Unity of opposites
Since you have again spoken out against the coherence of the concept of the unity of opposites (in your last paragraph), here is a suggestion for you on how to see it differently.
Think of the concept of space in its Newtonian sense (let’s say an empty and completely homogeneous infinity).
Now consider the following two sentences:
1. Space exists.
2. Space does not exist.
I argued: Both sentences make factual claims about the same object and both are true even though they contradict each other.
Explanation: We assume the existence of space (for various reasons, for example we believe that there are material objects in the world and these could not exist if space did not exist).
On the other hand, we assume that existence logically involves the minimal existence of some properties, but space has no properties (this is more or less its definition) and therefore does not exist. Here, one can indeed object by claiming that space exists as a substrate for the properties, but in my opinion this is an inaccurate use of the concept of substrate.
What do you think about the move?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From the texts I know, the use of the expression unity of opposites is usually not intended to claim such a physical or logical reality. Rather, it is an exaggeration and admiration for situations in which two elements that seemingly contradict each other coexist, and this arouses astonishment and a sense of wonder. This can be canceled, and the unity of opposites/opposites should definitely not be used when trying to define an issue precisely. It all starts with mixing psychology/art/New Age with pure philosophy. By the way, students of the Rashi also do not like the use of metaphorical concepts. I heard an argument that the Rashi intentionally took the Aryan and “dried” it out, took it to “technical mathematical” concepts because he could not stand the animation and romanticization that is done to the deity. As if he wanted to separate human experiences from learning in order to maintain theoretical purity. The truth is that this statement has its source in the River of Peace.
Two points:
1. (Newtonian) space is an exception. Can you give me examples of tangible or abstract things that by definition have no properties (like space)? A car? An elephant? The number 8? Time?
2. What do you mean interpreted? I did not claim at all that it is “interpreted” but that the reference to its ontological status necessarily results in two contradictory descriptions of it, namely that it exists and does not exist at the same time. And both descriptions are correct.
1. I can, and space has properties. But what does all this have to do with the discussion?
2. Here I lost you, as expected.
1. If you can give examples, please do.
I defined Newtonian space as an empty and completely homogeneous infinity. If this definition is not correct in your opinion, explain why. If it is correct in my opinion, it follows that it has no properties at all. Do you not accept this conclusion, and why?
I explained that you are taking the discussion to other realms. We started with the unity of opposites, that is, the adoption of two opposing claims at the same time. I said that there is no such animal. I see no point in starting a sectarian discussion about the nature of space.
I will answer your question and if you do not continue on the subject of the unity of opposites then I will end here.
Space has properties such as expansion, isotropy, symmetry for movements, all the theorems of geometry and so on and so forth. It is possible to think of objects without properties. Some see God in this way, Plato's hypothetical substance, Kant's thing-in-itself. Even Platonic ideas can be discussed as to whether they have properties.
Okay, I'm done.
How about other realms? Newtonian space is my example of the unity of opposites, since it exists and does not exist at the same time (“adopting two opposing claims simultaneously”).
At least your first two examples of the ”properties” of space seem wrong to me: space does not expand, but the bodies in it expand (if it did expand, you would have to assume a second-order, third-order space, etc.); its being “isotropic” (what I called homogeneous) is not a property but exactly the opposite: the negation of any property or structure supposedly found in it. You can of course be clever and say that this negation is also a property… but that is really cleverness.
I am also finished
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
