Well here's a post on opposites.
I asked a few people today what it means to be an opposite. Most people answered with something like, "an opposite is what is most different from something." Or in other words "A is the opposite of B if A is as different as it can possibly be from B." Ironically, I think it's just the opposite (well sorta).
You see, opposites are made by similarities. For example, what is the opposite of white? Most people would say black. But why? Well, most likely because, as far as the color spectrum goes, they are the most different. But that's my point. If black and white weren't both colors they wouldn't be opposites. It's their similarity that makes it so you can conceive of them as opposites, otherwise you'd just call them "different."
Here's another example. What if someone said "what's the opposite of courage?" and someone said "tow truck!" ....because they have no (obvious) properties in common, most people would say that's a ridiculous answer.
So it's not difference that makes something an opposite, rather, it's difference among similarities. And since it is possible for something to be different without being an opposite, it follows that similarity is actually what distinguishes an opposite.
So, my new running definition for an opposite is "the greatest possible difference regarding a common predicate." Or, in other words, the most different similarity.
Maybe this is why so many people say "opposites attract." Maybe they just like someone who is similar to them, but in a totally different flavor.
Anyway, that's what I've been thinking about today.
2 comments:
Actually Danny, you were wrong when you said that white and black were similar in that they are both colors. Black is technically not a color, it is the absence of all color. What makes white and black opposites is that black is the absence of all color while white is the presence of all color.
That's silly Ted. If you read up on that you'll find that whether black is a color is a contested issue...and a relatively stupid contested issue.
It's all a matter of definition, and your definition is circular...you're using the colors present in an object to define what color is.
I know what you're getting at, I just think those who argue that black isn't a color are those that argue that Pluto isn't a planet. It's just taking a definition you come up with and then valuing it more than experience.
Everyone will say they've seen the color black, they'll buy a black colored car, have black colored crayons....you can say "well black isn't technically a color" and feel very clever and superior... or you can realize that everyone experiences black as a color and so that is the definition we should go by.
Your definition confuses HOW we see color with WHAT color is.
Besides, we don't really "see" a color anyway. We perceive a color because that is how our brains interpret certain portions reflected off an object. You've never seen blue, you've seen objects that you interpreted as blue. You can't see a color outside of an instance of a color...it's always red pen, red shoe, red balloon. Because of this, red is a secondary property, it's a property we impose on objects to define a similarity we perceive in those objects...but we never can actually see a color in itself. Because of this, color is a concept constructed in the mind to make sense of sensory experience. And since it is a mental construct, existing only in the mind, we should define it as such, as we experience it.
Also, if we don't accept black as a color, we can't call black people "colored people" anymore. That alone should make you want to rethink your definition.
You're gonna have to be the one who goes to all the black guys you know and says "you're a colorless person."
Post a Comment