# Humanities & Anthropology > Philosophy >  Philosophical Question Number 4.

## smoke

*"Can an extreme exist without it's opposite extreme?"*

For example; 
can love exist without hate
can good exist without evil
can heaven exist without hell

An interesting theory I heard on 'hell' (whilst on the subject).
"Hell exists if you believe it does." and vice versa.

----------


## Doc

I am an extreme.

Doc :Ramen:  :Joyful:

----------


## Duo

ummmm hard to say, but i'd say yeah they can. Let's take good for example. Imagine if there was no evil in the world, only good, not everyone would be super super good, some mite be average, some a bit more goody, and there mite be the superlative good, someone donates all their fortune or smth like that, you don't need to have the opposite to realize how big that good action was.

----------


## miu

Well... If you think about extremes in the form of a line where you have for example heaven at one and end hell at the other - how do you know hell is at one end and not in the middle if you don't know that a middle or another extreme exist? What I mean is that for example "being in hell" could just as well be a normal state of existance if you didn't know something better exists. Extreme is a contrast so it'd make sense if it doesn't exist when you can't compare it with anything... (What you don't know about, you don't miss, right?) 

If for example love doesn't have an opposite extreme, it can still exist but it just wouldn't be an extreme.

Duo: Doesn't that make the ones who donate more money than others one extreme and the ones who donate less money another extreme? If donating money is what they value, you could therefore say that to donate more money than others is good (one extreme) and to donate less money is bad (the other extreme)? You just wouldn't describe being evil as taking money from others. 

But that's just my oppinion  :Sorry:

----------


## mad pierrot

No, it can't.

----------


## Ma Cherie

No, I don't think so. It's human nature to feel hate and love, ect.

----------


## lexico

In terms of accuracy, this thread is doomed to failure. The reason being, it suffers from trifocal astigmatism of mingling together 1) ontology, 2) epistemology, and 3) aesthetics/ethics. Each judgement regarding different areas of knowledge will inevitably create strange misunderstandings of another poster's assumptions, statements, and conclusions because the interpretation of each poster may range from 1) extreme existence; to 2) perception and symbolic recognition of 1); to 3) evaluating 1) via 2). The possilbe combinations will inevitably create clashing of words and ideas. There is hope though. If the inevitably misaligned understanding of each poster manages to remain unchanged, this thread has the potential to generate a never ending polyphony of contrapuntal masterpiece. Enough with criticism and here's my contribution from history.

The dualist idea of good and evil, heven and hell, this life and after life (reincarnation to be exact) are all basically Indo-European traditions shared prior to the branching off of the Indo-Iranian group. To be more specific, dualism entered Hebraism only after the return from the Babylonian exile via Persian influence. And since the question was "can" meaning possibility, my answer is yes. Go to Judea prior to Nebuchadnezzar's sack of Jerusalem in 587-586 BCE, and there is not a positively equal place for sheol as the antipode of heaven. Then it was not only a possiblity, but reality. Heaven on one "extreme," and sheol on "neutral" ground, or under it, ontologically speaking. The measured words as "extreme" and "neutral" sound rather forced, but they're there only in keeping to your nomenclature.

Duo: In your frame, which appears to be of class 1), my "extreme" and "neutral" would not even have to stand in contrast to each other.

Miu: In your frame, which appears to be of class 2), my "neutral" would be your "other extreme."

Mad Pierrot & Ma Cherie: You seem to be thinking in class 3).

Smoke: Keep those questions coming 1,000&1 ! Supreme debatemaster, aren't you ?  :Wink:

----------


## Shooter452

Getting away from lexico's excellent post for a moment, I do think that more so than the previous posts on philosophical questions this one begins with a predetermined agenda. It would be easier to respond if that was more candid and clear. 

I do not believe that all rights have wrongs that balance them. I believe that some things are so incomprehensibly evil, hanging out there on the end of a balance with no counter-balance to level the scale, despite our desire to see the end and the means justified. 

Some things have no meaning other than what they seem to obviously be. Some things are what they are.

----------


## Index

There's not much more to add to Lexico, Shooter's and all the other interesting posts but maybe I could add that the answer to your question could infact be yes _and_  no, depending on how you categorized (ie. defined) the concepts you mention. Whilst set theory would allow one to think in terms of dualities because each concept belongs in it's own precisely defined group, newer theories of categorization propose fluid categories whose membership changes depending on one's particular parameters of interest (eg. dogs and cats might belong in the same category if you were considering household pets, but they might be in different categories if you were thinking/talking about species). 

This categorization perspective is of course only one way to debate the validity of dualism.

----------


## No-name

I think the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference.
Evil is the absence of good.
Darkness is the absence of light.
Cold is the absence of heat.

----------


## Index

Depends on your point of view though doesn't it...




> Evil is the absence of good.


Bolsheviks and communists thought they were doing good for the proletariat, but ended up sending half of Europe down the drain, setting many countries back at least thirty years in terms of economic development. Hitler thought he was doing good things for the world when he killed millions of Jews.




> Darkness is the absence of light.


Unless you are wearing night vision goggles that work at zero lux. If you are blind then no matter how much light there is, it might always be dark. Alternatively, you could have perfect vision but still be in the dark about many things.

----------


## Index

Depends on your point of view though doesn't it...




> Evil is the absence of good.


Bolsheviks and communists thought they were doing good for the proletariat, but ended up sending half of Europe down the drain, setting many countries back at least thirty years in terms of economic development. Hitler thought he was doing good things for the world when he killed millions of Jews. The Crusaders thought they were bringing good to the non-believers, but how 'good' would you think they were if you were a Muslim whose entire tribe had been decimated?




> Darkness is the absence of light.


Unless you are wearing night vision goggles that work at zero lux. If you are blind then no matter how much light there is, it might always be dark. Alternatively, you could have perfect vision but still be in the dark about many things.




> Cold is the absence of heat.


Not if you have a fever. Then you could feel really cold, even though your body was burning up. Alternatively, heat is energy and just because you feel cold, doesn't mean there is no energy in the molecules around you.

----------


## smoke

> If for example love doesn't have an opposite extreme, it can still exist but it just wouldn't be an extreme.


this is a very valid point. the idea that there isn't an opposite raises many ideas.
in a strange way it reminds me of cultures like the amish for example. if you do not know a life different from you own you life can not be defined as an extreme. 
to a modern world, a life without 'creature comforts' may seem extreme and vice versa.
excellent point.

Lexico: your replies are always a pleasure and full of a knowledge that surpasses my own.
as for criticism, as i have told you before...it causes me to sulk!  :Sad:

----------


## Mycernius

This is a case of humans and their habit of having to label everything. If, as Doc said, if there is no evil only good, humans would still put the very good ie: the ones who give all their money to charity, at one extreme, and people who only gave some of their money to charity, at the other. Extremes are based on perceptions of the world around you. If you lived in an extreme climate,say the arctic, the summer could be one extreme in your perception; suns out, day for most of the time; to winter; dark all the time, very cold. A desert would be beyond your comprehension because you would have never considered that experience. So to answer the original question an extreme and it's opposite would differ from person to person depending on their beliefs and perception of the world because you would still apply labels to them.

----------


## Doc

> I am an extreme.
> 
> Doc


I agree.

InuYasha :Ramen:  :Joyful:

----------


## Shooter452

> this is a very valid point. the idea that there isn't an opposite raises many ideas.
> in a strange way it reminds me of cultures like the amish for example. if you do not know a life different from you own you life can not be defined as an extreme. 
> to a modern world, a life without 'creature comforts' may seem extreme and vice versa.
> excellent point.
> 
> Lexico: your replies are always a pleasure and full of a knowledge that surpasses my own.
> as for criticism, as i have told you before...it causes me to sulk!


These are not criticisms of your objective, if criticisms at all they are. It is the method.

Keep in mind, you are the only one asking the questions at all at this time. That says something about you, and something very worthy at that.

My compliments, sir.

----------


## smoke

> These are not criticisms of your objective, if criticisms at all they are. It is the method.
> 
> Keep in mind, you are the only one asking the questions at all at this time. That says something about you, and something very worthy at that.
> 
> My compliments, sir.


what it says about me is another matter...too much time on my hands...no valid opinion of my own...a philosophical genius.......these are all possible explanations of what it says about me.

seriously though, thanks for the kind words and rest assured i didn't sulk...i must admit my absence from this forum may have made it seem otherwise...but it was entirely co-incidental.

oh, and less of the old!  :Poh:

----------


## Mycernius

> oh, and less of the old!


What's this? Getting touchy about your age. Wait until 30 rears it's ugly head at you. I think lexico san can give you pointers on 40 (not there yet  :Laughing:  )

----------


## smoke

> What's this? Getting touchy about your age. Wait until 30 rears it's ugly head at you. I think lexico san can give you pointers on 40 (not there yet  )


i was just fooling...something my granny always said!

----------


## Mycernius

My grandmother used the same phrase, even when she turned 90.  :Wavey:

----------


## Dutch Baka

there will always be opposite in the world, love -hate black -white heaven and hell. 

why because people are like this. you agree or disagree

p.s i find this a rather hard qeustion...  :Relieved:

----------


## Doc

There will always be an extreme to one side of the spectum and the other. Why? Because there is no right or wrong, just opinions.

Doc :Ramen:  :Joyful:

----------


## EV13SON

I don't know but Tim Curry's "Darkness" in Ridley Scott's "Legend" seems to think not...  :Laughing:

----------

