Is There Anti-Fittingness?

The permissible and the forbidden are privative opposites: each is a lack of the other. The good and the bad are, by contrast, polar opposites: badness is anti-goodness, not non-goodness. What about the fitting and the unfitting, the appropriate and the inappropriate, the apt and the inapt, the warr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Selim Berker
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Michigan Publishing 2024-11-01
Series:Ergo, An Open Access Journal of Philosophy
Online Access:https://journals.publishing.umich.edu/ergo/article/id/6916/
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850196654366392320
author Selim Berker
author_facet Selim Berker
author_sort Selim Berker
collection DOAJ
description The permissible and the forbidden are privative opposites: each is a lack of the other. The good and the bad are, by contrast, polar opposites: badness is anti-goodness, not non-goodness. What about the fitting and the unfitting, the appropriate and the inappropriate, the apt and the inapt, the warranted and the unwarranted? Is unfittingness non-fittingness or anti-fittingness, inappropriateness non-appropriateness or anti-appropriateness? This essay argues that each of these “aptic” categories stands in a privative rather than a polar relation to its opposite. More generally, there is no coherent notion of anti-fittingness, no inversely charged flipside to aptness, to be found. In order to establish these claims, a taxonomy of different types of oppositeness is proposed, and several tests for distinguishing distinct varieties of opposites are developed. What emerges is a better appreciation of the structural characteristics of fittingness and the other aptic categories, as well as an argument for taking up the nature of oppositeness as a serious philosophical topic that is ripe for further exploration.
format Article
id doaj-art-1684d8311df74a0fb8238f3e39dbf095
institution OA Journals
issn 2330-4014
language English
publishDate 2024-11-01
publisher Michigan Publishing
record_format Article
series Ergo, An Open Access Journal of Philosophy
spelling doaj-art-1684d8311df74a0fb8238f3e39dbf0952025-08-20T02:13:24ZengMichigan PublishingErgo, An Open Access Journal of Philosophy2330-40142024-11-0111010.3998/ergo.6916Is There Anti-Fittingness?Selim BerkerThe permissible and the forbidden are privative opposites: each is a lack of the other. The good and the bad are, by contrast, polar opposites: badness is anti-goodness, not non-goodness. What about the fitting and the unfitting, the appropriate and the inappropriate, the apt and the inapt, the warranted and the unwarranted? Is unfittingness non-fittingness or anti-fittingness, inappropriateness non-appropriateness or anti-appropriateness? This essay argues that each of these “aptic” categories stands in a privative rather than a polar relation to its opposite. More generally, there is no coherent notion of anti-fittingness, no inversely charged flipside to aptness, to be found. In order to establish these claims, a taxonomy of different types of oppositeness is proposed, and several tests for distinguishing distinct varieties of opposites are developed. What emerges is a better appreciation of the structural characteristics of fittingness and the other aptic categories, as well as an argument for taking up the nature of oppositeness as a serious philosophical topic that is ripe for further exploration.https://journals.publishing.umich.edu/ergo/article/id/6916/
spellingShingle Selim Berker
Is There Anti-Fittingness?
Ergo, An Open Access Journal of Philosophy
title Is There Anti-Fittingness?
title_full Is There Anti-Fittingness?
title_fullStr Is There Anti-Fittingness?
title_full_unstemmed Is There Anti-Fittingness?
title_short Is There Anti-Fittingness?
title_sort is there anti fittingness
url https://journals.publishing.umich.edu/ergo/article/id/6916/
work_keys_str_mv AT selimberker isthereantifittingness