It seems to me that “opposites” are relative to, and contingent upon, perception and perspective. It is dependent upon definition, for if the definitions change then what at first seemed to be opposites are no longer opposites. It is the difference between what something is and what our definition of it is. Most people do not see that there is a difference between what something is and its supposed definition.
Anyway, back to this idea of “opposite.” Take for example, the famous discussion of “piety” in Plato’s Euthyphro. Euthyphro argues that what is pious is that which is dear to the Gods and, its opposite, impiety, is that which is not dear to the gods. This is his definition of piety. Thus, person A, who is dear to the gods is pious, and person B, who is not dear to the gods is impious—they are, by definition, opposites (do we not recognize this in the ideologies of the Christian church that decided who was a heretic and thus deserving of death?). But as such a definition is arbitrary (for it can change with the whims of the gods), if the definition changes, or the whims of the gods change, A and B are no longer opposites, but rather only the way they were labeled and perceived by others. It says nothing about A and B as they are in themselves, but only how they are seen and perceived and judged by others. Thus, they are only opposites in Euthyphro’s realm of perception and opinion, for outside of his definition, and outside of an opinion of capricious gods, A and B are not opposites at all.
Let us remember Socrates’ question to Euthyphro: are things good because they are dear to the gods, or are they dear to the gods because they are good? Though it is unnecessary to do so, the implications are so important and far-reaching, I will spell out the logic. The question is: why would the gods hold something dear? If it is arbitrary, then it cannot be said to be universal, being arbitrary to whim. If they love it because it is good, then it had to be good before they loved it, and thus their loving it is not what makes it good. The question is: why would the gods not love what is good? If something is not good until the gods love it, by what criteria do they decide? On what contextual basis do they even begin? The answer, of course, is none—it’s an arbitrary choice.
To believe in the idea that a being decides what is good by what he likes is the same absurdity found in monarchies, where the king decides the law by what he likes or wants. It was an important progression from this type of foolishness to an ideological paradigm that acknowledged that a personal being does not have the power to decide what is good simply by arbitrary preference. To follow such a ridiculous ideology of arbitrary opinion is to want to relinquish control and responsibility to some outside authority. It is part of the child/adult issue, in fact.
We tend to define things as how they are perceived—or to be more specific, how we perceive them—rather than what they are, independent of our, or even any, perception. But, as we see with the discussion above, definition and opposition are both arbitrary and subject to perspective and perception. Thus, “opposition,” as well as “definition,” are wholly relative—relative to our individual or collective perspective/perception. I contend that anything that we cognize as an opposite is merely false perception, false understanding on our parts—lack of awareness, otherwise known as ignorance.
Indeed, the piety discussion is a good example of our opposites discussion, in that we assume there is good as opposed to bad (or, pious vs. impious, to use other words). The discussion is about relativism vs. universalism, but it is also about opposites. My point is that sometimes the answer to a riddle is to step out of it. The possible answer to this riddle is that there is no such thing as good or bad, that such concepts are, themselves, utterly relative, and thus, by being relative themselves, taint the riddle into insolubility.
We often get so caught up in our assumptions that we forget that they are assumptions on which our tangents depend; we forget to question the (basic) assumptions, and when we do question them the tangents that seemed so important, so metaphysically universal, vaporize in front of our eyes. I mean, how much of modern human history has been obsessed with these basic assumptions of the metaphysical reality of “good” and “bad” (or, “evil?”). We assume that this “problem of evil” is a real problem, existing out there in the universe, that we need to figure out, solve in some way, and that will allow us to know the truth of things. This is, though, a very misguided assumption on which to base so much. How much of modern ideology (let alone religion) would become irrelevant if it is truly recognized that there is no such thing as a metaphysical reality of “good” and “evil?” Most of it. And good riddance, I say. Let’s get rid of such sludge and clear the slate so that we can maybe start living more truly.
Stale. Decadent. This is how the ideologies under which people live their lives today seem to me. People live their lives so unaware of the tired, old, stale ideological strings that manipulate them around, wasting their life away in a world of delusion. It was by questioning the surface assumptions of my society (all the “shoulds,” all the things we are supposed to want, think, and do) that I was able to dig deeper and question the assumptions on which those assumptions are based. That is how the system unraveled before my eyes.
How could I possibly then be expected to live in a system that I have been able to see is just a collection of unquestioned illusions, so much hot air? How to live in a country which spiritually functions in a system that is full of shit, and in which most people have essentially vested all their interest? They don’t even realize that they have thrown all their eggs in one basket, put it all on one number on the roulette table. They think that this is the way it is, when they actually have a vast array of options.
How to live among such ignorance, in a system that itself requires this ignorance, when I am free of it? This is a good description of the situation I have found myself in. And although it is surely a difficult thing to deal with, I think I am getting better at it. I run into the problem of being alone because of it, but that is also something I am working on dealing with healthily. That is not easy, and may actually be the hardest part of this.
.
From my personal notes, 1/4/00 [also, 11/29/01]
