I never said opposition doesn't exist...I just said it was a flawed theory. It's validity is opened to debate. And as such, in the world of Philosophy and science, when a premise isn't completely justified, niether is the conclusion.

So existence is based on idealism??? Something can exist without having truly existed??

Polarity/opposition is not my theory.

"""Cold things become warm, and what is warm cools; what is wet dries, and the parched is moistened""

It has been the object of diatribes all throughout our history. Just because it is popular does not make it a lie. A truth need not be obscure and mysterious just to be a truth or "cool".

Anything which overreaches our commitment to perception will often be flawed.

The conclusion may not be justified, yet the evidence supports it. The very molecules of our bodies are bonded by the cohesion of polarity.

I might add that ancient scholars made claims that it was polarity which held our physical bodies and idealistic thoughts together. They were more right than they knew

I'm not too familiar with the Philosophical notion of "idealism." But physical existence doesn't necessarily warrant "truly existing."

And again, opposition, no matter how you want to argue it, will always be a flawed theory; therefore, in any discussion where opposition is brought forth as a reason or argument, it will always be an easy target for counter-arguments.

Small-t truth is all we truly have to go on...big-T Truth is what we're after. And if the small-t truth is in anyway flawed, it doesn't really help us in our quest for big-T Truth...and yet, at the same time, it does. Go figure...the opposition of itself? Oooh!

And it was ancient scholars that first thought of the notion of the Correlation of Opposites and it was ancient scholars that also went "Nope! It's flawed!"

Oh, polarity...is that really a pure example of the subject of opposition? Yes, electrons and protons and whatever. There are things that have opposites. That is a truth...but does everything have an opposite? No. So is opposition a Truth? Not at all...

Just because we assume that something does not have an opposite does not make it true.... am I correct.... or are you willing to extrapolate that just because you do not know what the opposite of a square is or that you presume it nonexistent that opposition does not exist as a primary aspect of life???

Would you be willing to make the assumption that the oppositye fo a square indeed does not exist?? Can you say for sure that it is just possibly a geometric figure that does not exist which does so in absolute opposition of said square???

Mathematically the opposite of a square is indeed possible A negative square if you would. Of course the math would be a headache Or if you wanted to get real nit-picky you could suggest the triad belief in opposition and suggest that said square would not exist without its opposite poles or right-angles which give it the shape. In other words the whole is only made whole by two opposing forces.

Idealistically one could suggest that what makes humans whole is thier ability to exist with two opposing forces battling within them(good and evil--moral and immoral). With both we are whole--- at one extreme or the other you would no longer be "human".

The flaw is within our perceptions.

Come on.... I quoted the guy up there who pretty much created your vaunted Correlation Of Opposites. He also believed that Fire was the primary element of all being

Right there

Homo is latin for MAN it describes the genius MAN ie any scientific name contiaining the word homo ie, homo erectis, homo ergatus, homo nedathalus(mis spelled I am sure) are all MAN. So I am not sure exactly how I have taken you out of context.

"modern" man, us, had to develop the concept of evil so it hasnt existed as long as we have existed,

it does not exist at all save for, in my humbelest of opinions, a method in which to catorgize our animal behaviors that we wanted to supress, or atleast some segement of the population wanted to supress (worked out to be the dominent segement apparently or atleast the segement that benefited from the social evolution)

non-existince is an object or being without purpose, a rock for example (when not part of this conversation) does not exist. Puspose is exists in the abality to produce entirely new constructs. The univesrse pre life did not exist.

Sorry but I meant Homo-Sapien or modern man. One would hope that when talking about our history you would understand we are talking about US/Humans--Homo-sapiens--MAN!! Not anything that has come before. Noone can firmly state anything about them including stating that they knew no evil. We have no clue if they did or did not it would be pure speculation to say either way.

When we speak about Man I generally assume that we are speaking about US. I would hope everyone else in the conversation was doing the same
The dark has scared the shit out of us because of its evil overtones our entire written history. Evil follows us down the entire line of our written history. Hell the Sumerians have a word for it and they are one of the oldest civilizations known

And why is it everyone comes off pretty much suggesting that I am dumb as a rock. I know my Latin for chrissakes.... I know exactly what Homo means and it ain't fag.

indeed it can!

look at any god, magic or other religious based ideal...it all comes down to how well a person bends their personal reality and their ability to mesh it with the general state of reality, a rock is just a rock, unless your an animist...and then it becomes a natural spirit that can be utilized for it's properties.

"non-existince is an object or being without purpose, a rock for example (when not part of this conversation) does not exist. Puspose is exists in the abality to produce entirely new constructs. The univesrse pre life did not exist."

so, you're basically saying that most of reality does not exist?

there's oodles of objects, and even people with no purpose, it's like using the theory if light makes all things visible, and you remove the light, does that mean we and everything else becomes non existant...well, except our voices...does that mean that sound is the only thing that really exists, unless no one hears it?

scientist can date the known universe as being older than humanity...so does that really negate it's existance, or like a god, simply not a human aspect until humanity created it?

was the world always flat, or did it become round when man began to sail?

why does everyone pick on rocks? they can have feelings too.

you have gone down this road of opposites before sometime in Januarary I think it was. Anyway opposite is an idea largely for discreptive purposes in language. For example does light have an opposite, yes and no, conceptualy yes darkness is the opposite of light, in reality no darkness is the absence of light not the oppiste of it. Darkness is not the anti matter of light. In fact things, objects beings, they have no opposites the only things that have opposites are concepts up down back forward, good evil ect. Think about it, what is the opposite of man? the moon? the stars? Is your negative square an actual object in the universe or a mathametical concept. Mathematically speaking isnt a negative square an inverted square (turned in side out) so its still a square right?

This is brilliant.





Dyshade: It's frankly ridiculous for you to counter an argument by saying that sic can't prove opposition isn't true. You can't prove that I didn't create the Earth and Universe out of my spit. The burden of proof is on you when you're trying to establish a theory. We must take the lack of evidence and reach the conclusion of non-truth; the theory is not guilty of being true, which is different from saying it's false.

define reality

man has nothing to do with it. Simply put life changes, the universe exists because it contains the possibilty of change within it.

Actually the burden was on him since he first proposed the idea that opposites do not exist As such it still lies with him regardless of what I have added. Thank you and drive through. Everyone is in such a rush to make me a fool they forget who said what firstly