Philosophy 104: Against The Dichotomy Fetish - revised
PLEASE NOTE If you are new to philosophy I recommend that you do not read this article until you have read all of the 200s articles.
In what follows, my use of G1, G2 and G3 refers to my thesis that philosophical concepts fall naturally into three groups (see Philosophy 103 & 03a).
Contents:
Introduction: Philosophy and dichotomy.
Section 1. Some of the most damaging false dichotomies
Section 2. Some important true dichotomies
Introduction: Philosophy and dichotomy
Western philosophy has long been inhibited and misled by (what I call) The Dichotomy Fetish. A dichotomy is a pair of concepts that are used as if together they exhaust the possibilities in their area of thought. In other words, a dichotomy is an either/or.
I will show that many of the main philosophical dichotomies are false, and that in each case a third concept is relevant. That is, I will show that they are incomplete trichotomies.
Section 1: Some of the most damaging false dichotomies
The analysis / synthesis dichotomy. The appropriate triple of concepts is:
G1. Analysis
G2. Synthesis
G3. Synopsis
The content / form dichotomy. The appropriate triple of concepts is:
G1. Content
G2. Form
G3. Context
The deduction / induction dichotomy. The appropriate triple of concepts is:
G1. Analogy
G2. Deduction
G3. Induction
The subjective / objective dichotomy. The appropriate triple of concepts is:
G1. Subjective
G2. Intersubjective
G3. Objective
The pre-scientific knowledge / scientific knowledge dichotomy. The appropriate triple is:
G1: Pre-cognitive knowledge
G2: Cognitive pre-scientific knowledge
G3: Scientific knowledge
The deontological / consequentialist dichotomy. The appropriate triple is:
G1. deontological
G2. virtue-theoretical
G3. consequentialist
The process / product dichotomy. The appropriate triple is (something like):
1. Peculiarities
2. Process
3. Product
I once thought process / product was a true dichotomy, but I now think a good case can be made that this too is an incomplete trichotomy. Each subject-matter has its own peculiaries.
3. Some important true dichotomies
The Internal / External Dichotomy
Specific values and specific disvalues have internal aspects and external aspects. The prime examples are the values and disvalues of philosophy itself. I take the three primary values of philosophy to be:
1. Identity
2. Harmony
3. Precision
Each of these values has two aspects, an internal and an external (See Philosophy 101: Metaphilosophy).
Certain quantitative concepts also have internal and external aspects:
The internal quantity of a thing X answers the question of how many parts X is comprised of.
The external quantity of a thing X answers the question of how many things there are of X's sort.
For example, the internal quantity of a group is n > 1 (that is, some number greater than one), and the external quantity of a group is n < x where x = the total number of things there are that are capable of being grouped.
The active / passive dichotomy. See Philosophy 207: Mind (Part 1): Sorts of Experience.
The positive / negative dichotomy:
What, I hear you ask, about the concept of neutrality? There are indeed some areas of thought, notably in science, in which the concept of neutrality has definite meaning. But, I have argued, when it comes to valuing, and particularly to moral valuing, the concept of neutrality has no definite meaning (see Philosophy 211a: Value Concepts (Part Two), Section 5).
I'll be keeping an eye on this list to see your explanation for the content/form dichotomy to be negated. Not that I have an opposing viewpoint at all - just that I'm curious.
Then you also need to read Philosophy 200: Aspects of Meaning .
That's interesting. I can understand the trichotomy with regards to language, but do you think it's true for every situation wherein that particular dichotomy is used? The most immediate example that springs to mind is music, but in that case context works.
That's an excellent question.
The content / form / context trichotomy is central not only in language in general but also in the language and activity of reasoning.
A vital concern of the study of reasoning is the identification of fallacies of reasoning. I claim that there are three main sorts of such fallacies:
1. Informal fallacies of content (Examples: the various fallacies arising from ambivalence)
2. Formal Fallacies (Examples too numerous to mention)
3. Informal fallacies of context (Examples: the several fallacies arising from irrelevance)
Content / form / context are also closely related to the metaphysical concepts of
1. Quality (e.g. red, loud, hot, etc.)
2. Relation (e.g. taller than, south of, uncle to, etc.)
3. Quantity (e.g.:
1. Singularity
2. Grouped plurality
3. Totality.
You see from this latter example that triples are sometimes nested inside other triples.
Let me know if you can think of any other areas where content / form is important.
In the article I have yet to finish section 3.
Well, content/form/context certainly applies to any art form. Music, literature, visual or performance art, etc. all seem to conform to your theory.
I'm not sure exactly how relevant this is, but it calls to mind a concept that was brought to my attention in a fantastic English class years ago. I believe we were discussing a Camus novel, wherein the protagonist was faced with an either/or situation. However, in any such situation there is always an unmentioned third option, which is not to decide. So even in a situation that seems to offer only 2 options, there are always actually 3.
I remember that because the idea really appealed to me, that there is often a third to balance out an apparent dichotomy. That's probably because I think too many people rely on dichotomies because they're easier to comprehend and to sort into.
That being said, you've clearly given examples of true dichotomies, which has got me thinking in general about the significance of 2 and 3. There are certainly philosophical implications with humans' tendency to use one or the other throughout history, but I don't think I'll touch on that just now. Back to the practical matters of work and all that.
I think content/form/context will apply to any physical object. And surely to language. Isn't that curious, that it should apply to two such different things.
I wish you had said what the Camus either/or was. But I'll stick my neck out and say that you are probably confusing two different kinds of either/or. Apart from the dichotomy there is also the dilemma. There is no decision to make, other than appropriate use, when considering a dichotomy, but there may be a decision to make (or to avoid) when faced with a dilemma. A good example of a dilemma is The Euthyphro Dilemma (see Philosophy 301: Philosophy of Religion).
There's a lot more to be said about trichotomies and dichotomies, and I'll be writng more before long. I hope you will continue to 'keep an eye on' it. I value your comments.
I wish I could remember what the Camus situation was - unfortunately the discussion came as a sidetrack, so we hadn't actually read the novel.
I realize that the dilemma (thanks for the word, by the way - damned computer job is sapping my vocabulary) is a different thing from a philosophical dichotomy. I did say that the situation was one not strictly related to the subject at hand. I simply got to thinking about this whole 2/3 thing, and remembered that discussion.
To be perfectly honest, I'm feeling a bit out of my depth here. I've never studied philosophy, except as it applies to music or literature, and it's been quite some time since I've even touched those. I'm really enjoying reading what you have to say on the subject, though, as it's awakening questions that haven't crossed my radar in ages. It's also teaching me about the abstract concepts, so I appreciate your efforts here.