The Either/Or Approach in Philosophy

There is a view in analytical philosophy, which is the dominant school within the Anglo-Saxon tradition of Western Philosophy, that we should look at things in terms of an either/or approach. So, for example, we should look at such things as the sky being either blue or not-blue, but not both at the same time as this would be contradictory.

Now, this seems a pretty reasonable and commonsensical approach to take in life since everything appears to be either a 'this' type of situation (eg, this thing is an A) or a 'that' type of situation (that thing is a B).

This approach is well supported by one of the principles or 'laws' of Aristotelian logic: the 'law of non-contradiction'. It says that two contradictory (ie, mutually opposite) statements or propositions about something can't both be true in the same sense at the same time. That is, something can't both be A and also not-A in the same sense at the same time.

For example, it can't be true that in the same sense at the same time the sky is both blue and also not blue. For these are contradictory propositions about the sky's colour. Consequently, the sky is either blue or not blue, but not both in the same sense at the same time.

However, is it really true to say that the either/or approach is the only plausible one to use when looking at things in the world at large?

For instance, is it really useful to look at the phenomenon of the orbits of the planets of our solar system in this way?

According to Newton's first two laws of motion and his universal theory of gravitation, the planets of our solar system all, as they each orbit about the Sun in ellipses, simultaneously 'fall' constantly towards the solar system's centre of mass (which is near the Sun's centre) and constantly 'fly' away in a straight line. This all seems contradictory. But is it? And if so, in what sense?

Now, Marx for instance in volume 1 of Capital takes this phenomenon of our solar system to be an illustration of what he calls a 'real contradiction' in nature. By this he means a real situation in which something exhibits 'contradictory tendencies'. The thing in question has a 'tendency' to be and/or do contradictory things at the same time: the planets are both falling towards and flying away simultaneously. Hence these 'contradictory tendencies' coexist in the same thing at the same time. This is a metaphysical view that Marx puts forth here, and not a logical one. It seems to capture the essence of what's going on here.

Given, then, the phenomenon itself and Marx's metaphysical account of it, does it make sense to look at it in terms of the either/or approach of analytical philosophy?

Well, let's see what such an approach gives us here.

Since this approach is predicated on the law of non-contradiction, we are logically committed to viewing this phenomenon of the orbits of the planets of our solar system doing only one of two things. Either these planets are constantly 'falling' towards the centre of mass or they're constantly 'flying' away in a straight line, but they can't be doing both (presumably) at the same time. If we were to accept that these planets were in fact doing both in terms of their astronomical motions, then this would mean accepting the truth of these two mutually opposite actions of these planets as they each orbit about the Sun in ellipses. But this either/or approach rules out such a view of how the planets of our solar system actually orbit about the Sun in accordance with Newton's first two laws of motion and his universal law of gravitation. Does this make sense?

The short answer is, it doesn't make sense. Here's why. To say that these planets are either constantly falling towards the solar system's centre of mass or constantly flying away in a straight line is to deny and/or ignore the reality of what's happening: they are actually doing both contradictory actions at once. To insist that this is not happening is, effectively, to contradict the reality of what's happening. In short, it is to fly in the face of reality.

It would seem that with such cases as the mutually opposite tendencies of the orbits of the planets of our solar system that the perspective of the either/or approach to things in the world at large is not always the appropriate or best one to draw on. To do so is to impose on logical grounds a certain way of looking at things, which does not match up with the reality of things. It would be better to use an approach which is predicated on a different basis. In this case, a metaphysical rather than a purely logical one. In other words, it would be better to start with a picture of how things really are in the world and to find the right theoretical framework to express it. Thus, in this way, one can make their 'logic' or logical framework match up with the reality of things in the world.

Accordingly, this means - when it's appropriate to do so - to look at some things of the real world, not in terms of an either/or framework, but rather one which incorporates viewing things in terms of being both this and that at the same time, like the ellipses of the planets of our solar system. To do that, however, requires that we - when it's both appropriate and necessary to do so - temporarily abandon the pure logical law of non-contradiction and replace it with the metaphysical conception of real contradictions in nature.

NB. This discussion of mine has been conducted from within a Hegelian or 'dialectical' philosophical framework, which is a major source of Marx's own philosophy. I will speak more about Marx's 'Hegelian legacy' throughout these blog posts, especially in relation to not only the logical structure of the three volumes of Capital but also his theoretical analysis of capitalism. Also, it draws upon John Locke's empiricist philosophy with respect to the question of how we go about getting our conceptual pictures of things to match up with the actual structures of the natural world.