Unassailable dichotomies?

[Lark]

Do you think there are unassailable dichotomies? Opposing and conflicting principles, such as good and evil, right and wrong, capitalism and socialism or individualism and socialism?

I dont want to cheat but I will add some of my own opinion to the OP, its not meant to determine the parameters or boundaries of discussion too much I hope, while I think that some dichotomies have proven false, some dichotomies are assailable, such as individualism and socialism or capitalism and socialism by what is commonly meant by those things in popular or common parliance, I would say that there are other dichotomies which are true and not assailable, such as good and evil, right and wrong.

Definition is difficult, there may always be disagreement, objectivity may be difficult to determine and sometimes its necessary to settle for intersubjectivity and a shared context but the search can and should go on for true objectivity. For instance its not possible to go beyond good and evil but only to be extra good or extra evil.

 

[Elis]

Am I understanding you correct;

that if your examples were to be correct then -a statement- couldn't be both right and wrong and -an act- couldn't be both good and bad?

If so, then yes. I think they definitely exist. As for your examples with socialism, I can't quite grasp what you're implying. Is it that a society can't embody both socialism and individualism, or that the ideals themselves are in vast contrast?

 

[Lark]

Am I understanding you correct;

that if your examples were to be correct then -a statement- couldn't be both right and wrong and -an act- couldn't be both good and bad?

If so, then yes. I think they definitely exist. As for your examples with socialism, I can't quite grasp what you're implying. Is it that a society can't embody both socialism and individualism, or that the ideals themselves are in vast contrast?

I dont think that socialism and individualism is a true dichotomy because society can comprise both simultaneously, in fact I think it has to, they are reciprocal and each the prerequisite to the other.

 

[Quiet]

no... it can seem that way...a product of needing to contextualise experience to sufficiently analyse it and derive meaning....but normally that is socially/culturally constructed.

You could say light verus dark, or only light, and dark as the absense of light
Love versus fear, or only Love, and fear as the absence/want of Love
Heat versus cold, or only heat, and cold as the absence of heat
Life versus death, or only Life, and death as the absence of life
Good versus evil, or only Good, and evil as the absence/want of good
it may sound like just semantics...but semantics is important. Having thought about these things are lot, and based on my experience...i dont 'believe' in dichotomies. Sometimes the language of opposites, contrasts, and differences can make it easier to communicate about these things, but it can also prevent true experience and understanding of these things on a higher level.

Politics is more complicated and can seem dichotomised, but is often a tangled knot when you study it and get involved, and when applied practically

Philisophy and theoretics can be more mentally 'pure' and easy to dichotomise

dichtomies have a way of leaning on each and borrowing from the other. It may seem that one cant exist without the other, each gives the other its meaning and validity. But if you remove one, the other still exists, and that is the true one.

However, although i dont believe in 'wrong', i still think that there is always the 'right' thing to do in most situations...and that is generally what i would call listening to and following your heart. We can choose actions that bring us the most Love and joy, and not create pain and suffering. It is possible to maximise happiness for everyone, but this depends largely on a shared concept of happiness

Life is complex, but i dont see it as grey. Its interesting and interconnected and creative

 

[Elis]

Instead of saying A or B, you could say A or not A. Wouldn't say 'banana' and 'not banana' be a dichotomy?

Or the case of true and false, if a statement is 'true' how could it then not be 'not false', aka how could it be false? (true in dichotomy to false - in a specified statement)

Or "All birds can fly" and "penguins can't fly". Given that penguins are defined as birds.



@charlene

 

[Quiet]

Instead of saying A or B, you could say A or not A. Wouldn't say 'banana' and 'not banana' be a dichotomy?

Or the case of true and false, if a statement is 'true' how could it then not be 'not false', aka how could it be false? (true in dichotomy to false - in a specified statement)

Are A and B dichotomies? Or are they equally valid and real?
I suppose 'banana' or 'not banana' could be perceived as a dichotomy...it could be said that the state of banana is as valid as the state of no banana. One cannot exist without the other. But take away the non-banana, and the banana still exists. take away the banana, and the non banana is meaningless and non-existant. The banana state is real, and the 'not banana' state is not true in the same way, it is only the want/lack of a banana. Bananas are real, non banana is not real, although it could seem to be real, but only in terms of context

clear as mud ....lol?

Or "All birds can fly" and "penguins can't fly". Given that penguins are defined as birds.



@charlene

the definition of bird is arbitary and culturally constructed. i cant see any dichotomy

or have i misunderstood your post?

what do you think?

 

[Elis]

the definition of bird is arbitary and culturally constructed. i cant see any dichotomy

that's why I predefined penguin as a bird. What a bird is is pretty irrelevant (I think).
I was just referring to the relation between ∀ x: P(x) and ∃ x: ¬P(x)

to disprove that all 'x' can fly, we only need to prove that one 'x' can't fly, whether that be birds or e.g. houses. Neither should the definition of flying matter (I think).

or have i misunderstood your post?

No, I don't think so. I think we just see it differently, if anything I think you might know more than I do.

what do you think?

I think I understand how you see it, but I don't see the point in disregarding dichotomies if they need context. Non-banana might sound nonsensical if banana doesn't exist, but what if it is applied to a context? This box contains bananas in contrast to this box doesn't contain bananas.

Yes, we need to define what a box is, and we need to define bananas. But what is the point of saying that that dichotomies don't exist, given the definitions? Maybe a bit off topic, but personally I don't think we can know anything without assuming something.

 

[SpecialEdition]

I think everything exists on a spectrum of grey. It's all part of the same shade and how dark or light it is is up to subjective interpretation. We try too hard to build value systems on things that mean nothing.

 

[Lark]

I think everything exists on a spectrum of grey. It's all part of the same shade and how dark or light it is is up to subjective interpretation. We try too hard to build value systems on things that mean nothing.

I think someone should build a value system on the fact that you're beautiful, that'd be a pretty safe foundation.

 

[Quiet]

that's why I predefined penguin as a bird. What a bird is is pretty irrelevant (I think).
I was just referring to the relation between ∀ x: P(x) and ∃ x: ¬P(x)

to disprove that all 'x' can fly, we only need to prove that one 'x' can't fly, whether that be birds or e.g. houses. Neither should the definition of flying matter (I think).




No, I don't think so. I think we just see it differently, if anything I think you might know more than I do.


I think I understand how you see it, but I don't see the point in disregarding dichotomies if they need context. Non-banana might sound nonsensical if banana doesn't exist, but what if it is applied to a context? This box contains bananas in contrast to this box doesn't contain bananas.

Yes, we need to define what a box is, and we need to define bananas. But what is the point of saying that that dichotomies don't exist, given the definitions? Maybe a bit off topic, but personally I don't think we can know anything without assuming something.

I agree we cant know anything without assuming something.
Clearly dichotomies do exist...we use them constantly...we can see them and experience them.

In this reality, just about all we see and imagine is known and understood purely in terms of context. Context really is everything. How can anything be truly isolated, separated and understood without comprehending the matrix from which it has developed? Everything is too interconnected to pick out a strand. A single strand has no weight or meaning. Something 'is' in relation, contrast, comparison to something else. Dichotomies are not only useful, but necessary to define and understand concepts in relation to others.

But not everything we see is real, and not everything that is real can be seen. Sometimes dichotomies and 'othering' can shape and cloud our perception to the point where we miss the point, and can only see reality according to our preconceived parameters. Some things defy definition and comparison.

I also know that while there are things that can only be understood in context, or duality, and that there are things that can be understood and known on their own merit, regardless of context or dichotomies. I cant prove this knowledge, it is something that has been personally seen and experienced through intuition, dreams, visions, trances, outer body experience, near death experiences, traumatic experience, drug use, hypnosis, meditation, and physical life. Although I cant provide any concrete proof to the external world, I also know with certainty that if any person were to go 'within' into the deeper layers of consciousness of the mind...they would find the same thing.
But none of this changes the fact that it is easier to say day and night rather than light versus lack of light.

Sometimes the only way we can truly experience and understand something is when we cease analysing, defining, categorising, contextualising, contrasting, and judging. Like how 'empathy' works....when we actually experience another's experience, and be the other person. We don't judge the experience, see it in terms of good or bad...we just 'hold' the other person's perception/experience for a while and then let it go. I think that we can have this 'empathy' with anything and everything. Of course that seems counter intuitive in terms of how we normally engage the world and acquire information. I think its possible to appreciate something on its own merit, and also understand that 'something's' existence in terms of its context in the bigger picture.

For example if we only understand 'ourself' in terms of analysis and description of our traits, behaviours, and patterns of thoughts and beliefs, and in comparison with other people, and norms and criteria established through external culture....we may never actually know and experience ourself. Because the self is fluid and transformative, and has it's own self contained integrity, we fail to understand it when we attempt to restrict and confine it using external constrictions and parameters.....Anyway...im obviously completely off topic now and am descending into a long rambling...so i'll stop here

 

[sprinkles]

Instead of saying A or B, you could say A or not A. Wouldn't say 'banana' and 'not banana' be a dichotomy?

Or the case of true and false, if a statement is 'true' how could it then not be 'not false', aka how could it be false? (true in dichotomy to false - in a specified statement)

Or "All birds can fly" and "penguins can't fly". Given that penguins are defined as birds.



@charlene

Yeah that's not really a dichotomy.

Dichotomy is two specific things in direct opposition, and with A or not A you don't have two things in opposition, you have one thing vs. everything else which makes it nonsequitur at best.

For example, banana or not banana could be rephrased as banana or donut. There may or may not exist a dichotomy between bananas or donuts, but the problem is since we're looking at not bananas, we could just as easily say banana or apple, banana or tree, banana or truck etc. and so on ad infinitum. This makes it not a dichotomy because it's not actually two things opposed, and "not bananas" could conceivably include things which are very close to bananas but aren't quite bananas.

This is actually a false dichotomy, which is by definition a claim that there are only two possible options, however whenever you include a "not" you inverse the polarity of options from being one option to being all the options except for this one.

Edit:
Or put differently, not A isn't always the opposite of A.

 

[Elis]

Can you give an example of when 'not A' is not an opposite of 'A'?

As I see it, you can't substitute 'not banana' with 'truck' unless 'truck' would imply 'not banana'.


Also, I am somewhat excluding paradoxes here, but I take it that is not what you're getting at?

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]

 

[sprinkles]

Can you give an example of when 'not A' is not an opposite of 'A'?

As I see it, you can't substitute 'not banana' with 'truck' unless 'truck' would imply 'not banana'.


Also, I am somewhat excluding paradoxes here, but I take it that is not what you're getting at?

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]

A truck is not a banana so it fits the definition.

For example. If you wanted to make a computer program which asks for the password "banana", how do you make it aware of all the other things which could be typed in? You could type in any word you want and have it only respond if it is banana, but what if we want the program to respond and tell you that your input is incorrect when you type in a word that is not banana? You'd have it evaluate the input and determine that it is not equal to the string "banana", so if you type in "truck" in this instance, it does in fact imply "not banana."

Edit:
And in fact this comes into play every time you have to enter a password to get on a forum for example. You either have your password, or not your password. Your password is one specific string, and what is not your password is every other possible string.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=4361]Elis[/MENTION]

Also think of "black and white" vs. "black and not black." Not black could easily be green.

A not is only equal to an opposite in a binary system, and that is because the binary system forces two options, and not because a not is an opposite in itself.

Edit:
Additionally, if you say you're hungry and would like a banana, and I give you an apple and you know it's not a banana, it would become immediately clear that apple implies not banana, but an apple is not necessarily the opposite of a banana. Sure, it's not a banana but it's not diametrically opposed to bananas either.

 

[Elis]

@sprinkles

I think I understand how we see it differently. It is probably just me who have the wrong definition of dichotomies. In my mind 'black' and 'green' are dichotomies in the sense that if it's green it is not black. I see it as expressions where the expression is either true or false.

E.g. "the fence is black". it's a Boolean expression, it is either true or false. how do we make the expression "the fence is black" false?

we make it "not black". As green is not black, the expression is false.


Another example; All the students failed the test.

If all students fail the test, the statement is true. The opposite would then be that someone passed the test. As long as someone passed the test the statement is false.

 

[sprinkles]

@sprinkles

I think I understand how we see it differently. It is probably just me who have the wrong definition of dichotomies. In my mind 'black' and 'green' are dichotomies in the sense that if it's green it is not black. I see it as expressions where the expression is either true or false.

E.g. "the fence is black". it's a Boolean expression, it is either true or false. how do we make the expression "the fence is black" false?

we make it "not black". As green is not black, the expression is false.


Another example; All the students failed the test.

If all students fail the test, the statement is true. The opposite would then be that someone passed the test. As long as someone passed the test the statement is false.

Ahh ok. Yeah.

A dichotomy is a particular kind of dual relationship. Black and white, left and right, open and closed, inside and outside - all these are dichotomies and they're made such due to their diametrically opposed nature. They're considered complete, exact polar opposites. They're so precisely opposite that the relationship is special and considers no alternatives.

Black and green or whatever other color is not necessarily a dichotomy though even though they're different. The dichotomy for black is taken up by white, and green is just a color really.

Dichotomies are special for practical reasons so that you don't end up with statements saying for example that pudding is food therefore you must eat pudding to survive, because if you don't eat food you starve to death - that's a false dichotomy because while pudding is food, it isn't the only kind of food so therefore the opposite of pudding isn't automatically starvation.

Edit:
Also making something be merely false such as a green fence not being black isn't enough for a dichotomy because a dichotomy must be mutually exclusive and all inclusive with no overlap. Because there's many ways for a black fence to be false (red, yellow, blue) it's not a dichotomy for practical purposes even though the concepts of true and false are a dichotomy in the abstract sense.

 

[Elis]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]

Well, I'm applying it to expressions. The fence is black vs the fence is not black. It is not the fence nor the color that is in dichotomy, it is the expression. Or at least, that is what I meant to say. essentially it is (expression) in dichotomy to ¬(expression). Basically true vs false, Boolean expressions.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]

Well, I'm applying it to expressions. The fence is black vs the fence is not black. It is not the fence nor the color that is in dichotomy, it is the expression. Or at least, that is what I meant to say. essentially it is (expression) in dichotomy to ¬(expression). Basically true vs false, Boolean expressions.

Well every expression can be formed in such a way that it has a dichotomy if you finagle it enough, if you go by pure syntax alone.

But is it practical?

 

[Elis]

When programming, sure.

 

[sprinkles]

When programming, sure.

We do that in programming because you have to shoehorn complex ideas into binary logic. It's less about practical and more about being necessary.

Natural logic is more... colorful. And varied. Also boolean logic has its limitations which computers have to artificially circumvent due to their binary nature.

Take a float switch for example. A switch can be either off or on, but WHY it is off or on also matters. If you have an ordinary switch that controls a pump based on the water level in a barrel, what's going to happen if you use a dichotomy based switch? The pump will cycle on and off and be useless and inefficient because as soon as it pumps a tiny bit of water out, it will shut off.
What you use instead is a float switch so that the pump turns on when the water level has gone from a low point to a high point, and turns off when the water has gone from a high point to a low point, ignoring the levels in between. So it is not only the level of the water that controls the pump, but also whether or not the barrel is filling up, or emptying out. This is not a dichotomy because it has extensive overlap, and we cannot use only the expressions of on or off for this problem.