Contradictory Contrarianism

There is something appealing in going against arguments. They practically demand it sometimes. One can even make it an entire hobby to take contrary positions in conversations. It’s fun. But what happens when you’re contradicting yourself in your position?

When I make statements regarding the mystical, partly that it’s problematic is because of the way our language works. Language as a method of communication has a serious limitation. And that limitation is the outer perimeter of the box the words are pointing to. Let’s suppose that we’re talking about a chair. Are we talking about the word chair, or an actual chair in the world? If it’s the latter, the only reason we know that it’s meaningful is because at some point we had to have seen a chair.

But the trouble with the mystical is that nobody can really reference it and give people a solid image of it. And that is why it’s been the subject of heavy disputes over the centuries. So taking a contrary position to it seems only natural and comes easily to those who don’t really know what I’m talking about. They might’ve heard about the term, but unless they themselves have felt it in their orifices, it’s almost absolutely futile to try to describe something as exotic as the mystical vision. Note that, almost.

Because even when we have no clear picture of what we’re trying to describe, or talk about, does not mean that you can’t play off of contrary positions. In fact, you can pretty much do it with anything, in matters of language at least. And that is why the whole art of creative writing is partly based on contrary imagery. It enriches the subject matter greatly, if you can “polarize” it.

But this self-contradicting, is bad form in terms of philosophical discussions. The participant will feel defeated if it’s known that they have contradicted something they said. But it can also be contributing to the discussion, provided that you’re trying to use it as a device to arrive to a new point of view. For example when I say that all birds are black. That is an obvious contradiction with the facts of simple biology. But if I take that position in the spirit of showing that our assumptions of how language is intended to work is undermined, then it’s another matter.

Koans in Zen Buddhism work this way. They are often non-sensical passages, with the intent to make the reader “drop” their assumptions of language and meaning, or in other words, their social programming, even if temporarily. And the reason is that we are generally so hypnotized by words and language, that we forget the true nature of reality. And the contrarian in this respect has a parallel function, of reminding you of the “polarity of life.” But I’ll save that term for another article. The point is that it’s the opposite view, that can sometimes bring about the most insight to arguments.

And that is why I believe that it is always necessary to include all possible lines of sight. So that we don’t become near-sighted or myopic. The picture needs all pieces to be complete. This could be called the “multiple perspectives theory”. Which is a term of my own devising. It states that no point can survive on its own. It is always in relation to its surrounding or opposite points of view.

Contradicting of one’s self can be inconsistent, but it can simultaneously be inspiring. It all depends on the nature of what is being discussed. If the point is to make somebody over, to convince them of something, then yes, you’ve probably failed like a fucking dingus. But if the objective is to explore ideas, and it is used creatively, then no opposition is truly wrong.

The reason I’m writing this piece is to show that if you’re ever backed into a corner philosophically, all you have to do is strip naked, and demolish the floor from under your own two feet. Why? Because nobody can really defeat somebody with nothing to spare or to hide. Now I’m using the word defeat playfully. Obviously it is often that we’re not looking to simply defend our own positions. But that we’re open to new ones.

It is only saying that if the opposing view was truly opposing and had the capacity to make us update our views, it certainly won’t come by dismissing it or ignoring it. That’s why I try to use opposites as often as I can. So that we don’t become fixed to any specific view. Because as was said, you need all of them to make an informed decision.

T.F.