Dualism, contradictions, opposites and paradoxes Options

At the forefront of our reality, we experience things dualistically. White and black, hot and cold, up and down, you and me. Many philosophers will contest that this dualism is an illusion, and that the paradoxical nature of the world, is actually the truth. Can something truly exist without its opposite? Does that entail, if so, that what seems to be opposed are actually components of the same thing? Does separateness really exist, and weather it does or not, should we think dualistically?

Philosophers of the board, please share your opinion.





ॐ Z ॐ

Dualism is a useful tool to understand contrasting relationships between two things. But "truth" is the core problem. First, opposing relationships are the paramount of dualism. That is, in the case of dualism, it attempts to identify a contrasting/bi-polar relationship between two disjuncts - A and B. In anywhere else, like say weighing different options (like what to have for lunch) there can also be a C, D, E..., as many disjuncts as can be considered. But dualism works strictly with A and B. In any dualistic comparision what makes it logically *valid* is that neither can be the other. A does not, and cannot equal B or vise versa. (my logic professor called them "exclusive" comparisons as appose to inclusive, in which A can be B but dualism is exclusive only). If its not valid we create contractions. Consider life vs death. In the literal, absolute sense, a person cannot be both living and dead.

Yet, in my experience there seem to be many contradictions to this universe, or at least what we think we know about it. For example, if a person is dead how can they live on in some kind of after life? Dualism can't really help one to understand a relationship between life and death and life after death without adding additional disjuncts or changing the meaning of the words "life" and "death". And the meaning of these words, as well as all others, are where truth comes into play. What is truth? Fact? The meaning of truth depends heavily on the context in which it is used. If we agree that only facts are true then dualism cannot be used to prove any "truth" to any kind of after life unless we can prove it as fact. However, if we agree that truth is a rational opinion about what is fact, then its possible to understand life and death beyond life and death (after life) and the dualism between the two would be true. So lets consider, in this case, that:

disjunct A = Life AND (and/or = +) Death
" B = Life after Death.

Now we have a valid comparision to make. See inorder for dualism to really work one has to be able to indentify two disjuncts. Simple things like day and night, either and or, left and right are easy. But comparisions between complex (where A or B are phrases and/or have multiple terms) or subjective (where the meaning is based on opinion/context rather than fact) disjuncts are harder because most people don't have the capacity for language to use words correctly and in a context that they or others can understand. So using dualism to understand say fact vs. fiction is very difficult. We're left with unsolved equations fact = ? fiction = ?. Both are fairly subjective and the answer to the equation depends on the context in which they are used. We'd like to think that fact cannot equal fiction. Yet we create theories. There are so many mathmatical therums that form the basis for all the engineering and technology we use, yet nobody can make absolute fact out of the the therums. Then fact becomes fiction when it is an opinion or is disproven. Thus Fact = the context of its meaning and Fiction = the same thing. Now by comparing the two we see that both can equal the same thing. Thus attempting to figure out what is fact or fiction can be a messy process dependant soley on the nature of the word usage.

Looking at something on the scale of the universe is very difficult thing to do and virtually impossible, at this time, because of how little we actually know. The problem with using dualism to understand things of enormity - like the universe - are the limitations of human knowledge and cognitive functions. Again language - how do we discribe individual things we don't even know exist? The only way is to catagorize those things into one disjunct - A = what we don't know. The other catagory becomes B = what we do know. Everything we don't know falls under catagory A and everything we do know falls under catagory B. Ideally, we try to keep the conscepts we add to either as simple as possible. But in order for dualism to work there has to be an opposite - night and day, life and death these are easy enough that we know them intuitively. But what about galaxies? Whats the opposite of a galaxy or star, planet, frog, or say a phrase like planetary system or simian life form? We know what these things are but how do we identify the opposite of it? I'm not saying there is no answer or that dualism cannot answer such questions, just its difficult. If we take a mathmatical approach to understand dual relationships of such consepts the opposite of 1 = -1. Therefore the opposite of a galaxy is simply no galaxy. Like life vs. death life is is the presence of life and death is the absence. Good is the presense of good and evil is the absense. In order for this approach to work certain comparisons cannot be made - the opposite of the sun is not the moon. 1 doesn't equal -2. The problem is our knowledge. There are so many things we don't know. For example - the sun/moon comparision. Say we don't mean the litteral sun or moon but their "energy". First we have to define the terms then identify they are indeed opposite, but its possible.

What's the opposite of number? Not what's the opposite of 1, thats just -1. I mean what is the opposite of the meaning of the word "number"? See? And this just gets more and more complex to the point of absurdity. Dualism alone doesn't explain the universe. It can only be used as a tool to understand relationships between opposites. In that respect dualism is useful for understanding the nature of the universe and it also demonstrates the universe does indeed have dualistic qualitities. However, I think the way the universe actually opperates is anything but dualistic. I think the universe is everything and nothing, fact, fantacy, imagination, and everything imbetween and all of it existing and not existing at the same time on multiple dimentions. Something so complicated that the human mind cannot yet make sense out of the whole. I think rather than focus on the whole universe we should instead focus on our own realities. Through the exchange of ideas and experiences we will grow to be able to concieve of the gaps we have not yet discovered.