“X isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.”
“X” can be money, health, faith, truth, etc., etc., etc.
I’ve seen this statement in company slogans, commercials, personal manifestos, etc. Does it make sense? Is there a sense in which “everything” and “only thing” have the same meaning?
If something’s the only thing it would have to be everything, wouldn’t it?
<toke>
Of course X is everything, that is why math teachers keep on telling us to find it.
Exactly my point.
But if it’s everything, it should be very easy to find.
I vote no, nonsensical.
“X isn’t the most important thing–it’s the only thing!” can work, even if strictly the only thing is the most important thing and the least important thing, all at once.
It makes sense if you read “the only thing” as “the only thing that matters”.
By the way, I’ve only heard this saying as “Money isn’t everything, [etc.]”.
Intrigued, I just did a bit of research. The original of the “X” saying seems to be:
“Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.”
It’s misattributed to Vince Lombardi, but was actually originated by UCLA football coach Henry Russell (“Red”) Sanders, in 1950.
The phrase is basically an ironic trick: by beginning with “winning isn’t everything,” the speaker seems to be agreeing with good-sportsmanship sentiments such as “it’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game” and “what’s important is not winning but taking part” and the like.
But then the speaker says, in effect, just kidding about that good sportsmanship crap…what’s really important is winning and only winning.
So when applied to “money” or “faith” or anything else, the construction is a strong claim that Only One Thing Matters.
Linus: Winning isn’t everything.
Charlie Brown: But losing isn’t ANYTHING!
Congratulations on coming second…because coming second means that really you’ve come first…of all of the losers !
Well, yeah, sorta. What Lombardi actually said, whether he was quoting or misquoting an earlier saying or not, was “Winning isn’t everything, but it’s the only thing.” In my opinion, the ‘but’ alters the meaning slightly. In my opinion, without it, it seems to reflect the coache’s own headstrong sentiments. With it, it seems more of a concession of “that’s what the fans and the owners want.” But Lombardi’s not here to explain it, so it’s up for debate.
I’d say that, from a standpoint of strict logic, it makes no sense. I think people essentially interpret it to mean “Winning isn’t the most important thing, it’s the only thing” as chrisk said.