16 03:50:50
·
answer #10
·
answered by sunflower 7
·
0⤊
0⤋