poiko wrote:
In my experience, there is no empirical evidence for the existence of opposites as anything but an arbitrary human measure of classifying the surroundings around him. The relation of "opposite" has no evidence in its favour - there is nothing to suggest that one concept and its opposite are in some way connected by their alternate meanings. Especially not a relation to which Plato takes it (curiously enough, he argues that opposites prove life after death, as all opposites apparently follow the other - death follows life, and thus life follows death).

So my position is that the word "opposite" is a classification system, and has little meaning other than that.

However, I also believe meaning is use. It's pointless attempting to search for objective definitions - just like objective moral laws; a objective law maker is required - and language is evidently man-made and thus subjective. Hence there can't be a "right" answer, there can only be an answer which is nigh universally "accepted". The only boundary to the meaning of words is that they must denote something empirically observable (as otherwise the thing it denotes is incomprehensible) but otherwise, as long as both people in a conversation knows what the other means in a conversation when they use words, all is well. We codify language for practicality.

Consequently, the word "opposite" can mean anything, and depending upon what your subjective definition of the word is, your question will be answered tautologically. As the word doesn't denote anything objective, as long as everyone knows what you mean by opposites, they should not complain when you use it to answer the question - because the word has subjective definition, and they will be aware of yours (leniency is allowed because there is little "accepted" definition of the word opposite).

So the answer, to sum up my argument, depends upon how you define opposite. And as the word does not denote some objective concept that can act as a source of knowledge, it does not really matter how you define it. As it is not an objective thing that can be pointed to; the basis of opposites for a theory of knowledge seems flawed to me.In my experience, there is no empirical evidence for the existence of opposites as anything but an arbitrary human measure of classifying the surroundings around him. The relation of "opposite" has no evidence in its favour - there is nothing to suggest that one concept and its opposite are in some way connected by their alternate meanings. Especially not a relation to which Plato takes it (curiously enough, he argues that opposites prove life after death, as all opposites apparently follow the other - death follows life, and thus life follows death).

So my position is that the word "opposite" is a classification system, and has little meaning other than that.

However, I also believe meaning is use. It's pointless attempting to search for objective definitions - just like objective moral laws; a objective law maker is required - and language is evidently man-made and thus subjective. Hence there can't be a "right" answer, there can only be an answer which is nigh universally "accepted". The only boundary to the meaning of words is that they must denote something empirically observable (as otherwise the thing it denotes is incomprehensible) but otherwise, as long as both people in a conversation knows what the other means in a conversation when they use words, all is well. We codify language for practicality.

Consequently, the word "opposite" can mean anything, and depending upon what your subjective definition of the word is, your question will be answered tautologically. As the word doesn't denote anything objective, as long as everyone knows what you mean by opposites, they should not complain when you use it to answer the question - because the word has subjective definition, and they will be aware of yours (leniency is allowed because there is little "accepted" definition of the word opposite).

So the answer, to sum up my argument, depends upon how you define opposite. And as the word does not denote some objective concept that can act as a source of knowledge, it does not really matter how you define it. As it is not an objective thing that can be pointed to; the basis of opposites for a theory of knowledge seems flawed to me.

poiko wrote:
The relation of "opposite" is not an empirically observable concept; and that is why it is an arbitrary, man-made classification system.

poiko wrote:
I think the meaning of the word is key to the question of the thread, for the reasons I have stated. And as you base your theory of knowledge upon the word, it seems prudent to me for us to first analyse the word you place so much upon.

peter rabbit wrote:
What is the opposite of fish?

Ratheius Netheros wrote:
What is the opposite of a unicorn?