Paradox Philosophy

By Cody Allen

All things are in both harmony and tension with their opposites—we often choose certainty despite our doubts, fear when there is opportunity for hope, and ourselves when we might think of others—and we should always strive to find greater balance between them. We all want to live meaningful lives, hopefully lives of moral goodness, and philosophy is the study of this venture. Paradox Philosophy is a modern, Westernized version of Yin Yang theory that delivers wisdom towards living a more virtuous life.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Cody Allen
• Release date: Dec 21, 2023
• ISBN: 9798224928255

Book preview

Paradox Philosophy

Copyright © 2023 Cody Allen

All rights reserved

ISBN-13: 9781234567890

ISBN-10: 1477123456

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018675309

Printed in the United States of America

Introduction

My Story

​When I was an adolescent I was tremendously self-conscious and felt uncomfortable in most social situations. I would keep my eyes down around strangers, line up behind other runners in a race, and never went to parties (despite the fact that I desperately wanted to go). I never truly felt comfortable around my peers and had trouble making and keeping friends. My internal monologue was one of constant social caution.

​My parents were aware of this, and in an effort to help me get over my social anxiety and debilitating insecurities, my mother would constantly try to pump up my self-confidence. She would push me to take risks and get out of my comfort zone. One of our maxims became Be Bold! which she would shout from the sidelines of my high school soccer games.

​Most kids at my school played a variety of sports, many choosing soccer in the fall, basketball during the winter, and baseball in the spring. Not me: I played soccer year-round. Because of my dedication to the sport, I was one of the better players on the field, yet despite the fact that I knew it, I still needed my mom to instill confidence within me. It didn’t matter that I was the first freshman brought up to varsity—my insecurities loomed over me like a mountain.

​One day my mother taught me a very important lesson: she pointed out the loudest, most enthusiastic kid on the field and described how he was actually the most insecure in his skills, displaying a loud exterior to cover up his anxious interior. Then she looked at me and described the opposite: I was anxious on the outside, but on the inside I had tremendous confidence in my playing ability. This perspective became the catalyst for my journey to finding my self-confidence—and eventually myself.

​Throughout the decade of my twenties, long after the close of my soccer career, I revisited this sentiment often. The idea that an individual’s exterior behaviors could be a cover for their inner feelings fascinated me. I started talking to the quiet kids in my college classes and learned that they frequently had quite a lot to say. I began to notice that people who talked a lot about themselves were often trying to cover up feelings of insecurity—just like those other players on the soccer field.

​As I continued to grow up and notice the world around me, I continued to see these ‘opposites’ everywhere. Not just in people, but in communities, institutions, and other aspects of life as well. I began to see my entire life through this lens, taking every opportunity to discuss my ‘theory of opposites’ with friends and acquaintances. Eventually, I decided to go in search of this theory in philosophy.

Opposites in Philosophy

​Many aspects of our lives exist in both harmony and tension with their opposite (greed and generosity, for example, or virtue and vice) and the theory behind balancing both has been around for a long time. Siddhartha Guatama (also known as Buddha, born around 564 BC) taught of a Middle Way, a path between self-discipline and self-indulgence. He believed that neither extreme asceticism nor extreme indulgence were the route to enlightenment, but rather that a way of life between these two extremes existed.

​Aristotle (384-322 BC) once advocated for a Golden Mean which meant striving for balance between two extremes. He believed that people should be neither cowardly nor rash, but should act courageously (not enough courage makes us a coward, too much makes us rash). He believed the same was true for eating, that it was dangerous to eat either too little or too much.

​Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), the English architect of modern utilitarianism, once wrote that nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. He believed that these two opposing feelings determined all human actions, and that all actions should be judged right or wrong depending on whether they increase or decrease human well-being.

​In Taoism, the yin-yang symbol represents life in a similar duality: all things exist in relation to their opposite. This is exemplified by a circular symbol with a white snake on one side and a black snake on the other. Each snake contains a dot of the opposite color, symbolizing how each side has elements of its opposite within it. If one side represents north, the other represents south, both of which are cardinal directions. Yin and yang oppose one another and create tension, friction, and discord, while simultaneously complementing one another, creating harmony, balance, and stability. Taoism teaches us that nothing in the universe escapes this principle of simultaneous duality.

​These are just a few examples of opposites from different philosophers and philosophies from history, but of course there are many. We will consider a variety of them throughout this book.

Opposites and Paradoxes

​My original title for this book was A Theory of Opposites, but as I progressed through my writing, I began to feel as though it wasn’t quite accurate enough. An opposite is something contrary or radically different in some respect common to both. Day and night are a simple example of this, or the temperatures hot and cold. Opposites like these are complementary and interdependent and we often need one in order to understand the other. Without night, for instance, we would not have day, it would simply always be light outside. Without the temperature hot, we would be unable to recognize when something is cold.

​While this is a helpful definition, I wanted a concept that felt more precise. I eventually settled on the term paradox, defined as something that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth. For example, people who give to others can be greedy for the feeling of generosity, or how people who consider themselves humble often take pride in their humility. Consider the invention of the internet: While we might expect that it would connect us all further, which it has, we are surprised when we experience more loneliness and realize the internet has also disconnected us. This seems contradictory, but it also tells us something deeper: both have happened simultaneously, and we cannot have one without the other. While we might be able to imagine a world without night, and recognize that having day allows us to understand both, we cannot experience the connection of the internet without the accompanying disconnection.

​By this logic, a paradox always contains an opposite, but a pair of opposites is not always a paradox. While day and night are a simple opposite, displays of greed and generosity tell us deeper truths about ourselves and others and compel us to consider why and in what ways we must balance both together. The initial catalyst from the soccer field, the realization of the mismatch between interior and exterior personality traits that seemed self-contradictory, was actually expressed in the idea that they are intimately and necessarily related—a paradox. It was this idea that ultimately persuaded me to title my book Paradox Philosophy.

Why I Wrote This Book

​The ultimate goal of this book is to deliver wisdom towards living a more virtuous life. We all want to live meaningful lives, hopefully lives of moral goodness, and philosophy is the study of this venture.

​Each of the five chapters investigates an important question: How to think (certainty and doubt), How to feel (hope and fear), How to be (ego and humility), How to conduct ourselves in society (freedom and discipline), and How to take care of ourselves physically and mentally (focus and rest). We will examine a variety of opposites and paradoxes throughout each chapter in order to explore the answers to these questions.

​One of the most notable themes that comes up repeatedly in these pages is the balance between the individual and the collective. I submit to you, dear reader, that in order to live a good and virtuous life, we must care for both ourselves and for others. We are simultaneously sovereign individuals and also members of our communities and societies, and our thoughts and actions should reflect this duality.​Some opposites proposed in these pages are old and recycled ideas and some will surely surprise you. Some ideas you will agree with and some ideas you will reject. Some will change the way you think and act in profound and lasting ways. My hope is that you will consider them all with an open mind.

Certainty and Doubt

​Old wooden doors creak open and the men file in. Some bring chairs, some bring tables, most bring books and parchment. They greet each other cordially and assemble the furniture in a half circle, facing a central desk at the far end of the room.

​The windows are kept shut to discourage eavesdropping.

​The men sit attentively at their assigned tables wearing long waistcoats and powdered wigs. The air in the room is stale and dry, but none complain. They are brought to attention by the committee’s secretary and the meeting begins.

​The topic of discussion is representation in government.

​The large states will carry everything before them declares David Brearly of New Jersey, proposing an equal number of representatives for each state. Otherwise, the small states will be obliged to throw themselves constantly onto the scale of some large one in order to have any weight at all!

​Brearly is a delegate from one of the thirteen fledgling colonies of America, each with its own wants and needs. It’s May 1787, and delegates from the colonies have gathered together in the town of Philadelphia to create and write a unifying Constitution.

​I say no, James Wilson, a Pennsylvanian lawyer announces in protest. New Jersey should not have the same number of seats in Congress as Pennsylvania—a state three times its size. It is unjust!

​The men vote on the issue and there is no consensus. They retire for the evening, frustrated and lacking hope. They will return tomorrow with renewed energy.

​The days turn into weeks as summer drags on, the sweltering heat of the cramped auditorium adding emotional fuel to the raging fire of debate. Representation in Congress, the election of the president, and the slave trade are just a handful of important issues that are raised and discussed. An ultimate compromise feels more and more improbable.

​The people should have as little to do as may be about the government, claims one of the older members of the convention, Roger Sherman of Connecticut. Democracy is dangerous, he believes, because people are constantly liable to be misled.

​The men wipe their sweaty brows and fan themselves, refusing to back down from their convictions. Several drafts of a document with the committee’s agreements are cobbled together. None are unanimously approved.

​Government ought to know and sympathize with every part of the community, responds George Mason of Virginia. A popular vote, he contends, is the only acceptable way to elect a president.

​They poll the room and remain divided. More passionate speeches are made. The committee’s quest for agreement is exhausting.

​Summer soon comes to an end.

​It is time for the delegates to ink their names to the final proposal. Concessions have been made by members on all sides of each contentious issue, however, despite the progress that has been made, many of the men still harbor objections and are unsure whether or not they will sign.

​A portly, bald eighty-one-year-old newspaper printer and statesman named Benjamin Franklin has written a final statement. He is too weak to speak, due to old age and poor health, and his words are delivered by another delegate. The men sit still and listen.

​I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change my opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others.

​Everyone present in the room understands the difficulty of forming a union from such disparate parts. Will they vote in favor of a fledgling country, or will they remain as separate states? Franklin’s speech ends with a wish:

​I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.

​With the conclusion of his speech, a low murmur of approval ripples through the gathering. One by one, each man stands and approaches the secretary’s desk at the front of the room.

​Thirty-nine men, representing twelve different states, embrace their doubts and sign the agreement. Before long it is ratified as the law of the land, and the United States of America is born.

​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​ ​-​

​The Constitutional Congress of 1787 was a foundational gathering for the separate colonies that would band together to become the United States of America. No self-organizing society had ever built a democracy before, a task that was daunting to the brave men in that stuffy auditorium. Despite the novelty and difficulty of the assignment, fifty-five delegates, ranging in age from twenty-six to eighty-one, convened for several months and ultimately produced the Constitution of the United States.

​Most of the men who signed the Constitution had some objection to it. Some wanted to abolish slavery; others wanted to keep it in practice. Some believed a central bank should be established; others argued that a central bank would incentivize the government to spend money in corrupt and foolish ways. There were many disagreements.

​Each man stood firmly for his opinions, and yet each knew that he would have to make concessions in favor of the new union. It was the elder statesman Benjamin Franklin who brought a healthy skepticism to each man’s staunch convictions, arguing in favor of compromise and time. Any part of the document that was disagreeable, he reasoned, could be changed by a future assembly of elected officials; this Constitution was only a place to start. It was with great respect for his wisdom that many of