Positive and negative are always from a perspective, so one can always take the perspective that there is a negative to every positive. Taoism makes the point that all things just exist from the bigger perspective of the Tao (The "Tao" is loosely "nature"), but from man's smaller perspective there are positive and negative that we impose on the world. Cultural Moral Relativism also makes the point that right and wrong (or we could say positive and negative) differ from one culture to another--again it depends on that culture's perspective. There is a wonderful Taoist story that goes like this: A farmer's horse ran away. The farmer's neighbor expressed to him that this was very unfortunate and the farmer replied: "Who knows what is good or bad?" The next day the horse came back with 20 other horses that it had befriended. The neighbor said he was very lucky to now have 21 horses. The farmer replied: "Who knows what is good or bad?" The following day the farmer's son was trying to ride one of the wild horses and was thrown off and broke his leg. The neighbor appeared again and said this was a very bad occurrence as the farmer needed his son's help on the farm. The farmer again replied: "Who knows what is good or bad?" The next day the army came into the area and was forcing all the young men to join the army and leave their families, but the farmer's son did not have to go because he had sustained the broken leg and could not walk. The neighbor appeared again and said to the farmer that he was very fortunate that his son did not have to leave the farm and risk his life in a far-away war, to which the farmer replied one more time: "Who knows what is good or bad?" Indeed, good or bad, negative or positive, and moral or immoral are all perspectives. The fact is that things happen, and humans then interpret them as good or bad, or positive or negative. In Taoism this is called the Unity of Opposites. You may also want to read material from a famous German philosopher Georg Hegel (1770-1831) who talks about a unity of opposing factors, and the tendency of humans to view things as dichotomies--which of course positive and negative are examples. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) is famous for the quote "What does not kill me makes me stronger." His point is that what others will view as a negative he chooses to view as a positive.

There are proverbs to that effect. For instance, "Le malheur des uns fait le bonheur des autres", in French, translates as "One man's poison is another man's meat", or "One man's joy is another man's sorrow", or "One man's sunset is another man's dawn", etc. in English. Globally, proverbs reveal cultural differences but most share quite similar messages. I am not sure that the "ambivalence" of things lies in the realm of philosophy, aka, the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, or language; it is a fact of life.

Hi Jacob. In the concept of pure black and pure white, you may refer to logic. But in your concerns on the application of negative and positive aspects, perhaps you may look on some theories on environmental ethics such as of Bookchin, Fox and Naess.

Positive and negative are always from a perspective, so one can always take the perspective that there is a negative to every positive. Taoism makes the point that all things just exist from the bigger perspective of the Tao (The "Tao" is loosely "nature"), but from man's smaller perspective there are positive and negative that we impose on the world. Cultural Moral Relativism also makes the point that right and wrong (or we could say positive and negative) differ from one culture to another--again it depends on that culture's perspective. There is a wonderful Taoist story that goes like this: A farmer's horse ran away. The farmer's neighbor expressed to him that this was very unfortunate and the farmer replied: "Who knows what is good or bad?" The next day the horse came back with 20 other horses that it had befriended. The neighbor said he was very lucky to now have 21 horses. The farmer replied: "Who knows what is good or bad?" The following day the farmer's son was trying to ride one of the wild horses and was thrown off and broke his leg. The neighbor appeared again and said this was a very bad occurrence as the farmer needed his son's help on the farm. The farmer again replied: "Who knows what is good or bad?" The next day the army came into the area and was forcing all the young men to join the army and leave their families, but the farmer's son did not have to go because he had sustained the broken leg and could not walk. The neighbor appeared again and said to the farmer that he was very fortunate that his son did not have to leave the farm and risk his life in a far-away war, to which the farmer replied one more time: "Who knows what is good or bad?" Indeed, good or bad, negative or positive, and moral or immoral are all perspectives. The fact is that things happen, and humans then interpret them as good or bad, or positive or negative. In Taoism this is called the Unity of Opposites. You may also want to read material from a famous German philosopher Georg Hegel (1770-1831) who talks about a unity of opposing factors, and the tendency of humans to view things as dichotomies--which of course positive and negative are examples. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) is famous for the quote "What does not kill me makes me stronger." His point is that what others will view as a negative he chooses to view as a positive.

Nietzsche's view is called perspectivism.

Thank you Randall. Fascinating. I will lookinto these leads.

Nice fable, Randall! I would add just two personal views:

1. Of course, life is all about perspectives/situations/context and what Randall's tale demonstrates is that what is indeterminate is individual interpretation of facts. This does not make the facts incorrect i.e. I am arguing here for the truth-of-the-moment and not that right/wrong or positive/negative are relative. For example, I'm a surgeon who makes thousands of decisions everyday, based on all the highest quality information I can gather, to the best of my ability, with the best of intentions. So, if I only intend positive but negatives occur as a result of some of my decisions would you say there was a negative perspective to my decisions? You would, if I hadn't taken ever-changing facts and contexts into account but hopefully you wouldn't if you agreed that as living beings none of us are infallible. Thus, I do believe there is no grey, but also that just because information/truth is forever changing means that invariably positives and negatives will as well.

2. A corollary to the above is that philosophy is only relevant when we consider comparisons i.e. as individuals we may hold whatever beliefs we chose, but till we have discussed them or interacted with other beings in some shape or form, our individual beliefs or perspectives hold no meaning. The truth of today is that man is not an island. This also exemplifies the relativism that Randall eloquently described.

3. So, is there a way around this? I believe there is, if I view your question slightly differently. Rather than looking for a positive to every negative, I believe each has its own individual merits or otherwise. Again, let me provide you an example from my own profession, for that is all I know. It is often thought in medical philosophy that beneficence (doing good) is the opposite of maleficence (doing harm or doing bad). However, the opposite of doing harm is not doing harm i.e. non maleficence. So, then one has to define "harm" and not "good". Take the common case of caring for those who lack the ability to consent. When I make a "good" decision here, whose good is it? The patient's, the relative's who has no means of providing for the patient or my own, by choosing an option with least potential risk to my own surgical reputation? I hope it is clear that harm is easier to see/discuss/define. If you agree then perhaps looking for a philosophy to cover positives by equal-and-opposite negatives may not be ideal. To me, unfortunately, that would reek of consequentialism.

Ultimately, the way I see it is that as we can never predict all consequences of our thoughts, words or actions, despite our intentions, we cannot determine whether something is considered a definite positive or negative and perhaps we shouldn't try to unify opposites with a theory?

If you were asking a purely theoretical question and were not expecting a philosophical debate, I apologize for wasting your time!

Hegel's dialectic in The Science of Logic, perhaps going back to Plato's dialectic in Theaetetus

It might be worth looking at Sextus Empiricus and his method. He is an early sceptic and develops a method that balances the +ve and -ve. It has resonances with the buddhism and the middle way.

Jacob your idea is very interesting. Randall's accurate remarks about taoistic Yin and Yang principle I would complete by addition at least the axiological and ontological distinction. Axiologically the term "positive" associates with something bad (adverse, ugly e.t.c.), "negative" with something good (beneficial, nice e.t.c.). Ontologically "negative" means a lack of something. In this sense freedom is negative as a lack of coertion, justice is negative as a lack of injustice, and tolerance is negative as a lack of intolerance. These notions experss different features than freedom, justice, and tolerantion meant positively. In this sense "positive" means an existing of some additional attributes.

Yes. Sextus Empiricus following on from Pyrrho and, of course, the rhetorical/sophist school that has brought us the current 'way' where lawyers enjoy "privilege" they have given to themselves. Truth is the objective of the philosopher whereas winning is the way of the solicitor/judge. There is no middle way here, this is the way of power and money. Thus fake news and such entities as we see in current politics make society. I also agree with Sylviya, the Teaetetus didn't help. Now we are all indoctrinated to believe that winning the argument/debate is the solution. We no longer seek the truth. We only seek to defeat the opponent. It's really about where you are coming from, like euthanasia as opposed to palliative care . It's not so much where you end up, it's how you get there. This is possibly the most important discussion we need to have and if you read post-modern literature we have lost, since it's all about winning and losing, already.

To me it seems trivially true that any property whatsoever could in principle, in some sense or other, have both positive and negative aspects under indefinitely many conditions. E.g. the very property that is repulsive to one person can simultaneously be attractive to another. Moreover, reducing the repulsion for one person, might also reduce the attraction for the other person (mutatis mutandis, for enhancing). Or would that somehow be “confusing the two” on your view?

It also seems trivially true to me that in actuality many things have neither positive nor negative aspects. E.g. the presence of a particular grain of sand somewhere on Rigil Kentaurus. So it can’t be true that “all things, invariably, have both positive and negative aspects.”

Are there conditions on what counts as, or is an acceptable form of, enhancing or reducing? Suppose your favorite color pink has the negative aspect of being repulsive to me. The world for you would be enhanced by more pink, whereas for me it would be enhanced by less pink. Given that dealing directly with the pink necessarily results in one of us being “aspected” more negatively and the other more positively, would it be an acceptable resolution to tinker with someone’s brain so that the presence or absence of pink is no longer an issue for them?

Anyway, if you want a convenient label for the (likely false) theory that “all things, invariably, have both positive and negative aspects” you’ll probably need to coin one and hope it will catch on. “Aspectual bipolarity”?

Thanks.

I suppose the "Unity of Opposites" may be a good way of addressing my needs (even found a good paper that explicates the various ways in which this principle has been addressed - attached below).

Thanks to all for your insightful comments.