24 - NON-CONTRADICTION AS ANTITHESIS

February 6, 2025                                                                

We seem to gain wisdom more readily through our failures

than through our successes.

We always think of failure as the antithesis of success, but it isn't.

Success often lies just the other side of failure.

Leo Buscaglia (1924-1998)

Well, “No,” Mr. Buscaglia, failure is the antithesis of success!  (And if it isn't, then both words are meaningless!) What you did to add “punch” to the point you wanted to make is use a form of fallacious reasoning called equivocation:  that is, you switched meanings for “failure” – defining it with reference to “wisdom” in the second part of the quote after defining it in terms of material results in the first part.

Still, I appreciate the use of the word “antithesis”…  It opens the door for me to backtrack a little and cover a point that I missed in earlier posts explaining the Principle of Non-Contradiction.

“Antithesis” is a synonym for “contradiction,” and for “opposite.”  While “thesis” often refers to a lengthy research paper that a Master’s or PHD student writes in pursuit of such a degree, here we use the word “thesis” to simply refer to a concept or idea. 

“Antithesis” sets up opposing ideas – literally, “anti-“ (against the) the “thesis” –.  For example, “up” is a thesis, a concept about direction; “down” is its antithesis, the opposite idea/direction.

I really should say any opposing idea. We tend to limit antithesis to direct opposites – “up” vs. “down,” “on” vs. “off,” and so on – but antithesis is a broader concept than just those things that stand in direct opposition.  “Sideways” is also an antithesis (opposite) of “up,” as it is of “down.”

Other than being synonymous with Non-Contradiction and opposites, antithesis does not add much to this discussion; however, it does allow me to make a few comments about a related concept: synthesis.

As commonly use, “synthesis” has two meanings:

a)       something that is artificial, as opposed to natural; and

b)       what results from combining two or more –presumably “pure” – things. 

Polyester is a synthetic fibre.  Cotton is a natural fibre. When synthesized – i.e. combined – polyester and cotton make a synthetic fabric. 

Synthesis, in philosophy, is different.  It embodies a radically unbiblical notion of truth.  Truth, in the Biblical sense, is objective. It is universal, unchanging, permanent.  2+2=4 is an example of Truth in this Biblical sense: always true, everywhere true, absolutely true, eternally true.  Biblical Truth is rooted in the unchanging character of God and it is evident in the very nature of Creation (see Romans 1:20).

When we come to synthesis, the whole Biblical scheme of Truth is turned upside down.  Synthesized truth is local, conditional, always changing (i.e. evolving and “progressing”) and, to the extent that truth reflects the character of “God,” it assumes a changing god whose character evolves.  This is profoundly unbiblical, and a classic case of the above-mentioned fallacy of equivocation, where the same word – God – is given radically different meanings.

So, at this point, synthesis has ceased to be an option for any Christian who lives under the authority of Scripture.  However, it is useful to add this:

Although I don’t think people very often talk these days in terms of synthesis, it is the foundation of moral relativism – the belief in flexible, evolving “standards” of right and wrong that has dominated Western culture for several generations.  Synthesis, however, has two fundamental flaws:

a)       its ties to “progress” are irrational and arbitrary; these are the feeble claims of mere human “wisdom” and “progress” has no objective external reference point to differentiate it from regress. (i.e. “Progress” is whatever I want it to be.)

b)       despite its claim to rise above or supersede antithesis, synthesis always rests, ultimately, on a foundation of Non-Contradiction/antithesis. 

Remember, there is always at least one absolute truth!  Synthesis is simply a fancy way of saying “everything is relative.”  Wrong!

Synthesis is also the foundation of Evolution – in the Darwinian sense – but that topic is beyond the scope of this post.  Perhaps we will turn to that in the future.

Next time: Non-Contradiction and Science