Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

A Search for Meaning Finds Opposition

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 3:48:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Definition is not possible apart from contrast, and contrast is not had apart from contradiction. For instance, light is contrasted by darkness; it is, also, in opposition to it. The need for meaning must necessarily invoke the need for contradiction. In other words, an individual who experiences life as meaningless, hopeless, and of little value looks for contradiction, or better said opposition. I believe this is a primary motive for the occurrence of violence among people who put very little value on life. From the drug addict to the CEO who either has little respect for his, or her, own body or the lives of others, that which he, or she, acquires is done at the expense of ones self or the expense of others.

A person who finds meaning and therefore purpose finds value and respect for himself, or herself, and the lives of others.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 5:45:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
We define things in opposition to their compliments or negations, we don't conflate them, because then definition is impossible. Things are, by definition, what they are, not what they aren't. No contradiction is necessary.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 6:56:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
We define things in opposition to their compliments or negations, we don't conflate them, because then definition is impossible. Things are, by definition, what they are, not what they aren't. No contradiction is necessary.

Correct. A thing has meaning only as it is found in opposition to something else. In talking about opposition, I am speaking about degrees of opposition, or in other words the degree of one thing's variance from another, variance by negation. A confirmation is impossible without its negation. So, one thing or the meaning of one thing does not exist apart from its negation. In other words, one does not exist without zero. For, what meaning is one if there is no negation of one?

Secondly, in saying one gives meaning to the other, I am in no way saying one is zero. For, if one were zero, zero would be one and therefore have no distinction. In saying one gives meaning to, defines, or gives value to the other, I am not saying one is the other in the sense of replacement but one is intrinsically linked to the other and without one the other has no meaning, definition, or value. In other words, one is not the other but one is not without the other.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 7:34:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 6:56:03 PM, s-anthony wrote:
We define things in opposition to their compliments or negations, we don't conflate them, because then definition is impossible. Things are, by definition, what they are, not what they aren't. No contradiction is necessary.

Correct. A thing has meaning only as it is found in opposition to something else. In talking about opposition, I am speaking about degrees of opposition, or in other words the degree of one thing's variance from another, variance by negation. A confirmation is impossible without its negation. So, one thing or the meaning of one thing does not exist apart from its negation. In other words, one does not exist without zero. For, what meaning is one if there is no negation of one?

Secondly, in saying one gives meaning to the other, I am in no way saying one is zero. For, if one were zero, zero would be one and therefore have no distinction. In saying one gives meaning to, defines, or gives value to the other, I am not saying one is the other in the sense of replacement but one is intrinsically linked to the other and without one the other has no meaning, definition, or value. In other words, one is not the other but one is not without the other.

So why is contradiction necessary for definition? A contradiction is not just when something has an opposite.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 8:00:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So why is contradiction necessary for definition? A contradiction is not just when something has an opposite.

A contradiction is an affirmation or confirmation and its negation.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 8:02:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 8:00:04 PM, s-anthony wrote:
So why is contradiction necessary for definition? A contradiction is not just when something has an opposite.

A contradiction is an affirmation or confirmation and its negation.

No, that could just mean dichotomy or contrast. A contradiction is when something is what it's not (e.g., a circular square).
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 8:39:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
No, that could just mean dichotomy or contrast. A contradiction is when something is what it's not (e.g., a circular square).

There is no dichotomy or contrast without an absence or negation of something. A circle-square is a contradiction in that one is not the other; either it is a circle or a square. However, it is this contradiction that gives each meaning. If there were no contradiction and a circle were a square and a square were a circle, there would be no distinction in meaning of one from the other.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 3:18:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 6:56:03 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Correct. A thing has meaning only as it is found in opposition to something else. In talking about opposition, I am speaking about degrees of opposition, or in other words the degree of one thing's variance from another, variance by negation.

By which non-arbitrary method would you determine the degree of opposition of say a chair and a table?

In other words, one does not exist without zero. For, what meaning is one if there is no negation of one?

For a long time the ancient Greeks did not know the zero, but were quite fine with the use of other numbers.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 6:33:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
By which non-arbitrary method would you determine the degree of opposition of say a chair and a table?

Difference is both arbitrary and systematic, both a product of the individual and a product of the collective, both subjective and objective.

In other words, one does not exist without zero. For, what meaning is one if there is no negation of one?

For a long time the ancient Greeks did not know the zero, but were quite fine with the use of other numbers.

The numerical value may not have existed, but the concept of no value most certainly did.