Q&A: The Unity of Opposites
The Unity of Opposites
Question
Since once again you spoke out against the coherence of the concept of the unity of opposites (in your latest column), here is a suggestion for how to see it differently.
Think about the concept of space in its Newtonian sense (say, an infinite void that is completely homogeneous).
Now consider the following two statements:
1. Space exists.
2. Space does not exist.
My claim: both statements make factual claims about the very same object, and both are true even though they contradict one another.
Explanation: we assume the existence of space (for various reasons; for example, we believe there are material objects in the world, and these could not exist unless space existed).
On the other hand, we assume that existence logically entails at least some minimal set of properties, yet space has no properties at all (that is more or less its definition), and therefore it does not exist. Here one could object by arguing that space exists as the substratum of properties, but in my opinion that is an imprecise use of the concept of substratum.
What do you think of this move?
Answer
Any example you bring will have to be interpreted such that the term “exists” is being understood in two different senses. So there is no problem here and no unity of opposites. It is simply laziness in defining the two meanings of the concept of existence and the relation between them.
Alternatively, you can say that there is good reason to assume that space exists and good reason to assume that it does not exist. That too is not a unity of opposites. It is just a doubt.
Discussion on Answer
Two points:
1. Space (in the Newtonian sense) is exceptional. Can you give me examples of concrete or abstract things that by definition have no properties (like space)? A car? An elephant? The number 8? Time?
2. What do you mean by “interpreted”? I did not claim at all that it is “interpreted,” but rather that referring to its ontological status necessarily yields two contradictory descriptions of it, namely that it exists and does not exist at the same time. And both descriptions are true.
1. I can, and space has properties. But what does all that have to do with the discussion?
2. At this point you lost me, as expected.
1. If you can give examples, then please do.
I defined Newtonian space as an infinite void that is completely homogeneous. If you think that definition is incorrect, explain why. If it is correct, then in my opinion it follows from it that it has no properties at all. Do you reject that conclusion, and why?
I explained that you are taking the discussion into other regions. We started with the unity of opposites, meaning adopting two contradictory claims simultaneously. I said there is no such thing. I see no point in starting a discussion here about the nature of space.
I’ll answer your question, and if you do not continue on the issue of the unity of opposites, then I will stop here.
Space has properties such as extension, isotropy, translational symmetry, all the propositions of geometry, and so on. One can think of objects without properties. Some view God that way, Plato’s prime matter, Kant’s thing-in-itself. And even Platonic ideas—it can be discussed whether they have properties.
All right, I’m done.
How is that “other regions”? Newtonian space is my example of the unity of opposites, since it exists and does not exist at the same time (“adopting two contradictory claims simultaneously”).
At least the first two examples you gave of space’s “properties” seem mistaken to me: space does not extend; rather, the bodies given within it extend (if it extended, you would have to posit a second-order space, third-order space, and so on); 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 too is a property… but that really is sophistry.
I’m done too
From the texts I know, usually the use of the expression “the unity of opposites” is not meant to make a claim about such a physical or logical reality. Rather, it is an exaggeration and a kind of wonder at situations in which two elements that seemingly contradict one another coexist, and that arouses amazement and a sense of marvel. You can dismiss this; certainly one should not use “the unity of opposites” when trying to define something precisely. It all starts when people mix psychology / art / New Age with pure philosophy. By the way, even students of the Kabbalah of Rashash do not like the use of metaphorical concepts. I heard the claim that Rashash deliberately took the Ari and “dried him out,” turning him into “technical mathematical” concepts, because he could not stand the anthropomorphizing and romanticization people do to divinity. As if he wanted to detach human experiences from the learning in order to preserve conceptual purity. The truth is that this statement has a source in Nahar Shalom