Dirimens Copulatio (di’-ri-mens ko-pu-la’-ti-o): A figure by which one balances one statement with a contrary, qualifying statement (sometimes conveyed by “not only … but also” clauses). A sort of arguing both sides of an issue.
Protagoras (c. 485-410 BC) asserted that “to every logos (speech or argument) another logos is opposed,” a theme continued in the Dissoi Logoi of his time, later codified as the notion of arguments in utrumque partes (on both sides). Aristotle asserted that thinking in opposites is necessary both to arrive at the true state of a matter (opposition as an epistemological heuristic) and to anticipate counterarguments. This latter, practical purpose for investigating opposing arguments has been central to rhetoric ever since sophists like Antiphon (c. 480-410 BC) provided model speeches (his Tetralogies) showing how one might argue for either the prosecution or for the defense on any given issue. As such, [this] names not so much a figure of speech as a general approach to rhetoric, or an overall argumentative strategy. However, it could be manifest within a speech on a local level as well, especially for the purposes of exhibiting fairness (establishing ethos [audience perception of speaker credibility].
This pragmatic embrace of opposing arguments permeates rhetorical invention, arrangement, and rhetorical pedagogy. [In a sense, ‘two-wayed thinking’ constitutes a way of life—it is tolerant of differences and may interpret their resolution as contingent and provisional, as always open to renegotiation, and never as the final word. Truth, at best, offers cold comfort in social settings and often establishes itself as incontestable, by definition, as immune from untrumque partes, which may be considered an act of heresy and may be punishable by death.]
The complexities of life are never-ending. Just when I think I have an answer, I am confronted with another question I need to resolve. As long as there are answers, there are answers that are liable to repeatedly fail and, over time, may become foundations for questions, or themselves become questions.
We live in time—time consciousness is life itself. However perceptible, or imperceptible, change is the horizon of life’s striving. Life’s contingencies become “settled” by choice— they are “held” near and dear, and as we know, they can can be let go of—often to maintain our sanity, self-worth, or to release one’s self from the bonds of a broken heart.
We know, as we engage with other people, we differ. As two people look at the “same” set of circumstances, one may see reason for hope, the other may see reason for fear. Or, one may see reason for a judgment of guilt, the other for a judgment of innocence. Depending on the contexts, these differences are expected and negotiated by opposing discourses that may “win” a judgment commensurate with an advocate’s standpoint. In short, the so-called truth does not speak for itself, rather it may be spoken for by an advocate in a contest with an opposing truth, that may more plausibly affect the judgement of auditors—here truth functions as veracity and must appear relevant to a sound judgment of the case at hand.
And why must this happen? Because nobody knows—nobody knows what happened in the past and nobody knows what’s going to happen in the future. In sum, neither the past nor the future exist in the present.
This is what makes life so difficult, unsettled and unsettling. I don’t know if my girlfriend’s story of what she did before we met is true. I don’t know if her promises for our future are true—are sincere, as are her avowals of love and affection. I have to constantly impute motives for all she does—from giving me a ride to work to paying for our dinner and drinks on my birthday.
I suffer from “Suspicious Minds Syndrome.” Elvis sang about it, and probably suffered from it. When two people with suspicious minds try to form a relationship, they are doomed—there is no faith between them.
I am undergoing suspicion therapy—learning how to summon belief in my partner, without being duped. it is a kind of secular faith and a gamble.
Viva Las Vegas!
Definition courtesy of “Silva Rhetoricae” (rhetoric.byu.edu).
The Daily Trope is available on Amazon in paperback under the title of The Book of Tropes for $9.95. It is also available in Kindle format for $5.99.
The Daily Trope 