Aristotle maintained that, for everything describable, there is some other
thing which acts as its opposite; that such things as ``happy'' and
``sad'' are the rubber-stoppered ends of some ill-defined metaphysical
baton. This may sound a bit silly, but, like all silly things, it's
completely accurate. The reason that we haven't found the metaphysical
opposites of things like ``pickle'' and ``umbrella'' (their opposites are
not, it should be noted, their mere absence, which is the
centerpoint of the baton, and not the far end [in much the same way
that ``darkness'' isn't the opposite of ``light'']) is, most likely, that
we haven't worried overmuch about them. However, I digress.
There is a school of philosophy called Logical Positivism, a fact which
suggests (at least, it might suggest to Aristotle) that there should be a
school of Logical Negativism, one of Illogical Positivism and Illogical
Negativism. Now, logical negativism is clearly the full name of
but the other two schools have been left conspicuously unoccupied. In one
Pope Icky Fundament, PZK's
wife, Pope Dr. Pink Mini, DDF, defined both of the heretofore unknown schools.
The Fundaments were, it is said, embroiled in some kind of debate, when the
good Pope Icky slammed down a conclusion which was, so far as he could
tell, utterly indisputable. His wife simply replied ``Nuh-uh,'' and thus
directly founded one philosophy and indirectly founded another. Though
this only tenet of Illogical Negativism is lacking nothing, I will
nevertheless attempt to flesh it out the philosophy for the more obtuse.
As David Hume demonstrated in A Treatise of Human Nature, we cannot
ever prove the existence of causal laws; we only perceive
them in events that constantly occur together. Since we can never prove
(but only suppose) that they are laws, then they are always open to
revision should a counter-example ever show up -- they cannot be said to be
true, but only possibly true. W.V. Quine went even further, insisting that
even math and logic truths are, in principle, open to revision if the need
to do so should arise. Illogical Negativists combine these two positions
and see that no statement, however iron-clad, need ever be
accepted as true beyond revision. Hence, their credo: ``Nuh-uh.''
Their sister school, Illogical Positivism (credo: ``Uh-huh.'') is simply
a different view of the same tukus; since no statement need be accepted as
true, that means that the denial of any statement can itself be
denied, and hence any statement affirmed.
As should be obvious, the potential applications of these schools of
thought are limitless and will, in time, shake the very foundations of the