Daily Reflections

09/27/2022

Reductio Ad Absurdum

I’ve noticed the concept of a false dichotomy has cropped up in several of journal entries over the course of the year. Until today, I assumed that this was a natural result of my tendency towards mysticism in my belief patterns. In interconnectedness. All dichotomies on a deep enough dive are false because their very opposition exists only in their relation to the supposed disparate things they seek to delineate.

Put more eloquently in the Tao Teh Ching:

High and low depend on each other, before and after follow each other

All things exist in balance with each other. This is the glue in all that empty space in the molecules. The only way to give form is to stack it up against the formless and say , “it is this thing, because it is not that thing.” Such are the musings of many ancient systems of mysticism. Indeed, modern Ecology and Quantum Physics edge towards this type of understanding. Yet for some reason, I simply forgot some of the philosophical roots of reasoning in this manner.

Often attributed to Hegel (Hence the name, “Hegel’s Dialectic”), is the modern understanding of the evolution of conceptual arguments. Thesis. Antithesis. Synthesis. The roots of this seem to be brought to us by the German Existentialists and possibly most directly to Kant. But I’ve always felt it to be true. The understanding of something comes from seeing the connective tissue between the two opposing sides surrounding the concept.

This is altogether different than the Socratic method which dominated philosophical studies for the near two millennia prior to the Deutsch masters. All of the Greek dialogues are of this format. A Socrates type figure and his interlocutor. All Socrates has to do is keep asking for further clarification from whatever the other has to say. Through increasingly complex answers and deep examinations we arrive at more sophisticated opinions. Yet the end of this trail always leads to the same oblivion. The concepts that were opposed, so battered with holes from their war upon each other are rendered useless.

Like a parent being repeatedly asked “why” by their child until finally, in frustration they simply acquiesce to “Because”.

As Hegel put it, such argumentation becomes:

Just the skepticism which only ever sees pure nothingness in its result and abstracts from the fact that this nothingness is specifically the nothingness of that from which it results.

Hegel saw the self-defeating nature in the endless parade of battling ideology. Like two beta fish in the same tank, dead from biting each other out of instinct. While it is a stretch to say the Germans invented compromise or integration, Hegel (Probably Kant, but nobody understands Kant anyway) did shape a new form of examination which, in turn, revolutionized the efficacy of debate in philosophy to the same degree that the double-blind study revolutionized scientific experimentation. And in much the same way, the Hegelian dialectic ignores the two agents in the interaction and focuses on the interaction between them. A cleaner dissection of the subjects allowing for a better understanding of their connection.

What does this mean for my more ineffable and noetic, if not somewhat muddled spiritual view that states, “everything is connected?” If everything is connected and everything is infinite then the process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis must too then, go on forever. Every argument is not just about the opposing subjects, but their relationship as well.

Each dissection and reintegration of anything simply creates the next thesis. Fret not, dear reader, another antithesis will be along shortly. And on and on and on. “Before and After follow one another”

The fractal triad of understanding that resides in everything. And once glimpsed, all dichotomies feel false.