Explanation of the emergence of opposite words According to the law of (the unity of opposites and their conflict)  View and criticism

Ahmed Hazim Yahya, Keyan

	Explanation of the emergence of opposite words According to the law of (the unity of opposites and their conflict) View and criticism
Alustath
Article 1, Volume 0, Issue 200, 2012, Pages 1-14
Author
Keyan Ahmed Hazim Yahya
Abstract
Some modern language scholars tried to explain the phenomenon of language opposites , which means that a word means both a meaning and its opposite at the same time . Some of their Explanations are based on data from the ancients , and some are derived from the structures of thought and modern theories . From this latter category of explanations is the explanation of Prof. Dr. Mohammed Hussein Al-Yasseen, who approached the dialectical vision in explaining the emergence of language opposites ; for he applied the law of the unity of opposites and their conflict for the word (Jawn) , which meant at first black , and that was the beginning of a conflict between the two extremes united in the consciousness of the speaker. Due to this conflict, the white overcame the black gradually , and the confirmation of that may be that (Jawn) was the the mixture of both the black and the white before the conflict reached to its final form and resulted in the white . But the early scriptures kept the two meanings , and the word (Jawn) became an opposite word . In order to evaluate this reasoning we should check-up the Marxists dialectic evolution . It exists on three laws which are the secret of its effectiveness . The first is the law of the unity of opposites and their conflict , which means that every thing is inevitably a convergence of two opposites and a conflict must take place between them . This conflict does not destroy the unity of the matter , but it leads to the overcoming of the one that reflects the progress on the other one . And when this shift happens the second law comes ; ie the law of transformation of quantity into quality , which states that the change is at first gradual , but when it increases or decreases to a certain extent qualitative change happens . Then comes the third law , ie the law of negation of negation , which provides for three things : First : continuous change . second: keeping the best characteristics of the old and gaining new characteristics . And Third : moving unsteadily , but in a circular motion, so that it falls back to its first thesis , but in a better form . the three laws of dialectic are not immune from criticism . the first law can be discussed by stating that human nature can not accept the negative and positive together in the same place and at the same time , for it feels self-incompatibility between them absolutely . the second law is denied by many philosophers ; because the quantum is divided into two parts , the first is the discrete quantum , which is said to things that do not have common borders , and the other is the connected quantum , which is said to things that have common borders . The discrete quantum creates no new quality . Quality is combined to the connected quantum . This quality may finally end up by a jump that transfers it from one species to another , or may not end with any jump . the third law is unacceptable for we know that all masters of dialectical materialism deny the causes in nature , but they link the movements of matter and its evolution with purpose , a doctrine that put that matter in the place of human consciousness in its most prestigious activities . As long as the three laws of dialectic can not withstand the criticism the explanation for the emergence of language opposites that rely on it will not be correct . it is noted that Dr. Al-Yasseen stated that the Union of extremes in Example (Jawn) only exists in the consciousness of the speaker , and we all know that the dialectical materialistic Marxism - which has established its philosophy on the basis of resisting its predecessor the ideal - has categorically denied the outside intervention of any force , and turned inwards material relying on it exclusively as a home for the unity and conflict of opposites. And because the law of the unity of opposites and their conflict is a result of dialectical materialism it is not a very good idea to say that the conflict between the two extremes exists in the mind . Moreover, we do not have the proof that the word (Jawn) was first said to the black alone , and then to the black and white together , and then to the white alone . And it is clear as well that it is difficult to prove the advantage of what results from the withdrawal of the negation of negation related to the word (Jawn) to its first thesis ; for this will lead us to the idea of blackness itself , from which we started at first , and there is no higher integration here than what was before . I think that The closest description for the explanation of Dr. Al-Yasseen is that it is a fabrication of the dialectical explanation , including both its ideal and materialistic branches , and what might be called (collapse of the opposite in the mind), to which Dr. Al-Yasseen had referred elsewhere in his book as one of the explanations adopted concerning the emergence of language opposites .

Statistics Article View: 87 PDF Download: 12