Keith Begley
University College Dublin
This paper discusses knowledge of opposites. In particular, attention is given to the linguistic notion of antonymy and how it represents oppositional relations that are commonly found in perception. The paper draws upon the long history of work on the formalisation of antonymy in linguistics and formal semantics, and also upon work on the perception of opposites in psychology, and an assessment is made of the main approaches. Treatments of these phenomena in linguistics and psychology posit that the principles of minimal difference and invariance are centrally important. It will be suggested that the standard approach employing meaning postulates fails to capture the relevant notion of antonymy, in part because it is not informed by these principles, and in part due to a number of other problems with this kind of approach, many of which may be overcome by building in the central principles from the beginning. The paper also discusses the issue of whether we can know that opposites necessarily exclude each other and, if so, how. This issue is intertwined with what is known as the colour incompatibility problem that Wittgenstein wrangled with at various times during his life. The paper assesses various solutions to these problems including an approach that was first put forward by Jerrold J. Katz. The relation between this approach and the theory of determinables and determinates is also examined. A further development upon this approach is proposed and then applied to the case of the formalisation of antonymy. It is argued that this approach avoids the problems suffered by the main approaches discussed earlier in the paper.
Keywords Opposites  Antonymy  Semantics  Perception  Meaning Postulates  Jerrold Katz  Wittgenstein
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.5840/eps202259226
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,410
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Oldthinkful Duckspeak Refs Opposites Rewrite Fullwise Upsub Antefiling.Keith Begley - 2018 - In Ezio Di Nucci & Stefan Storrie (eds.), 1984 and Philosophy: Is Resistance Futile? Chicago, IL, USA: pp. 255–265.
The Unity of Opposites.Xinyan Jiang - 2018 - Proceedings of the XXIII World Congress of Philosophy 8:95-99.
On the Identity of Opposites.Kuan Feng - 1971 - Contemporary Chinese Thought 3 (2):130-146.
Analytic/Synthetic and Semantic Theory.Leonard Linsky - 1970 - Synthese 21 (3-4):439 - 448.
Opposites and Plato's Principle of Change in the Phaedo Cyclical Argument.Gale Justin - 2020 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 58 (3):423-448.
The Metaphysics of Meaning &Lsqb1990&Rsqb. [REVIEW]Douglas B. Meehan - 2002 - Philosophical Forum 34 (3-4):451-458.
Nietzsche’s Denial of Opposites.Steven D. Weiss - 1996 - Journal of Philosophical Research 21:261-305.
Nietzsche’s Denial of Opposites.Steven D. Weiss - 1996 - Journal of Philosophical Research 21:261-305.
Dialectic and Negation.Otis Lee - 1947 - Review of Metaphysics 1 (1):3 - 23.
The Metaphysics of Meaning [1990].Douglas B. Meehan - 2003 - Philosophical Forum 34 (3-4):451–458.
Aeschylus and the Unity of Opposites.Richard Seaford - 2003 - Journal of Hellenic Studies 123:141-163.


Added to PP index

Total views
4 ( #1,282,905 of 2,519,701 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #166,865 of 2,519,701 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes