Talk:Unity of opposites

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics

"First suggested by Heraclitus"[edit]

This may be true in Western philosophy, but the concept existed in Taoist philosophy as well. For example, see Stephen Mitchell's 'Second Book of the Tao'

"Everything can be seen as this; everything can be seen as that. The that depends on the this; the this mirrors the that. One follows from the other; each is inseparable from both. You can't have right without wrong, life without death, the true without the false" (chapter 6)

Also:

"...If you want to have right without wrong or order without disorder, you don't understand the Tao. You can't have one quality and not have it's opposite as well. You can't reach for the positive and not create the negative by the very act of your reaching ... ". (chapter 45) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6E00:1F39:D101:6D87:FB30:99A3:CFA0 (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In formal logic and mathematics[edit]

This phrase:

In formal logic and mathematics, a unity or identity of opposites cannot exist (it would mean for example that 2 = -2)

is rather naive. It's true that 2 and -2 are different integers, but modern mathematics encompasses many other, less intuitive, structures. Algebra over the field with two elements is characterized by the fact that everything is its own opposite. And there's no particular reason to select additive inverses as the one true mathematical opposite relation. There are lots of classes of objects that are their own opposites, in one way or another, listed at Involution (mathematics) and Duality (mathematics).

I'll remove the claim that unity of opposites cannot exist in mathematics. Of course, if there's a reliable source that makes the same claim, then we can restore the claim and attribute it to that source directly. Melchoir (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not logical and requires the simultaneous acceptance to two opposing ideas at once. Since mathematics is based on logic, it cannot truly be within this class. To be or not to be is no longer the question! There is a difference between dialectics, where two opposites lead to a third deductive result and these two opposites more simply existing together. This situation is an illogical but significant one. In the movie "Forest Gamp" the end of this story contains the philosophical idea that pre-determination and chance both exist together. This is a beautiful example of what I am trying to explain. Macrocompassion (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]