Is there an opposite to everything we know?

@Rickoshay75,

Rickoshay75 wrote:

Of course there is up and down, in and out, to and fro, left and right, for and against, in and out, but are there other opposites yet to be discovered?

In reality none of these exist.. they are just a perspective used solely for communication. They have arbitrary distinctions that we often just assume to be true in relative conversation. There is actually no real duality of opposites because it comes down to comparisons to arrive at the object of discussion.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

That's right. It's the distinction, I suppose, between what have been termed "relative" and "ultimate" reality. In the first everything has meaning(s) relative to systems and conventions of thought. In the second everything is ultimately that which it is (tatha)*. Is this what was meant when God was alleged to have given her name as I-am-that-I-am?

*and of course that may be a part of a whole.

0 Replies

Yes, it is always an opposite to everything.

The opposite of the theories of Relativity, wormholes, parallel universes, black holes, and so forth, is reality

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

Without opposites, would all those things exist?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Reality was first, imaginations came later.

1 Reply

@Rickoshay75,

Well we can only have an opposite like the ones you are suggesting if you have a human construct something we have created an abstract ideal of, like- up. Then humanity creates another construct, like- down and we compare the two and decide they are opposing. So no you cannot have more opposites without creating more constructs. Now in the case of non-abstract ideals like matter, we have antimatter. This is the idea that for every particle there is rarely occurring 'anti' particle with the same mass and opposing charge. When it comes into contact with everyday matter they cancel each other out and thus release energy. As we don't know every particle in the universe it is more than likely that there is a lot of particles and there opposites we have still to discover, so in actual physical ideas such as this, yes there is probably a lot of things in science we have still to find and their opposites

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

carloslebaron wrote:

Reality was first, imaginations came later.

True, but it is the reality of stimuli and reaction, over and over again, until we die, with only our memories, brainwashing and fate guiding our behavior.

“You want people walking away from the conversation with some kernel of wisdom or some kind of impact.” Henry Dean Stanton

0 Replies

@SH,

SH wrote:

Well we can only have an opposite like the ones you are suggesting if you have a human construct something we have created an abstract ideal of, like- up. Then humanity creates another construct, like- down and we compare the two and decide they are opposing. So no you cannot have more opposites without creating more constructs. Now in the case of non-abstract ideals like matter, we have antimatter. This is the idea that for every particle there is rarely occurring 'anti' particle with the same mass and opposing charge. When it comes into contact with everyday matter they cancel each other out and thus release energy. As we don't know every particle in the universe it is more than likely that there is a lot of particles and there opposites we have still to discover, so in actual physical ideas such as this, yes there is probably a lot of things in science we have still to find and their opposites

True, but taking it to the next level, nothing can exist without it's opposite to define it

0 Replies

The OP is correctly worded: "Is there an opposite to everything we KNOW?" The emphasis on everything we "know" is correct; It would be incorrect to say everything that "is". In Nature everything is absolute, just what it is (it's "suchness" or tatha, in Buddist thought). But in human thought, things make sense mainly in terms of their supposed opposites. The World is absolute, but its (human) MEANING is relative*. Fifty shades of grey is the reality; black and white are the constructed poles of the continuum upon which we locate a particular shade of grey.**

*Consider the connection between this distinction and that which we tend to focus on between "objective" and "subjective" (or "intersubjective"--socially constructed) reality.

** I see this intersubjective construction as an objective/ultimate "fact."

0 Replies

@contrex,

Quote:

Children often think that everything must have an "opposite", e.g. cats
/dogs, rain/sunshine, black/white, etc

Cats are not dogs, they're both are mammals and they aren't opposites. In fact going all the way back they have a common ancestor.

Rain is not the opposite of sunshine, it can be a cloudy day without rain, which by the way is falling condensation.

Yeah, Black and white are opposite, I'll give you that one.

Are Go and Come Opposites? Do I go with someone somewhere or do I come with some somewhere? Do I go away with something or do I come away with something?

I do not know if the words on this site meet your terms

http://pocketbookuk.com/2014/02/26/words-that-ought-to-have-opposites-but-dont/

0 Replies

@Rickoshay75,

Quote:

Of course there is up and down, in and out, to and fro, left and right, for and against, in and out, but are there other opposites yet to be discovered?

How dare you leave out yin and yang, eh?

0 Replies

@Rickoshay75,

Are there any opposites for Telephone and television?

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

Are there any opposites for Telephone and television?

It's easy to claim there is an opposite for everything. Just assert its negation, e.g.., no telephone, no television.

2 Replies

@layman,

Just asserting something's negation is not identifying its empirical opposite. "An egg" is not the opposite of "no egg" (as with presence and absence). The relevant opposite there is between "is" and "is not" and that is a purely conceptual/abstract opposition, not one of a concrete nature. Even the Taoist ying and yang refer to how we think. Recall that up and down exist in thought but not in outer space.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Postmodernists such as Derrida pointed out that a key issue regarding the word "everything" is not thinghood in the sense of "objective status" but assertions of "what is the case". Such assertions only have communicative/semantic import relative to their negation "what is not the case".

In Derrida's terminology such assertions privilege one side of an existential logical complement, and such privileging is contextually dynamic and potentially transient.

This argument regarding contextual assertions rather than ontological status is part of the philosophical movement focusing on language (die Kehre) and abandoning attempts at traditional analysis such as logical positivism. It has its roots in post Kantian phenomenology and points to language as constructive of "reality" rather than descriptive of it. In Gestalt terms, it stresses the inextricability of "background" and "focus".

1 Reply

@fresco,

The focus on language (by some) is overdone, in my view.

I recall a discussion I had once with an English Professor who literally claimed that thought without language was impossible. To me this seems prima facie absurd. How could anyone ever learn a language to begin with if he didn't have the pre-existing ability to think, at some level?

How could language have been "invented?"

1 Reply

@layman,

I suggest your English Professor might do a bit of reading on the psychology and philosophy regarding the relationship between what we call "language" and what we call "thought". Opinions have ranged from idealist poles in which "thought" is a priori to behavioral poles in which thought and language are reducible to behavioral responses.
Nebulous statements about "thought at some level" are futile in the face of the extensive literature on "consciousness".
http://consc.net/consc-papers.html

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Opinions have ranged from idealist poles in which "thought" is a priori to behavioral poles in which thought and language are reducible to behavioral responses.

Sure, and you'll find that same range on any topic whatsoever.

Sometimes I think one's position on such matters is all a function of "personality."

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

http://consc.net/consc-papers.html

Thanks for that link! Before I ever utter the word "thought" again, I'm going to read every single one of those ponderous works.

Not.

My idea of the philosophy of mind comes from this little summary by Bertrand Russell:

What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Nevermind.

1 Reply

@layman,

I took a Turing test once. I failed.

0 Replies

Is there an opposite to everything we know?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know