Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis

.

Decades ago, I attended a lecture by a visiting speaker at the University of South Florida, who repeatedly used the phrase, thesis, antithesis and synthesis.  His context was political, but there is a cosmological and philosophical implication to those words.

The principle I propose is that, you cannot have just one thing.  In order for any one thing to exist, there must be something else as well.  The two must interact, in order for either to exist.

Thus, the phrase:  thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

To help clarify this principle, imagine one of the most elementary particles known to science.  Let us say, an electron.  As far as science knows, electrons cannot be broken into parts, because the electron is fundamental.

Try to imagine that single electron, existing all by itself.  There is nothing else, only that one electron.  It has a mass of 1/1836 compared to a proton, but that is meaningless if there are no protons.  It has a charge of negative one, but again, that is meaningless in the absence of a positive charge.

Such an electron cannot move.  There is nothing to move toward or away from.  There is nothing to orbit.   In short, the electron has no existence by itself.

Another illustration involves a simple ruler.  A ruler is a measuring stick, let us say, one meter long.  But the ruler cannot measure itself.  It can only measure something else, something that is not the ruler.

When two or more things exist, they can interact, and this interaction is a third thing, something which clearly cannot exist alone.  That interaction is the synthesis.

A common expression is that, the eye cannot see itself.  If one includes not only the eye, but the entire complex of ocule, neuro-transmission, and brain, one can ask whether this complex can perceive itself.  The principle here is not anatomical, but conceptual.  Just as the ruler cannot measure itself, so also, a person cannot truly perceive himself—we need mirrors.  We need something that is not us.

In terms of monist idealism, what this exercise does is, in my view, not to prove or disprove monism, but rather it is to show that thinking in terms of monism or dualism is not a useful way to understand ourselves or the greater reality in which we live.

Perhaps in the final analysis, reality is the only thing that can interact with itself.  It is its own thesis, its own antithesis, and therefore, the ultimate synthesis.  This proposal is not dogmatic, but just food for thought.

.