a thesis and antithesis

Definition of Antithesis

Examples of antithesis in everyday speech, common examples of antithesis from famous speeches, examples of proverbs featuring antithesis, utilizing antithesis in writing, antithesis and parallelism, antithesis and juxtaposition, use of antithesis in sentences  , examples of antithesis in literature.

Antithesis is an effective literary device and figure of speech in which a writer intentionally juxtaposes two contrasting ideas or entities. Antithesis is typically achieved through parallel structure, in which opposing concepts or elements are paired in adjacent phrases , clauses , or sentences. This draws the reader’s attention to the significance or importance of the agents being contrasted, thereby adding a memorable and meaningful quality to the literary work.

Example 1:  Hamlet (William Shakespeare)

Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice ; Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgment.

Example 2:  Paradise Lost  (John Milton)

Here at least We shall be free; the Almighty hath not built Here for his envy, will not drive us hence: Here we may reign secure, and in my choice To reign is worth ambition though in Hell: Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.

Example 3:  Fire and Ice  (Robert Frost)

Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I’ve tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice.

In his poem, Frost utilizes antithesis to contrast fire and ice as elements with devastating and catastrophic potential to end the world. Frost effectively demonstrates the equal powers for the destruction of these elements, despite showcasing them as opposing forces. In this case, the poet’s antithesis has a literal as well as figurative interpretation. As the poem indicates, the world could literally end in the fire as well as ice. However, fire and ice are contrasting symbols in the poem as well. Fire represents “desire,” most likely in the form of greed, the corruption of power, domination, and control. Conversely, ice represents “hate” in the form of prejudice, oppression, neglect, and isolation.

Example 4: The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln

We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives so that nation might live.

The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.

The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

Function of Antithesis

Synonyms of antithesis, post navigation.

Antithesis Definition

What is antithesis? Here’s a quick and simple definition:

Antithesis is a figure of speech that juxtaposes two contrasting or opposing ideas, usually within parallel grammatical structures. For instance, Neil Armstrong used antithesis when he stepped onto the surface of the moon in 1969 and said, "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." This is an example of antithesis because the two halves of the sentence mirror each other in grammatical structure, while together the two halves emphasize the incredible contrast between the individual experience of taking an ordinary step, and the extraordinary progress that Armstrong's step symbolized for the human race.

Some additional key details about antithesis:

• Antithesis works best when it is used in conjunction with parallelism (successive phrases that use the same grammatical structure), since the repetition of structure makes the contrast of the content of the phrases as clear as possible.
• The word "antithesis" has another meaning, which is to describe something as being the opposite of another thing. For example, "love is the antithesis of selfishness." This guide focuses only on antithesis as a literary device.
• The word antithesis has its origins in the Greek word antithenai , meaning "to oppose." The plural of antithesis is antitheses.

How to Pronounce Antithesis

Here's how to pronounce antithesis: an- tith -uh-sis

Antithesis and Parallelism

Often, but not always, antithesis works in tandem with parallelism . In parallelism, two components of a sentence (or pair of sentences) mirror one another by repeating grammatical elements. The following is a good example of both antithesis and parallelism:

To err is human , to forgive divine .

The two clauses of the sentence are parallel because each starts off with an infinitive verb and ends with an adjective ("human" and "divine"). The mirroring of these elements then works to emphasize the contrast in their content, particularly in the very strong opposite contrast between "human" and "divine."

Antithesis Without Parallelism

In most cases, antitheses involve parallel elements of the sentence—whether a pair of nouns, verbs, adjectives, or other grammar elements. However, it is also possible to have antithesis without such clear cut parallelism. In the Temptations Song "My Girl," the singer uses antithesis when he says:

"When it's cold outside , I've got the month of May ."

Here the sentence is clearly cut into two clauses on either side of the comma, and the contrasting elements are clear enough. However, strictly speaking there isn't true parallelism here because "cold outside" and "month of May" are different types of grammatical structures (an adjective phrase and a noun phrase, respectively).

Antithesis vs. Related Terms

Three literary terms that are often mistakenly used in the place of antithesis are juxtaposition , oxymoron , and foil . Each of these three terms does have to do with establishing a relationship of difference between two ideas or characters in a text, but beyond that there are significant differences between them.

Antithesis vs. Juxtaposition

In juxtaposition , two things or ideas are placed next to one another to draw attention to their differences or similarities. In juxtaposition, the pairing of two ideas is therefore not necessarily done to create a relationship of opposition or contradiction between them, as is the case with antithesis. So, while antithesis could be a type of juxtaposition, juxtaposition is not always antithesis.

Antithesis vs. Oxymoron

In an oxymoron , two seemingly contradictory words are placed together because their unlikely combination reveals a deeper truth. Some examples of oxymorons include:

• Sweet sorrow
• Cruel kindness
• Living dead

The focus of antithesis is opposites rather than contradictions . While the words involved in oxymorons seem like they don't belong together (until you give them deeper thought), the words or ideas of antithesis do feel like they belong together even as they contrast as opposites. Further, antitheses seldom function by placing the two words or ideas right next to one another, so antitheses are usually made up of more than two words (as in, "I'd rather be among the living than among the dead").

Antithesis vs. Foil

Some Internet sources use "antithesis" to describe an author's decision to create two characters in a story that are direct opposites of one another—for instance, the protagonist and antagonist . But the correct term for this kind of opposition is a foil : a person or thing in a work of literature that contrasts with another thing in order to call attention to its qualities. While the sentence "the hare was fast, and the tortoise was slow" is an example of antithesis, if we step back and look at the story as a whole, the better term to describe the relationship between the characters of the tortoise and the hare is "foil," as in, "The character of the hare is a foil of the tortoise."

Antithesis Examples

Antithesis in literature.

Below are examples of antithesis from some of English literature's most acclaimed writers — and a comic book!

Antithesis in Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities

In the famous opening lines of A Tale of Two Cities , Dickens sets out a flowing list of antitheses punctuated by the repetition of the word "it was" at the beginning of each clause (which is itself an example of the figure of speech anaphora ). By building up this list of contrasts, Dickens sets the scene of the French Revolution that will serve as the setting of his tale by emphasizing the division and confusion of the era. The overwhelming accumulation of antitheses is also purposefully overdone; Dickens is using hyperbole to make fun of the "noisiest authorities" of the day and their exaggerated claims. The passage contains many examples of antithesis, each consisting of one pair of contrasting ideas that we've highlighted to make the structure clearer.

It was the best of times , it was the worst of times , it was the age of wisdom , it was the age of foolishness , it was the epoch of belief , it was the epoch of incredulity , it was the season of Light , it was the season of Darkness , it was the spring of hope , it was the winter of despair , we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven , we were all going direct the other way —in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

Antithesis in John Milton's Paradise Lost

In this verse from Paradise Lost , Milton's anti-hero , Satan, claims he's happier as the king of Hell than he could ever have been as a servant in Heaven. He justifies his rebellion against God with this pithy phrase, and the antithesis drives home the double contrast between Hell and Heaven, and between ruling and serving.

Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

Antithesis in William Shakespeare's Othello

As the plot of Othello nears its climax , the antagonist of the play, Iago, pauses for a moment to acknowledge the significance of what is about to happen. Iago uses antithesis to contrast the two opposite potential outcomes of his villainous plot: either events will transpire in Iago's favor and he will come out on top, or his treachery will be discovered, ruining him.

This is the night That either makes me or fordoes me quite .

In this passage, the simple word "either" functions as a cue for the reader to expect some form of parallelism, because the "either" signals that a contrast between two things is coming.

Antithesis in William Shakespeare's Hamlet

Shakespeare's plays are full of antithesis, and so is Hamlet's most well-known "To be or not to be" soliloquy . This excerpt of the soliloquy is a good example of an antithesis that is not limited to a single word or short phrase. The first instance of antithesis here, where Hamlet announces the guiding question (" to be or not to be ") is followed by an elaboration of each idea ("to be" and "not to be") into metaphors that then form their own antithesis. Both instances of antithesis hinge on an " or " that divides the two contrasting options.

To be or not to be , that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them ...

Antithesis in T.S. Eliot's "Four Quartets"

In this excerpt from his poem "Four Quartets," T.S. Eliot uses antithesis to describe the cycle of life, which is continuously passing from beginning to end, from rise to fall, and from old to new.

In my beginning is my end . In succession Houses rise and fall , crumble, are extended, Are removed, destroyed, restored, or in their place Is an open field, or a factory, or a by-pass. Old stone to new building , old timber to new fires ...

Antithesis in Green Lantern's Oath

Comic book writers know the power of antithesis too! In this catchy oath, Green Lantern uses antithesis to emphasize that his mission to defeat evil will endure no matter the conditions.

In brightest day , in blackest night , No evil shall escape my sight. Let those who worship evil's might Beware my power—Green lantern's light!

While most instances of antithesis are built around an "or" that signals the contrast between the two parts of the sentence, the Green Lantern oath works a bit differently. It's built around an implied "and" (to be technical, that first line of the oath is an asyndeton that replaces the "and" with a comma), because members of the Green Lantern corps are expressing their willingness to fight evil in all places, even very opposite environments.

Antithesis in Speeches

Many well-known speeches contain examples of antithesis. Speakers use antithesis to drive home the stakes of what they are saying, sometimes by contrasting two distinct visions of the future.

Antithesis in Patrick Henry's Speech to the Second Virginia Convention, 1775

This speech by famous American patriot Patrick Henry includes one of the most memorable and oft-quoted phrases from the era of the American Revolution. Here, Henry uses antithesis to emphasize just how highly he prizes liberty, and how deadly serious he is about his fight to achieve it.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take: but as for me, give me liberty or give me death .

Antithesis in Martin Luther King Jr.'s Oberlin Commencement Address

In this speech by one of America's most well-known orators, antithesis allows Martin Luther King Jr. to highlight the contrast between two visions of the future; in the first vision, humans rise above their differences to cooperate with one another, while in the other humanity is doomed by infighting and division.

We must all learn to live together as brothers —or we will all perish together as fools .

Antithesis in Songs

In songs, contrasting two opposite ideas using antithesis can heighten the dramatic tension of a difficult decision, or express the singer's intense emotion—but whatever the context, antithesis is a useful tool for songwriters mainly because opposites are always easy to remember, so lyrics that use antithesis tend to stick in the head.

Antithesis in "Should I Stay or Should I Go" by The Clash (1981)

In this song by The Clash, the speaker is caught at a crossroads between two choices, and antithesis serves as the perfect tool to express just how confused and conflicted he is. The rhetorical question —whether to stay or to go—presents two opposing options, and the contrast between his lover's mood from one day (when everything is "fine") to the next (when it's all "black") explains the difficulty of his choice.

One day it's fine and next it's black So if you want me off your back Well, come on and let me know Should I stay or should I go ? Should I stay or should I go now? Should I stay or should I go now? If I go, there will be trouble If I stay it will be double ...

Antithesis in "My Girl" by the Temptations (1965)

In this song, the singer uses a pair of metaphors to describe the feeling of joy that his lover brings him. This joy is expressed through antithesis, since the singer uses the miserable weather of a cloudy, cold day as the setting for the sunshine-filled month of May that "his girl" makes him feel inside, emphasizing the power of his emotions by contrasting them with the bleak weather.

I've got sunshine on a cloudy day When it's cold outside I've got the month of May Well I guess you'd say, What can make me feel this way? My girl, my girl, my girl Talkin' bout my girl.

Why Do Writers Use Antithesis?

Fundamentally, writers of all types use antithesis for its ability to create a clear contrast. This contrast can serve a number of purposes, as shown in the examples above. It can:

• Present a stark choice between two alternatives.
• Convey magnitude or range (i.e. "in brightest day, in darkest night" or "from the highest mountain, to the deepest valley").
• Express strong emotions.
• Create a relationship of opposition between two separate ideas.
• Accentuate the qualities and characteristics of one thing by placing it in opposition to another.

Whatever the case, antithesis almost always has the added benefit of making language more memorable to listeners and readers. The use of parallelism and other simple grammatical constructions like "either/or" help to establish opposition between concepts—and opposites have a way of sticking in the memory.

Other Helpful Antithesis Resources

• The Wikipedia page on Antithesis : A useful summary with associated examples, along with an extensive account of antithesis in the Gospel of Matthew.
• Sound bites from history : A list of examples of antithesis in famous political speeches from United States history — with audio clips!
• A blog post on antithesis : This quick rundown of antithesis focuses on a quote you may know from Muhammad Ali's philosophy of boxing: "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee."

• PDFs for all 136 Lit Terms we cover
• Downloads of 1941 LitCharts Lit Guides
• Teacher Editions for every Lit Guide
• Explanations and citation info for 40,925 quotes across 1941 books
• Downloadable (PDF) line-by-line translations of every Shakespeare play
• Climax (Figure of Speech)
• Figure of Speech
• Juxtaposition
• Parallelism
• Protagonist
• Rhetorical Question
• Climax (Plot)
• End-Stopped Line
• Polysyndeton
• Pathetic Fallacy

• Scholarly Community Encyclopedia
• Log in/Sign up

Video Upload Options

• MDPI and ACS Style
• Chicago Style

In philosophy, the triad of thesis, antithesis, synthesis (German: These, Antithese, Synthese; originally: Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis) is a progression of three ideas or propositions. The first idea, the thesis, is a formal statement illustrating a point; it is followed by the second idea, the antithesis, that contradicts or negates the first; and lastly, the third idea, the synthesis, resolves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis. It is often used to explain the dialectical method of German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, but Hegel never used the terms himself; instead his triad was concrete, abstract, absolute. The thesis, antithesis, synthesis triad actually originated with Johann Fichte.

1. History of the Idea

Thomas McFarland (2002), in his Prolegomena to Coleridge's Opus Maximum , [ 1 ] identifies Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781) as the genesis of the thesis/antithesis dyad. Kant concretises his ideas into:

• Thesis: "The world has a beginning in time, and is limited with regard to space."
• Antithesis: "The world has no beginning and no limits in space, but is infinite, in respect to both time and space."

Inasmuch as conjectures like these can be said to be resolvable, Fichte's Grundlage der gesamten Wissenschaftslehre ( Foundations of the Science of Knowledge , 1794) resolved Kant's dyad by synthesis, posing the question thus: [ 1 ]

• No synthesis is possible without a preceding antithesis. As little as antithesis without synthesis, or synthesis without antithesis, is possible; just as little possible are both without thesis.

Fichte employed the triadic idea "thesis–antithesis–synthesis" as a formula for the explanation of change. [ 2 ] Fichte was the first to use the trilogy of words together, [ 3 ] in his Grundriss des Eigentümlichen der Wissenschaftslehre, in Rücksicht auf das theoretische Vermögen (1795, Outline of the Distinctive Character of the Wissenschaftslehre with respect to the Theoretical Faculty ): "Die jetzt aufgezeigte Handlung ist thetisch, antithetisch und synthetisch zugleich." ["The action here described is simultaneously thetic, antithetic, and synthetic." [ 4 ] ]

Still according to McFarland, Schelling then, in his Vom Ich als Prinzip der Philosophie (1795), arranged the terms schematically in pyramidal form.

According to Walter Kaufmann (1966), although the triad is often thought to form part of an analysis of historical and philosophical progress called the Hegelian dialectic, the assumption is erroneous: [ 5 ]

Whoever looks for the stereotype of the allegedly Hegelian dialectic in Hegel's Phenomenology will not find it. What one does find on looking at the table of contents is a very decided preference for triadic arrangements. ... But these many triads are not presented or deduced by Hegel as so many theses, antitheses, and syntheses. It is not by means of any dialectic of that sort that his thought moves up the ladder to absolute knowledge.

Gustav E. Mueller (1958) concurs that Hegel was not a proponent of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, and clarifies what the concept of dialectic might have meant in Hegel's thought. [ 6 ]

"Dialectic" does not for Hegel mean "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." Dialectic means that any "ism" – which has a polar opposite, or is a special viewpoint leaving "the rest" to itself – must be criticized by the logic of philosophical thought, whose problem is reality as such, the "World-itself".

According to Mueller, the attribution of this tripartite dialectic to Hegel is the result of "inept reading" and simplistic translations which do not take into account the genesis of Hegel's terms:

Hegel's greatness is as indisputable as his obscurity. The matter is due to his peculiar terminology and style; they are undoubtedly involved and complicated, and seem excessively abstract. These linguistic troubles, in turn, have given rise to legends which are like perverse and magic spectacles – once you wear them, the text simply vanishes. Theodor Haering's monumental and standard work has for the first time cleared up the linguistic problem. By carefully analyzing every sentence from his early writings, which were published only in this century, he has shown how Hegel's terminology evolved – though it was complete when he began to publish. Hegel's contemporaries were immediately baffled, because what was clear to him was not clear to his readers, who were not initiated into the genesis of his terms. An example of how a legend can grow on inept reading is this: Translate "Begriff" by "concept," "Vernunft" by "reason" and "Wissenschaft" by "science" – and they are all good dictionary translations – and you have transformed the great critic of rationalism and irrationalism into a ridiculous champion of an absurd pan-logistic rationalism and scientism. The most vexing and devastating Hegel legend is that everything is thought in "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." [ 7 ]

Karl Marx (1818–1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) adopted and extended the triad, especially in Marx's The Poverty of Philosophy (1847). Here, in Chapter 2, Marx is obsessed by the word "thesis"; [ 8 ] it forms an important part of the basis for the Marxist theory of history. [ 9 ]

2. Writing Pedagogy

In modern times, the dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis has been implemented across the world as a strategy for organizing expositional writing. For example, this technique is taught as a basic organizing principle in French schools: [ 10 ]

The French learn to value and practice eloquence from a young age. Almost from day one, students are taught to produce plans for their compositions, and are graded on them. The structures change with fashions. Youngsters were once taught to express a progression of ideas. Now they follow a dialectic model of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. If you listen carefully to the French arguing about any topic they all follow this model closely: they present an idea, explain possible objections to it, and then sum up their conclusions. ... This analytical mode of reasoning is integrated into the entire school corpus.

Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis has also been used as a basic scheme to organize writing in the English language. For example, the website WikiPreMed.com advocates the use of this scheme in writing timed essays for the MCAT standardized test: [ 11 ]

For the purposes of writing MCAT essays, the dialectic describes the progression of ideas in a critical thought process that is the force driving your argument. A good dialectical progression propels your arguments in a way that is satisfying to the reader. The thesis is an intellectual proposition. The antithesis is a critical perspective on the thesis. The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths, and forming a new proposition.

• Samuel Taylor Coleridge: Opus Maximum. Princeton University Press, 2002, p. 89.
• Harry Ritter, Dictionary of Concepts in History. Greenwood Publishing Group (1986), p.114
• Williams, Robert R. (1992). Recognition: Fichte and Hegel on the Other. SUNY Press. p. 46, note 37. 
• Fichte, Johann Gottlieb; Breazeale, Daniel (1993). Fichte: Early Philosophical Writings. Cornell University Press. p. 249. 
• Walter Kaufmann (1966). "§ 37". Hegel: A Reinterpretation. Anchor Books. ISBN 978-0-268-01068-3. OCLC 3168016. https://archive.org/details/hegelreinterpret00kauf. 
• Mueller, Gustav (1958). "The Hegel Legend of "Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis"". Journal of the History of Ideas 19 (4): 411–414. doi:10.2307/2708045.  https://dx.doi.org/10.2307%2F2708045
• Mueller 1958, p. 411.
• marxists.org: Chapter 2 of "The Poverty of Philosophy", by Karl Marx https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htm
• Shrimp, Kaleb (2009). "The Validity of Karl Marx's Theory of Historical Materialism". Major Themes in Economics 11 (1): 35–56. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/mtie/vol11/iss1/5/. Retrieved 13 September 2018. 
• Nadeau, Jean-Benoit; Barlow, Julie (2003). Sixty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong: Why We Love France But Not The French. Sourcebooks, Inc.. p. 62. https://archive.org/details/sixtymillionfren00nade_041. 
• "The MCAT writing assignment.". Wisebridge Learning Systems, LLC. http://www.wikipremed.com/mcat_essay.php. Retrieved 1 November 2015. 

• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Advisory Board

Newest Articles

• Exploring Aristotle's Four Causes
• Exploring Infallibility, Verifiability, and the Coherence Theory of Truth
• Exploring the Nature of Art
• Understanding Normative Ethics
• Metaphysics
• Theory of Forms
• Epistemology
• Materialism
• Moral relativism
• Utilitarianism
• Virtue ethics
• Normative ethics
• Applied ethics
• Moral Psychology
• Philosophy of art
• Philosophy of language
• Philosophy of beauty
• Nature of Art
• Philosophy of Film
• Philosophy of Music
• Deductive reasoning
• Inductive reasoning
• Justification
• Perception and Knowledge
• Beliefs and Truth
• Modern philosophy
• Romanticism
• Analytic philosophy
• Enlightenment philosophy
• Existentialism
• Enlightenment
• Ancient philosophy
• Classical Greek philosophy
• Renaissance philosophy
• Medieval philosophy
• Pre-Socratic philosophy
• Hellenistic philosophy
• Presocratic philosophy
• Rationalism
• Scholasticism
• Jewish philosophy
• Early Islamic philosophy
• Reasoning and Argumentation
• Seeking Justice After a Tractor-Trailer Accident: Why You Need an Experienced Lawyer
• Critical Thinking
• Fallacies and logical errors
• Skepticism and doubt
• Creative Thinking
• Lateral thinking
• Thought experiments
• Argumentation and Logic
• Syllogisms and Deductive Reasoning
• Fallacies and Rebuttals
• Inductive Reasoning and Analogy
• Reasoning and Problem-Solving
• Critical Thinking and Decision Making
• Creative Thinking and Problem Solving
• Analytical Thinking and Reasoning
• Philosophical Writing and Analysis
• Argumentative Writing and Analysis
• Interpreting Philosophical Texts
• Writing Essays and Articles on Philosophy
• Philosophical Research Methods
• Qualitative Research Methods in Philosophy
• Quantitative Research Methods in Philosophy
• Research Design and Methodology
• Ethics and Morality
• Aesthetics and Beauty
• Metaphysical terms
• Ontological argument
• Ethical terms
• Aesthetic terms
• Metaphysical theories
• Kant's Categorical Imperative
• Aristotle's Four Causes
• Plato's Theory of Forms
• Hegel's Dialectic
• Ethical theories
• Aesthetic theories
• John Dewey's aesthetic theory
• Immanuel Kant's aesthetic theory
• Modern philosophical texts
• Foucault's The Order of Things
• Descartes' Meditations
• Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil
• Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
• Ancient philosophical texts
• Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
• Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit
• Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics
• Plato's Republic
• Ancient philosophers
• Modern philosophers
• Modern philosophical schools
• German Idealism
• British Empiricism
• Ancient philosophical schools
• The Skeptic school
• The Cynic school
• The Stoic school
• The Epicurean school
• The Socratic school
• Philosophy of Language
• Semantics and Pragmatics of Language Usage
• Analytic-Synthetic Distinction
• Meaning of Words and Phrases
• Philosophy of Science
• Scientific Realism and Rationalism
• Induction and the Hypothetico-Deductive Model
• Theory-Ladenness and Underdetermination
• Philosophy of Mind
• Mind-Body Dualism and Emergentism
• Materialism and Physicalism
• Identity Theory and Personal Identity
• Philosophy of Religion
• Religious Pluralism and Exclusivism
• The Problem of Evil and Suffering
• Religious Experience and Faith
• Metaphysical Theories
• Idealism and Realism
• Determinism, Fatalism, and Libertarianism
• Phenomenalism and Nominalism
• Epistemological Theories
• Intuitionism, Skepticism, and Agnosticism
• Rationalism and Empiricism
• Foundationalism and Coherentism
• Aesthetic Theories
• Formalist Aesthetics, Emotional Aesthetics, Experiential Aesthetics
• Relational Aesthetics, Sociological Aesthetics, Historical Aesthetics
• Naturalistic Aesthetics, Immanent Aesthetics, Transcendental Aesthetics
• Ethical Theories
• Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism, Deontology
• Subjectivism, Egoism, Hedonism
• Social Contract Theory, Natural Law Theory, Care Ethics
• Metaphysical Terms
• Cause, Necessity, Possibility, Impossibility
• Identity, Persistence, Time, Space
• Substance, Attribute, Essence, Accident
• Logic and Argumentation Terms
• Analogy, Syllogism, Deduction, Induction
• Inference, Validity, Soundness, Refutation
• Premise, Conclusion, Entailment, Contradiction
• Epistemological Terms
• Perception and Knowledge Claims
• Infallibility, Verifiability, Coherence Theory of Truth
• Justification, Beliefs and Truths
• Ethical Terms
• Modern Texts
• A Vindication of the Rights of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft
• Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche
• The Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant
• Medieval Texts
• The Guide for the Perplexed by Moses Maimonides
• The Summa Theologiae by Thomas Aquinas
• The Incoherence of the Incoherence by Averroes
• Ancient Texts
• The Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle
• The Art of Rhetoric by Cicero
• The Republic by Plato
• Hegel's Dialectic: A Comprehensive Overview
• Philosophical theories

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's dialectic is one of the most influential philosophical theories of the modern era. It has been studied and debated for centuries, and its influence can be seen in many aspects of modern thought. Hegel's dialectic has been used to explain a wide range of topics from politics to art, from science to religion. In this comprehensive overview, we will explore the major tenets of Hegel's dialectic and its implications for our understanding of the world. Hegel's dialectic is based on the premise that all things have an inherent contradiction between their opposites.

It follows that any idea or concept can be understood through a synthesis of the two opposing forces. This synthesis creates a new and higher understanding, which then leads to further progress and development. Hegel's dialectic has been used in many different fields, from philosophy to economics, and it provides an important framework for understanding how our world works. In this article, we will explore the historical origins and development of Hegel's dialectic. We will also examine its application in various fields, from politics to art, from science to religion.

Finally, we will consider the implications of Hegel's dialectic for our understanding of the world today. Hegel's dialectic is a philosophical theory developed by German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in the early 19th century. It is based on the concept of thesis, antithesis and synthesis , which are steps in the process of progress. The thesis is an idea or statement that is the starting point of an argument. The antithesis is a statement that contradicts or negates the thesis.

The synthesis is a combination of the two opposing ideas, which produces a new idea or statement. This process can be repeated multiple times, leading to an evolution of ideas. Hegel's dialectic has been used in many fields, such as politics and economics . It has been used to explain how ideas progress through debate and discussion.

In politics, it has been used to explain how different points of view can lead to compromise or resolution. In economics, it has been used to explain how different economic theories can lead to new solutions and strategies. Hegel's dialectic can also be applied to everyday life. For example, it can be used to resolve conflicts between people or groups.

Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis

Thesis and antithesis are two conflicting ideas, while synthesis is the result of their interaction. The dialectic process is a way of understanding how the world works, as it helps to explain the constant flux of ideas and events. It also helps to explain how change and progress are possible. Thesis and antithesis can be thought of as two sides of a coin. One side represents an idea or opinion, while the other side represents its opposite.

When the two sides come together, they create a synthesis that incorporates both sides. This synthesis can then be used to create new ideas or opinions. The dialectic process can be applied in various contexts, such as politics and economics. In politics, it can be used to explain how different factions come together to create policies that are beneficial to all parties. In economics, it can be used to explain how supply and demand interact to create a stable market. Hegel's dialectic can also be used in everyday life.

Applications of Hegel's Dialectic

For example, in the political sphere, it can be used to explore how different ideologies can be reconciled or how compromises can be reached. In economics, Hegel's dialectic has been used to explain the process of economic growth and development. It can be seen as a way of understanding how different economic systems interact with each other and how different economic actors are affected by changes in the marketplace. For example, it can help to explain how different economic policies can lead to different outcomes. Hegel's dialectic has also been applied to other social sciences, such as sociology and anthropology. In particular, it has been used to explore how different social systems interact with each other and how different social groups are affected by changes in their environment.

Using Hegel's Dialectic in Everyday Life

This process can be used to explain how various aspects of life, such as career or relationships, evolve over time. Thesis represents an idea or concept, while antithesis represents the opposite of that idea or concept. Synthesis is the resolution between the two opposing forces. This process is repeated until a conclusion is reached.

For example, in a career conflict between two people, one might present an idea while the other presents the opposite idea. Through discussion and negotiation, the two parties can come to a synthesis that meets both their needs. Hegel's dialectic can also be used to resolve conflicts between groups of people. It involves each party presenting their ideas and opinions, then engaging in dialogue to reach a compromise or agreement.

This process can be applied to any area of life, from politics and economics to relationships and personal growth. It helps to create understanding and respect between different perspectives, allowing everyone to come together in a meaningful way. By understanding and applying Hegel's dialectic in everyday life, we can better navigate our relationships and interactions with others. Through dialogue, negotiation, and compromise we can work towards resolutions that benefit all parties involved.

In economics, it has been used to explain how market forces interact with each other and how different economic theories can be used to explain the same phenomenon. The dialectic has also been used in other fields such as philosophy, science, and psychology. In philosophy, it has been used to explain the relationship between theory and practice and how theories evolve over time. In science, it has been used to explain the relationship between empirical evidence and logical reasoning.

This theory can be applied to any area of life, from career to relationships. The core of Hegel's dialectic involves the concept of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, which is a way of understanding how ideas evolve over time. In this way, the dialectic helps to identify contradictions in a situation and find a resolution through synthesis. In terms of its application to everyday life, the dialectic can be used to find common ground between two opposing sides. For example, if two people are in disagreement, the dialectic can help them identify the underlying issues and then work to resolve them.

Additionally, it can help individuals and groups identify areas where they have common interests, which can lead to more productive conversations and outcomes. The dialectic is also useful in understanding how different perspectives can lead to different solutions. By recognizing different points of view, individuals and groups can gain insight into why certain solutions may not work for everyone involved. This can help to create a more productive environment for collaboration. Finally, the dialectic can be used as a tool for self-reflection. By understanding how different ideas evolve over time and how different perspectives interact, individuals can gain insight into their own views and values.

For example, it can be used to explain the development of a new policy proposal or a new form of government. In economics, Hegel's dialectic can be used to explain the dynamics of supply and demand, or the emergence of a new economic system. In addition, Hegel's dialectic has been applied in other areas, such as education and religion. In education, this theory can be used to explain the process of learning and understanding new concepts. In religion, it can be used to explain the evolution of religious beliefs and practices over time.

This is followed by a synthesis of the two, which creates a new, higher form of understanding. This new understanding then forms the basis for further analysis, which can lead to further synthesis and resolution. Hegel's dialectic can be applied to any area of life, such as career or relationships. For example, if two people have different approaches to a problem, they can use the dialectic to work together to find a solution that works for both of them.

This could involve identifying their respective points of view and then looking for common ground where they can agree. As the synthesis forms, it can provide a basis for further discussion, which may eventually lead to a resolution. The same process can be used to resolve conflicts between groups, such as political parties or countries. By recognizing each side's point of view and then looking for common ground, it is possible to find ways to bridge the divide between them.

This can help create an atmosphere of mutual understanding and respect, which can lead to constructive dialogue and positive outcomes. Hegel's dialectic is a valuable tool for helping people and groups come to agreement and harmony despite their differences. By recognizing both sides' points of view and then looking for common ground, it is possible to create a synthesis that can provide a basis for further discussion and resolution. Hegel's dialectic is a powerful philosophical tool that helps to explain how ideas evolve over time. Through the concept of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, it provides a framework for understanding how opposing forces interact and ultimately create new ideas and solutions.

This theory has been applied to many areas, such as politics and economics, and can be used in everyday life. The article has provided a comprehensive overview of Hegel's dialectic and its various applications.

Top Articles

• Understanding the Meaning of Words and Phrases

• A Comprehensive Look at Causality

• Deontology: An Introduction to an Ethical Theory
• Exploring the Theory of Forms: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring Moral Relativism: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring Pragmatism: A Modern Philosophy
• Medieval Philosophy: An Overview
• Epistemology: Understanding the Nature of Knowledge
• Existentialism: An Introduction
• Exploring Idealism: The History and Concepts of a Modern Philosophy
• Materialism: A Comprehensive Overview
• Virtue Ethics: What it is and How it Works
• Understanding Inference: A Comprehensive Overview
• Philosophy of Language: Exploring the Ways We Communicate
• Understanding Fallacies and Logical Errors

Exploring Deductive Reasoning

• Exploring the Philosophy of Beauty
• Exploring Inference: A Philosophical Thinking Primer
• Lateral Thinking: An Overview
• Understanding Utilitarianism: An Overview
• Exploring the Principles of Virtue Ethics
• Thought Experiments: Exploring Creative and Philosophical Thinking
• Exploring Skepticism and Doubt: A Philosophical and Critical Thinking Perspective
• Exploring Hellenistic Philosophy: An Introduction
• Exploring the Ontological Argument
• Exploring Egoism: What It Is and What It Means
• Altruism: Exploring the Power of Selflessness
• Exploring the Ethical Theory of Utilitarianism
• Exploring Plato's Theory of Forms
• Exploring Virtue Ethics: The Philosophical Theory
• A Comprehensive Overview of Foucault's The Order of Things
• Socrates: An In-Depth Exploration of the Ancient Philosopher
• Exploring Immanuel Kant's Aesthetic Theory
• Descartes' Meditations: An Introduction for None
• Exploring Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
• Aristotle: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit
• Exploring the Life and Legacy of Cicero: An Introduction
• Exploring Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil
• Exploring Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics
• Epicurus - An Introduction to His Philosophy
• Descartes: A Comprehensive Overview
• Sublime: An Introduction to Aesthetic and Philosophical Terms
• Exploring Plato's Republic
• Exploring Pragmatism: A Modern Philosophical School
• Exploring Humanism: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring the Life and Works of David Hume
• Exploring the Skeptic School of Ancient Philosophy
• The Cynic School: An In-depth Look
• The Stoic School: An Overview
• German Idealism: A Comprehensive Overview
• Analytic Philosophy: A Primer
• Exploring the Socratic School: An Overview

A Comprehensive Overview of Presocratic Philosophy

• Exploring the Philosophy of Immanuel Kant
• Exploring British Empiricism
• Justification: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring Beliefs and Truth: A Philosophical Guide
• Exploring Syllogisms and Deductive Reasoning

Exploring Cosmology: What We Know and What We Don't

• Understanding Fallacies and Rebuttals
• Exploring Critical Thinking and Decision Making
• Exploring Theology: A Comprehensive Overview
• Philosophy of Film: Exploring Aesthetics and Types of Philosophy
• Philosophy of Music: Exploring the Aesthetics of Sound
• Exploring the Semantics and Pragmatics of Language Usage
• Materialism and Physicalism: Exploring the Philosophical Concepts
• Exploring Identity Theory and Personal Identity
• Exploring Quantitative Research Methods in Philosophy
• The Problem of Evil and Suffering: A Philosophical Exploration
• Exploring Theory-Ladenness and Underdetermination
• Exploring the Interplay between Religious Experience and Faith
• Exploring the Concepts of Cause, Necessity, Possibility, and Impossibility
• Intuitionism, Skepticism, and Agnosticism: A Comprehensive Overview
• Perception and Knowledge Claims: Understanding Epistemological Terms
• Exploring Naturalistic, Immanent and Transcendental Aesthetics
• Exploring Rationalism and Empiricism
• Exploring Identity, Persistence, Time, and Space
• Understanding Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism and Deontology
• Exploring Phenomenalism and Nominalism
• Exploring Subjectivism, Egoism, and Hedonism
• Understanding Social Contract Theory, Natural Law Theory, and Care Ethics
• Exploring Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman
• Exploring Subjectivism, Egoism and Hedonism
• The Art of Rhetoric by Cicero: A Comprehensive Overview
• The Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring 'The Summa Theologiae' by Thomas Aquinas

New Articles

Which cookies do you want to accept?

Contradiction

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself. (I am large, I contain multitudes.)    —Walt Whitman, “Song of Myself”

Vorrei e non vorrei.    —Zerlina, “Là ci darem la mano”, Don Giovanni

This entry outlines the role of the law of non-contradiction (LNC) as the foremost among the first (indemonstrable) principles of Aristotelian philosophy and its heirs, and depicts the relation between LNC and LEM (the law of excluded middle) in establishing the nature of contradictory and contrary opposition. §1 presents the classical treatment of LNC as an axiom in Aristotle's “First Philosophy” and reviews the status of contradictory and contrary opposition as schematized on the Square of Opposition. §2 explores in further detail the possible characterizations of LNC and LEM, including the relevance of future contingent statements in which LEM (but not LNC) is sometimes held to fail. In §3 I briefly discuss the mismatch between the representation of contradictory negation as a propositional operator and its varied realization within natural language. §4 deals with several challenges to LNC within Western philosophy, including the paradoxes, and the relation between systems with truth-value gaps (violating LEM) and those with truth-value gluts (violating LNC). Finally, in §5, the tetralemma of Buddhist logic is discussed within the context of gaps and gluts; it is argued that apparent violations of LNC in this tradition and others can in be attributed to either differing viewpoints of evaluation (as foreseen by Aristotle) or to intervening modal and epistemic operators.

1. LNC as Indemonstrable

2. lem and lnc, 3. contradictory negation in term and propositional logic, 4. gaps and gluts: lnc and its discontents, 5. lnc and the buddhist tetralemma, bibliography, other internet resources, related entries.

The twin foundations of Aristotle's logic are the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also called the law of contradiction) and the law of excluded middle (LEM). In Metaphysics Book Gamma, LNC—“the most certain of all principles”—is defined as follows:

It is impossible that the same thing can at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect, and all other specifications that might be made, let them be added to meet local objections (1005b19-23).

For Aristotle, the status of LNC as a first, indemonstrable principle is obvious. Those who stubbornly demand a proof of LNC simply “lack education”: since “a demonstration of everything is impossible”, resulting in infinite regress, at least some principles must be taken as primitive axiomata rather than derived from other propositions—and what principle more merits this status than LNC? (1006a6-12). In first philosophy, as in mathematics, an axiom is both indemonstrable and indispensable; without LNC, “a is F ” and “a is not F ” are indistinguishable and no argumentation is possible. While Sophists and “even many physicists” may claim that it is possible for the same thing to be and not to be at the same time and in the same respect, such a position self-destructs “if only our opponent says something”, since as soon as he opens his mouth to make an assertion, any assertion, he must accept LNC. But what if he does not open his mouth? Against such an individual “it is ridiculous to seek an argument” for he is no more than a vegetable (1006a1-15).

The role of LNC as the basic, indemonstrable “first principle” is affirmed by Leibniz, for whom LNC is taken as interdefinable with another of Aristotle's axiomata, the Law of Identity: “Nothing should be taken as first principles but experiences and the axiom of identity or (what is the same thing) contradiction, which is primitive, since otherwise there would be no difference between truth and falsehood, and all investigation would cease at once, if to say yes or no were a matter of indifference” (Leibniz 1696/Langley 1916: 13-14). For Leibniz, everybody—even “barbarians”—must tacitly assume LNC as part of innate knowledge implicitly called upon at every moment, thus demonstrating the insufficiency of Locke's empiricism (ibid., 77). [ 1 ]

In accounting for the incompatibility of truth and falsity, LNC lies at the heart of the theory of opposition, governing both contradictories and contraries. (See traditional square of opposition .) Contradictory opposites (“She is sitting”/“She is not sitting”) are mutually exhaustive as well as mutually inconsistent; one member of the pair must be true and the other false. As it was put by the medievals, contradictory opposites divide the true and the false between them; for Aristotle, this is the primary form of opposition. [ 2 ] Contrary opposites (“He is happy”/“He is sad”) are mutually inconsistent but not necessarily exhaustive; they may be simultaneously false, though not simultaneously true. LNC applies to both forms of opposition in that neither contradictories nor contraries may belong to the same object at the same time and in the same respect ( Metaphysics 1011b17-19). What distinguishes the two forms of opposition is a second indemonstrable principle, the law of excluded middle (LEM): “Of any one subject, one thing must be either asserted or denied” ( Metaphysics 1011b24). Both laws pertain to contradictories, as in a paired affirmation (“ S is P ”) and denial (“ S isn't P ”): the negation is true whenever the affirmation is false, and the affirmation is true when the negation is false. Thus, a corresponding affirmation and negation cannot both be true , by LNC, but neither can they both be false , by LEM. But while LNC applies both to contradictory and contrary oppositions, LEM holds only for contradictories: “Nothing can exist between two contradictories, but something may exist between contraries” ( Metaphysics 1055b2): a dog cannot be both black and white, but it may be neither.

As Aristotle explains in the Categories, the opposition between contradictories— “statements opposed to each other as affirmation and negation”—is defined in two ways. First, unlike contrariety, contradiction is restricted to statements or propositions; terms are never related as contradictories. Second, “in this case, and in this case only, it is necessary for the one to be true and the other false” (13b2-3).

Opposition between terms cannot be contradictory in nature, both because only statements (subject-predicate combinations) can be true or false ( Categories 13b3-12) and because any two terms may simultaneously fail to apply to a given subject. [ 3 ] But two statements may be members of either a contradictory or a contrary opposition. Such statements may be simultaneously false, although (as with contradictories) they may not be simultaneously true. The most striking aspect of the exposition for a modern reader lies in Aristotle's selection of illustrative material. Rather than choosing an uncontroversial example involving mediate contraries, those allowing an unexcluded middle (e.g. “This dog is white”/“This dog is black”; “Socrates is good”/“Socrates is bad”), Aristotle offers a pair of sentences containing immediate contraries, “Socrates is sick”/“Socrates is well”. These propositions may both be false, even though every person is either ill or well: “For if Socrates exists, one will be true and the other false, but if he does not exist, both will be false; for neither ‘Socrates is sick’ nor ‘Socrates is well’ will be true, if Socrates does not exist at all” (13b17-19). But given a corresponding affirmation and negation, one will always be true and the other false; the negation “Socrates is not sick” is true whether the philosopher is healthy or non-existent: “for if he does not exist, ‘he is sick’ is false but ‘he is not sick’ true” (13b26-35).

Members of a canonical pair of contradictories are formally identical except for the negative particle:

An affirmation is a statement affirming something of something, a negation is a statement denying something of something…It is clear that for every affirmation there is an opposite negation, and for every negation there is an opposite affirmation…Let us call an affirmation and a negation which are opposite a contradiction ( De Interpretatione 17a25-35).

But this criterion, satisfied simply enough in the case of singular expressions, must be recast in the case of quantified expressions, both those which “signify universally” (“every man”, “no man”) and those which do not (“some man”, “not every man”).

For such cases, Aristotle shifts from a formal to a semantically based criterion of opposition (17b16-25). The A / O pair (“Every man is white”, “Not every man is white”) and I / E pair (“Some man is white”, “No man is white”) are contradictories because in any state of affairs one member of each pair must be true and the other false. (See traditional square of opposition .) Similarly, the A / E pair—“Every man is just”, “No man is just”—are contraries, since these cannot be true together. The contradictories of two contraries (“Not every man is just”, “Some man is just”) can be simultaneously true with reference to the same subject; (17b23-25). The last opposition of I and O statements, later to be dubbed subcontraries because they appear below the contraries on the traditional square, is a peculiar opposition indeed; Aristotle elsewhere ( Prior Analytics 63b21-30) sees I and O as “only verbally opposed”, given the mutual consistency of “Some Greeks are bald” and “Some Greeks aren't bald”.

The same relations obtain for modal propositions, those involving binary connectives like “and” and “or”, quantificational adverbs, and a range of other expressions that can be mapped in analogous ways (see Horn 1989). Thus for example we have the following modal square, based on De Interpretatione 21b10ff. and Prior Analytics 32a18-28:

(1) Modal Square

In the twelfth century, Peter of Spain (1972: 7) offers a particularly elegant formulation in his Tractatus ; it will be seen that these apply to the modal propositions in (1) as well as to the quantificational statements in the original square:

• Each contradictory is equivalent to the negation of the other.
• Each contradictory entails and is entailed by the negation of the other.
• Each contrary statement entails the negation of the other but not vice versa. [E.g. “I am happy” unilaterally entails “I am not unhappy”; “It is necessary that Φ” unilaterally entails “It is not impossible that Φ”.]
• The law of subcontraries is such that if one is false the other is true but not vice versa.

The law of excluded middle, LEM, is another of Aristotle's first principles, if perhaps not as first a principle as LNC. Just as Heraclitus's anti-LNC position, “that everything is and is not, seems to make everything true”, so too Anaxagoras's anti-LEM stance, “that an intermediate exists between two contradictories, makes everything false” ( Metaphysics 1012a25-29). Of any two contradictories, LEM requires that one must be true and the other false ( De Interpretatione 18a31)—or does it? In a passage that has launched a thousand treatises, Aristotle ( De Interpretatione , Chapter 9) addresses the difficulties posed by apparently contradictory contingent statements about future events, e.g. (2a,b).

(2a) There will be a sea-battle tomorrow. (2b) There will not be a sea-battle tomorrow.

Clearly, (2a) and (2b) cannot both be true; LNC applies to future contingents as straightforwardly as to any other pair of contradictories. But what of LEM? Here is where the difficulties begin, culminating in the passage with which Aristotle concludes and (apparently) summarizes his account:

It is necessary for there to be or not to be a sea-battle tomorrow; but it not necessary for a sea-battle to take place tomorrow, nor for one not to take place—though it is necessary for one to take place or not to take place. So, since statements are true according to how the actual things are, it is clear that wherever these are such as to allow of contraries as chance has it, the same necessarily holds for the contradictories also. This happens with things that are not always so or are not always not so. With these it is necessary for one or the other of the contradictories to be true or false—not, however, this one or that one, but as chance has it; or for one to be true rather than the other, yet not already true or false. Clearly, then it is not necessary that of every affirmation and opposite negation one should be true and the other false. For what holds for things that are does not hold for things that are not but may possibly be or not be; with these it is as we have said ( De Interpretatione 19a30-b4).

Unfortunately, given the systematic ambiguity and textual variations in the Greek text, the difficulty of telling when Aristotle is speaking with his own voice or characterizing an opponent's argument, and the lack of formal devices for the essential scopal distinctions at issue, it has never been clear exactly just what has been said here and in the chapter more generally. Some, including Boethius and Lukasiewicz, have seen in this text an argument for rejecting LEM for future contingent statements, which are therefore to be assigned a non-classical value (e.g. “Indeterminate”) or no truth-value at all. [ 4 ] Their reasoning is based in part on the premise that the alternative position seems to require the acceptance of determinism. Others, however, read Aristotle as rejecting not simple bivalence for future contingents but rather determinacy itself. This interpretive tradition, endorsed by al-Fârâbi, Saint Thomas, and Ockham, is crystallized in this passage from Abelard's Dialectica (210-22) cited by Kneale and Kneale (1962: 214):

No proposition de contingenti futuro can be determinately true or determinately false…, but this is not to say that no such proposition can be true or false. On the contrary, any such proposition is true if the outcome is to be true as it states, even though this is unknown to us.

Even if we accept the view that Aristotle is uncomfortable with assigning truth (or falsity) to (2a) and (2b), their disjunction in (3a) is clearly seen as true, and indeed as necessarily true. But the modal operator must be taken to apply to the disjunction as a whole as in (3b) and not to each disjunct as in (3c).

(3a) Either there will be or there will not be a sea-battle tomorrow. (3b) □ (Φ ∨ ¬Φ) (3c) □ Φ ∨ □ ¬Φ

For Aristotle, LNC is understood not as the principle of propositional logic that no statement can be true simultaneously with its negation, but as a prima facie rejection of the possibility that any predicate F could both hold and not hold of a given subject (at the same time, and in the same respect). A full rendering of the version of LNC appearing at Metaphysics 1006b33-34—“It is not possible to truly say at the same time of a thing that it is a man and that it is not a man”—would require a representation involving operators for modality and truth and allowing quantification over times. [ 5 ] In the same way, LEM is not actually the principle that every statement is either true or has a true negation, but the law that for any predicate F and any entity x , x either is F or isn't F .

But these conceptualizations of LNC and LEM must be generalized, since the principle that it is impossible for a to be F and not to be F will not apply to statements of arbitrary complexity. We can translate the Aristotelian language, with some loss of faithfulness, into the standard modern versions in (4a,b) respectively, ignoring the understood modal and temporal modifications:

(4a) LNC: ¬(Φ & ¬Φ) (4b) LEM: Φ ∨ ¬Φ

Taking LNC and LEM together, we obtain the result that exactly one proposition of the pair {Φ, ¬Φ} is true and exactly one is false, where ¬ represents contradictory negation.

Alternatively, the laws can be recast semantically as in (5), again setting aside the usual qualifications:

(5a) LNC: No proposition may be simultaneously true and false. (5b) LEM: Every proposition must be either true or false.

Not every natural language negation is a contradictory operator, or even a logical operator. A statement may be rejected as false, as unwarranted, or as inappropriate—misleading, badly pronounced, wrongly focused, likely to induce unwanted implicatures or presuppositions, overly or insufficiently formal. Only in the first of these cases, as a toggle between truth and falsity, is it clear that contradictory negation is involved (Horn 1989, Smiley 1993). But is every contradictory negation sentential?

Within propositional logic, contradictory negation is a self-annihilating operator: ¬(¬Φ) is equivalent to Φ. This is explicitly recognized in the proto-Fregean Stoic logic of Alexander of Aphrodisias: “‘Not: not: it is day’ differs from ‘it is day’ only in manner of speech” (Mates 1953: 126). The Stoics' apophatikon directly prefigures the iterating and self-cancelling propositional negation of Frege and Russell. As Frege puts it (1919: 130), “Wrapping up a thought in double negation does not alter its truth value.” The corresponding linguistic principle is expressed in the grammarians' bromide, “Duplex negatio affirmat.”

Not all systems of propositional logic accept a biconditional law of double negation (LDN), ¬(¬Φ) ≡ Φ. In particular, LDN, along with LEM, is not valid for the Intuitionists, who reject ¬(¬Φ) → Φ while accepting its converse, Φ → ¬(¬Φ). But the very possibility of applying negation to a negated statement presupposes the analysis of contradictory negation as an iterative operator (one capable of applying to its own output), or as a function whose domain is identical to its range. Within the categorical term-based logic of Aristotle and his Peripatetic successors, every statement—whether singular or general—is of subject-predicate form. Contradictory negation is not a one-place operator taking propositions into propositions, but rather a mode of predication , a way of combining subjects with predicates: a given predicate can be either affirmed or denied of a given subject. Unlike the apophatikon or propositional negation connective introduced by the Stoics and formalized in Fregean and Russellian logic, Aristotelian predicate denial, while toggling truth and falsity and yielding the semantics of contradictory opposition, does not apply to its own output and hence does not syntactically iterate. In this respect, predicate denial both anticipates the form of negation in Montague Grammar and provides a more plausible representation of contradictory negation in natural language, whether Ancient Greek or English, where reflexes of the iterating one-place connective of the Stoics and Fregeans (“Not: not: the sun is shining”) are hard to find outside of artificial constructs like the “it is not the case” construction (Horn 1989, §7.2). In a given natural language, contradictory negation may be expressed as a particle associated with a copula or a verb, as an inflected auxiliary verb, as a verb of negation, or as a negative suffix or prefix.

In addition, there is a widespread pragmatically motivated tendency for a formal or semantic contradictory negation to be strengthened to a contrary through such processes as litotes (“I don't like prunes” conveying that I dislike prunes) and so-called negative raising (“I don't think that Φ” conveying “I think that ¬Φ”); similarly, the adjective-forming prefixal negation in such words as “unhappy” or “unfair” is understood as a contrary rather than contradictory (not-Adj) of its base. These phenomena have been much discussed by rhetoricians, logicians, and linguists (see Horn 1989: Chap. 5).

In addition to predicate denial, in which a predicate F is denied of a subject a , Aristotelian logic allows for narrow-scope predicate term negation , in which a negative predicate not-F is affirmed of a . The relation of predicate denial and predicate term negation to a simple affirmative proposition can be schematized on a generalized square of opposition ( De Interpretatione 19b19-30, Prior Analytics Chapter 46):

(6) Negation Square

If Socrates doesn't exist, “Socrates is wise” ( A ) and its contrary “Socrates is not-wise” ( E ) are both automatically false (since nothing—positive or negative—can be truly affirmed of a non-existent subject), while their respective contradictories “Socrates is not wise” ( O ) and “Socrates is not not-wise” ( I ) are both true. Similarly, for any object x , either x is red or x is not red—but x may be neither red nor not-red; if, for instance, x is a unicorn or a prime number.

While Russell (1905), without acknowledgment, echoed Aristotle's ambiguist analysis of negation as either contradictory (“external”) or contrary (“internal”), by virtue of the two logical forms assigned to “The king of France is not bald” (see descriptions ), such propositionalized accounts are bought at a cost of naturalness, as singular sentences of subject-predicate grammatical form are assigned the logical form of an existentially quantified conjunction and as names are transmuted into predicates.

In addition to the future contingent statements discussed, vacuous subjects like those in (7a,b) have sometimes been taken to yield a violation of LEM through the emergence of a truth-value gap.

(7a) {The present king of France/King Louis} is bald. (7b) {The present king of France/King Louis} isn't bald.

While Aristotle would see a republican France as rendering (7a) false and (7b) automatically true, Frege (1892) and Strawson (1950) reject the notion that either of these sentences can be used to make a true or false assertion. Instead, both statements presuppose the existence of a referent for the singular term; if the presupposition fails, so does the possibility of classical truth assignment. Note, however, that such analyses present a challenge to LEM only if (7b) is taken as the true contradictory of (7a), an assumption not universally shared. Russell, for example, allows for one reading of (7b) on which it is, like (7a), false in the absence of a referent for the subject term.

In those systems that do embrace truth value gaps (Strawson, arguably Frege) or non-classically-valued systems (Lukasiewicz, Bochvar, Kleene), some sentences or statements are not assigned a (classical) truth value; in Strawson's famous dictum, the question of the truth value of “The king of France is wise”, in a world in which France is a republic, simply fails to arise. The negative form of such vacuous statements, e.g. “The king of France is not wise”, is similarly neither true nor false. This amounts to a rejection of LEM, as noted by Russell 1905. In addition to vacuous singular expressions, gap-based analyses have been proposed for future contingents (following one reading of Aristotle's exposition of the sea-battle; cf. §2 above) and category mistakes (e.g. “The number 7 likes/doesn't like to dance”).

While LNC has traditionally remained more sacrosanct, reflecting its position as the primus inter pares of the indemonstrables, transgressing this final taboo has become increasingly alluring in recent years. The move here involves embracing not gaps but truth value gluts , cases in which a given sentence and its negation are taken to be both true, or alternatively cases in which a sentence may be assigned more than one (classical) truth value, i.e. both True and False. Parsons (1990) observes that the two non-classical theories are provably logically equivalent, as gluts arise within one class of theories precisely where gaps do in the other. Further, dialetheism escapes the charge of incoherence by avoiding the logical armageddon of Ex Contradictione Quodlibet, the inference in (8):

(8) p , ¬ p     _____     ∴ q

Far from reduced to the silence of a vegetable, as Aristotle ordained, the proponents of true contradictions, including self-avowed dialetheists like Sylvan (né Routley) and Priest have been eloquent.

Is the status of Aristotle's “first principle” as obvious as he believed? Adherents of the dialetheist view that there are true contradictories (Priest 1987, 1998, 2002; see also dialetheism and paraconsistent logic ) would answer firmly in the negative. [ 6 ] In the Western tradition, the countenancing of true contradictions is typically—although not exclusively—motivated on the basis of such classic logical paradoxes as “This sentence is not true” and its analogues (the Liar, the Barber, Russell's paradox), each of which is true if and only if it is not true. As Smiley (1993: 19) has remarked, “Dialetheism stands to the classical idea of negation like special relativity to Newtonian mechanics: they agree in the familiar areas but diverge at the margins (notably the paradoxes).”

In addition to the Liar, another locus classicus is the problem of omnipotence as crystallized in the Paradox of the Stone. One begins by granting the basic dilemma, as an evident instance of LEM: either God is omnipotent or God is not omnipotent. With omnipotence, He can do anything, and in particular He can create a stone x so heavy that even He cannot lift it. But then there is something He cannot do, viz. (ex hypothesi) lift x . But this is an instance of LNC: God can lift x and God cannot lift x .

This paradox, and the potential challenge it offers to either LNC or the possibility of omnipotence, has been recognized since Aquinas, who opted for retaining the Aristotelian law by understanding omnipotence as the capacity to do only what is not logically impossible. (Others, including Augustine and Maimonides, have noted that in any case God is “unable” to do what is inconsistent with His nature, e.g. commit sin.) For Descartes, on the other hand, an omnipotent God is by definition capable of any task, even those yielding contradictions. Mavrodes (1963), Kenny, and others have sided with Aquinas in taking omnipotence to extend only to those powers it is possible to possess; Frankfurt (1964), on the other hand, essentially adopt the Cartesian line: Yes, of course God can indeed construct a stone that He cannot lift—and what's more, He can lift it! (See also Savage 1967 for a related solution.)

Within Western philosophy, Hegel has often been depicted as a leading LNC-skeptic, but in fact for Hegel an unresolved contradiction is a sign of error. The contradiction between thesis and antithesis results in Aufhebung, the dialectical resolution or superseding of the contradiction between opposites as a higher-level synthesis that eventually generates its own antithesis. Rather than repudiating LNC, Hegel's dialectic rests upon it. In Marxist theory, too, contradictories do not simply cancel out but are dynamically resolved ( aufgehoben ) at a higher level in a way that both preserves and supersedes the contradiction, motivating the historical dialectic. (See Horn 1989: §1.3.2.)

For Freud, there is a realm in which LNC is not so much superseded but dissolved. On the primary, infantile level, reflected in dreams and neuroses, there is no not : “‘No’ seems not to exist as far as dreams are concerned. Anything in a dream can mean its contrary” (Freud 1910: 155). When the analysand insists of a dream character “It's not my mother”, the analyst silently translates, “So it is his mother!”

Given Aristotle's observation that “even some physicists” deny LNC and affirm that is indeed possible for the same thing to be and not to be at the same time and in the same respect, he would not have been surprised to learn that quantum mechanics has made such challenges fashionable again. Thus, we have Schrödinger's celebrated cat, placed (within the context of a thought experiment) inside a sealed box along with radioactive material and a vial of poison gas that will be released if that material decays. Given quantum uncertainty, an atom inhabits both states—decayed and non-decayed—simultaneously, rendering the cat (in the absence of an observer outside the system) both alive and dead. Where speculative consensus breaks down is on whether Schrödinger's paradox arises only when the quantum system is isolated from the environment.

Aristotle himself anticipated many of the challenges that have since been raised against LNC. Thus whether it is the ambivalence of Zerlina's “Vorrei e non vorrei”, Strawson's exchange (1952: 7)

—Were you pleased? —Well, I was and I wasn't.

or the observation of Jainists two millennia ago that “ S is P ” and “ S is not P ” can both be true from different standpoints (Raju 1954: 698-701; Balcerowicz 2003), we have ample opportunity to reflect on the foresight of Aristotle's rider: “ S is P ” and “ S is not P ” cannot both hold in the same sense, at the same time, and in the same respect .

Outside the Western canon, the brunt of the battle over LNC has been largely borne by the Buddhists, particularly in the exposition by Nâgârjuna of the catuskoti or tetralemma (c. 200 A.D.; cf. Bochenski 1961: Part VI, Raju 1954, Garfield 1995, Tillemans 1999, Garfield & Priest 2002), also known as the four-cornered or fourfold negation. Consider the following four possible truth outcomes for any statement and its (apparent) contradictory:

(9)   (i) S is P (ii) S is not P (iii) S is both P and not- P (iv) S is neither P nor not- P

For instances of the positive tetralemma, all four statement types can or must be accepted, e.g.:

Everything is real and not real. Both real and not real. Neither real nor not real. That is Lord Buddha's teaching.    — Mûla-madhyamaka-kârikâ 18:8, quoted in Garfield (1995: 102)

Such cases arise only when we are beyond the realm to which ordinary logic applies, when “the sphere of thought has ceased.” On the other hand, much more use is made of the negative tetralemma, in which all four of the statements in (9) can or must be rejected. Is this tantamount, as it appears, to the renunciation of LEM and LNC, the countenancing of both gaps and gluts, and thus—in Aristotle's view—the overthrow of all bounds of rational argument?

It should first be noted that the axiomatic status of LNC and LEM is as well-established within the logical traditions of India as it is for the Greeks and their epigones. [ 7 ] And indeed, Garfield (1995) and Tillemans (1999) convincingly refute the claim that Nâgârjuna was an “irrationalist”. [ 8 ] In the first place, if Nâgârjuna simply rejected LNC, there would be no possibility of reductio arguments, which hinge on the establishment of untenable contradictions, yet such arguments are standardly employed in his logic. In fact, he overtly prohibits virodha (contradiction). Crucially, it is only in the realm of the Absolute or Transcendent, where we are contemplating the nature of the ultimate, that contradictions are embraced; in the realm of ordinary reality, LNC operates and classical logic holds. In this sense, the logic of Nâgârjuna and of the Buddhist tradition more generally can be seen not as inconsistent but paraconsistent.

One aspect of the apparent paradox is precisely parallel to that arising with some of the potential counterexamples to the LNC arising in Western thought. In various Buddhist and Jainist systems of thought, the apparent endorsement of Fa & ¬ Fa (or, in propositional terms, Φ & ¬Φ) is upon closer examination qualified in precisely the way foreseen by the codicils in Aristotle's statement of the law: “From a certain viewpoint, Φ (e.g. Nirvana exists); from a certain viewpoint, ¬Φ (e.g. Nirvana does not exist).

To further explore the status of truth-value gluts, in which both classical values are simultaneously assigned to a given proposition (e.g. “ x is real”), let us consider the analogous cases involving gaps. Recall, for example, the case of future contingents as in (2a,b) above: we need not maintain that “Iraq will become a secular democracy” is neither true nor false when uttered today, but only that neither this statement nor its contradictory “Iraq will not become a secular democracy” is assertable today in the absence of foreknowledge. Similarly for past unknowables, such as (to adapt an example from Quine) the proposition that the number of blades of grass on the Old Campus lawn during the 2005 Yale commencement exercises was odd. This is again more plausibly viewed as unassertable than as truth-valueless, even though its truth-value will never be known. To take a third example, we can argue, with Grice (1989: 80ff.), that a negation outside the scope of a conditional is generally intended as a refusal (or hesitation) to assert “if p then q ” rather than as the contradictory negation of a conditional, whose truth value is determined in accord with the standard material equivalence:

(10) ¬( p → q ) ≡ ( p & ¬ q )

Thus, in denying your conditional “If you give her penicillin, she will get better”, I am allowing for the possibility that giving her penicillin might have no effect on her, but I am not predicting that you will administer the penicillin and she will fail to recover. Nor does denying the apothegm (typically though inaccurately attributed to Dostoyevsky or Nietzsche) that if God is dead everything is permitted commit one to the conjoined proposition that God is dead and something is forbidden. As Dummett (1973: 328-30) puts the point, we must distinguish negation outside the scope of a Fregean assertion operator, not (⊢ p ), from the assertion of a negative proposition, ⊢(not p ). The former interpretation “might be taken to be a means of expressing an unwillingness to assert” p , in particular when p is a conditional:

(11)    X : If it rains, the match will be canceled. Y : That's not so. ( or, I don't think that's the case.)

Y 's contribution here does not constitute a negation of X 's content; rather, we can paraphrase Y as conveying (11′a) or (11′b):

(11′a) If it rains, the match won't necessarily be canceled. (11′b) It may [ epistemic ] happen that it rains and yet the match is not canceled.

Dummett observes, “We have no negation of the conditional of natural language, that is, no negation of its sense: we have only a form for expressing refusal to assent to its assertion.”

Similarly with disjunction. Consider the exchange in (12) preceding the 2000 election, updated from an example of Grice:

(12)    X : Bush or Gore will be elected. Y : That's not so: Bush or Gore or Nader will be elected.

Y 's rejoinder cannot be a contradictory of the content of X 's claim, since the (de jure) election of Bush rendered both X 's and Y 's statements true. Rather, Y objects on the grounds that X is not in an epistemic position to assert the binary disjunction.

Unassertability can be read as the key to the apparent paradox of the catuskoti as well. The venerable text in Majjhima-nikâya 72, relating the teachings of the historical Buddha, offers a precursor for Nâgârjuna's doctrine of the negative tetralemma. Gotama is responding to a monk's question concerning the doctrine of rebirth (quoted in Robinson 1967: 54):

Gotama, where is the monk reborn whose mind is thus freed?    Vaccha, it is not true to say that he is reborn. Then, Gotama, he is not reborn.    Vaccha, it is not true to say that he is not reborn. Then, Gotama, he is both reborn and not reborn.    Vaccha, it is not true to say that he is both reborn and not reborn. Then, Gotama, he is neither reborn nor not reborn.    Vaccha, it is not true to say that he is neither reborn nor not reborn.

Note the form of the translation here, or similarly that of the standard rendering of the negative catuskoti that “it profits not” to assert Φ, to assert ¬Φ, to assert both Φ and ¬Φ, or to assert neither Φ nor ¬Φ: the relevant negation can be taken to operate over an implicit modal, in particular an epistemic or assertability operator. If so, neither LEM nor LNC is directly at stake in the tetralemma: you can have your Aristotle and Buddha too.

We tend to recalibrate apparent violations of LNC as conforming to a version of the law that incorporates the Aristotelian qualifications: a sincere defense of “ p and not- p ” plausibly involves a change in the context of evaluation or a shift in viewpoint, or alternatively a suppression of modal or epistemic operators. This practice can be seen as an instance of a general methodological principle associated with Davidson and Quine that has come to be called the principle of charity (or, alternately, the principle of rational accommodation ): when it is unclear how to interpret another's argument, interpret it in a way that makes the most sense. At the same time, this procedure evokes the standard Gricean mode of explanation: granted the operation of the Cooperative Principle and, more broadly, the premise of Rationality, we reinterpret apparent violations of valid principles or maxims so as to conserve the assumption that one's interlocutor is a rational and cooperative agent. As Aristotle would remind us, no principle is more worthy of conservation than the Law of Non-Contradiction.

• Aristotle. Categories and De Interpretatione , J. N. Ackrill, ed., Oxford: Clarendon, 1963.
• Aristotle. Metaphysics , Hippocrates Apostle, ed., Bloomington: Indiana U. Press, 1966.
• Aristotle. Prior and Posterior Analytics , W. D. Ross, ed., Oxford: Clarendon, 1957.
• Balcerowicz, Piotr (2003). "Some remarks on the Naya method," in Essays in Jaina Philosophy and Religion. Warsaw Indological Studies , Vol. 2, pp. 37-68.
• Barnes, Jonathan (1969). "The law of contradiction," Philosophical Quarterly 19: 302-309.
• Bochenski, I. M. (1961). A History of Formal Logic , Ivo Thomas, ed. and trans., Notre Dame: U. of Notre Dame Press.
• Dummett, Michael (1973). Frege: philosophy of language , London: Duckworth.
• Frankfurt, Harry (1964). "The logic of omnipotence," Philosophical Review 73: 262-63.
• Frege, Gottlob (1892). "On sense and reference", in Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege , P. Geach and M. Black, eds., Oxford: Blackwell, 1952, pp. 56-78.
• Frege, Gottlob (1919). "Negation," in Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege , P. Geach and M. Black, eds., Oxford: Blackwell, 1952, pp. 117-35.
• Freud, Sigmund (1910). "The antithetical sense of primal words," in J. Strachey (ed.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud , Vol. 11, 155-61. London: Hogarth Press, 1957.
• Garfield, Jay (1995). The fundamental wisdom of the middle way: Nâgârjuna's Mûlamadhyamakakârikâ , Translation and commentary by Jay L. Garfield. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Garfield, Jay and Graham Priest (2002). "Nâgârjuna and the limits of thought," in Priest (2002), pp. 249-70.
• Geach, P. T. (1972). Logic Matters , reprinted Berkeley: U. of California Press, 1980.
• Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words , Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Horn, Laurence (1989). A Natural History of Negation , Chicago: U. of Chicago Press. Reissue edition, Stanford: CSLI, 2001.
• Kneale, William and Martha Kneale (1962). The Development of Logic , Oxford: Clarendon.
• Kumârila Bhatta, The Mîmânsâ-sloka-vârtika , R. Talainga, ed., Benares: Freeman & Co., 1899.
• Lear, Jonathan (1980). Aristotle and Logical Theory , Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press.
• Leibniz, Gottfried (1696). New Essays Concerning Human Understanding by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz , A. G. Langley, ed. and trans., 2d ed., Chicago: Open Court, 1916.
• Lukasiewicz, Jan ([1910] 1971). "On the principle of contradiction in Aristotle", trans. by V. Wedin, Review of Metaphysics 24: 485-509.
• Mates, Benson (1953). Stoic Logic , Berkeley and Los Angeles: U. of California Press.
• Mavrodes, George (1963). "Some puzzles concerning omnipotence," Philosophical Review 72: 221-23.
• Parsons, Terry (1990). "True Contradictions," Canadian Journal Philosophy 20: 335-53.
• Peter of Spain, Tractatus, called afterwards Summulae Logicales , L. M. de Rijk, ed., Assen: van Gorcum, 1972.
• Priest, Graham (1987). In Contradiction , Dordrecht: M. Nijhoff.
• ––– (1998). "To be and not to be—that is the answer. On Aristotle on the law of non-contradiction," Philosophiegeschichte und logische Analyse 1: 91-130.
• ––– (2002). Beyond the Limits of Thought , Oxford: Oxford U. Press.
• Priest, Graham, J. C. Beall, and Bradley Armour-Garb, eds. (2004). The Law of Non-Contradiction: New Philosophical Essays , Oxford: Clarendon.
• Raju, P. T. (1954). "The principle of four-cornered negation in Indian philosophy," Review of Metaphysics 7: 694-713.
• Robinson, Richard (1967). Early Mâdhyamika in India and China , Madison: U. of Wisconsin Press.
• Russell, Bertrand (1905). "On descriptions", Mind 14: 479-93.
• Savage, C. Wade (1967). "The paradox of the stone," Philosophical Review 76: 74-79.
• Smiley, Timothy (1993). "Can contradictions be true?," Aristotelian Society Supplement Volume 67: 17-33.
• Strawson, P. F. (1952). Introduction to Logical Theory , London: Methuen.
• Tillemans, Tom (1999). "Is Buddhist Logic non-classical or deviant?," Chapter 9 in Scripture, Logic, Language , Boston: Wisdom Publications.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

Aristotle, General Topics: logic | Aristotle, General Topics: metaphysics | dialetheism [dialethism] | Russell's paradox | square of opposition

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to an anonymous reader and to Professor Piotr Balcerowicz for very helpful comments.

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Fact Monster - Entertainment - Antithesis

antithesis , (from Greek antitheton , “opposition”), a figure of speech in which irreconcilable opposites or strongly contrasting ideas are placed in sharp juxtaposition and sustained tension, as in the saying “Art is long, and Time is fleeting.”

The opposing clauses, phrases, or sentences are roughly equal in length and balanced in contiguous grammatical structures.

The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. (Abraham Lincoln, “Gettysburg Address” )

In poetry, the effect of antithesis is often one of tragic irony or reversal.

Saddled and bridled And booted rade he; A plume in his helmet, A sword at his knee; But toom [empty] cam’ his saddle A’ bloody to see, O hame cam’ his gude horse But never cam’ he! (“Bonnie George Campbell,” anonymous)

• Organizations
• Planning & Activities
• Product & Services
• Structure & Systems
• Career & Education
• Entertainment
• Fashion & Beauty
• Political Institutions
• SmartPhones
• Protocols & Formats
• Communication
• Web Applications
• Household Equipments
• Career and Certifications
• Diet & Fitness
• Mathematics & Statistics
• Processed Foods
• Vegetables & Fruits

Difference Between Thesis and Antithesis

• Categorized under Miscellaneous | Difference Between Thesis and Antithesis

Thesis and antithesis are literary techniques used to make a point during a debate or a lecture or discourse about a topic.  The thesis is the theory or the definition of the point under discussion.  Antithesis is the exact opposite of the point made in the thesis.  Anti is a prefix meaning against.  The antithesis therefore goes against the thesis to create an opposition effect.  The antithesis creates a clash of ideas or opinions and is a rhetorical device used to sway the opinions of the reader.  The two opposite statements highlight a point in literature, politics and other forums of debate.  Hearing the two sides of an argument has to have more impact on the reader or listener.  The two opposing ideas make the writer’s point more definite and obvious.

Definition of  Thesis

The thesis is the beginning of the study or debate.  It is the introduction to the topic.  The thesis is the normal way of looking at the subject matter.  The thesis is the accepted way of thinking or viewing an issue to be discussed or written about.  It is often the theory that is presented by philosophers and usually believed by the majority.  A thesis can be used in a written document or as a speech.  The thesis study looks at the positive side of the topic to be presented or discussed.  The subject matter is usually what readers consider normal.  In a political context it may be what is seen as the status quo.  Not necessarily the right situation for the times politically, but what has been the norm, and what has been established before change must take place.

Definition of  Antithesis

The antithesis is the opposite or opposition to the thesis.  Anti being the prefix, and when it is added to thesis, spells antithesis.  Anti changes the meaning of the word thesis.  Opposition or an opposing statement or word, is the role that the antithesis plays.  The antithesis helps to bring out the reason behind a debate or an emotive statement.  Looking at the opposing theme and comparing the thesis and the antithesis highlights the mental picture through the anti aspect of the word antithesis.  For example, when Neil Armstrong told the world he had made one small step for man and a giant leap for mankind he used the normal step he took as the thesis, and used the antithesis as a giant leap to create the picture of how great this step was for mankind.  This created a memorable image, and shows the enormity of the first man walking on the moon.  Antithesis is a form of rhetoric and a useful way of persuading people and igniting emotional reactions.  Antithesis has been used by writers and politicians to stir emotions and bring home an important point.

What is the connection between Thesis, Antithesis and synthesis?

Thesis, together with antithesis results in a synthesis, according to philosopher Hegel.  Hegel’s dialectics is a philosophical method involving a contradictory series of events between opposing sides.  He describes the thesis as being the starting point, the antithesis is the reaction and the synthesis is the outcome from the reaction.  Karl Marx used this philosophy to explain how communism came about.  According to Marx’s theory:

The thesis was capitalism, the way Russia was run at the time.

The antithesis was the Proletariat, the industrial workers and labor force, at that time.  The Proletariat decided to revolt against the capitalists, because they were being exploited.  This reaction is the antithesis, or the opposition.

The synthesis results from these two groups opposing one another and there is an outcome, a synthesis.  The outcome is a new order of things and new relationships.  The new order was Communism.  I t was a direct result of the antithesis or political opposition.  The connection is therefore between the perceived ‘normal’ or starting point against the opposition, the antithesis, to create a new order of doing things.

How is Thesis and Antithesis used in literary circles?

Dramatic effect and contrasts of character are created through an antithesis.  The writer uses the normal character matched with the completely opposite character to create an understanding or the different personalities or the different environment.  Snow White and the wicked queen, who is the stepmother, are a shining example of antithesis.  Hamlet’’s soliloquy, to be or not to be, sums up his dilemma at the time and creates a confusion of thought.  Charles Dickens uses this rhetorical technique in a Tale of Two Cities as he describes ‘It was the best of times and the worst of times,’ when chapter one begins.  The reader is immediately drawn into the story and the upsetting times of the French Revolution that is the scene for the book. 

How are Thesis and Antithesis used in the political arena?

Well known politicians have used thesis and antithesis in their propaganda and speeches to rouse their followers.  The well known Gettysburg address, given by Abraham Lincoln, used the antithesis of little and long at Gettysburg at the dedication to national heroism.  Lincoln said:

“The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.”  This speech has gone down in history as one of the most important speeches and it has definitely been remembered.  

Antithesis in a speech helps to advertise sentiments and rally crowds together due to its emotional power.  Martin Luther King used antithesis to sway a crowd by saying unless people chose to live together as brothers they would surely perish as fools.  

How does Thesis and Antithesis form part of a debate?

Formal debates make good use of the opposition concept brought about by the use of antithesis.  The debate will start with the presentation of the thesis, followed by the antithesis and summed up in the synthesis.  For example, a debate about eating meat could open with the points for eating meat.  The next section of the debate argues for not eating meat and finally the points for and against could sum up eating meat, but as small portions of a persons dietary needs.  The conflict of the argument comes between the thesis and the antithesis.  The summary for the listeners to take away is the synthesis of the points made in the debate.

What makes Antithesis a rhetorical device?

The antithesis conjures up a more emotive response because of the opposition factor.  Adding in the opposite or exaggerated form of a word in a statement makes more impact for the listener.  In the event of a man walking on the moon, for example, this was not just a small event happening when a rocket went to the moon.  No, this was a gigantic expedition to another planet.  Whether it was intentional or not this statement has stood the test of time. It has become one of the most well known quotes highlighting a particular event.  The clever use of the antithesis of a giant leap as part of the statement has made these words stand out in asthey marked this occasion.  They bring the impact of these steps to the world as a great vision and achievement for mankind.  

Chart to compare Thesis and Antithesis 

Summary of Thesis and Antithesis:

• Thesis and antithesis are literary devices that highlight themes or emotional rhetorical situations.
• Well known events, using thesis and antithesis, show how this form of rhetoric creates an emotional response from readers or audiences.  Neil Armstrong’s comment upon landing and walking on the moon for the first time in history is a shining example.
• The use of thesis and antithesis in literature enable the author to give more emphasis to an event or a theme in a story or play.
• Karl Marx used the thesis, antithesis and conclusion of a synthesis, to explain the evolution of communism.
• Using this format in debate helps to understand how two opposing ideals, around one debatable topic, can help the speakers provide their arguments.  The debate is then wrapped up in a synthesis of ideas and the conclusion of the debate leading to a consensus of opinion.
• When well known politicians make a statement using thesis and antithesis, the statement is more powerful.  These rhetorical statements become part of our history and become famous for the impact they made using just a few words to express a life changing situation.
• Recent Posts
• Difference Between Lagoon and Bay - October 20, 2021
• Difference Between Futurism and Preterism - August 12, 2021
• Difference Between Dichotomy and Paradox - August 7, 2021

Sharing is caring!

• Pinterest 3

Search DifferenceBetween.net :

• Difference Between Antithesis and Oxymoron
• Difference Between Thesis and Dissertation
• Difference Between Analysis and Synthesis
• Difference Between Full Moon and New Moon
• Difference Between Lunar Eclipse And New Moon

Cite APA 7 Wither, C. (2020, November 23). Difference Between Thesis and Antithesis. Difference Between Similar Terms and Objects. http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-thesis-and-antithesis/. MLA 8 Wither, Christina. "Difference Between Thesis and Antithesis." Difference Between Similar Terms and Objects, 23 November, 2020, http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-thesis-and-antithesis/.

Leave a Response

Name ( required )

Email ( required )

Please note: comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

References :

Advertisments, more in 'miscellaneous'.

• Difference Between an Arbitrator and a Mediator
• Difference Between Cellulite and Stretch Marks
• Difference Between Taliban and Al Qaeda
• Difference Between Kung Fu and Karate
• Difference Between Expression and Equation

Top Difference Betweens

Get new comparisons in your inbox:, most emailed comparisons, editor's picks.

• Difference Between MAC and IP Address
• Difference Between Platinum and White Gold
• Difference Between Civil and Criminal Law
• Difference Between GRE and GMAT
• Difference Between Immigrants and Refugees
• Difference Between DNS and DHCP
• Difference Between Computer Engineering and Computer Science
• Difference Between Men and Women
• Difference Between Book value and Market value
• Difference Between Red and White wine
• Difference Between Depreciation and Amortization
• Difference Between Bank and Credit Union
• Difference Between White Eggs and Brown Eggs

What is Antithesis? Definition, Examples of Antitheses in Writing

Home » The Writer’s Dictionary » What is Antithesis? Definition, Examples of Antitheses in Writing

Antithesis definition: Antithesis is a literary and rhetorical device where two seemingly contrasting ideas are expressed through parallel structure.

What is Antithesis?

What does antithesis mean? An antithesis is just that—an “anti” “thesis.” An antithesis is used in writing to express ideas that seem contradictory.

An antithesis uses parallel structure of two ideas to communicate this contradiction.

Example of Antithesis:

• “Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.” –Muhammad Ali

First, the structure is parallel. Each “side” of the phrase has the same number of words and the same structure. Each uses a verb followed by a simile.

Second, the contracting elements of a butterfly and a bee seem contradictory. That is, a butterfly is light and airy while a bee is sharp and stinging. One person (a boxer, in this case) should not be able to possess these two qualities—this is why this is an antithesis.

However, Ali is trying to express how a boxer must be light on his feet yet quick with his fist.

Modern Examples of Antithesis

• “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”

Through parallel structure, this quotation presents an antithesis. It seems contradictory that one action could be a “small step” and a “giant leap.”

However, this contradiction proposes that the action of landing on the moon might have just been a small physical step for the man Neil Armstrong, but it was a giant leap for the progress of mankind.

The Function of Antithesis

An antithesis stands out in writing. Because it uses parallel structure, an antithesis physically stands out when interspersed among other syntactical structures. Furthermore, an antithesis presents contrasting ideas that cause the reader or audience to pause and consider the meaning and purpose.

Oftentimes, the meaning of an antithesis is not overtly clear. That is, a reader or audience must evaluate the statement to navigate the meaning.

Writers utilize antitheses very sparingly. Since its purpose is to cause an audience to pause and consider the argument, it must be used with purpose and intent.

Antithesis Example from Literature

• “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity…”

From the beginning, Dickens presents two contradictory ideas in this antithesis.

How can it be the “best” and the “worst” of times? These two “times” should not be able to coexist.

Similarly, how can the setting of this novel also take place during an “age of wisdom” and an “age of foolishness?”

The antithesis continues.

Dickens opens his with these lines to set the tone for the rest of the novel. Clearly, there are two sides to this story, two tales of what is the truth. These two “sides” should not function peacefully. And, in fact, they do not. That, after all, is the “tale of two cities.”

Dickens sets up this disparity to set the tone for his novel, which will explore this topic.

Summary: What is an Antithesis?

Define antithesis: An antithesis consists of contrasting concepts presented in parallel structure.

Writers use antithesis to create emphasis to communicate an argument.

• Note: The plural form of antithesis is antitheses.

Literary Devices

Literary devices, terms, and elements, definition of antithesis, difference between antithesis and juxtaposition, common examples of antithesis, significance of antithesis in literature, examples of antithesis in literature.

HAMLET: To be, or not to be, that is the question— Whether ’tis Nobler in the mind to suffer The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune, Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles, And by opposing, end them?

( Hamlet by William Shakespeare)

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way…

( A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens)

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

This case is not a difficult one, it requires no minute sifting of complicated facts, but it does require you to be sure beyond all reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant.

( To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee)

In Harper Lee’s novel To Kill a Mockingbird , Atticus Finch is a lawyer representing Tom Robinson. Atticus presents the above statement to the jury, setting up an antithesis. He asserts that the case is not difficult and yet requires the jury to be absolutely sure of their decision. Atticus believes the case to have a very obvious conclusion, and hopes that the jury will agree with him, but he is also aware of the societal tensions at work that will complicate the case.

Test Your Knowledge of Antithesis

WITCHES: Fair is foul, and foul is fair: Hover through the fog and filthy air.

MACBETH: Is this a dagger which I see before me, The handle toward my hand?

WITCHES: Something wicked this way comes.

4. Which of the following quotes from Heller’s Catch-22 contains an example of antithesis? A. There are now fifty or sixty countries fighting in this war. Surely so many counties can’t all be worth dying for. B. He had decided to live forever or die in the attempt, and his only mission each time he went up was to come down alive. C. You’re inches away from death every time you go on a mission. How much older can you be at your age? [spoiler title=”Answer to Question #4″] Answer: B is the correct answer.[/spoiler]

Thesis vs Antithesis: Which One Is The Correct One?

Thesis vs antithesis is a common topic of discussion in various fields of study, including philosophy, literature, and politics. The terms are often used in opposition to each other, but what do they really mean?

Thesis and antithesis are two words that are often used to describe opposing ideas or arguments. The proper word to use depends on the context in which it is being used. Thesis refers to a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved. Antithesis, on the other hand, refers to a statement or theory that is in opposition to the thesis.

In simpler terms, thesis means a proposition or statement that is put forward and supported by arguments, while antithesis means the direct opposite of the thesis. These two terms are often used in philosophical and literary contexts, where they are used to describe opposing ideas or arguments. However, they can also be used in other fields of study, such as politics, where they are used to describe opposing viewpoints or policies.

This article will explore the concepts of thesis and antithesis in more detail, looking at their origins, their use in different fields of study, and their importance in understanding complex ideas and arguments.

Define Thesis

A thesis is a statement or proposition that is put forward as the main argument of an essay, research paper, or other academic work. It is the central idea that the author intends to convey through their writing. Typically, a thesis is supported by evidence and logical reasoning, and it is presented in a clear and concise manner. The thesis is the foundation upon which the rest of the work is built, and it guides the reader through the author’s thought process.

Define Antithesis

Antithesis is a rhetorical device that involves the use of contrasting concepts, words, or sentences within parallel grammatical structures. It is the opposite of the thesis, and it is used to create a sense of tension or conflict in the reader’s mind. Antithesis can be used to highlight the differences between two ideas, to emphasize the importance of a particular concept, or to create a sense of drama or excitement in the writing. In essence, antithesis is the opposite of the thesis, and it is used to create a sense of balance or contrast in the text.

How To Properly Use The Words In A Sentence

When it comes to writing, using the right words in a sentence is crucial to convey your message effectively. In this section, we will discuss how to properly use the words “thesis” and “antithesis” in a sentence.

How To Use “Thesis” In A Sentence

The word “thesis” is commonly used in academic writing to refer to the main argument or point of a research paper or essay. Here are some examples of how to use “thesis” in a sentence:

• My thesis argues that climate change is the greatest threat to our planet.
• The thesis of her paper is that social media has a negative impact on mental health.
• He presented a compelling thesis on the history of democracy in ancient Greece.

As you can see, “thesis” is typically used to introduce the main idea or argument of a piece of writing. It is important to note that a thesis statement should be clear, concise, and specific.

How To Use “Antithesis” In A Sentence

The word “antithesis” is used to describe the opposite or contrasting idea to a thesis. Here are some examples of how to use “antithesis” in a sentence:

• The antithesis of love is not hate, but indifference.
• His argument presented the antithesis to the commonly held belief that money brings happiness.
• The antithesis of democracy is authoritarianism.

When using “antithesis” in a sentence, it is important to remember that it is used to contrast the main idea or argument presented in a piece of writing. It can be a powerful tool to emphasize the differences between two ideas and make a point more strongly.

More Examples Of Thesis & Antithesis Used In Sentences

Thesis and antithesis are two contrasting ideas that are used to present an argument. In this section, we will provide more examples of how thesis and antithesis are used in sentences.

Examples Of Using Thesis In A Sentence

• His thesis on the effects of climate change was well-researched and convincing.
• The author’s thesis about the importance of education was clearly stated in the introduction.
• She developed a thesis that challenged the prevailing ideas about the role of women in society.
• The thesis of the book was that humans are capable of great good and great evil.
• The student’s thesis on the benefits of meditation was supported by scientific research.
• His thesis on the relationship between poverty and crime was controversial but well-argued.
• The thesis of the article was that social media has a negative impact on mental health.
• Her thesis on the importance of early childhood education was based on her own experiences as a teacher.
• The thesis of the speech was that we need to take action to address climate change now.
• His thesis on the history of the civil rights movement was based on extensive archival research.

Examples Of Using Antithesis In A Sentence

• His argument was based on the antithesis that government intervention only makes things worse.
• The antithesis of democracy is dictatorship.
• The antithesis of success is not failure, but giving up.
• The author used antithesis to highlight the contrast between the two main characters.
• The antithesis of order is chaos.
• Freedom is the antithesis of oppression.
• The antithesis of truth is not lies, but ignorance.
• The antithesis of beauty is not ugliness, but indifference.
• The antithesis of war is not peace, but diplomacy.

Common Mistakes To Avoid

When it comes to writing, the terms “thesis” and “antithesis” are often used interchangeably. However, this is a common mistake that can lead to confusion and miscommunication. To avoid making this mistake, it’s important to understand the key differences between these two concepts.

Common Mistakes

• Using thesis and antithesis as synonyms: One of the most common mistakes is using these terms as synonyms. While both concepts are related to argumentation, they have different meanings. A thesis is a statement that presents an argument or a claim, while an antithesis is the opposite of the thesis, presenting a counterargument or a contrasting idea.
• Confusing thesis and antithesis with synthesis: Another common mistake is confusing thesis and antithesis with synthesis. Synthesis is the combination of thesis and antithesis, resulting in a new idea or a resolution. However, thesis and antithesis are distinct concepts that should not be conflated with synthesis.
• Using antithesis to mean contradiction: Antithesis is often used to mean contradiction, but this is not entirely accurate. Antithesis is not simply the opposite of a thesis, but rather a specific rhetorical device that involves contrasting ideas or words in a sentence or a paragraph.

Tips To Avoid These Mistakes

If you want to avoid these common mistakes, here are some tips to keep in mind:

• Understand the definitions: Make sure you understand the definitions of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, and how they relate to argumentation and rhetoric.
• Use the terms correctly: Use thesis and antithesis correctly, and avoid using them interchangeably or as synonyms.
• Be precise: When using antithesis, be precise and use it as a rhetorical device to contrast ideas or words, rather than simply as a synonym for contradiction.
• Practice: Practice using these concepts in your writing, and ask for feedback from others to ensure that you are using them correctly.

Context Matters

When it comes to choosing between thesis and antithesis, context plays a crucial role. The decision between the two depends on the situation in which they are used.

Examples Of Different Contexts

Let’s take a look at some examples of different contexts and how the choice between thesis and antithesis might change:

In academic writing, the thesis is the main argument or point that the author is trying to make. It is supported by evidence and research. On the other hand, in a debate, the antithesis is used to counter the opponent’s argument. It is meant to challenge the opposing viewpoint.

In marketing, the thesis is used to promote a product or service. It highlights the benefits and positive aspects of the offering. In contrast, in political speeches, the antithesis is used to criticize the opposing party or candidate. It is meant to highlight the negative aspects of the opposition.

Therefore, it is essential to consider the context in which thesis and antithesis are used. The choice between the two depends on the situation and the intended purpose of the message.

Exceptions To The Rules

While the use of thesis and antithesis is a fundamental concept in academic writing, there are some exceptions where the rules may not apply. Here are some scenarios where the use of thesis and antithesis may not be necessary:

1. Narrative Writing

When it comes to narrative writing, the use of thesis and antithesis is not always necessary. This is because narrative writing is more focused on telling a story rather than presenting an argument. In this case, the writer may choose to use a different approach to convey their message.

For example, a writer may choose to use a chronological structure to tell a story, rather than presenting a thesis and antithesis. This approach is often used in memoirs, biographies, and other forms of storytelling.

2. Creative Writing

Similar to narrative writing, creative writing may not require the use of thesis and antithesis. Creative writing encompasses a wide range of genres, including poetry, fiction, and drama. In these genres, the writer may choose to use different techniques to convey their message.

For instance, a poet may use metaphors and imagery to express their thoughts and emotions, rather than presenting a thesis and antithesis. Similarly, a playwright may use dialogue and stage directions to convey their message to the audience.

3. Scientific Writing

While thesis and antithesis are commonly used in scientific writing, there are some cases where they may not be necessary. For example, when presenting empirical data or conducting an experiment, the writer may not need to present a thesis and antithesis.

Instead, the writer may choose to present their findings in a more straightforward manner, using graphs, tables, and other visual aids to present their data. This approach is often used in scientific journals and research papers.

4. Personal Writing

Finally, personal writing, such as journaling or letter writing, may not require the use of thesis and antithesis. This is because personal writing is often more focused on expressing one’s thoughts and feelings, rather than presenting an argument.

Instead, the writer may choose to use a more conversational tone and structure, focusing on their personal experiences and reflections. This approach is often used in personal blogs, diaries, and letters.

Practice Exercises

Now that we have a better understanding of what thesis and antithesis mean, it’s time to put our knowledge into practice. Below are some exercises to help you improve your understanding and use of these terms in sentences.

Exercise 1: Identifying Thesis And Antithesis

Read the following sentences and identify whether the underlined statement is a thesis or an antithesis.

• “The sun rises in the east, but sets in the west.”
• “Although some people believe in fate, others believe in free will.”
• “The government should invest in renewable energy sources instead of relying on fossil fuels.”
• “While some people prefer cats, others prefer dogs.”
• “Social media can be both a blessing and a curse.”

Answer Key:

Exercise 2: Writing Thesis And Antithesis

Write a thesis and an antithesis for each of the following topics:

Explanation: In this exercise, you are practicing writing both a thesis and an antithesis for a given topic. This will help you become more comfortable with using these terms in your writing and speaking.

By practicing these exercises, you will improve your understanding and use of thesis and antithesis in sentences. Remember, a thesis is a statement that presents a perspective or argument, while an antithesis is a statement that presents the opposite perspective or argument. Keep these definitions in mind as you continue to practice and use these terms.

After exploring the concept of thesis vs antithesis, we can conclude that it plays a crucial role in the development of ideas and arguments. It is a fundamental principle of dialectical reasoning that helps individuals to understand and appreciate different perspectives and viewpoints.

One key takeaway from this article is that thesis and antithesis are not mutually exclusive. They are interconnected and work together to form a synthesis that leads to a better understanding of a particular topic or issue. By recognizing the value of both the thesis and antithesis, individuals can develop stronger arguments and ideas.

Another important takeaway is that the use of thesis and antithesis is not limited to academic writing. It can be applied to various forms of communication, including public speaking, advertising, and marketing. By using this approach, individuals can effectively convey their message and persuade their audience.

Finally, we encourage readers to continue learning about grammar and language use. Understanding the principles of dialectical reasoning and the role of thesis and antithesis can help individuals to communicate more effectively and develop stronger arguments. By improving their language skills, individuals can enhance their personal and professional lives.

Shawn Manaher is the founder and CEO of The Content Authority. He’s one part content manager, one part writing ninja organizer, and two parts leader of top content creators. You don’t even want to know what he calls pancakes.

Persuasive Writing In Three Steps: Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis

April 14, 2021 by Ryan Law in

Great writing persuades. It persuades the reader that your product is right for them, that your process achieves the outcome they desire, that your opinion supersedes all other opinions. But spend an hour clicking around the internet and you’ll quickly realise that most content is passive, presenting facts and ideas without context or structure. The reader must connect the dots and create a convincing argument from the raw material presented to them. They rarely do, and for good reason: It’s hard work. The onus of persuasion falls on the writer, not the reader. Persuasive communication is a timeless challenge with an ancient solution. Zeno of Elea cracked it in the 5th century B.C. Georg Hegel gave it a lick of paint in the 1800s. You can apply it to your writing in three simple steps: thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

Use Dialectic to Find Logical Bedrock

“ Dialectic ” is a complicated-sounding idea with a simple meaning: It’s a structured process for taking two seemingly contradictory viewpoints and, through reasoned discussion, reaching a satisfactory conclusion. Over centuries of use the term has been burdened with the baggage of philosophy and academia. But at its heart, dialectics reflects a process similar to every spirited conversation or debate humans have ever had:

• Person A presents an idea: “We should travel to the Eastern waterhole because it’s closest to camp.”
• Person B disagrees and shares a counterargument: “I saw wolf prints on the Eastern trail, so we should go to the Western waterhole instead.”
• Person A responds to the counterargument , either disproving it or modifying their own stance to accommodate the criticism: “I saw those same wolf prints, but our party is large enough that the wolves won’t risk an attack.”
• Person B responds in a similar vein: “Ordinarily that would be true, but half of our party had dysentery last week so we’re not at full strength.”
• Person A responds: “They got dysentery from drinking at the Western waterhole.”

This process continues until conversational bedrock is reached: an idea that both parties understand and agree to, helped by the fact they’ve both been a part of the process that shaped it.

Dialectic is intended to help draw closer to the “truth” of an argument, tempering any viewpoint by working through and resolving its flaws. This same process can also be used to persuade.

Create Inevitability with Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis

The philosopher Georg Hegel is most famous for popularizing a type of dialectics that is particularly well-suited to writing: thesis, antithesis, synthesis (also known, unsurprisingly, as Hegelian Dialectic ).

• Thesis: Present the status quo, the viewpoint that is currently accepted and widely held.
• Antithesis: Articulate the problems with the thesis. (Hegel also called this phase “the negative.”)
• Synthesis: Share a new viewpoint (a modified thesis) that resolves the problems.

Hegel’s method focused less on the search for absolute truth and more on replacing old ideas with newer, more sophisticated versions . That, in a nutshell, is the same objective as much of content marketing (and particularly thought leadership content ): We’re persuading the reader that our product, processes, and ideas are better and more useful than the “old” way of doing things. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis (or TAS) is a persuasive writing structure because it:

• Reduces complex arguments into a simple three-act structure. Complicated, nuanced arguments are simplified into a clear, concise format that anyone can follow. This simplification reflects well on the author: It takes mastery of a topic to explain it in it the simplest terms.
• Presents a balanced argument by “steelmanning” the best objection. Strong, one-sided arguments can trigger reactance in the reader: They don’t want to feel duped. TAS gives voice to their doubts, addressing their best objection and “giv[ing] readers the chance to entertain the other side, making them feel as though they have come to an objective conclusion.”
• Creates a sense of inevitability. Like a story building to a satisfying conclusion, articles written with TAS take the reader on a structured, logical journey that culminates in precisely the viewpoint we wish to advocate for. Doubts are voiced, ideas challenged, and the conclusion reached feels more valid and concrete as a result.

There are two main ways to apply TAS to your writing: Use it beef up your introductions, or apply it to your article’s entire structure.

Writing Article Introductions with TAS

Take a moment to scroll back to the top of this article. If I’ve done my job correctly, you’ll notice a now familiar formula staring back at you: The first three paragraphs are built around Hegel’s thesis, antithesis, synthesis structure. Here’s what the introduction looked like during the outlining process . The first paragraph shares the thesis, the accepted idea that great writing should be persuasive:

Next up, the antithesis introduces a complicating idea, explaining why most content marketing isn’t all that persuasive:

Finally, the synthesis shares a new idea that serves to reconcile the two previous paragraphs: Content can be made persuasive by using the thesis, antithesis, synthesis framework. The meat of the article is then focused on the nitty-gritty of the synthesis.

Introductions are hard, but thesis, antithesis, synthesis offers a simple way to write consistently persuasive opening copy. In the space of three short paragraphs, the article’s key ideas are shared , the entire argument is summarised, and—hopefully—the reader is hooked.

Best of all, most articles—whether how-to’s, thought leadership content, or even list content—can benefit from Hegelian Dialectic , for the simple reason that every article introduction should be persuasive enough to encourage the reader to stick around.

Structuring Entire Articles with TAS

Harder, but most persuasive, is to use thesis, antithesis, synthesis to structure your entire article. This works best for thought leadership content. Here, your primary objective is to advocate for a new idea and disprove the old, tired way of thinking—exactly the use case Hegel intended for his dialectic. It’s less useful for content that explores and illustrates a process, because the primary objective is to show the reader how to do something (like this article—otherwise, I would have written the whole darn thing using the framework). Arjun Sethi’s article The Hive is the New Network is a great example.

The article’s primary purpose is to explain why the “old” model of social networks is outmoded and offer a newer, better framework. (It would be equally valid—but less punchy—to publish this with the title “ Why the Hive is the New Network.”) The thesis, antithesis, synthesis structure shapes the entire article:

• Thesis: Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram grew by creating networks “that brought existing real-world relationships online.”
• Antithesis: As these networks grow, the less useful they become, skewing towards bots, “celebrity, meme and business accounts.”
• Synthesis: To survive continued growth, these networks need to embrace a new structure and become hives.

With the argument established, the vast majority of the article is focused on synthesis. After all, it requires little elaboration to share the status quo in a particular situation, and it’s relatively easy to point out the problems with a given idea. The synthesis—the solution that needs to reconcile both thesis and antithesis—is the hardest part to tackle and requires the greatest word count. Throughout the article, Arjun is systematically addressing the “best objections” to his theory and demonstrating why the “Hive” is the best solution:

• Antithesis: Why now? Why didn’t Hives emerge in the first place?
• Thesis: We were limited by technology, but today, we have the necessary infrastructure: “We’re no longer limited to a broadcast radio model, where one signal is received by many nodes. ...We sync with each other instantaneously, and all the time.”
• Antithesis: If the Hive is so smart, why aren’t our brightest and best companies already embracing it?
• Thesis: They are, and autonomous cars are a perfect example: “Why are all these vastly different companies converging on the autonomous car? That’s because for these companies, it’s about platform and hive, not just about roads without drivers.”

It takes bravery to tackle objections head-on and an innate understanding of the subject matter to even identify objections in the first place, but the effort is worthwhile. The end result is a structured journey through the arguments for and against the “Hive,” with the reader eventually reaching the same conclusion as the author: that “Hives” are superior to traditional networks.

Destination: Persuasion

Persuasion isn’t about cajoling or coercing the reader. Statistics and anecdotes alone aren’t all that persuasive. Simply sharing a new idea and hoping that it will trigger an about-turn in the reader’s beliefs is wishful thinking. Instead, you should take the reader on a journey—the same journey you travelled to arrive at your newfound beliefs, whether it’s about the superiority of your product or the zeitgeist-changing trend that’s about to break. Hegelian Dialectic—thesis, antithesis, synthesis— is a structured process for doing precisely that. It contextualises your ideas and explains why they matter. It challenges the idea and strengthens it in the process. Using centuries-old processes, it nudges the 21st-century reader onto a well-worn path that takes them exactly where they need to go.

Ryan is the Content Director at Ahrefs and former CMO of Animalz.

Why ‘Vertical Volatility’ Is the Missing Link in Your Keyword Strategy

Get insight and analysis on the world's top SaaS brands, each and every Monday morning.

Success! Now check your email to confirm your subscription.

There was an error submitting your subscription. Please try again.

Your complimentary articles

You’ve read one of your four complimentary articles for this month.

You can read four articles free per month. To have complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please

Hegel & History

Hegel’s understanding of history, jack fox-williams outlines the basics of how history works for hegel..

One of Hegel’s most interesting but misunderstood areas of enquiry concerns history, particularly his so-called ‘dialectical’ approach to understanding the development of human society. This article aims to provide a brief but useful outline of Hegel’s historical theory, and demonstrate its relevance to the modern age.

Hegel’s Classification of History

In his Introduction to Lectures on the Philosophy of World History (1837), Hegel argues that there are three ways of doing history.

The first of these is original history. Original history refers to first-hand accounts of events, actions and situations, collected or verified by the historian himself. It includes the historian’s own experiences as part of the history he’s recording. Hegel says that the purpose of original history is to create a ‘mental representation’ of phenomena. Contemporary historians aim to record recent and current events with precision and accuracy, explaining and summarising it simply.

However, as Duncan Forbes writes in his introduction to the Introduction , “the first, most primitive (that is logically primitive) kind of history, ‘original’ history, is barely history at all in so far as it represents an immediate unity between the historian’s consciousness; this sort of contemporary history is necessarily limited.” Forbes argues that it is impossible for the original historian to provide much theory on, or even reflect very comprehensively on, events he has only just witnessed. As Hegel notes, original history constitutes a ‘portrait of a time’ rather than an academic analysis of past events. Hegel cites Thucydides and Herodotus as prime examples of original historians, since their accounts constitute a “history whose spirit the historian has shared in.” Consequently, their accounts express “the maxims of their nation and their own personality, their consciousness of their political position and of their moral spiritual nature, and the principles which underlie their designs and conflict.” So by examining this sort of history, we can acquire a greater understanding of a culture’s customs, beliefs, and practices, and so penetrate into the essence of a specific period. Speeches recorded in historical accounts are uniquely valuable in this regard, since they embody a particular time and place; they constitute ‘effective actions in their very essence’, and provide us with a sense of history as it unfolded at the time. They cannot be regarded as disinterested reflections on the historical process, but as ‘integral components of history’ recorded by historians who embody the cultural consciousness of the speaker. As Hegel observes in his Introduction , “speeches are actions among human beings; indeed, they are extremely important momentous actions… Speeches on a national or international plane, issuing from nations themselves or from their sovereigns, are actions and, as such, are an essential object of history (and particularly of earlier history).”

According to Hegel, it is possible to distinguish three stages of original history. In antiquity, it was primarily statesmen (or their scribes) who recorded history. During the Middle Ages, monks assumed the role, since they had the time and education to record the world around them. Hegel observes that in his own time “all this has changed… Our culture immediately converts all events into reports for intellectual representation.”

A second type of history discussed by Hegel is reflective history . Unlike original history, reflective history is not limited to a particular timeframe. It transcends the present culture. It attempts to provide a summary of histories or historical events that have already occurred – in other words, records of a particular culture, country, or period.

Hegel separates reflective history into universal history, pragmatic history, critical history, and specialised history. Universal history aims to provide an entire history of, say, a people, or even of the world. In the case of world histories, significant events must be condensed into brief statements, and the author’s own opinions are integral to the account. Pragmatic history, on the other hand, has a theory or ideology behind it; events are “connected into one pattern in their universal and inner meaning.” The pragmatic account also has more to do with reflections on the historical process, and is not merely about reporting what occurred during a specific period.

Critical reflective history is based on research into the accuracy of historical accounts, and presents alternative explanations and narratives. Hegel is himself critical of this particular type of history, which apparently ‘extorts’ new discourse from existing accounts. He believes that this is a crude and futile way to achieve ‘reality’, that is, understanding, in history, since it replaces facts with subjective impressions and call these impressions reality.

The last type of reflective history that Hegel mentions is ‘specialised history’. Specialised history focuses on a specific historical topic, such as the history of art, law, or religion.

History & Reason

Hegel’s third way of doing history, philosophical history , prioritises thought above event-commentary, synthesising philosophical concepts and ideas with historical information. Hegel himself is doing this kind of activity when he famously argues that the process of human history is a process of self-recognition guided by ‘the principle of reason’.

For Hegel, nature is the embodiment of reason. In the same way that nature strives towards increasing complexity and harmony, so does the world spirit through the historical process. The Presocratic philosopher Anaxagoras (c.500-428 BC) was the first person to argue that nous (meaning reason, or maybe understanding in general) ultimately governs the world – not as an intelligence, but like a fundamental essence of being. Hegel stresses the importance of this distinction, using the solar system as an example. He writes:

“The motion of the solar system proceeds according to immutable laws; these laws are its reason. But neither the sun nor the planets which according to these laws rotate around it, have any consciousness of it. Thus, the thought that there is reason in nature, that nature is ruled by universal, unchangeable laws, does not surprise us; we are used to it and make very little of it…” ( Reason in History ).

Moreover, Hegel argues that evidence of reason is revealed through religious truth, which demonstrates that the world is governed not by chance but by a Providence. During profound moments of spiritual epiphany, we come to the realisation that a divine order presides over the world. Providence is wisdom endowed with an infinite power, which realises its own purpose, that is, the absolute, rational, final purpose of the world; reason is “thought determining itself in absolute freedom.” Hegel suggests that many stages of human history appear irrational and regressive because society is made up of individuals guided by passions, impulses and external forces. However, behind the seeming irregularity of human history lies a divine plan that is hidden from view and yet actualises itself through the historical process. As a result of the many conflicts, revolutions and revolts that society endures, humanity attains a greater glimpse of reason.

Hegel goes even further in the development of his argument and suggests that the realisation of reason in history also serves as a justification for belief in God. He acknowledges that history reveals the cruelty and sadism of human nature, but urges “recognition of the positive elements in which the negative element disappears as something subordinate and vanquished.” Through the consciousness of reason, we recognise that the ultimate purpose of the world is incrementally actualised through those occasional historical events which bring about positive transformation and change. In this sense, Hegel presents a highly progressive view of history, perceiving the development of human society as a dynamic process by which our rational faculties become ever more refined and cultivated. Although, there is evil in the world, reason ultimately triumphs.

History as a Manifestation of Spirit

Hegel’s providence is not the providence of the Judeo-Christian God. Rather, Hegel argues that universal history is itself the divine Spirit or Geist manifesting or working.

Hegel claims that “all will readily assent to the doctrine that Spirit, among other properties, is endowed with Freedom… Freedom is the soul truth of Spirit” ( Introduction ). For Hegel, history unfolds as the self-actualisation of Spirit, eventually resolving itself into the manifestation of true human liberty through the freest form of government. He further argues that self-consciousness is synonymous with the freedom of Spirit – freedom is self-consciousness – since self-consciousness depends on its own being to come into actuality, so must create itself in absolute freedom. And in regards to history, Hegel argues that universal history is the ultimate exhibition of Spirit “in the process of working out the knowledge of that which it is potentially” ( Introduction ). And that which it potentially is, in essence, is freedom. This is why the culmination of the process of history which is the Spirit’s developing knowledge of itself is a knowledge of absolute freedom, through the freest possible political state.

Hegel uses historical examples to demonstrate the process by which the freedom of Spirit becomes actualised through human history. First, he asserts that the origin of the state is not through a ‘social contract’ freely entered into by people, as philosophers such as Hobbes had argued. Rather, to be human means to inhabit a society with other human beings, following basic codes, laws, rules and norms. In other words, it is impossible that humanity existed in a pre-political condition, because politics is a fundamental part of our nature.

According to Hegel’s understanding, politics passes through three stages: from that of the family (or tribe) to civil society, to the state. The state is the ultimate manifestation of Spirit since its development marks an increasing human autonomy. As Hegel writes, “the freedom of nature… is not anything real; for the state is the first realisation of freedom” ( Introduction ). This is due to the fact that members of a state give up their individualism to support the freedom of the community as a whole, and for Hegel, true freedom is communal. We might explain this by saying that without the state, the rights of the individual would become paramount, compromising the greater good of humanity, and so the greater freedom of the Spirit.

Hegel states that original historical cultures, which he calls ‘Oriental’ cultures, including for instance ancient Persia and China, did not attain knowledge of Spirit since they believed that man is not ultimately free. He thought that the Oriental mind-set was instead towards tyranny: to think that people should be governed by a divine ruler or absolute king. This is freedom for only one person: the ruler! The Greeks were aware of freedom, and rejected tyranny for democracy, which is political freedom for the voting set. Their freedom was maintained under conditions of slavery – a fact that made “liberty on the one hand only an accidental, transient and limited growth; on the other hand, it constituted a rigorous thraldom of our common nature of the Human.” So according to Hegel, the German nations, under the influence of Christianity, were the first to come to the realisation that man possesses free will. And even while slavery still occurred under Christianity and subsequent political systems, the notion of individual freedom has become central to states, governments, and constitutions, first in the West, then elsewhere.

Hegel’s Dialectic

For Hegel, historical development proceeds not in a straight line “but in a spiral and leading upwards to growth and progress. This is where action follows reaction; from the opposition of action and reaction a harmony or synthesis results” (‘The Individual, The State and Political Freedom in Hegel’, Uchenna Osigwe, 2014). Whereas many other political thinkers have postulated that political history goes through absolute monarchy to despotism to democracy, Hegel believed that it goes from despotism to democracy, to constitutional monarchy, which combines the features of both despotism and democracy while transcending both. So Hegel uses a ‘dialectical’ approach to examine the course of human history. The dialectic is frequently described in terms of a thesis giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis , which contradicts or negates the thesis; and then the tension between the two is resolved by means of a synthesis of them. Then the synthesis becomes the new thesis… However, Hegel never used this specific terminology (which was originally ascribed to Kant).

The notion that history follows a dialectical pattern can be observed in a more modern context. Communist (socialist) ideologies were a reaction against capitalism, but failed to create sustainable social, political and economic systems, and resulted in the deaths of millions of people around the world. But after the end of the two World Wars, European nations adopted the liberal democratic system – a synthesis of socialism and capitalism. While the state is charged with the responsibility of governing certain aspects of society, such as the law or the military, and other key services, it also promotes business and free-trade. In terms of Hegel’s dialectic, the contradiction of views between socialism and capitalism resulted in a liberal democratic synthesis.

Francis Fukuyama, in his 1992 book The End of History and the Last Man famously argued for the Hegelian concept of the end of History. According to Fukuyama, history has already reached its final stage, in which dialectical ideological conflict is finally eradicated and replaced by a single, universal ideology. Thus, when Communist regimes collapsed across Eastern Europe and those countries looked towards the West, this demonstrated the victory of liberalism.

European countries have not engaged in any major conflict with each other since the Second World War, and Europe has since flourished under the principles of liberal democracy, socially, economically and politically. In this sense, Hegel’s vision of history as a progressive development of political freedom is partially supported by recent historical events.

© Jack Fox-Williams 2020

Jack Fox-Williams graduated from Goldsmiths University with a BA (Hons) in History and History of Ideas, then took a Masters in Law at the Open University. He is currently a doctoral student at the University of Portsmouth and is writing a book on the works of Nietzsche.

Hegel’s Dialectic in a Coffee Cup

Hegel’s theory of dialectics constitutes the last great philosophical system. History is a process that includes everything and everyone, a process in which we all participate. Hegel’s fundamental idea is that history is not a matter of dates and battles and events, but of ‘logic’. It is about how ideas and beliefs interact and develop out of one another, because ideas rule everything else.

Since we are all part of this process, philosophers can think only within the confines of their own historical horizon. This means that philosophy itself is tied to history. To Hegel, philosophy is “its time grasped in thought”. We cannot step outside time, and there is no eternal realm of reason. History and thought emerge together! So, what we try to understand is a complex organic structure, and it is vital to grasp how its parts, which Hegel calls ‘categories’, are connected.

The link between the categories is called the ‘dialectic’. This is an objective order, inherent in the deep structure of things, and characterised by contradiction. Note that therefore to Hegel the dialectic is not simply a method that we apply to understand history. It is the way things actually work in the world. It is not something we make up but something we discover.

Hegel says the dialectic has a three-step structure. Let’s take the example of a historical development involving three categories, from A to B to C. Hegel calls A ‘the immediate’, a self-contained state of affairs. As soon as you spell out A, you must refer to its opposite, B, which is what Hegel calls the ‘first negative’. You realise that A is necessarily connected with its opposite. B is the negation of A, but it is also a modified A: it contains elements of its opposite. But that brings us to a third category, C, which he calls the ‘second negative’. Why? Well, in trying to spell out what B is you realise you must refer back to the previously modified A. C is therefore the negation of B. It constitutes a ‘simple calm unit’: You can imagine this process like dropping a piece of sugar into a glass of water. Once the sugar has dissolved, there is only a homogenous whole. It is inherent in the nature of categories that they contradict each other. Contradiction is characteristic of the nature of reality.

Hegel has a speculative word that describes what happens during a dialectic movement: ‘sublation’. It has three meanings all of which are important to the dialectic:

1. to lift up (every movement, A to B or B to C, means a progression to a higher, more sophisticated level);

2. to preserve (in B something of A is preserved, in C something of A and B is preserved);

3. to negate (B negates A, C negates B).

This sound technical, but Hegel thought sublation to be a normal part of the unfolding of historical events. Indeed, it doesn’t just describe the clashing of ideologies on a grand historical scale, but is a part of everyday human life. Let’s take a look at an example.

The immediate : You wake up and you think that coffee is the best drink in the world and definitely what you want now. Immediately! So you drink four cups with your breakfast.

First negative : Then you feel really sick. Your new position is that you will never drink coffee again.

Second negative : In reaction to the other two categories, a further category develops which preserves something of both of them, but represents a more sophisticated level. You decide that coffee is great in moderation and that you will only ever drink one cup of coffee a day in future.

Anja Steinbauer

This site uses cookies to recognize users and allow us to analyse site usage. By continuing to browse the site with cookies enabled in your browser, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our privacy policy . X

Antithesis (Grammar and Rhetoric)

Glossary of Grammatical and Rhetorical Terms

 Richard Nordquist

• An Introduction to Punctuation
• Ph.D., Rhetoric and English, University of Georgia
• M.A., Modern English and American Literature, University of Leicester
• B.A., English, State University of New York

Antithesis is a  rhetorical term for the juxtaposition of contrasting ideas in balanced phrases or clauses . Plural: antitheses . Adjective: antithetical .

In grammatical terms, antithetical statements are parallel structures . 

"A perfectly formed antithesis," says Jeanne Fahnestock, combines " isocolon , parison , and perhaps, in an inflected language, even homoeoteleuton ; it is an overdetermined figure . The aural patterning of the antithesis, its tightness and predictability, are critical to appreciating how the syntax of the figure can be used to force semantic opposites" ( Rhetorical Figures in Science , 1999).

From the Greek, "opposition"

Examples and Observations

• "Love is an ideal thing, marriage a real thing." (Goethe)
• "Everybody doesn't like something, but nobody doesn't like Sara Lee." (advertising slogan)
• "There are so many things that we wish we had done yesterday, so few that we feel like doing today." (Mignon McLaughlin, The Complete Neurotic's Notebook . Castle Books, 1981)
• "We notice things that don't work. We don't notice things that do. We notice computers, we don't notice pennies. We notice e-book readers, we don't notice books." (Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time . Macmillan, 2002)
• "Hillary has soldiered on, damned if she does, damned if she doesn't, like most powerful women, expected to be tough as nails and warm as toast at the same time." (Anna Quindlen, "Say Goodbye to the Virago." Newsweek , June 16, 2003)
• "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way." (Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities , 1859)
• "Tonight you voted for action, not politics as usual. You elected us to focus on your jobs, not ours." (President Barack Obama, election night victory speech, November 7, 2012)
• "You're easy on the eyes Hard on the heart." (Terri Clark)
• "We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools." (Martin Luther King, Jr., speech at St. Louis, 1964)
• "The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here." (Abraham Lincoln, The Gettysburg Address , 1863)
• "All the joy the world contains Has come through wishing happiness for others. All the misery the world contains Has come through wanting pleasure for oneself." (Shantideva)
• "The more acute the experience, the less articulate its expression." (Harold Pinter, "Writing for the Theatre," 1962)
• "And let my liver rather heat with wine Than my heart cool with mortifying groans." (Gratiano in The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare)
• Jack London's Credo "I would rather be ashes than dust! I would rather that my spark should burn out in a brilliant blaze than it should be stifled by dryrot. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of man is to live, not to exist. I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them. I shall use my time." (Jack London, quoted by his literary executor, Irving Shepard, in an introduction to a 1956 collection of London's stories)
• Antithesis and Antitheton " Antithesis is the grammatical form of antitheton . Antitheton deals with contrasting thoughts or proofs in an argument ; Antithesis deals with contrasting words or ideas within a phrase, sentence, or paragraph." (Gregory T. Howard, Dictionary of Rhetorical Terms . Xlibris, 2010)
• Antithesis and Antonyms Antithesis as a figure of speech exploits the existence of many 'natural' opposites in the vocabularies of all languages. Small children filling in workbooks and adolescents studying for the antonyms section of the SAT learn to match words to their opposites and so absorb much vocabulary as pairs of opposed terms, connecting up to down and bitter to sweet, pusillanimous to courageous and ephemeral to everlasting. Calling these antonyms 'natural' simply means that pairs of words can have wide currency as opposites among users of a language outside any particular context of use. Word association tests give ample evidence of the consistent linking of opposites in verbal memory when subjects given one of a pair of antonyms most often respond with the other, 'hot' triggering 'cold' or 'long' retrieving 'short' (Miller 1991, 196). An antithesis as a figure of speech at the sentence level builds on these powerful natural pairs, the use of one in the first half of the figure creating the expectation of its verbal partner in the second half." (Jeanne Fahnestock, Rhetorical Figures in Science . Oxford University Press, 1999)
• Antithesis in Films - "Since . . . the quality of a scene or image is more vividly shown when set beside its opposite, it is not surprising to find antithesis in film . . .. There is a cut in Barry Lyndon (Stanley Kubrick) from the yellow flickers of a flaming house to a still gray courtyard, lined with soldiers, and another from the yellow candles and warm browns of a gambling room to the cool grays of a terrace by moonlight and the Countess of Lyndon in white." (N. Roy Clifton, The Figure in Film . Associated University Presses, 1983) "It is clear that in every simile there is present both differences and likenesses, and both are a part of its effect. By ignoring differences, we find a simile and may perhaps find an antithesis in the same event, by ignoring likeness. . . . - "In The Lady Eve (Preston Sturges), a passenger boards a liner by tender. This was conveyed by the two vessels' whistling. We see a convulsive spurt of water and hear a desperate, soundless puff before the siren of the tender found its voice. There was a stuttering amazement, a drunken incoordination to these elaborate preliminaries, foiled by the liner's lofty unruffled burst of sounding steam. Here things that are like, in place, in sound, and in function, are unexpectedly contrasted. The commentary lies in the differences and gains force from the likeness." (N. Roy Clifton, The Figure in Film . Associated University Presses, 1983)
• Antithetical Observations of Oscar Wilde - “When we are happy, we are always good, but when we are good, we are not always happy.” ( The Picture of Dorian Gray , 1891) - “We teach people how to remember, we never teach them how to grow.” ("The Critic as Artist," 1991) - “Wherever there is a man who exercises authority, there is a man who resists authority.” ( The Soul of Man Under Socialism , 1891) - “Society often forgives the criminal; it never forgives the dreamer.” ("The Critic as Artist," 1991)

Pronunciation: an-TITH-uh-sis

• The Top 20 Figures of Speech
• Figure of Speech: Definition and Examples
• What Is Anastrophe in Rhetoric?
• Ethopoeia (Rhetoric)
• Aposiopesis: The Broken Figure of Speech
• Pun: Definition and Examples in English
• AP English Exam: 101 Key Terms
• Syncrisis (Rhetoric) Definition and Examples
• Figure of Thought in Rhetoric
• Brief Introductions to Common Figures of Speech
• Prosopopoeia: Definition and Examples
• presence (rhetoric)
• Polyptoton (Rhetoric)
• Understatement
• Enumeratio (Enumeration)
• Scheme (Rhetoric): Definition and Examples

Literature Review Survival Library Guide: Thesis, antithesis and synthesis

• What is a literature review?
• Thesis, antithesis and synthesis
• 1. Choose your topic
• 2. Collect relevant material
• 3. Read/Skim articles
• 4. Group articles by themes
• 5. Use citation databases
• 6. Find agreement & disagreement
• Review Articles - A new option on Google Scholar
• How To Follow References
• Newspaper archives
• Aditi's Humanities Referencing Style Guide
• Referencing and RefWorks
• New-version RefWorks Demo
• Tracking Your Academic Footprint This link opens in a new window
• Finding Seminal Authors and Mapping the Shape of the Literature
• Types of Literature Review, including "Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide"
• Research Data Management
• Tamzyn Suleiman's guide to Systematic Reviews
• Danielle Abrahamse's Search String Design and Search Template

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis

The classic pattern of academic arguments is:

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

An Idea (Thesis) is proposed, an opposing Idea (Antithesis) is proposed, and a revised Idea incorporating (Synthesis) the opposing Idea is arrived at. This revised idea sometimes sparks another opposing idea, another synthesis, and so on…

If you can show this pattern at work in your literature review, and, above all, if you can suggest a new synthesis of two opposing views, or demolish one of the opposing views, then you are almost certainly on the right track.

Next topic: Step 1: Choose your topic

• << Previous: What is a literature review?
• Next: 1. Choose your topic >>
• Last Updated: Apr 2, 2024 12:22 PM
• URL: https://libguides.lib.uct.ac.za/litreviewsurvival

• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

Definition of antithesis

Did you know.

Writers and speechmakers use the traditional pattern known as antithesis for its resounding effect; John Kennedy's famous "ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country" is an example. But antithesis normally means simply "opposite". Thus, war is the antithesis of peace, wealth is the antithesis of poverty, and love is the antithesis of hate. Holding two antithetical ideas in one's head at the same time—for example, that you're the sole master of your fate but also the helpless victim of your terrible upbringing—is so common as to be almost normal.

Examples of antithesis in a Sentence

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'antithesis.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

Late Latin, from Greek, literally, opposition, from antitithenai to oppose, from anti- + tithenai to set — more at do

1529, in the meaning defined at sense 1b(1)

Dictionary Entries Near antithesis

anti-theoretical

Cite this Entry

“Antithesis.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antithesis. Accessed 11 Jun. 2024.

Kids Definition

Kids definition of antithesis, more from merriam-webster on antithesis.

Nglish: Translation of antithesis for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of antithesis for Arabic Speakers

Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about antithesis

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

What's the difference between 'fascism' and 'socialism', more commonly misspelled words, commonly misspelled words, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), absent letters that are heard anyway, popular in wordplay, the words of the week - june 7, 8 words for lesser-known musical instruments, 9 superb owl words, 10 words for lesser-known games and sports, your favorite band is in the dictionary, games & quizzes.

• Corrections

What Do Hegel and Marx Have in Common?

Hegel’s writings had a strong influence on Karl Marx’s philosophy. A closer look at the notions shared by Hegel and Marx, particularly that of dialectics, reveals their complex underlying connection.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Karl Marx are two prominent 19th-century German philosophers who are often mentioned together. That’s mainly because Hegel had a widely recognized influence on Marx. Both philosophers theorized about the underlying dynamics of human history. It’s fair to say that Karl Marx was some sort of a Hegelian during his early intellectual period; but it’s also frequently said that Marx’s philosophy is the opposite of Hegel’s. Dialectics stands out as the key concept to fully understanding the relationship between Hegel and Marx.

Hegel and Marx: Two Sides of a Coin?

Most people who have studied Marxism have probably come across the popular phrase: “Marx turned Hegel’s philosophy right side up.” This conclusion is derived from a rather shallow depiction of Marx ’s materialist reconstruction of Hegel’s idealist philosophy. It is hard to argue against this phrase, as it is based on an actual quote by Marx from Capital: Volume I .

Although an extreme over-simplification, this basic idea holds some truth. Marx was a follower of Hegel, at least when he was one of the Young Hegelians . Then he built his own thought through an interpretation and critique of Hegel’s philosophy. But did Marx really turn Hegel’s philosophy right side up? Why did he perceive Hegel’s philosophy as upside down? Was Marx’s criticism of Hegel sound? Are there Hegelian traces in Marx’s philosophy? These are some of the questions this article will attempt to answer.

If Marx turned Hegel’s philosophy right side up, this implies that he did not simply reject Hegel’s philosophy. Marx made use of Hegel’s ideas but in a reversed method. After all, the ultimate goal in both philosophers’ theories was human freedom, though they believed it would be reached in different ways. Similarities can be seen even through an overview of the outlines of the two philosophies. Both philosophers examined patterns of development in human history, by which they attempted to understand modern society. Marx went further and produced a theory in accordance with these patterns of history to figure out what needs to be done for societies to progress. On the other hand, Hegel believes that we cannot rationally aim for an ideal like Marx’s communism, as historical progress happens naturally, by itself. The inverse dialectical methods they use are reflected in the roles they give to philosophy.

Get the latest articles delivered to your inbox

Please check your inbox to activate your subscription, hegel and marx on the role of philosophy.

An overarching topic on which Marx confronted Hegel is a meta-discussion about philosophy. Their opposing views on the role of philosophy allow us to see the big picture and trace this contrast down to the details of their various theories.

“Philosophy is its own time comprehended in thoughts.” (Hegel, 2003, p.21)

This is a phrase by Hegel found in a paragraph from the preface to Elements of the Philosophy of Right . Before this statement, Hegel argues that individuals cannot escape from their own time. This means that the way we think is ultimately shaped by our history: we can’t escape from our epoch and look at the world from a so-called objective perspective. Therefore, philosophy is trapped in its own time just like individuals.

What we can do, according to Hegel, is to study history to understand the underlying concepts of our time. However, this will not enable us to predict the future. This idea has its roots in Hegel’s theory of the object-subject relationship, which will become clearer in the next chapters.

On the other hand, the role Marx gives to philosophy is in direct conflict with Hegel’s;

“Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.” (Marx, 2002 )

Marx’s famous 11th thesis on Feuerbach shouldn’t be understood as a simple call for action. It is rather a reminder to philosophers that social problems stem from material conditions. For Marx, philosophy should seek ways of understanding and changing these real-life conditions, such as exploitation .

The main reason Marx opposed Hegel’s passive attitude is that Marx thought our ideas are shaped by material circumstances. According to Marx, the economic base – the relations of production – predominantly influences the superstructure – culture , science, ideology, religion, politics, etc. – of a society. Therefore, he believed that we cannot simply expect people to change minds without changing the world first.

Hegelian Dialectics: The Speculative Method

Understanding dialectics is the key to grasping why the two thinkers went in different directions despite using essentially very similar methods. What is dialectics ? In its classical form, the dialectical method goes back to Plato ’s Socratic dialogues such as Euthyphro . These texts involve back-and-forth dialogues, usually between Socrates and an opponent, which aim to clarify definitions or resolve contradictions.

Hegelian dialectics , or the speculative method in Hegelian terminology, is a conceptual/logical process rather than a dialogue between subjects. It differs in that it follows a triadic scheme that resolves the inner contradictions of a concept. Popularly, the thesis-antithesis-synthesis scheme has been incorrectly attributed to Hegel, although he never used these concepts. This formula was introduced by Hegel’s predecessor Johann Gottlieb Fichte .

Hegel instead used a scheme of abstract-negative-concrete . That’s because the scheme thesis-antithesis-synthesis doesn’t help us understand the logic of the dialectical process. The formula does not explain the characteristics of the thesis and how the antithesis should logically follow; it’s open to arbitrariness. Hegel’s formula, on the other hand, suggests that initially there is a flaw in any thesis . In the first moment, the thesis is too abstract that needs to pass through the negative experience of trial and error. Only then, the final synthesis – concrete – can reach completion by grasping the positive aspects of abstract and negative to form a unity.

A relevant example is found in social contract theory, which also relates to Hegel’s philosophy of history. In simple terms, the theory begins with a state of nature ; a state of lawlessness in which everyone is free to act as they want. Then, people agree to form an authoritative government to secure themselves from interference. We can add a final stage to the social contract theory, where people realize that the state has become a power that dominates them and reform it. That’s the formation of the modern state in oversimplified terms.

The first moment, i..e the state of nature, is the abstract stage in the Hegelian sense. It provided positive freedom for action but lacked negative freedom from interference. The second moment of an authoritative state is the negative stage: It challenges the first moment by attempting to overcome its inner contradictions. But it is also incomplete as people are dominated by state authority; they experience a different kind of unfreedom. The final stage, the modern state, forms a unity of the previous stages by attaining the good aspects of both: freedom to act, and freedom from interference.

Marxian Dialectics: A Materialist Conception of History

While not rejecting Hegel’s broad understanding of dialectics, Marx thought that the dialectical method had to deal with the material world. Hence he stated that with Hegel, dialectics was “… standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again… ” (Marx, 2015 ) Hegel’s dialectics dealt with contradictions in ideas ; even when applied to historical cases, it began as a conceptual process. Marx, on the contrary, sought to use dialectics to analyze history through material changes, as he believed that material circumstances ultimately shaped human thought.

Marxian dialectics is embodied in Marx’s materialist conception of history , which is most simply summarized in the preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy . Marx explains how individuals find themselves in certain social relations that are conditioned by the economic structure of their society. The mode and relations of production in that structure ultimately shape the consciousness of that society. The economic structure eventually changes through a revolution ignited by the emerging contradictions between social classes;

“At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production…Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.” (Marx, 1977 )

We can use historical narratives to present Marx’s theory more simply. The dialectic involves the transformation of primitive societies into slave states, slave states into feudal societies, and feudal societies into capitalist states. The contradictions in these societies are resolved through class conflicts , which change the organization of economic relations. As Marx declared, “ The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” ( The Communist Manifesto , 1848 ). Therefore, when it came to the society he lived in, he believed that the working class would eventually overthrow the capitalist state and create the conditions for communism in the final stage.

Marx’s Critique of Hegel’s Idealism

In the afterword to Capital: Volume I , Marx discusses the differences between his dialectical method and Hegel’s:

“My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.” (Marx, 2015 )

In this paragraph, Marx attributes an interesting type of idealism to Hegel. Marx’s description of the Hegelian method gives the impression that Hegel believed that mysterious immaterial things called ideas generated the material world we experience. It’s as if Hegel holds a Cartesian view of knowledge, that there are mental and material substances , fundamentally different from each other. Marx then criticizes Hegel for believing that mental substance determines the material substance. Many scholars have blamed Marx for misinterpretation here, as he doesn’t provide a very accurate description of Hegel’s idealism .

In philosophy, the word substance simply means the first material from which everything else is made. In Pre-Socratic philosophy, substance was water for Thales and fire for Heraclitus. In Descartes’ dualism, there were two substances: mind and body ( subject and object ). Hegel, however, doesn’t think that the subject and the object are separate substances. Hegel, in his examination of human knowledge, concluded that subject is always part of the substance object during perception. Hegel stresses the social character of knowledge. Marx’s seeming mistake was to assume that Hegel was making a causal explanation of the universe and that the main cause was ideal . Instead, Hegel’s theory is a normative one: An attempt to show the correct form of reasoning , and that knowledge always involves a social process.

History and the Obstacles to Human Freedom

Hegel considered history as an intelligible process toward human freedom. With each step, the underlying concepts of our societies, as Hegel argues, become more rational through resolving their contradictions. That’s how we can make sense of historical leaps such as the French Revolution , by using our contemporary conception of freedom .

Hegel didn’t consider philosophy to be the task of seeking what ought to be , but of understanding what is through concepts. Hence in Elements of the Philosophy of Right, Hegel attempts to show that we can only be free by participating in the social life of the modern state. This roughly includes family life, moral responsibilities, property relations, the economy, and the legal system.

It seems that the obstacles to freedom for Hegel are subjective . The main issue for him is understanding social life and our role in it, rather than changing the world. This doesn’t mean that Hegel considered the modern state of his time to be the ultimate form of state. He did believe that the 19th-century modern state in a perfected form could provide freedom. In any case, Hegel thought that through the dialectics of history, we would slowly create the conditions of absolute freedom anyway. Therefore, the individual’s task is to understand the necessity of the modern social order and participate in it.

On the other hand, Marx believed the obstacles to freedom to be purely objective . The material conditions of the world had to change, according to Marx, to make freedom possible. As the social, cultural, and ideological concepts of society were determined by the relations of production, Marx deemed a revolutionary movement necessary. That’s the reason why Marx went one step further than Hegel and assigned a revolutionary mission to his philosophy. For Hegel, we cannot possibly know the next stage of our history or if history will ever come to an end . Marx instead argued that socialism and communism would be our next two destinations if we prepared the preconditions, drawing on past historical patterns.

Reconciling Hegel and Marx in Dialectics

It is clear as day that Hegel has strongly influenced Marx ’s method of analysis. We can find numerous examples from their writings that fit the same dialectical scheme. In Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel also describes the three stages of dialectics as “… unity, separated opposites, reunion. ” (Hegel, 2017 ) At first, two things are in unity in a primitive or unconscious manner. In the second moment, they separate from each other. In the final stage, they unite again while respecting the distinction drawn in the second moment.

This scheme can be seen in Marx’s description of how workers differ in relation to their own labor in primitive societies, capitalism, and communism. In another example, the individual in Hegel’s modern state theory experiences the same processes through the three spheres of ethical life: family, civil society, and state.

It is still remarkable, however, how much Marx’s philosophy shook the world by placing Hegel’s method on materialistic grounds. The two philosophers also differed in their impact on the world, as in their methods. Hegel’s influence, befitting his idealism, remained in the intellectual realm. Marx’s materialist philosophy, on the other hand, shaped the entire course of history, albeit controversially.

Karl Marx in 5 Important Works

By Baran Barlas MA Political Studies, BA Philosophy Baran is a writer and translator from Istanbul. He holds a BA in Philosophy and an MA in Political Studies. His main areas of interest are political philosophy, ethics, and the intersection of the two. He has recently been focusing on the ethical aspects of Marx's philosophy and looks forward to starting a PhD in philosophy. He's passionate about gastronomy, history of music, and football.

Frequently Read Together

Young Karl Marx: Explore the Controversial Philosopher’s Early Ideas

What is Dialectic? From Heraclitus to Marx

What Is Cultural Marxism? Fredric Jameson on Karl Marx

Thesis, antithesis and synthesis: A constructive direction for politics and policy after Brexit and Trump

• Ravi Gurumurthy

About Nesta

Nesta is an innovation foundation. For us, innovation means turning bold ideas into reality and changing lives for the better. We use our expertise, skills and funding in areas where there are big challenges facing society.

German philosopher Georg Hegel said that history evolves in dialectical ways, with successive phases of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. This framework fits well with where we stand today

Geoff Mulgan

Chief Executive Officer

Geoff Mulgan was Chief Executive of Nesta from 2011-2019.

In the heady days of 1989, with communism collapsing and the Cold War seemingly over, the political theorist Francis Fukuyama declared that we were witnessing the "end of history" which had culminated in the triumph of liberal democracy and the free market.

Fukuyama was drawing on the ideas of German philosopher Georg Hegel, but of course, history didn’t come to an end, and, as recent events have shown, the Cold War was just sleeping, not dead.

Now, following the political convulsions of 2016, we’re at a very different turning point, which many are trying to make sense of. I want to suggest that we can again usefully turn to Hegel, but this time to his idea that history evolves in dialectical ways, with successive phases of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

Hegel implied that we should see history, and progress, not as a straight line but rather as a zigzag, shaped by the ways in which people bump into barriers, or face disappointments, and then readjust their course

This framework fits well with where we stand today. The ‘thesis’ that has dominated mainstream politics for the last generation – and continues to be articulated shrilly by many proponents – is the claim that the combination of globalisation, technological progress and liberalisation empowers the great majority.

The antithesis, which, in part, fuelled the votes for Brexit and Trump, as well as the rise of populist parties and populist authoritarian leaders in Europe and beyond, is the argument that this technocratic combination merely empowers a minority and disempowers the majority of citizens.

A more progressive synthesis - which I will outline - then has to address the flaws of the thesis and the grievances of the antithesis, in fields ranging from education and health to democracy and migration, dealing head on with questions of power and its distribution: questions about who has power, and who feels powerful.

Let’s start with the thesis, which in essence was simple: increasing globalisation and liberalisation, combined with waves of new technology, would empower everyone. The more we acceded to this, the faster the benefits would spread.

Better jobs, more money, greater freedoms, increased opportunities… everyone would be a winner in the end, even if many had to find new skills along the way.

For three decades, this was the message from political and corporate leaders, in speeches and op-eds, conferences and talks. Books by journalists and business gurus breathlessly proclaimed that the world was now flat, borderless and open rendering old attachments irrelevant. It was an article of faith that more openness, and more flow (of capital, people, goods and information) would contribute to the public good.

The internet was a great symbol of this: bringing information and data across boundaries, and connecting huge swathes of the world’s population. Social media would end isolation. Smart machine learning tools would solve problems, with artificial intelligence applied not just to search engines but also to health care, criminal justice, climate change and humanitarian disasters.

The thesis was symbolised in futuristic visions of hypermobility, where fleets of flying cars and drones would overcome barriers of physical distance. As consumers, we’d find goods and services at the beck and call of our mobile devices, while Amazon would drop parcels in our front gardens, taking us to a seamless future where life would become effortless and frictionless.

The optimists could point to extraordinary achievements. The last two generations have seen unprecedented advances in prosperity: dramatic rises in life expectancy (40 years in a century); greater democracy; falls in poverty (to less than 10 per cent of the world population).

Such sunny forecasts were given confidence by the continuing falls in the price of computing and genomics, and by the rising ambitions of hundreds of millions in India, China and elsewhere.

Credit: genome.gov

For the business world the dramatically declining costs of starting a new firm – particularly in the digital economy – offered the prospect of a far more open and inclusive economy, in which you could sell your ideas or wares, taking advantage of platforms, whether from your bedroom or a remote rural area.

Credit: tbkconsult.com

It seemed obvious that we could extrapolate to a future of ever more integration and ever more benefits from floods of new technologies from virtual and augmented reality to gene sequencing.

This was a positive and optimistic story about where the world was going – a story promoted, it has to be acknowledged, by organisations like Nesta – and a story with plenty of hard evidence to support it.

The antithesis

The counter to these arguments was also simple. In its more coherent forms it accepted some of the thesis, but argued that the combination of globalisation, technology and liberalisation empowered a small, wealthy and mobile ‘elite’ but did little or nothing for the majority, and in fact, often damaged their interests, threatening their jobs and communities.

This antithesis found its voice in politics, everyday conversation and social media (and rendered silent the horde of business gurus who were the most ardent advocates of the thesis but have almost disappeared from view).

It claimed that large minorities had seen their income stagnate. Even larger numbers feared that their children would be worse off than them, and probably jobless, thanks to the combination of migration and automation. It could point to trends in technology which continue to be ‘capital-biased’, meaning a declining share of income for labour, compounded by lax treatment of corporate taxation by governments, often run by political parties directly funded by big business and finance.

Credit: OECD

It could show that, to the extent that jobs were being created, they were concentrating in particular areas – those with high levels of graduates – benefitting the highly educated and well-connected but doing little for the low skilled.

The ‘elephant chart’ showed this at a global level: although the poor and middle classes of China and India had seen extraordinary gains in prosperity, and the global rich got richer, the relatively poor of the developed world had seen their income stagnate and even fall. Though the detail could be challenged, the bigger story was clearly accurate.

Within the rich countries, GDP and productivity growth no longer correlated with job growth – the ‘jaw of the snake’ shown in the diagram below – and now there was the prospect of accelerating jobless growth. In the US for example, in many states the most common job is that of truck driver, a role eminently vulnerable to larger versions of the kind of driverless vehicles that have appeared on the streets of Las Vegas and Pittsburgh.

In many countries automation threatens very many jobs. According to the OECD, which has been sceptical of some of the bigger forecasts of job loss, many apparently rich countries have only small proportions of their workforce in the kind of high performance jobs that are least likely to be replaced by machines.

In this view, although holders of capital were set to do well, having already prospered massively from the huge infusions of credit that followed the financial crash, the majority of the population, often still on incomes lower than in 2007 and less secure jobs, had little to look forward to.

The effects of these shifts are more than economic. In many countries, precariousness leads to both mental and physical ill-health. In the US, Nobel Prize winning economist Angus Deaton showed the rising mortality rates among middle aged white men in particular, and that ‘deaths of despair’ — suicides, opioids and liver disease — had a strong correlation with votes for Donald Trump.

Credit: pnas.org

Peak employment might already have been reached, certainly for some groups (like middle-aged men). A parallel pattern could be seen in global trade: it had been assumed that it was bound to grow but recent data suggests that we may have already passed a moment of peak trade, too.

The sense of a turning point, against the thesis, was evident even before Brexit and Trump. In May 2016, Jeff Immelt of General Electric, and one of the world’s most thoughtful CEOs, said:

"The globalisation I knew, based on trade and global integration, is changing, which is why it’s time for a bold pivot. And, in the face of a protectionist global environment… we will localise… We are going through a transformational change in globalisation, which will require fresh, new thinking."

Technology was another battle-ground where apparently remorseless trends might be turning around. The technologies that were meant to empower us could easily now be seen as the enemy of freedom and opportunity.

The internet was meant to be for everyone, but was instead dominated by a handful of mega-companies that sell our data without our conscious consent. Billboards that read your face not just for your age, gender and ethnicity but also for your degree of attention, are good symbols of this fusion of capitalism and 1984, in which the public are only passive disempowered consumers.

At the very least, it’s clear that the central economic and technological promise of the thesis was not delivered for large minorities.

But the problem wasn’t only economic. For two generations it seemed obvious that democracy was the only plausible governing model for advanced societies, and that its competitors (fascism, communism, dictatorship) had been defeated for good. Now that confidence has been shaken.

In the old democracies, where the forms of democracy have changed little since the 19th century, large minorities have lost faith not just in politicians and political institutions, but even in democracy itself. This is particularly true among younger age groups.

For pessimists, there were plenty of other reasons to worry. It had previously been possible to point to the inexorable spread of science, facts and evidence. But the rise of social media provided echo chambers of lies as well as truth, and popular politicians took pride in their contempt for consistency and accuracy.

It had also seemed obvious that the world was becoming ever healthier. But now we were seeing a growing risk of epidemics and pandemics and the threat of rising antimicrobial resistance which could threaten tens of millions of lives by the mid-century (the topic of Nesta’s Longitude Prize ), in part an effect of a much more connected world with far more travel.

After a period when large parts of the world thought that war was a thing of the past, confrontation between heavily armed, technologically advanced countries is a serious prospect again, with Russia a belligerent aggressor around Europe, and China flexing its muscles.

All of these shifts affected large parts of the world. But they were probably most unsettling for Europe, which once thought of itself as the centre of the world. Now it’s becoming marginal, with a share of the global population shrinking rapidly during this century, as the power centres of economics, politics and, in time, culture, shift to Africa and Asia.

Credit: geohive.com

The net result of all of these trends is anxiety and powerlessness. People were promised that the currents of change, economic, social and technological, would make them feel powerful. Instead, they see decisions being made by political and corporate leaders ever further away from them. They feel like observers, not participants.

Trust in the powerful

One response is to solve the problem by projecting our hopes on to powerful leaders who can promise to fix things. Our powerlessness is solved vicariously through faith, as has happened so often in human history. And so we see the rising tide of populist authoritarian nationalism in almost every region of the world, in the US (Trump), Russia (Putin) and parts of Europe (Marine Le Pen to Alternativ fur Deutschland), echoed in China under Xi, India under Modi and Japan under Abe.

Other countries have yet to follow them, but with polling suggesting that large majorities believe their countries to be heading in the ‘wrong direction’, it’s easy to see how that list could extend quickly.

These authoritarian leaders are less afraid of state action. But a return to hierarchy and deference is unlikely to be an adequate response. And recent experience with populist leaders has been disappointing.

So how should we respond? What is a more constructive response to the current situation?

Simply to assert the old thesis ever more stridently doesn’t work, though it has been a comforting response for many media outlets, thought leaders and politicians. Instead, we need to design a new synthesis, which, in true Hegelian fashion, readapts the thesis in light of the antithesis.

It needs to avoid both nostalgia and the fetishisation of globalisation and technological advance as ends in themselves, rather than as means. And it needs to take seriously the complaints of the bypassed and excluded, the hundreds of millions who feel left behind in a slow lane while the rest of the world hurtles off into a future that’s not for them.

Do away with zombie orthodoxies

A starting point should be a ruthless willingness to do away with zombie orthodoxies. An oddity of the modern world is that policy approaches that don’t work often survive because of inertia.

Here is Paul Romer, newly appointed Chief Economist of the World Bank, September 2016, speaking candidly about the limits of his own profession:

“For more than three decades, macroeconomics has gone backwards…. respect for highly regarded leaders evolves into a deference to authority that displaces objective fact from its position as the ultimate determinant of scientific truth.”

Similar comments could be made about many other fields, or indeed about political parties that so easily get trapped in their own zombie orthodoxies, certainties that survive decades longer than they deserve to.

The spread of evidence is to be welcomed. But it still barely touches many areas of politics and policy, and so out of date ideas continue to dominate long after they have ceased working.

The power test and the potential test

Having cleared the way, we then need new ideas which are rooted in empathy for the many who feel disempowered, and help design practical solutions which use the best of the thesis and don’t ignore its extraordinary successes, but respond energetically to its failings.

At the heart of that needs to be a new approach to power. If the main source of the strident antithesis is a sense of disempowerment then this is where an alternative has to start – not only to shifting power to the people, but also ensuring that people feel that power as well.

We need, in short, to apply a power test to each area of public policy: do policies adequately share power? Are they designed in ways that will help people to feel power over their own lives?

A related test is needed for economic policy. How do different economic policies make the most of the available resources in a society – particularly the human resources that could be contributing to the creation of value?

In what follows, I briefly map out some of the answers in a dozen areas of policy, that stretch from education through health and democracy to the ways government works.

Education that grows makers and shapers

Every survey of current and future skills needs in the workforce confirms that education has to be about more than the transmission of knowledge, important as this is. It needs to also cultivate the ability to solve problems , to work in teams, to create and invent.

That’s why we need schooling models that give young people experience of agency, making the world around them rather than just observing it. Education that passes the power test will also be better aligned with the needs of the economy and social mobility.

This was one reason why Nesta has put so much emphasis on learning to code – not just because of the direct value, but also because of the indirect value of learning how to be a maker not just a consumer. Project-based learning, entrepreneurship embedded into schooling – the sort of models promoted by High Tech High in the US, Lumiar in Brazil or Studio Schools in England – are a response to feelings of disempowerment. They are also aligned with what we know labour markets will be demanding in the future – more ability to work in teams, solve problems, and create (the subject of a major Nesta/ Pearson project looking at future skills needs in the US and UK).

This should be obvious. But education policy in many countries is running in an opposite direction.

Adult skills taken seriously

Few doubt that millions of jobs will either disappear or change as a result of automation, from manufacturing to services and the professions. As that reality dawns, attention will turn to adult education and retraining , to help the millions at risk of losing their jobs adapt to growing industries.

Our problem is that the systems for supporting lifelong learning are largely broken. Despite great traditions – from the WEA to the Open University – the current system is demoralized and suffering from neglect, not to mention a 40 per cent cut in funding since 2010.

If they want to fix this problem, governments will need to do three things. One is to provide funding and new entitlements. Singapore and France are showing the way. Both are offering adults personal accounts with which they can buy training ( SkillsFuture in Singapore, and in France the Compte Personnel de Formation ). The scales are quite modest – 150 hours in France and $500 in Singapore – but the numbers are set to rise.

Tax changes are also needed. Some countries (again, including Singapore) use the tax system to encourage firms to invest more in their lower paid workers.

Public finance is also likely to be needed to help people on low incomes take time out of work to upgrade their skills – watch out for proposals on rights to study leave.

For those rights to be useful, there’ll then be a need for better help, so that people can choose the right courses, perhaps through new national agencies or services. There are many tools to help people assess their own skills, and discover what skills they need to get a new job. The Nesta supported Skills Route app is a great example of a data-driven tool for guiding teenagers. But a much bolder, comprehensive and publicly-supported solution is needed; providing information and advice as a commons rather than a private service, and combining online help with funding for mentors and coaches.

Where there are gaps, governments will have to show that they know how to fill them. Much is already known about some of these – like the glaring shortage of skills in fields like data. Some of the gaps will be filled with new online courses. In the UK, Ufi ’s Learn Direct was about two decades ahead of its time, with an online platform providing a wide range of short and longer courses, alongside local centres.

Futurelearn is a recent example, which emerged out of universities, and now has over five million users, despite, at best, lukewarm support from government. No country has got this right, though Scandinavia has some fine traditions of adult education. But some countries including the UK have got this particularly wrong. That now needs to change.

People powered health

Similar considerations apply in health. We need the best possible healthcare, provided by experts using the best available technologies. But we also need patients and the public to take more power and responsibility for their own health.

The many projects we’ve supported under the label ‘ people powered health ’ show what this means in practice: how to support self-management; peer to peer learning. We’ve shown how digital technologies can amplify feelings of power over health, and how people with Parkinsons or Dementia can become more active in shaping research and practice.

There are now plausible alternative visions of future healthcare – with much less activity centred in large hospitals; much more care at home or at the workplace; much more use of technology, genomics; and much more mobilisation of social resources to help.

Much of this should be obvious. But the way healthcare is presented, and argued about in politics, leaves the public as angry, disempowered observers, watching on as hospitals are shut or services are changed, rather than as collaborators.

Welfare to address risk and precarity

All over the world welfare is in flux, and for very different reasons. I’ve set out elsewhere in detail some of the reforms I see as needed .

The crucial question is whether welfare addresses the most important current needs, and whether it uses the most effective current tools. In many countries, welfare fails both tests. It doesn’t adequately address burgeoning needs for eldercare, or security in precarious labour markets. And it makes little use of digital tools that could make it feasible for governments to offer a much wider range of financial supports, including loans repaid over the lifetime.

The current experiments in basic income in Finland, the Netherlands and Canada are welcome in showing a willingness to think more creatively. My fear is that they don’t address the most important risks and needs, and may not be legitimate. They are a standardised response to needs that are, by their nature, very varied (thanks to varied family size, levels of disability, age etc).

Although basic income is the wrong answer to the right question, we need more, not less experiment, and parts of the answer will probably look quite like a basic income, but aimed at particular groups

Some of that experiment could point the way to a more comprehensive national care service that provides transparent, comprehensible rights to care for the frail elderly.

Creativity is also needed around precarity: for example, in 19 of the OECD countries, the self-employed are not entitled to unemployment benefit; in 10 they are not insured for accidents. New tools to insure against and pool risk are clearly needed as the digital economy fragments the very nature of work.

Open and inclusive innovation

Dynamic innovation has to play a decisive role in creating new opportunities and jobs. But some rightly fear that, done wrong, it can widen divisions, with a wealthy few in small clusters enjoying unprecedented opportunities, with little trickle down or out. That’s why many countries need to consider how to make innovation policy both more dynamic and more inclusive.

An important recent study (‘ The Lifecycle of Inventors ’ by Alex Bell and others at MIT, LSE and NBER), demonstrated this in relation to inventive capacity. Analysing 1.2m inventors in the US over a 20 year period, it showed the very strong correlation between parental influence, direct experience of invention, and quality of schooling and the likelihood of a child ending up as an inventor.

Children born into wealthy families, where the parents had direct involvement in science and technology, were far more likely to become inventors themselves. The implication was that the majority of bright childrens’ potential was going to waste, which led the researchers to argue that, shifting public resources from tax incentives towards subsidising more opportunities for invention in early childhood, would amplify the creative and economic potential of the US.

The study also showed geographical effects: growing up in an area with a large, and innovative industry, made it more likely that children would become inventors.

A related shift has been the growth of ways of innovation funding that involve the public in testing new technologies and adjusting them accordingly. Seoul’s Innovation Testbed is one good model as are Nesta’s Longitude and Longitude Explorer .

So far, policy in the UK and many other countries has not moved in this direction. Innovation policy is primarily about big companies, top universities and research centres. These will inevitably dominate. But if they monopolise money and attention, it’s hardly surprising that the public will feel that the future is being done to them rather than for them.

The fourth industrial revolution reoriented to needs that matter

The idea of a fourth industrial revolution has been in play for 20 years. It usually refers to a convergence and interpenetration of digital technologies, bio, nano, info and things. It’s a catch-all for many different technological trends – from prosthetic devices to the Internet of Things and new models of advanced manufacturing.

On the present trajectory, the 4IR promises great benefits. But it also risks leading to a widening divide between vanguards and the rest, accelerating job destruction ahead of job creation; and introducing potentially big threats to personal privacy and cybersecurity.

Most of the investment and inputs that are shaping the development of 4IR technologies are coming from the military and traditional industries, and some of the most visible ideas associated with the 4IR reflect the problem that so many resources are spent addressing trivial needs rather than fundamental ones (symbolised by fridges that tell you when you need to buy more milk and juice).

So how could this path be shifted? How could the benefits of extraordinary new technological possibilities be spread more widely?

How could many more people have the opportunity to be makers and shapers, entrepreneurs and innovators of this revolution, rather than passive observers?

Some of the answers lie in using the powerful new platforms of the 21st century to use resources far more efficiently. The existing sharing economy models point the way: not just the commercial variants like Uber and AirBnB but also many more citizen owned ones like Peerby and Streetbank, or the cooperatives being promoted in Bologna. We’ve shown how similar ideas can be used in the public sector – for example, to mobilise volunteer emergency services to enhance the health service (as in GoodSam ).

In principle, platforms of this kind can greatly increase utilisation rates across society and the economy – mobilising not just things (land, buildings, vehicles) but also people in more efficient ways. But to get there requires fresh thinking about regulation, about supply chains, taxation and law. It takes us to new ideas like Sweden’s recently introduced tax breaks for maintenance of goods – an attempt to shift the economy away from waste, while also creating jobs; and to some of the technological possibilities around blockchain. But the promise is an economy that can create value, and opportunities, for many more people than before.

Democracy upgraded

The most problematic part of the current situation is the stagnation of democracy: the view that all politicians are corrupt and self-interested. This fuels the passive anger of electorates, who then revert to faith in populist leaders as the solution to disempowerment.

The alternative is to reshape democracy so that it does provide more genuine power to citizens. That’s not easy, and there have been many false starts and false promises of push-button instant democracy

But there are now many examples of more considered, practical routes to empowerment.

Nesta’s DCENT project showed in countries across Europe how this could work. The project provides free, open source tools that enable citizens to be kept informed on the subjects that matter to them (eg when their local council or parliament is debating a topic); allow them to propose and debate ideas and legislation; and provide voting opportunities and scrutiny of implementation.

There are many similar examples around the world. Better Reykjavik has had hundreds of thousands of users – proposing and voting on improvements to the public realm. Paris has a large participatory budgeting scheme, as does Portugal at a national level. Taiwan has shown how many more people can be brought rapidly into decision-making.

The best of these schemes make government more like a collaborative, reflective process of deliberation rather than a permanent referendum. They have the virtue of not only involving the public but also educating them along the way, so, for example, the trade-offs of any decision can be made clear. Reforms to upgrade democracy must be part of the new synthesis too, as a counter to the trends towards a democracy built around spin, deceit and bluster.

Data and the internet

The management of data isn’t yet at the top of the political agenda. But it’s an issue that is bound to become more central – partly because data now plays such a big role in the economy and partly because it has become so central to the ways we live our lives.

The Internet and world wide web were born out of the hope that they could, in the words of Tim Berners Lee, be for everyone. An open, free and shared resource. Some of that original spirit survives but much of today’s reality is very different.

Power has been consolidated in a very small number of commercial firms. Amazon intermediates our relationship to products; Facebook our friendships; Google our relationship to information. They’ve grown huge thanks to business models that rely substantially on how they use and sell your data, and network effects which mean that the ones that first became big then tended to become enormous, because the marginal cost of another user was so much lower for them than for their competitors.

That’s why we live in a world where the dominance of the big Silicon Valley firms is so much greater than their equivalents in previous industrial eras

As consumers, we’ve done well out of a deal that offered us free services in exchange for handing over our data. But such consolidation of power is problematic in all sorts of ways. Our most important infrastructures are now unaccountable, driven by incentives that are often against our interests (we’re not their customers, but rather a commodity which they sell). We have very little control over our own data.

Meanwhile, much of the potential value of the Internet is not being realised because it doesn’t fit the dominant business models.

That’s why the search for very different models of the internet is bound to become more prominent over the next few years, and will involve power.

How can citizens control more of the data that matters to them? How can these great new infrastructures be more accountable? My paper on new data commons sets out some of the potential answers in more detail.

Migration and democracy

Feelings of loss of control have had a big influence on the drive to populist authoritarianism. Many people feel that they have no control over migration; that their communities and places have been taken away from them.

There’s clearly a tension between democracy and open borders. Democracy means a community having control over who is welcomed in and on what terms. But the more ardent advocates of the thesis often sought to override democracy – and treated free movement as an absolute principle, even though in practice it has always been qualified.

We know a lot about what makes people belong. All humans are well designed to read the feedback messages from their environment about whether they are at home or not

We can spot whether the labour market can offer jobs to people like us; whether politics speaks in our language; whether public culture reflects our values and interests; or whether policing and other public services reflect our needs.

When the messages are negative, people feel insecure and that they don’t belong. That’s what happens to many new minorities. But it’s also increasingly been the experience of older working class communities which consequently feel a sense of loss and rejection. This paper on belonging – and the practical ways it can be nurtured – provides some practical pointers for local and national governments.

The new synthesis will have to include more overt democratic control over the terms of migration: who comes and on what terms, whether as worker, student, tourist or patient. The only kinds of democracy we know are based in places and so it’s not surprising that control over place is so important to feelings of empowerment.

Democracies can – and should – choose to be generous to refugees and attend to the suffering of the world. But the key is that these have to be choices consciously made, not imposed from outside.

Government experimentation and adaptation

To achieve ambitious goals and restore trust, government itself needs to be upgraded. One of the disappointing features of the current wave of authoritarian populists is that they appear to have few, if any, ideas about how to improve the machinery of government – and often want to turn the clock back.

Yet this is a time when almost every aspect of government can be improved: changing how they use intangible resources like data, information and knowledge; using money in more creative ways; tapping into public expertise to shape and adapt policy.

Our recent paper on collective intelligence showed some of the tools being used by governments around the world – and a far more attractive future picture for government than posturing populism.

In various other publications – all based on practical experience – we’ve spelled out what some of these options are, from finance to evidence, structures to innovation, and they must surely form part of a new synthesis that promises a government that is more in touch with the public and also more efficient.

Topic: Nesta examples/materials on website

• Finance: Finance for Impact on innovations in public finance, new tools from crowdfunding to SIBs loans, equity, convertible funds
• Organisation of structures: Rewiring the brain etc and recommendations on organising national and city governments
• Innovation teams: I-teams, Lab Guides, DIY etc – digital, user-centred design etc
• Experiment: Use of RCTs; experiments teams in govts
• Adoption and diffusion: Various guides to scaling, adoption and implementation; financial incentives for adoption
• Democracy and citizen engagement: DCENT etc and surveys of democratic innovation globally
• Government operating systems: Government as collective intelligence
• Evidence: Alliance for Useful Evidence; What Works network
• Commissioning: Art of Exit; guides for commissioners
• Savings: 12 economies framework
• Data: Guide to data, Open Data Challenges, Offices of Data analytics
• Crowd-sourcing: Challenge prizes
• City strategy: CITIE framework
• Systems change: Studies on systemic innovation; rapid results methods

New platforms and infrastructures for the public

An important example of revamped government can be found in the new options for bold action to create fundamental infrastructures that make life easier for their citizens. In recent years, infrastructures have been privatised, broken up and regulated, sometimes successfully and sometimes at a high cost.

But there are many infrastructural roles that only government can perform, and over the next few years we may see much more activism as this is recognised. A good recent example is India’s creation of a universal ID card, with biometric identity.

Now in use by well over a billion people, it has massively opened up financial services for the very poor. It also appears to be cutting corruption of all kinds and is experienced as empowering. Countries such as Singapore and Denmark have created personal accounts for citizens, making possible much more creative ways of providing welfare.

Another set of examples were described in Nesta’s report on opening up central banking to offer cheaper mortgages and other financial products to the public.

Both the UID and these ideas offer a potential future in which governments can offer much more flexible kinds of welfare – lending money for a first home, new skills, university degrees, with repayments through the tax system spread over a full working life. Done right, these can greatly enhance freedom, economic security and feelings of power.

These are just a few building blocks of what could become new syntheses. They are far from comprehensive. There will also need to be more attention to tax – including fairer taxation of business and wealth to respond to class and generational imbalances

We may also need to return to the role of the state as employer of last resort, though the challenge will be to create work that has respect and dignity.

Cybersecurity is bound to become more visible as an issue. And overhanging everything may be a more aggressive geopolitical climate, with more direct attacks by nations such as Russia on the institutions of the democratic west.

Fleshing out programmes of this kind won’t be easy. But this is the serious work that must start. It requires us to think dialectically, achieving a balance between conflicting ideas, rather than taking them to their logical conclusions, the consistent mistake of the more extreme partisans of globalisation.

It also requires us to reject the opposite option - simply caving into ugly, regressive ideas which are at odds with the best values of tolerance, enlightenment and compassion.

There’s plenty of political space in between, space that aligns with the values and interests of most of the public in most democracies. As John Maynard Keynes famously said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?” Now some, at least, of the facts have changed. The big question is who will adapt quickest to this new reality.

Also of interest

The future of early-years data

When billboards stare back: how cities can reclaim the digital public space

Nurturing the seeds of change

Stay up to date.

Join our mailing list to receive the Nesta edit: your first look at the latest insights, opportunities and analysis from Nesta and the innovation sector.

* denotes a required field

Sign up for our newsletter

You can unsubscribe by clicking the link in our emails where indicated, or emailing [email protected] . Or you can update your contact preferences . We promise to keep your details safe and secure. We won’t share your details outside of Nesta without your permission. Find out more about how we use personal information in our Privacy Policy .

6 reasons to stop seeing AI as a threat

• Far from replacing humanity, artificial intelligence could elevate the human condition by helping us comprehend, explain and shape our world
• From discovering new cures to mitigating climate change, AI-driven research can help us unlock a new era of human flourishing

To that end, I propose six maxims. The first is a famous quip attributed to the Carthaginian general Hannibal: “I shall either find a way or make one.” AI can help us find paths that we couldn’t see before. It can help us make new ones through the force of human creativity. Tools like ChatGPT, Copilot and Pi are trained on material by and about people. Far from replacing us, they extend us.

Imagine finding a previously indiscernible thread of insight that runs through Caravaggio, Rousseau and Vivaldi; or a thread tying together the ingredients you just happen to have in your kitchen. A vast collection of human creation and past contributions hangs before us like an expanding tapestry. We now have the tools to do more with it than any previous generation ever could.

The second maxim is: “We are symbols, and inhabit symbols”. That is how Ralph Waldo Emerson described our use of language to comprehend, explain and shape the world. Humans have always relied on tools. That is what symbols are. They enable us to create things that did not exist before. Consider the griffin, with the head and wings of an eagle and the body of a lion. It is a human creation that reflects some reality we want to see in the world.

True, many imaginative creations – from Mary Shelley’s monster in Frankenstein to James Cameron’s killer cyborg in Terminator – are meant to be cautionary. We naturally feel fear when initially encountering “the other”. But the griffin reminds us we can convert fear into a sense of majestic possibility.

The third maxim is to build cathedrals, as these ennoble our efforts and turn mere groupings of humanity into fellowships. Actual cathedrals are some of humankind’s most awe-inspiring creations.

AI robot conductor makes debut leading South Korea’s national orchestra

Such projects require many sets of hands, working in concert across regions, disciplines and even generations. Scientific discoveries and technological innovations are stones in the cathedral of human progress.

The fourth maxim is that we must take small risks to have any hope of navigating the big ones. Rather than trying to eliminate risk altogether, we ought to welcome challenges that could bring failure, because these create opportunities for iteration, reflection, discussion and continual improvement.

Ultimately, we will get better regulation when these technologies have been deployed widely, allowing more people to integrate them into their lives.

How a Hong Kong school embraces ChatGPT in the classroom

The fifth maxim is that technology is what makes us human. If we buy into the notion that AI is the antithesis to humankind’s thesis, we will anticipate a future of half-human, half-machine cyborgs. But that is not really how it works. The combination of thesis and antithesis leads to a new thesis. The two evolve together. The resulting synthesis is a better human.

Moreover, AI may help us become more humane. Consider how responsive, present and patient conversational AI models and chatbots can be. These features could have a profound impact on us.

The sixth and final maxim is we have an obligation to make the future better than the present. Imagine a digital doctor or tutor in everyone’s pocket. What are the costs of that happening later, rather than sooner?

Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis-Okusala Emisango The Intersection Magazine Podcast

We are constantly making decisions and judgements. In this conversation, we explore the historical (biblical) importance of outstanding leadership and the failures that can emerge in its absence. We look at one approach that was used in those days to deal with this gap-the use of Judges. In some democracies, we see similar relationships between the Executive, Judicial and Legislative Branches of Government and how a balance and effective use of these can help during moments of crisis. Closer home though we challenge subscribers to embrace their individual responsibility to make judgments of their own in a time when we are bombarded with so much information.

• Episode Website
• More Episodes
• Nicholas Kyanda