Essay for Philosophy of Seinfeld in Summer of 2015.
Source
In this paper I am going to argue that there are only subjective instances of opposites and that, therefore, George Costanza’s “Opposite Maneuver”(OM) is not a priori rational. To do this I will first describe the OM as it manifests in the television sitcom Seinfeld. Next, I will discuss Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics in order to shed light on the distinction between being and doing. I will then use both theories to show how the only reliable method of obtaining practical utility when applying the OM is simultaneously the OM’s downfall.
The Seinfeld episode “The Opposite” opens with George reflecting on his life at the beach. A while later he joins his friends, Elaine and Jerry, at the bistro where he tells them: “It all became very clear to me . . . that every decision I’ve ever made, in my entire life, has been wrong. My life is the complete opposite of everything I want it to be. Every instinct I have, in every aspect of life, be it something to wear, something to eat . . . it’s all been wrong.” This was the revelation bulldozer for George that cleared the way for his theory of doing the opposite- a theory I’ve labelled the “Opposite Maneuver”(OM). Though the OM is nearly as simple as its name implies we, first, need to clarify some subtleties of the theory before we can properly determine whether or not it’s rational. An explicit distinction in George’s above mentioned revelation makes it that correct application of this theory targets not what the person(for this paper’s sake George) did previously, but rather targets George’s instincts. Therefore, no application of the OM for George will rely on any previous applications of the OM. If in one instance, for example, George’s instincts tell him to make a sack lunch for later that day, George should apply the OM and instead order from a restaurant when lunch time arrives regardless of by what means he obtained his lunch the day prior.
In his essay “The Costanza Maneuver” Jason Holt details another clarification of the OM worth noting, namely that once the OM has been applied to the extent that the opposite is discovered, then the OM is not to be reapplied to that discovered opposite. To exemplify, let’s say George’s instincts tell him to go down the flight of stairs whereby he applies the OM to discover that he should instead go up. Jason Holt’s point is that at this moment George should walk up the stairs rather than applying the OM to the idea that he should go up, which would produce the result that he should go down, which he then reapplies to discover he should go up. Thereby ultimately George would never act because he doesn’t stop applying the theory forever ad infinitum. It would not be much of a theory if the person who used it could not act, an infinite regression that would very much upset the ancient philosopher of actions- Aristotle.
Aristotle concluded that Eudaimonia is the expression of one’s virtues through actions in a complete life, a conclusion that Aristotle himself granted impossible for anyone to fulfill entirely. This is because the last requirement, “in a complete life,” demands that we, humans, must at all times be acting out the function of a human. But though no one will at all times be acting out their function, it does not follow that one shouldn’t act out their function as much as possible; and it is this honest attempt that Aristotle advocates.
If according to Aristotle we are to act out the function related to humans, what then is the function of a human? As the eye’s function is to sight and the axe’s function is to chop (wood), the human’s function is to express one’s virtues through action. One obtains their virtues if and only if they obtain intelligence, ie., one can be virtuous only through intelligence and intelligent only through their virtues. Intelligence, in the Aristotelian sense, is the ability to discern one’s mean between the vices of excess and deficiency (eg. I neither digest 0 calories nor 5,000 calories a day, but rather roughly 2,500 calories. Notice further how one’s mean is relative to the individual as calorie intake will drastically differ between that of an Olympic athlete and a small child).
It appears paradoxical that one must be virtuous to obtain intelligence and intelligent to obtain virtues, for how could one have either without the other? Here we reject the black and white fallacy to make way for a step by step approach, ie., the paradox is false and one rather builds his virtues and intelligence gradually through practice and mentorship until, eventually, each obtain simultaneously. It is by going out into the world and practicing one’s virtues through action that one ultimately becomes virtuous. It is correct to summarize Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics by stating “you are what you do.”
“The [Opposite Maneuver] is rational for George to adopt if (and only if) George has good reason to think it’s both reliable and feasible.” These appear good candidates for rationality without needing to delve too deep into the justification of these conditions as put forward by Jason Holt in his essay. Therefore, it will suffice to give brief examples that support the relationship of rationality to both reliability and feasibility. It would not be reliable to wish for a taxi to pick you up in a rural neighborhood for your morning commute to work. It would not be feasible to reside nightly in Idaho and work daily in California. But if you have a reliable bicycle and a commute to work that’s feasible for you to ride, then you might just be rational enough to arrive on time and keep your job. It’s now clear that if either of these conditions should not hold, then the OM is not a rational theory.
Is it feasible that George will always be able to discover the opposite when it comes time to apply the OM? Seinfeld comedically capitalizes on this very point in “The Opposite” episode not but five minutes after George unveils his new OM theory. In the episode nothing ever goes well for George when he orders his regular lunch, a tuna sandwich. When questioned by the waitress his instincts tell him to order his usual tuna sandwich but he quickly revokes his tuna sandwich order and goes for the opposite of tuna- chicken! At this Jerry claims that it’s not chicken but salmon that’s the opposite of tuna which he justifies with the fact that tuna swim with the current whereas the salmon swim against it. Seinfeld got its laughs by highlighting the indeterminacy of opposites. For is there a clear opposite of tuna? Surely there are select candidates, though no opposite pair created with tuna and a possible candidate will ever reveal the opposite distinction as sharply as clear opposites like cold/hot, up/down, east/west, etc.
As it stands, however, even our clear cases of opposites may in turn be most vague under critical scrutiny. The ancient greek philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus observed that “the road up and the road down are one and the same.” As it is the case that up and down are opposites it follows then that a thing cannot at one time be both up and down; and yet as Heraclitus observed the road is at one time both up and down. This apparent contradiction is trivially resolved by figuring into account the direction of a person walking on the road, namely whether the person is walking up or walking down. What is true of Heraclitus’s road observation is equally true, mutatis mutandis, in the case of throwing a ball into the air; except I’m going to stretch this example much further. The ball does not change physically in anyway when I toss it up into the evening air toward the moon but merely its direction. For it is going up when it moves closer to the moon and it is going down when it moves closer to the Earth. If, however, I were to stand on the moon and throw the ball into the air toward the Earth it would now be moving in the direction we just concluded was down, but in this instance the direction the ball would be travelling is up. From a cosmological perspective there simply is no up or down, but only “up from so and so” or “travelling downward from this and that.” From this the subjectivity of opposites is made clear with the only steadfast constant being gravity. Thanks to Newton’s calculations we have reason that enables us to better understand our world, though as I will soon show even reason may not overcome the peculiarities of opposites.
It is the case that if the United States is south of Canada and if Mexico is south the the United States, then Mexico is south of Canada. This hypothetical syllogism is backed by classical first order logic, namely the law of transitivity. But what happens to this supreme weapon from the arsenal of rationality when pitted against the opposite pair east/west? It is the case that Iceland is east of Alaska. It’s also the case that Russia is east of Iceland. From these propositions the law of transitivity concludes that Russia is east of Alaska. It’s because the Earth is spherical that the proposition Russia is east of Alaska is true in a sense (for if you go east for long enough from Alaska you will eventually end up in Russia) but this is not the sense that most would think when fronted with the proposition that Russia is east of Alaska. No! Russia is west of Alaska.
All this vagueness and indeterminacy creates headwinds for the OM’s feasibility, although the OM may still hold some measure when examining its utility. If the OM is efficacious and produces end results that George desires then George will adopt the theory. Luck could possibly explain the success George had with the OM in the episode “The Opposite”, though it would be irrational to rely on the contingency of luck. As Aristotle would profress, one is most likely to be efficacious by practicing one’s actions and thereby gaining the intelligence of how to act properly. Though for the OM to produce desired results it’s necessary that George have the opposite instinct of the action that will derive the desired result. If George is going to reliably produce efficacious results with the OM, then it is necessary that he is an irrational human that always has the incorrect instinct. Yet this condition that creates reliability in using the OM at the same time makes the OM unfeasible. For if you are not rational enough to have the proper instinct, then you will not be rational enough to determine the opposite when applying the OM.
If Aristotle can be summarized by stating “you are what you do”, then the OM can be summarized by stating “hope to be an idiot but try to not be too irrational so you can discover what is the opposite.”
Footnotes
Thanks for reading :)
