Deconstructing Dichotomies

Black Swan

Dichotomies often occur in philosophy, research, and day-to-day discussions. Typically they represent mutually exclusive, either/or nominal categories, which are considered to be different, and sometimes in opposition. Examples of dichotomies include true-false, right-wrong, good-evil, pass-fail, guilty-innocent, black-white, male-female, etc. In a larger sense, the first stage of Hegel's thesis vs anti-thesis paradigm may represent this oppositional dynamic (although it changes through synthesis in a later stage).

Occasionally dichotomies are raised above their nominal, mutually exclusive categorization to ordinal level, to where two bipolar opposites are displayed on a continuum, which are assumed to be balanced for measurement purposes; e.g., a Likert 5-point opinion scale has been used to assess the degree to which a subject perceives something to be true or false (true, mostly true, uncertain, mostly false, false).

Jacques Derrida suggested that dichotomies may be distortions of reality in real life practice, in that one may be generally favoured over another; e.g., true may be favoured over false, right over wrong, good over evil, male over female, etc. To the extent that this occurs, the balance between mutually exclusive categories or bipolar opposites is lost and replaced by a preference hierarchy of one over the other.

If what Derrida suggests has merit, would this cause you to pause just a bit when next confronted by a dichotomous argument, be it in philosophy, or with your next door neighbor? I certainly will pause.

Thoughts?

Sources:

• Derrida, J. (1995). Points: Interviews 1974-1994. Elisabeth Weber Editor. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Johnson, C. (1999). Derrida: The Scene of Writing. New York: Routledge.

18AD

I think the crucial thing is the personal preference, be it a group or an individual. Where within a system on or the other of the binary opposites will be preferred over the other to serve some end. To use a rather poor example, falsity is much more valuable to a liar than truth. In this case falsity is better than truth. Or you could argue that art is built on fictions (falsities) and that they serve art better than truth does.

I guess a step further they all tie into power relations. The prevailing thought structure will define which side of the dichotomy is more valuable.



Heidegger's ideas about truth spring to mind also. Truth and falsity don't occur in the world. All appearances are equally phenomenally valid. If I say 2 + 3 = 7 that is phenomenally valid as it actually has occured in experience. (Excuse my poor examples...) But there is nothing that prevents falsity from happening. It does happen.

Black Swan

Beyond preference hierarchies distorting dichotomies, Derrida refers to Heidegger when discussing the limitations of language. Conceptual structures are dependent upon language, consequently when formulating propositions of true or false they are limited by that language.

Language that serves as a framework for other dichotomies would also be subject to those Heideggerian limitations, thereby challenging the validity of dichotomies in general.

By introducing the notion that what we say was subject to the limitations of our language, suggests further erosion of the position of dichotomies beyond what preferences we may evidence in an either/or categorization, or the bipolar opposition relationship.

The cliché "lost in translation" comes to mind at this point, to where some words in German or French lose their meaning when translated into English. Furthermore, idiomatic uses of the English language also evidence differences that can be quite comical (e.g., I was once dining with a mix of Americans and Australians, and after eating too much, one American shoved back from the table and proclaimed to everyone: "I'm stuffed!").

Derrida challenges dichotomies, not only from a hierarchy preference standpoint, but also from the limitations of language, as well as between languages; e.g., if something is true in one language, it should not be lost when translating into another language.

Reference:
Philipse, H. (1998). Heidegger's Philosophy of Being: A Critical Interpretation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Red Hand

Black Swan wrote: »

Beyond preference hierarchies distorting dichotomies, Derrida refers to Heidegger when discussing the limitations of language. Conceptual structures are dependent upon language, consequently when formulating propositions of true or false they are limited by that language.

If they are limited by language, then then the very concept of a "concept" is limited as well, in that perhaps at this time the human brain is limited by what it can construct/imagine. There is no way to isolate anything without taking an almost never ending holistic back tracking through everything in the universe to find it's cause. You would need a computor the size of the universe to capture it all.

Having all neurons inclosed in a small space and limited by hormonal/electrical/etc communication and its structure, ensures that even if we disregard dichotomies and see everything in shades of grey, we are still limited.

Example, if each honey bee in a beehive had the processing power of a human, yet retained the same relative communication power, the hivemind could experience concepts as distance, or volume in a way that is impossible for us to try and emulate.

You say that dichotomies limit us in our capacity for seeing the truth as they are total simplifications-right/wrong etc. Well, each bee in this fictional colony could take/suggest a possibility on a subject, each having an equal "say". Would a consensus or a conclusion arrived at this way be more valid than the usual "good/bad-here're my reasons" debate? I can't imagine how such a conclusion could be arrived at...maybe a 3D representation of the hivemind in distributed in space when "debating"?

Language that serves as a framework for other dichotomies would also be subject to those Heideggerian limitations, thereby challenging the validity of dichotomies in general.

By introducing the notion that what we say was subject to the limitations of our language, suggests further erosion of the position of dichotomies beyond what preferences we may evidence in an either/or categorization, or the bipolar opposition relationship.

The cliché "lost in translation" comes to mind at this point, to where some words in German or French lose their meaning when translated into English. Furthermore, idiomatic uses of the English language also evidence differences that can be quite comical (e.g., I was once dining with a mix of Americans and Australians, and after eating too much, one American shoved back from the table and proclaimed to everyone: "I'm stuffed!").

Derrida challenges dichotomies, not only from a hierarchy preference standpoint, but also from the limitations of language, as well as between languages; e.g., if something is true in one language, it should not be lost when translating into another language.

I would go further and say limitations of biology. Limitations on an individual or societal level, even. If for eg we transferred thoughts/communication by pheromones instead of language, would the limitations of language be overcome? You can't fool a scent receptor (or can you?):P

Black Swan

Red Hand wrote: »

If they are limited by language, then then the very concept of a "concept" is limited as well, in that perhaps at this time the human brain is limited by what it can construct/imagine.

Derrida sought an explanation of our natural world that was complex, multidimensional, and comprehensive, exceeding the over-simplistic categorization of things into nominal, mutually exclusive dichotomies or bipolar opposites.

Ferdinand de Saussure, the founder of modern linguistics, has suggested that the meaning of a word does not come from itself, rather from its difference from other words, often drawing its meaning from its opposite. To the extent that meaning was dependent upon this contrast with its opposite suggests a dichotomy, along with such limitations cautioned by Derrida.

Red Hand

Black Swan wrote: »

Derrida sought an explanation of our natural world that was complex, multidimensional, and comprehensive, exceeding the over-simplistic categorization of things into nominal, mutually exclusive dichotomies or bipolar opposites.

If you want a work that takes a holistic view of the entire planet, then look up James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis.

Ferdinand de Saussure, the founder of modern linguistics, has suggested that the meaning of a word does not come from itself, rather from its difference from other words, often drawing its meaning from its opposite. To the extent that meaning was dependent upon this contrast with its opposite suggests a dichotomy, along with such limitations cautioned by Derrida.

Reminds me of 1984 where words are culled from the dictionary every year. If people do not have a word to express something according to o Brien, then quite soon, they will fail to even try and express it, having no tools at hand to do so.

Black Swan

Red Hand wrote: »

If you want a work that takes a holistic view of the entire planet, then look up James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis.

Lovelock's hypothesis may be subject to revision depending upon the results of the current exploration of Mars.

Red Hand wrote: »

If people do not have a word to express something according to o Brien, then quite soon, they will fail to even try and express it, having no tools at hand to do so.

Even if they do have a word to express it, and it suffers from being a dichotomy, it may distort the perception of the natural world to where its utility is problematic.

Mardy Bum

Black Swan wrote: »

Ferdinand de Saussure, the founder of modern linguistics, has suggested that the meaning of a word does not come from itself, rather from its difference from other words, often drawing its meaning from its opposite. To the extent that meaning was dependent upon this contrast with its opposite suggests a dichotomy, along with such limitations cautioned by Derrida.

Ferdinand de Saussure was a structuralist, he maintained that the sign was made up of the signifier (the phonetic sound) and the signified (mental image), not the difference from other words alone. It was the post structuralist (Derrida and co) who said meaning arises from difference alone.