That concept’s not all that solid in nonfiction media either, with “gay” being defined as an oppressed tribal minority somehow fundamentally distinct from those filthy “breeders” to be railed against. If suggesting a fictional straight character might have a gay crush is edgy, suggesting a gay character might also suffer from straight… leanings (instead of playing the rainbow-sprinkle card to the hilt) is outright taboo.
Aristotle posited three laws as essential to all valid thought.
1) The law of identity: ‘A’ is ‘A’.
2) The law of contradiction: ‘A’ must be either ‘A’ or ‘Not A’.
3) The law of The excluded middle: ‘A’ cannot be both ‘A’ and ‘Not A’.
From this we can logically infer that Aristotle would conclude there is no such thing as bisexuality.
Of course anyone who would try and apply Ancient Greek philosophy to either modern life or a web comic is just …
Ok, I’m just going to shut up and sit in the corner. Alright?
I’ve known of many (and known a few) people who would say that being bisexual is its own thing, rather than gay and straight. Some of them just wanted to keep from being marginalized back into being ignored, and others wanted to say “bisexuals aren’t gay enough to be in the LGBT”/”bisexuals are just wishy-washy gays”.
My opinion varies depending on the context, down to the wording of the question, which is frustrating.
One could also argue — if attempting to apply Aristotlean thought — that bisexuality is a situation where it has not been established whether the subject is ‘A’ or ‘Not A’. Or that the subject is continually changing from ‘A’ to ‘Not A’.
But like you said, trying to apply Ancient Greek philosophy to modern life…..
First of all, you’re using “A” for multiple purposes in a single statement. When you say “A must be either A or Not A”, you sound like you’re saying that “A is Not A” is a possibility. I mean, technically “A is either A or Not A” is true, but it’s not a law of logic, it’s just a trivial consequence of “A is A”.
Secondly, there’s no such thing as the law of contradiction. It’s the law of *non*-contradiction. Because it says you can’t have contradictions. “Law of contradiction” sounds like contradictions are mandatory.
Thirdly, you’ve got non-contradiction and excluded middle swapped. “Both A and Not A” is a contradiction. “Neither A nor Not A” is a middle ground. Right?
Fourthly, “there is no such thing as bisexuality” does not in any way follow from those axioms. At most, the axioms show that everyone can be fit into the categories of “straight” and “not straight”. To get to “no one is bisexual” from there, you’d need to define “bisexual” as something like “both straight and not straight” or “neither straight nor not straight”. But all you get to conclude from that is “There’s no such thing as this thing that I’ve decided to call ‘bisexuality’ even though it isn’t what the word normally means”.
Finally, although this is something of a tangent, you don’t get to just speculate about what Aristotle would have though on the basis of his writings about logic alone. The fact is, Aristotle lived in a time and place where it was normal and accepted for men to have both male and female lovers. The concept of “bisexuality” as such wasn’t current, but that’s because the whole notion of sexual preference as an identity wasn’t current. Heck, Aristotle himself was very likely bi; we know that he had both a wife and a mistress, and, although we don’t have records of any specific male lovers he may have had, we know that he wrote in praise of love between men and its superiority to love between men and women.
Quantum Phy: A not A is a valid state. See Schrodinger’s cat . Bi would just be a statement of superposition.
HitchHikers Guide (infocom game): Tea and No tea at the same time is an essential concept. It impressed Marvin.
Quantum superposition only holds while not tested. It doesn’t allow for A not A, it allows that an unknown could be A or not A, which is something you really don’t need quantum physics for.
Well, some research suggests that sexuality is a gliding scale, so you can be anywhere from totally het, through bi to totally gay. And even then there are always people who fall (or choose to be) outside that “norm”.
He may have expanded his tastes a bit, but at least at the beginning of his sexual awakening, Artie was noted to prefer slim Latin men. Even ignoring the fact that he’s straight, Tip still only fills two of those three criteria.
I swear, sometimes it is like the concept of bisexuality just doesn’t exist in fiction.
Yeahhhhh, wait for it.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoBisexuals
Need I say more?
Then again, a lot of folks in real life refuse to believe in bisexuality either, so…
Normally I’d agree, but Unity has already shown interest in both men and women, so clearly the writers are aware bisexuals exist.
That concept’s not all that solid in nonfiction media either, with “gay” being defined as an oppressed tribal minority somehow fundamentally distinct from those filthy “breeders” to be railed against. If suggesting a fictional straight character might have a gay crush is edgy, suggesting a gay character might also suffer from straight… leanings (instead of playing the rainbow-sprinkle card to the hilt) is outright taboo.
Aristotle posited three laws as essential to all valid thought.
1) The law of identity: ‘A’ is ‘A’.
2) The law of contradiction: ‘A’ must be either ‘A’ or ‘Not A’.
3) The law of The excluded middle: ‘A’ cannot be both ‘A’ and ‘Not A’.
From this we can logically infer that Aristotle would conclude there is no such thing as bisexuality.
Of course anyone who would try and apply Ancient Greek philosophy to either modern life or a web comic is just …
Ok, I’m just going to shut up and sit in the corner. Alright?
I’ve known of many (and known a few) people who would say that being bisexual is its own thing, rather than gay and straight. Some of them just wanted to keep from being marginalized back into being ignored, and others wanted to say “bisexuals aren’t gay enough to be in the LGBT”/”bisexuals are just wishy-washy gays”.
My opinion varies depending on the context, down to the wording of the question, which is frustrating.
One could also argue — if attempting to apply Aristotlean thought — that bisexuality is a situation where it has not been established whether the subject is ‘A’ or ‘Not A’. Or that the subject is continually changing from ‘A’ to ‘Not A’.
But like you said, trying to apply Ancient Greek philosophy to modern life…..
That’s… not right.
First of all, you’re using “A” for multiple purposes in a single statement. When you say “A must be either A or Not A”, you sound like you’re saying that “A is Not A” is a possibility. I mean, technically “A is either A or Not A” is true, but it’s not a law of logic, it’s just a trivial consequence of “A is A”.
Secondly, there’s no such thing as the law of contradiction. It’s the law of *non*-contradiction. Because it says you can’t have contradictions. “Law of contradiction” sounds like contradictions are mandatory.
Thirdly, you’ve got non-contradiction and excluded middle swapped. “Both A and Not A” is a contradiction. “Neither A nor Not A” is a middle ground. Right?
Fourthly, “there is no such thing as bisexuality” does not in any way follow from those axioms. At most, the axioms show that everyone can be fit into the categories of “straight” and “not straight”. To get to “no one is bisexual” from there, you’d need to define “bisexual” as something like “both straight and not straight” or “neither straight nor not straight”. But all you get to conclude from that is “There’s no such thing as this thing that I’ve decided to call ‘bisexuality’ even though it isn’t what the word normally means”.
Finally, although this is something of a tangent, you don’t get to just speculate about what Aristotle would have though on the basis of his writings about logic alone. The fact is, Aristotle lived in a time and place where it was normal and accepted for men to have both male and female lovers. The concept of “bisexuality” as such wasn’t current, but that’s because the whole notion of sexual preference as an identity wasn’t current. Heck, Aristotle himself was very likely bi; we know that he had both a wife and a mistress, and, although we don’t have records of any specific male lovers he may have had, we know that he wrote in praise of love between men and its superiority to love between men and women.
Quantum Phy: A not A is a valid state. See Schrodinger’s cat . Bi would just be a statement of superposition.
HitchHikers Guide (infocom game): Tea and No tea at the same time is an essential concept. It impressed Marvin.
I’m not mad yet. Ok, Maybe just a little.
Quantum superposition only holds while not tested. It doesn’t allow for A not A, it allows that an unknown could be A or not A, which is something you really don’t need quantum physics for.
Well, some research suggests that sexuality is a gliding scale, so you can be anywhere from totally het, through bi to totally gay. And even then there are always people who fall (or choose to be) outside that “norm”.
He may have expanded his tastes a bit, but at least at the beginning of his sexual awakening, Artie was noted to prefer slim Latin men. Even ignoring the fact that he’s straight, Tip still only fills two of those three criteria.