The paradoxes of Christmas

While most of you probably don’t believe in Santa Claus (and some of you of course never did!), you might not be aware that Santa Claus isn’t just imaginary, he is impossible!

In order to show that the very concept of Santa Claus is riddled with incoherence, we first need to consult the canonical sources to determine what properties and powers this mystical man in red is supposed to have. John Frederick Coots and Haven Gillespie tell us, in the 1934 classic “Santa Claus is Coming to Town”, that:

He sees you when you’re sleeping.


He knows when you’re awake.


He knows if you’ve been bad or good.


So be good for goodness sake!

But can Santa always know if you’ve been naughty or nice?

First of all, it is worth making a rather simple observation: If one tells a lie, then one is being naughty, and if one is telling the truth, then one is being nice (unless one is doing something else naughty at the same time, a possibility we shall explicitly rule out below). After all, my mother, an expert on the subject, told me many times that lying is naughty and truth-telling is nice, by both her own lights and by Santa’s. You wouldn’t call my mother a liar, would you?

Weihnachtsmann in Annaberg-Buchholz, by Kora27. CC-BY-SA-4.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

Now, consider Paranoid Paul. Paul, who is constantly worried about whether he has been nice enough to get presents from Santa, at some point utters:

Santa knows I’m being naughty right now!

Assume, further, that Paul is not doing anything else that could be legitimately assessed as naughty or nice. Now, the questions are these: Is Paul being naughty or nice? And can Santa know which?

Clearly, Paul isn’t being naughty: If he is being naughty, then Santa would know that he is being naughty, via the magical powers attributed to Santa in the aforementioned carol. But if Santa knows that Paul is being naughty, then what Paul said is true, so Paul isn’t lying. But since he isn’t doing anything else that could be assessed as naughty, Paul isn’t being naughty after all.

But equally clearly, Paranoid Paul isn’t being nice: If he is being nice, then Santa would know he is being nice. But that would imply that Santa doesn’t know that Paul is being naughty, by the Principle of Christmas Non-Contradiction:

PCNC:  No single action is simultaneously naughty and nice.

But then Paul is lying, since he said that Santa does know that he’s being naughty. And lying is naughty, so Paul isn’t being nice after all.

Of course, there is nothing to prevent Paranoid Paul from uttering the utterance in question. And, if he does so, then surely he is either being naughty or being nice – what other Christmas-relevant moral categories are there? (We might call this the Principle of Christmas Bivalence!) So the problem must lie in the mysterious magical powers attributed to Santa Claus in the song. Thus, Santa Claus can’t exist.

This Christmas revelation is probably shocking enough to most of you. But I’m afraid it gets worse.

It is well-known that Santa Claus gives presents to children on Christmas night. What is most important for our purposes are the two strict rules that govern Santa Claus’s Christmas gift-giving. The first of these we might call the Niceness Rule:

Nice: If a child has been nice (overall), then he or she will receive the toys and gifts he or she desires (within reason).

And the second we can call the Naughtiness Rule:

Naughty: If a child has been naughty (overall), then he or she will receive coal (and nothing else).

Following these rules is an essential part of what it is to be Santa Claus – these rules codify his place and purpose in the universe. Thus, they are non-negotiable: Santa does not, and cannot, break them.

This Christmas revelation is probably shocking enough to most of you. But I’m afraid it gets worse.

Let’s again consider Paranoid Paul, who as usual is worrying about his status with respect to the naughtiness/niceness metric. Assume further that, at one minute before midnight on December 24th (the well-known deadline for Santa’s final yearly naughty/nice judgments) Paul’s actions over the past year have, unbeknownst to him, fallen precisely on the line separating the overall naughty and the overall nice. He only has time for one more action, and if it is nice, then he will get the presents he want, and if it is naughty then he will only get coal. Paul, who is aware that his behavior over the past year has been less than exemplary, utters:

I’m going to get coal for Christmas this year!

Such an utterance prevents Santa Claus from giving anything – coal or goodies – to Paranoid Paul.

Santa can’t give Paranoid Paul toys and gifts. If Santa gives Paul toys and gifts, then he can’t give him coal. But this means that Paul told a lie, which would push him over into overall naughtiness. But then Santa should have given him coal, not goodies.

But Santa also can’t give Paul coal. If he gives Paul coal, then Paul was telling the truth. This would push Paul into overall niceness. But then Santa should have given him toys and presents, not coal.

Thus, we once again see that the very concept of Santa Claus is outright inconsistent. And since Santa Claus is an integral part of Christmas, this means that Christmas itself is incoherent, and hence must not exist.

And that’s how the Grinch proved that there’s no Christmas!

I hope everyone who reads this column (regardless of which, if any, winter holiday you celebrate) has a wonderful month and a safe winter holiday! See everyone next year, and thanks!

Featured image credit: Christmas present. Public domain via Pixabay.

The post The paradoxes of Christmas appeared first on OUPblog.