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 Logoiof 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.]
How do we achieve closure on anything at all? I say “red” and you say “pink.” Can we both be right? Surely, we can both be wrong. Remember Hume’s missing shade of blue? So, what makes one of us right, especially if we’re both color blind? Colors are bad enough, but this is especially vexing when we impute or avow motives.
I have a friend Marly who is “motive impaired.” He has trouble avowing credible motives and imputing plausible motives to other people. His most frequently avowed motive is “I did it for the money.” This is never true because he has no service to offer that anybody would pay for. He’s a rag boy at the car wash—the pay is illegally low, and there’s nothing else he can do. He can’t even rake leaves properly. It is a pity, but it is true. Not only did he not do it for the money, but he didn’t even do it all. He told me he avows the motive so he’ll seem to be a productive member of society. Instead, he seems to be a prolific liar who should be pitied, not praised.
Then, when it comes to the imputation of motives, Marly decides that everybody who interacts with him loves him, even when they’re holding a gun to his head or kicking him in the stomach. He sees a woman kissing another man and he says “She actually loves me.” I try to explain that he’s wrong and he chides me and accuses me of trying to steal her from him. It’s very frustrating, but there’s nothing I can do. He forms his decisions like everybody else, only in his case “proof” is optional, or it is so untethered from the judgement that it is grounded in madness—like the kissing woman—he claimed she looked at him, and this proved she loved him. But, as much as I hate to say it, there’s a very remote possibility that he’s right. Nobody “knows” what the kissing lady is thinking—maybe not even the kissing lady, or, she could be reviewing her grocery list or thinking about her upcoming vacation to Seaside Heights, New Jersey. Those of us who’ve been torn apart by a faithless lover know what I’m talking about.
So, in a way, crazy Marly has it right. You may as well believe what makes you happy, even if it’s only temporary; even if it makes you look like an idiot or crazy. Marly’s “wishful thinking” may put him out of touch with reality, but it can make him happy, even if his happiness is grounded in bullshit—happiness is a feeling and the feeling is real, even if nothing else is.
If I feel happy, I am happy. It is by virtue of cruelty that one person would try to debunk another person’s happiness, unless of course, that person derives their happiness from shooting heroin or being a serial killer. Our thwarting of the addict’s or murderer’s happiness is called “drawing the line.”
Definitions 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.