Catch-22: Paradox 4 key examples

The premise of this paradox, that the only people allowed to ask questions were those who never did, is not a logical impossibility. Someone can very much be allowed to answer questions and choose not to do so. Or, it can turn out by happenstance that all those allowed to answer questions are those who wouldn't. But the fact that Korn chooses to only allow questions from those who would not ask questions is, indeed, an example of the paradoxical, circular reasoning so fundamental to the officers' thinking throughout the novel. 

Some of the questions asked at the session before this ruling from Korn include "Who is Spain?"; "Why is Hitler?"; and "When is right?" These questions, with pith contrasting Heller's usual long-windedness, get at important problems during the war. It is genuinely important to ask who is in charge in Spain and to consider Hitler's motives. These thoughtful, open-ended questions encourage the sort of free-thinking and internal debate that is dangerous to strongmen leaders like Korn. This instance of paradox, then, is particularly instructive regarding Korn's character and that of Yossarian's officers in general: they use this circular reasoning to defend their own power against dissent.

This takes the standard form of the many instances of "Catch-22"s in the novel, a logical impossibility. But this instance is about a different subject. The original Catch-22 is the premise that if a pilot was found insane, he wouldn't have to fly raids anymore. But only someone sane would attempt to get out of bombing raids. This paradoxical loop is the basis of the Catch-22. Here is a similar situation: what Yossarian loves about this woman is that she is unlovable, another logical impossibility. This instance is not as rigorous as the original Catch-22: this paradox only "seems" to be the case, whereas Yossarian understands the original Catch-22 to be entirely true.

This provides a compelling contrast, since the original Catch-22 is about sanity and insanity, and this instance is about lovability and unlovability. Heller's paradoxes present both love and insanity as absolute concepts: someone is either sane or insane, lovable or unlovable. The paradoxes boil these concepts down into simple things, showing that Yossarian's mode of thought has become simplified by his fascination with Catch-22. 

Yossarian's focus on Catch-22 also simplifies his understanding of women. He typically treats women as objects; this maid is identified here and throughout the book only by the color of her underwear. But this objectification is amplified by the fact that Yossarian is fascinated with this woman not as a person but as a logical object, as part of one of his paradoxes.

This paradox also relies on wordplay, like many others in the book. The logical problem here works with the difference in meaning between "was in love with," "making love to," and "falling in love with." Heller intentionally repeats the word "love" in the sentence three times to emphasize the paradoxical situation. 

Lieutenant Scheisskopf's wife (who is never named otherwise) refers to Yossarian's belief that God is no better than a human being (and thus "mean and stupid").

In contrast to Yossarian's belief, Lieutenant Scheisskopf's wife doesn't believe in God, but still describes the God she doesn't believe in as having good traits. This is indeed a paradox, but not quite a Catch-22, which is characterized by a situation which a person cannot escape because the rules are contradictory or paradoxical in such a way that it traps them indefinitely —such as how Yossarian and the other soldiers are trapped in their roles as pilots. Lieutenant Scheisskopf's wife is not in that specific sort of bind here, but she is still dealing with a paradox. She describes the qualities of a God, one of whose qualities is the state of not existing, insofar as she does not believe in him. This state of describing an entity that does not exist is her paradox.

This paradox poses complicated questions. When Lieutenant Scheisskopf's wife says that she does not "believe in God," does that mean she thinks God does not exist, or does that mean she does not believe in God in the way you may not "believe in" a lost cause or futile effort? Neither she nor Yossarian, notably, claims directly that God does not exist.

Another interpretation is that she does indeed think God does not exist, but she thinks that Yossarian is still wrong about the concept of God. Perhaps when she says, "the God I don't believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God," she is telling Yossarian that he is speaking incorrectly about God, that it is a contradiction in terms to even say that God is bad, whether or not you believe in him. 

Lieutenant Scheisskopf's wife arguably has a more complex depiction of God than Yossarian. She speaks concisely and intelligently about God as he is understood in society and remarks that she does not believe in such a being, while remaining unclear about whether he exists. Yossarian speaks with belligerent assurance about God and how terrible he thinks God is. The paradox through which Lieutenant Scheisskopf's wife describes her belief in God allows for these nuances in the complex discussion of faith in this chapter.

The officers are making out that they are doing Yossarian a favor by sending him home. This leads to a paradoxical situation: "You really don't deserve it, you know, which is one of the reasons I don't mind doing it." Korn says that Yossarian, having gone AWOL (among his other crimes in the eyes of the officers), should continue to be forced to stay in the war. But, in his kindness, he is allowing him to be sent home. 

Note how this compares with the original Catch-22. That paradox forced the pilots to stay in the war because there was no way for them to get themselves out: if they pled insanity to get out of the war, they'd be found sane for wanting to leave, and therefore be forced to stay. The paradox above, though, can be considered a version of Catch-22 from the perspective of the officers. If a soldier does not deserve to be sent home, he should be sent home; if he does deserve to be sent home, he shouldn't.