Thread: Important False Dichotomies

Right, of course, because there are only false dichotomies and true ones.

Here is one that has been stupefying philosophy for 300 years: Mind/body.

Categorizing our experience helps us understand the world so some dichotomies are actually quite useful like Xei said, not all dichotomies are false.

Also Nature/Culture is one I hear often but it is not a dichotomy because the culture is contingent on nature in the first place, it is apart of nature IMO.

There is a god / there is no god - polytheism says hello.

Belief or rejection of a statement. "With us, or against us".

analytic vs synthetic truth/statements

logic v.s. experience
something similar to that is
knowledge and wisdom

creation by big bang vs creation by a god/God

but those are just broad

I think these 2 could fit as well
essence vs accident (possibly)
or
contingent and necessary truths

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Here is one that has been stupefying philosophy for 300 years: Mind/body.

how bout mind VS body VS spirit

Originally Posted by erible

analytic vs synthetic truth/statements

contingent and necessary truths

how bout mind VS body VS spirit

Analytic/synthetic is a great example this distinction has been contested by Quine and Carnap because analytic statements are circular and circular definitions are not adequate to convey meaning. Take the analytic statement "All black things are black" this statement is tautological, its gives us no new information and has no meaning.

I'm not so sure about necessary and contingent truths though, I'm just starting to read about modal logic. Saying "water is H20" is a necessary truth because it is true in all possible worlds, if water was not composed of h20 then it would not be water, h20 is its essence. A contingent truth would be "all mammals are sustained by h20" because it is true but it could also not be true in another possible world, there could be a circumstance where mammals evolved to not require water but this is why modal logic seems to me a bit extravagant. I think this distinction is debatable as well, modal logic consists of "what if in another possible world...." statements that make me deeply skeptical of its validity.

Yes the mind/body/spirit is debatable as well. Im not so sure about the existence of the spirit but I have the opinion that the mind is a function of the body not some separate extended substance. The only dualist left around are people who hold that position for religious reasons like Alvin Plantinga.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Analytic/synthetic is a great example this distinction has been contested by Quine and Carnap because analytic statements are circular and circular definitions are not adequate to convey meaning. Take the analytic statement "All black things are black" this statement is tautological, its gives us no new information and has no meaning.

I'm not so sure about necessary and contingent truths though, I'm just starting to read about modal logic. Saying "water is H20" is a necessary truth because it is true in all possible worlds, if water was not composed of h20 then it would not be water, h20 is its essence. A contingent truth would be "all mammals are sustained by h20" because it is true but it could also not be true in another possible world, there could be a circumstance where mammals evolved to not require water but this is why modal logic seems to me a bit extravagant. I think this distinction is debatable as well, modal logic consists of "what if in another possible world...." statements that make me deeply skeptical of its validity.

Yes the mind/body/spirit is debatable as well. Im not so sure about the existence of the spirit but I have the opinion that the mind is a function of the body not some separate extended substance. The only dualist left around are people who hold that position for religious reasons like Alvin Plantinga.

yeah I wasn't completely sure about the contingent and necessary

and about the mind and body thing, I do think there is a distinction between the physical brain and the mind. I think of the mind as more metaphysical
, and i don't correlate that belief with religion for me personally.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Is being gay a choice or is it genetic

that seems to be related to nature vs nurture, another false dichotomy

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Also Nature/Culture is one I hear often but it is not a dichotomy because the culture is contingent on nature in the first place, it is apart of nature IMO.

if you hear it often but dispute it I suppose that would make it a false dichotomy...?

how about natural vs artificial? Just because something is man-made doesn't mean it's supernatural, but this seems to be used as a dichotomy fairly often.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

if you hear it often but dispute it I suppose that would make it a false dichotomy...?

how about natural vs artificial? Just because something is man-made doesn't mean it's supernatural, but this seems to be used as a dichotomy fairly often.

Ah ya I guess I was not really thinking when I posted that, it is definitely a false dichotomy.

Positive/Negative

mathematically speaking?

And then there's "nice guys" vs "jerks"

natural vs unnatural is the worst one.
and in many cases, masculine vs feminine. very few things are inherently feminine. the majority of them are biological.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Here is one that has been stupefying philosophy for 300 years: Mind/body.
.

You probably forgot one zero there, but I agree.

Here's a big one: agnosticism/atheism.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Here's a big one: agnosticism/atheism.

That's almost not even a false dichotomy, because it isn't really a dichotomy, it's just false. My capitalism vs socialism example is the same way. They can be considered as such, some people do, but only because they have no clue what they're talking about.

Good and evil.

They are not opposites.