Do we need opposites? We would get along without it?
By gengeni
@gengeni (3308)
Indonesia
August 27, 2011 1:08am CST
Do we need opposites? We would get along without it? Would we be more than we are?
Anyone with Socrates (469-399 BC) begins should not be silent of Xanthippe, his wife, his friends called it intolerable woman of all time. But without them Socrates might not leave the house so often and with his questions for the beautiful, good and the right not laid the foundations of Western philosophy.
1 person likes this
2 responses
@kendedes2011 (2712)
• Indonesia
29 Aug 11
Hallo,
I only know what is beautiful or good, if I know what is ugly and bad. We need the contrast, so we can learn. How often an ugly bud has become a beautiful flower, just because we have observed the opposite, and from our image internalize
@nakula2009 (2325)
• Indonesia
28 Aug 11
Maybe we need contrasts, at least in certain stages of development or argumativen reasons.
Overall, this dichotomy is misleading:
In the early Greek philosophy was heavily worked with contrasts and analogies, is related to the former stage of development of logic. For Socrates, there are pages of arguments of this kind a made-up example: A good horse is good. What is good is beautiful. So a corrupt horse is not beautiful.
Today, these analogies can be drawn no longer uses the contrasts often.
But argumenativ one continues to use this scheme:
GW Bush: "Whoever is not with us is against us." Neutrality does not exist.
Today, it is not only in philosophy from the more pure "black and white" thinking, there are shades of gray.
If you no longer love your wife, does not like Socrates would probably surmise that she hates you. Maybe you have lived apart you who are indifferent to one another, etc.
Contrasts are useful to order the world, see the child's thinking in "good" and "evil." But to differentiate most adults, at least in my observation, rather between the grays.
