The Metaphysics of Opposites
Since almost time immemorial, philosophers have been reflecting on the fact that at the heart of perception, thinking and cognition lies the capacity to differentiate and to contrast one thing to another. This realization is in various ways explicated in Aristotelian logic, Cartesian dualism, Kantian antinomies, Fichtean, Hegelian and Marxist dialectics, Ferdinand de Saussure’s structural linguistics, Charles Sanders Peirce’s semiotics, structural anthropology of Claude Lévi-Strauss, and so on.
A similar situation can be found in various sacral doctrines, most obviously in Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Taoism, and even in Advaita Vedānta, which arrives to non-duality by postulating opposites — even though it claims them to be illusory. Sometimes they try to “reconcile” or to “balance” opposites using either logical synthesis or suggestive, imaginative and meditative techniques that can result in a subjective mystical experience of unity and “non-duality”.
On the epistemological level, there are no serious doubts in the existence of “dialectical” (in a broad sense) processes that play a crucial role in the development and functioning of the human psyche. However, the picture is entirely different on the level of ontology. The world built on the struggle and interaction of opposites is to a great extent determined by the projections of the properties of the human psyche on being.
Another possible approach that is much less developed in philosophy is when, instead of opposites, one emphasizes the elusive “in-between”, the metaphysical gap dividing the opposites, the root of differentiation, something that is not the third, but always stays “in the middle”. From a certain perspective, we can include here the concept of the “between-being” (Søren Kierkegaard’s inter-esse, Jacques Derrida’s différance).
There are many possible ramifications here that could lead us away from the subject of opposites as such, all the way to looking for mystical analogies, therefore let us note only that this “in-between” is, too, conceived in different ways on the level of language and thinking, and of physics and metaphysics. For example, in the context of physics alone the perceived difference, the gap between objects, would not be the same on the macro level (immediately available to the senses) and the quantum level.
Hence it is important to pose a number of questions. Is reality adequately reflected by the human psyche? Is this reflection always the same, and if not, then how does it evolve? If the reflection is not really accurate, then is there at least a constant homogeneity between the subjective and objective reality? What is the origin of opposites in human thinking? Is the being really nothing more than the playing ground of the struggle of opposites? If yes, then what is the origin of these objective opposites?
Within the subject of interest to us, we can assume that:
a. Perception depends on the physical properties of the senses and the mental processes that transform incoming signals into the subjective content, and therefore it’s impossible to maintain a priori that there is an accurate, undistorted correspondence between the latter and the external reality
b. Perception can change in the process of the evolution of both a species and an individual as well as in various states of consciousness, which, once again, makes it impossible to postulate the identity of the world and its reflection.
It is evident that, on the ontogenetic level, the development of dualistic thinking is facilitated by social factors: the ability to differentiate between “self” and “non-self”, “mine” and “not mine”, “do” and “don’t”, “good” and “bad” is extremely important for survival in the human society. When it comes to the phylogenetic level, we can assume that in the process of evolution of human thinking a crucial role in the development of the notion of opposites was played by the conceptualization of the immediate interaction with the environment, which mainly took form of the struggle for survival, of the encounter of humans with each other and with other species, and so on. Hence the ideal pair of opposites: two equal forces that fight each other head-on in an endless conflict (an example is the opposition of light and darkness in the mental mode, but not in the realm of physics where darkness is just the absence of light).
Besides, one can conceive as opposites both similarly symmetric but divergent pairs and asymmetric ones (for example, big and small). It is also important to distinguish opposites of the subject-object type, when a perceiving subject views themselves as one of the sides of an opposition (me/you, me/others, me/world), and those of the object-object type, when the opposites are two independent objects and a subject does not identify themselves with any of them. We already see here the role of a subject in identifying opposites as such which helps them structure and understand the world. But what are the relations of these opposites outside of human thinking and, most importantly, what exactly makes them the opposites?
In idealistic ontologies everything is simple: the absolute unity/spirit/idea splits in two or reflects itself, or, alternatively, being separates from non-being, and then this process continues generating all the diversity of the world. However, the analysis of such a process in its ideal form (as opposed to the Chinese, Hindu, Qabbalistic and other versions, where it is already elaborated and supplemented by doctrinal explanations of why and how it all happens), the attempt to trace how the world develops from the first pair of opposites in each version (including the division of the original unity into equal entities, identical or non-identical to it, or into two different and opposite ones), reveals the vulnerability and inconsistency of such an arrangement.
It all boils down to the need for the original unity or the primal dyad to a priori enclose a multitude of entities or a set of forces or “laws” defining the subsequent division, grouping and evolution of entities. Hence, from this perspective, both the unity and the opposites are nothing but abstractions. That is, one can view as a unity, wholeness, system and so on any set of elements, entities and relations, including the universe, multiverse, being, and even the unity of being and non-being, but this would be an abstract unity that includes a multitude and unities of a lower order and can be included in a unity of a higher order. If we reject this kind of constructs, we can but resort to the world itself and to that which, after being refracted in our consciousness, is seen by us as opposites.
It should already be obvious that the vast majority of opposites in our thinking are cultural conventions or linguistic constructs. Among them there are both those that go back to the observation of natural phenomena (for example, the alternation of day and night transformed into the struggle of light and darkness, even though in fact day and night pass into each other smoothly, through morning and evening, and, depending on the angle between the sun and the surface of the earth, the twenty-four hours can be divided into any number of parts; in the same way “antagonistic” relations of water and fire are reflected in the struggle of the two primal elements, even though in fact both fire and water form no less antagonistic relations with other substances) or are based on the intuitive perception of a contrast and/or struggle, as well as intellectual opposites that appeared much later historically and don’t have direct correspondences in the material world.
If we continue the analysis of conceivable opposites after having filtered out those that are purely cultural and conventional, we can group the remaining ones according to their essential qualities and ascertain basic pairs that can’t be reduced to any other ones. For example, it is obvious that pairs like big/small, heavy/light, high/low, wide/narrow and so on can be reduced to the abstract more/less pair. If we perform our task thoroughly, then there will be less than half a dozen of such pairs left. It’s worth considering the following significant pairs:
1. Male/female. Many people consider it to be one of the most “natural” pairs of opposites, even if they have to admit that it is not universal and is not intrinsic to all living beings. It is based on the existence of the two types of reproductive cells in nature. However, on its own, the existence of two types of anything, even if they fulfill complementary functions in some aspect of being (in this case in reproduction), is not the reason to view them as opposite to each other and not as unique and independent entities. If we strain our imagination just a little bit, we can picture a situation where nature, instead of the path of least resistance, would take it a step further and produce some third type. This didn’t happen in the case of reproductive cells, but we could find ample examples of a broader variety where dividing into two opposite groups is not that easy, hence such a division can’t be viewed as predetermined and self-evident.
2. Being/non-being. A whole range of opposites of the “something and its absence” type can be reduced to this pair. Whether something can be opposite to nothing (that which does not exist) is a very subtle question, yet we can see that our psyche is able to interpret nothing as something or even to create an abstract opposite to anything.
3. Opposite directions. Here we take as a premise that when moving in any direction there’s always an opposite one. To this type one can reduce directions as such (forward/backward, up/down) as well as attraction and repulsion (including their mental counterparts like yes/no or for/against) and opposites of the more/less type where we count from some (not always evident) reference point.
The in-depth analysis of the opposites of this type leads to a whole range of avenues of metaphysical search. For example, we should realize that the visualization of opposite directions in terms of Euclidean straight lines and perpendicular planes is also an abstraction and idealization. The same is true of vectors which we inevitably arrive to when considering motion and directions. Motion in opposite directions is an infinite divergence in an orthogonal space and a convergence on a spherical surface, and hence we should look for a deeper meaning than just a mathematical one in the opposition of directions. It’s also interesting to consider the role of time in this context: motion and direction can’t be conceived without time and a certain “time memory”, because otherwise we would always have an infinite multitude of possible “opposite” directions. Time itself is always directed from past to future; we can move in the opposite direction only in our imagination, and even this very tentatively.
To think, to perceive, to cognize — that is, to operate on a level above that of instincts and reflexes — means to structure, to order, to group, to divide and to compare the complexity of the world around us. The development of these abilities starts with a basic operation of identifying dichotomies, contrasting “self” to “non-self”, etc. Pairs of opposites are one of the earliest abstractions in the evolution of the psyche that got entrenched in thinking, language and culture, and, as a result, are taken for granted and not reflected on. The abovementioned path of the reflective analysis of opposites, of the search for their origins in thinking and the world around us, allows going beyond both the “dualistic” or “dialectical” worldview and the “non-dualistic” one and viewing the complexity and metamorphoses as well as interactions of their elements and their combinations in a new light.
P. S. This article was originally written in Russian in 2016 and published elsewhere. Since it had some impact and was even cited in an academic publication, I decided to publish its English version even though it does not fully reflect my current views.