Opposites do not exists: A breakthrough philosophical theory

Opposites do not exists: A breakthrough philosophical theory

By Doron  Braunshtein (also known as) Apollo Braun

Opposites do not exists: A breakthrough philosophical theory

Every object existing on planet earth is different from any other object. This includes humans. At the same time, there are no opposites of anything in existence, not in humans and not in objects. To explain it in a simple manner: the fact that no two people and no two objects are exactly the same does not make them opposites.

In this thesis I will examine the idea that things and people which are different from each other does not make them- to anything living or not living- opposites in any way, shape, or form. All mankind, if not born with any birth defects, are born equal. In saying equal I mean, of course, in the physical. In the mental, the way of thinking, and above all things, in the way of feeling, we are all different. Different, but not opposites. In this thesis, the difference between the female and the male will not be examined. Both sexes will be examined as one- as human. In the definition of objects, I include all non-living things.

Foreword

Every object existing on planet earth is different from any other object. This includes humans. At the same time, there are no opposites of anything in existence, not in humans and not in objects. To explain it in a simple manner: the fact that no two people and no two objects are exactly the same does not make them opposites.

In this thesis I will examine the idea that things and people which are different from each other does not make them- to anything living or not living- opposites in any way, shape, or form. All mankind, if not born with any birth defects, are born equal. In saying equal I mean, of course, in the physical. In the mental, the way of thinking, and above all things, in the way of feeling, we are all different. Different, but not opposites. In this thesis, the difference between the female and the male will not be examined. Both sexes will be examined as one- as human. In the definition of objects, I include all non-living things.

***

The idea for writing this thesis came to mind while looking one day at the clothes in my store. It was a very hot day in August of 2008. I am renting a little shop at 193 Orchard Street in the Lower East Side of New York. I have had this store since January of 2003. In my store I sell mainly clothes that are made by different fashion designers.

On this specific hot August day, I looked at all the clothes in my store. No item looks like another, they all look different from each other (I carry mostly one-of-a-kind clothing from designers who are not making more than one piece of each design). Still, as much as the clothes are different from each other (that means each garment has its own style, color, texture, manufacturer, etc) they are all the same, or at least can be squeezed under the one definition ‘clothing’: a material of fabric to cover the body with.  (The question of the wish to be unique and different through the clothes will not be examined in this thesis). I understood it clearly: Although one can call them Opposites from one another, in so many ways, under the definition of clothes (fabric, design, size, shape, etc) they are not, in any way, opposites of one another. I looked at all of the clothes and garments in my store and counted 226 items. All of them were different (in shape, color, material, etc), and all of them were the same (under the one definition of ‘clothing’) yet, to my surprise, none of them were Opposites of each other.

After counting all of the garments, I went to the back room of my store. It is a very small room (12x11ft) that is packed with the collection I made for my haute couture fashion line (which I call ‘Doron Braunshtein’). For this job I hired an Indian-American man named Api whose family owns a clothing manufacturing company in India. I gave Api twenty-four samples of my designs and each design he duplicated times one hundred. I now have 2,400 clothing garments in the back room of my store. I closed the store and started taking all of the 2,400 clothing items from the back room to the main showroom of the store and spread them on the floor. Each sample design lies with its same one hundred copies that were made in India by Api’s family’s clothing manufacturing company. I looked at the items, each set in a different place on the floor. I touched them, smelled them, then closed my eyes, touched a different sample, smelled it, and then, eyes still closed, touched all of the clothing items on the floor one after another, until I counted in my mind 2,400 different items. When I opened my eyes, I felt a strange sensation in my brain: all the items were different from each other, yet, at the same time, all were the same (under the one category ‘clothing’). And although there were at least 24 different clothing samples on the floor, none of them in my eyes (before and after seeing them), in my nose (the sense of their smell), or my touch, was opposite to one another. I was stunned! Nothing is opposite to each other! I took 3 samples of each design (total of 72 clothing garments) closed my store, and went to a nearby park. I found a deserted area to separate each design from its others. In the end, I was standing in the middle of 24 corners, each with the 3 samples of its kind. I lit a match and started burning each corner of each unique sample. In the end, all of the garments- never mind what kind of design it was before the burning process- vanished, disappeared, and became ashes. If the same test would be done with humans, living animals, or people, the result would be exactly the same. In the end of the “Life” of the object (in my case, the clothing garments) in a case of fire, it becomes ashes. All garments, with no exception, and without any importance of differences of their design, shape, size, etc, end in the same way, in similarity, without any difference, and the fact that some might consider them as opposites while “alive”, while existing as clothing garments- not only discovered to be untrue, but even not to be existing at all. In their end, or if you want, in a more poetic way- in their “Death”- as clothing garments and the becoming of ashes.  All garments ended the same- that means that all garments started the same- and the definition we accept as ‘differences’ (again, like in the matter of shape, size, color, design, texture, etc) proved to be un-realistic and un-existing in reality. The outside of the object does not exist or is even important if in fact, all non-living objects end in the exact same way in the case of a fire, in ashes. The meaning of the outside of an object, and the way people and society look at an outside of an object is in fact wrong and absurd from its root.

This takes me to the question of an outside comparing to an inside: Is the outside of a thing, a non-living thing, an object, important at all? No matter if it gives us a sense of freedom, pleasure, pride, security, happiness, or power on others (for example: a beautiful home, a modern, fast, car, an expensive clothing item, etc) the status it is supposed to bring to its owner (because of the way society sees it, looks at those things in a modern point of view in modern times, such as: a shelter versus a home, a machine which was created at first place to help us “walk” easier, faster, versus a car, a machine made of steel; a piece of clothing, which was made at first for the simple reason to cover our bodies against nudity and cold versus clothing which society sees as an important modern necessity, as a definition of class and status).

 So I ask: What is the importance of all those “outside” things, especially if in the end, in a case of fire, they can all be burned to the ground and become ashes? I leave this question open to each and every one of you to answer, because the way I see modern day philosophy in my mind, heart, and soul, it should not and must not give answers, but instead, evoke questions within the reader and the listener. But I do want you, the reader, to understand one simple fact: if a non-living thing, an object, is bringing happiness to your life, that happiness you feel is not an important feeling. That outside object (a beautiful home, a modern fast car, an expensive clothing item, etc) can evoke in you feelings of pride and happiness, a feeling of achievement, joy, or pleasure. But this human feeling is so human that no one ever wondered about the mistake, the misery, which is rooted within it. It is significant to understand the differences between happiness, joy, pride, etc, that are caused by the outside non-living objects compared to the good, pure feelings that come from truth, from the serenity of the real “inside” things which are inside us all and that can only be evoked by love to another living creature, love to ourselves, and love to nature, which is free (looking and viewing the sky, stars, touching the trees, grass, smelling the flowers, etc). These two strong feelings: the outside happiness and the inside, internal happiness are completely two different feelings. So different from each other, indeed, but at the same time, they are not opposite to each other in any way. More than that, to some humans, the effect of owning a modern, fast, car will be, to the same degree, similar to loving another living creature. Some will find it much easier, and less heart involving and heart breaking.

These are the consequences of fear: a negative feeling which only the memory of the known and the hidden unknown can evoke. But fear cannot be burned to the ground by fire, nor can the feeling of love we have in our hearts to another living creature. Fire cannot “kill” a memory- positive or negative- and cannot heal an old pain in our hearts. These are feelings that are rooted inside of us from childhood, from relationships with our parents, and from past personal emotional relationships.  Fire cannot hurt them. This is why so many find comfort in the “outside” objects that evoke joy in them. It is easy to take care of a home, a car, a dress or a suit. It is much more difficult to understand, accept, love, and at times, to forgive, another human being. It takes more “internal” power, hard work and dedication to give yourself to a human being than to an object. I believe that in the long run it is more satisfying, more rewarding and above all, it is more human to “give yourself” with all the difficulties which are involved, to a human being than to an object. Only one human being can evoke in another human being feelings that cannot be destroyed by fire.

***

All human bodies die. In a case of fire, the human being, like the clothing in my simple test case, will become ashes. But can the feelings an object brings to a human being’s life be compared with its power, its effect, its sensitivity, mental stimulation, and the feeling of the heart to those of a human? The answer is simple: No.

Although the human body dies in a case of fire and becomes ashes, the feelings and thoughts that were evoked in his lifetime, can stay. And certainly on a much more important level than those the object left behind him. The feelings the object left behind, if at all, and no matter to what degree, cannot be compared to those memories- positive or negative- a human leaves behind. The object has a short shelf life. It meant to be useful to the human, in some cases- to make the human happy and proud. The human, in the other way, with all of his complexities and uniqueness, has a long life, even after his death. This is what one would call “a legacy”. All those “things” a human leaves to the world to share after his physical death.