For anything to exist there must be an opposite form of it. For example, for evil to exist there must be good. For heat to exist there must be a lack of heat. For air to exist there must be a state or place where there is no air. Does anyone else agree with this?
It is a pretty widely held belief.
So in this case what are the opposites of heat and air?
Is the opposite of “extremely tall” “extremely short” or “average height”?
What’s the opposite of zero degrees Kelvin?
What’s the opposite of nickel-chrome stainless steel?
While it is relatively easy to play with dialectical analysis, the error usually involves viewing opposites as “things”. What appears to be an opposite is most often a conditional and contextual state of being. For instance, it is easy to say that black creates white, front creates back, high creates low, etc. In naming one attribute, we create it’s opposite. This is true and accurate. But it is how we use these namings that creates confusion. For example, If there is light, then there must be darkness, correct? But to say that an experience of light must include darkness as if they are “things” is to miss the point. What we are really saying, is that there is an absence of darkness, therefore light. Both exist, and they are but sides of the same coin, but they are used independently and only become opposites for the purpose of comparison. Evolution could be said to be very simplistic in that every living cell - including ours - functions by deciding is - isn’t. Humans might be a teensy bit more complex, but constructing opposites is what we do. What is heaven without hell?
Okay. Is it fair to say then that for humans to naturally recognize that something exists there must be another opposite or lesser form with which the “object” may be contrasted? I am not saying necessarily that the opposite of 0 degrees kelvin is 1,000,000,000 kelvin. I am saying for us to notice that there IS a 0 degrees kelvin we must have a lesser or opposite form with which to compare the state of 0 kelvin in order to actually know that it is 0 kelvin. Hopefully that clears things up.
In order to isolate something as a ‘thing’, it has to be in some way different. More black than the surroundings, warmer than the other objects, and so on. So yes, but it applies to descriptions, not the objects described.
But it doesn’t follow that every description is a scale between opposites, or from zero to full-value; that only really applies to perceptions. There’s no opposite of sealion, or copper.
all things require a possible negation, if not a strict opposite, in order to be “things” as such. something has to have the potential to not exist in order to exist - but that’s kind of a trivial fact, i suppose . . .
Tent and OH are making good points. If you are interested in the subject this thread may be worth a quick gander.
Basically, the whole idea boils down to the idea that in reifying (making “concrete” or granting them a degree of “realness” that they don’t actually have) symbols, we necessarily create a dichotomy that gives rise to the sort of relationship you are talking about. These systems are marked by a fluidity of purpose while remaining contingent to said purpose. An example of this fluidity is redness. The concept of “red” demands both things that are “red” as well as things that are “not red”. But there is a third category to which that dichotomy cannot be meaningfully applied: things with no color at all. Like ideas. “Happiness”, for example can neither be described by “red” nor by “not red”. As OH and Tent pointed out, that is where the actual object, rather than our perception of the object, lies. We can’t ask what the opposite of absolute zero is, because that is something which demands it be defined in a concrete manner. On the other hand, when we make something that is fluid, like “coldness” and play it like an absolute we’d need another force, like “warmth” to play with.
I’d say like this (not from the perspective of " to exist"):
Recognizing something is rejecting the rest, everything else.
It’s same as dividing the world (or any given filed, set, etc) and seeing the chosen part while forgetting the rest. And it’s usually done with pattern matching.
So, we are dividing the whole into positively matched things and things without the match.
However, time to time, we pull out focus back and see the whole, once again. And then, we switch our attention to the rest, the other side of the division.
When one part is taken with a positive connotation, the other can be seen in negative connotation.
Once the recognition of “positives” and then the recognition of “negatives” are done, the paired and opposing parts are recognized, in the case of division/separation done with simple criteria.
However, some recognitions are done with more or less complex criterion and the lack of pattern matching does not inspire easily defined opposing notion.
I prefer to see these in terms of focus of attention (or awareness) as I’ve written in this thread (with the possible secondary effects of focusing):
phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=168136
The logical states of “that and not that” absolutely must exist for anything to exist at all. Existence is mutual affectance. There absolutely must be distinction for anything to be affected or to have affect fore there must be something to have affect upon. A single entity cannot form existence.
But as pointed out, opposites are another matter. For any concept, an opposite can usually be generated and used in the decision making process, but not always. What is the opposite of a 3 legged stool? What is the opposite of a 2 inch circle? It is easy and absolutely necessary to find distinction, but a true opposite isn’t always distinguishable or of concern.
Sure there is, I think. Like any thing, copper has certain properties. Copper is a redish brown, malleable metal with high thermal and electrical conductivity. Therefore, the opposite of copper would be a bluish navy, unmalleable non metal with low thermal and electrical conductivity. I’m not sure if any one thing embodies all of those opposing characteristics, but I’m sure there are many things that embody some of them. I’m not a chemist, so it would take me a long time to find an element or a compound that is the exact opposite of copper, but it may be out there.
It would have to have red and orange oxides (which might be tricky, since it’ll be an electron donor like oxygen) and be brittle at room temperature, while of course not being solid at room temperature. Good luck on that.
What’s the opposite of solid - if gas, what’s the opposite of liquid?
The opposite of balance is imbalance. Something very dense, or something very sparse, or perhaps something that is partly dense and partly sparse, for example, a hot air ballon is both a solid (the balloon) and a gas (the hot air). A hot air baloon is the opposite of a liquid, lol. O’k, maybe I’m stretching it.
Even still, not everything may have an opposite, but everything can be located on a spectrum between two opposing qualities/quantities.
I wonder, is there anything in the universe that is more represented than it’s opposite? Is there always an equal balance of being and non being, attraction and repulsion, this kind of being vs that kind of being, or are some things more pervasive than their opposites? Is there more gas than liquid in the universe? More being than non being? Obviously there can’t be more tallness than shortness because they’re relative, but some things are absolute, right? Confusing.
I dunno, I think you are stuck on the object itself (where this sort of consideration doesn’t apply) as opposed to on the function of the object.
Copper is a good conductor, so the opposite of copper would be a good insulator.
That is the sort of division we create, “conductor” and “insulator” don’t exist as absolute elements but rather as relative ones. Air can serve as a conductor (see lightening) but it does a very poor job of it (it requires a lot of energy to conduct through air) so air is generally thought of as an insulator.
So, in defining things by their function rather than other properties, dichotomies necessarily arise because there are a variety of agents that can fulfill that function. In this case we have electrical conduction. When we consider things through which electricity travels, we have things which electricity travels easily through (conductors) and things through which electricity can only travel with great difficulty (insulators). In keeping with other recent threads in philo, the boundary between “conductors” and “insulators” is ill-defined and arbitrary. But that is precisely what you’d expect in a situation that arose through the sort of dichotomous thinking present here.
But in the spirit of the thread (and of being silly), I’d suggest that the opposite of metals are noble gases. As for solids and liquids, in my chemistry 101 class they lumped liquids and solids together because the behavior of matter under those two conditions is actually pretty similar (from the perspective of a chemist) so solid/liquid would be the opposite of gas. A physicist might provide a different answer, though.
1, with an infinite number of zeros proceeding it, degrees kelvin.
I completely agree with this theory. I often write about it in my spare time in my journals. I would love tolearn more about physics so I could better describe the properties of this idea more completely instead of vaguely. Do you have a website?
The opposite of nothing is everything. It really isn’t that difficult. I believe there is a very basic and imperative point here to understand. Opposites exist because opposites attract or balance each other out. There are different degrees of this at any given point. If there wasn’t opposites the world would be non existent. You couldn’t understand both sides of anything because there would not be another side to understand. And if everything were in balance or in equilibrium nothing would exist. All the energy and fun happens when things out are of equilibrium. For things to be out of equilibrium there usually needs to be an imbalance of opposite energies. Or so i would think.
opposites really only make sense within some context in mind
lets impose a context of “metals used to make a penny”… then the opposite of copper is perhaps zinc
some contexts are just more commonly used or more commonly applicable (or perhaps assumed is the correct word)… true//false up//down etc…
i think if we start thinking universally… perhaps it is not incorrect to say that that the opposite of copper is “not copper”…(if anyone thinks like me… in terms of set theory)
i would like to suggest that people apply this to everyday things… if you see yourself stuck with two options… know that its because of some context… ask yourself “whats a third option?”… because there is most likely one
All that says is there must be a gradation to distinguish anything. I’d agree that opposites are conceptual issues not indicative of a fundamental reality for the most part. Strictly speaking as well darkness is just the 0 on the scale, light and anti-light are opposites, if one is applied to the other then darkness is the result, or destructive interference, same with sound. Black is an absence of reflective properties in a material, its what the eye sees when there is no light, white is a mixture of all the colours, they aren’t opposite unless you don’t understand basic optics or the biology of the eye. Nowadays no one would think of painting a Yin and Yang symbol black and white unless they wanted to be considered unscientific. 
Even true antitheses though are only conceptual formalities, you could probably make a good argument for them being little more than conscious abstractions too. Opposites exist probably because societies have evolved to think that way, rather like you could argue negative numbers do for the same reason or even those pesky imaginary numbers or numbers themselves if you wanted to get into a serious argument with the mathematical realists.