The Art of Non-Contradiction in Relationships: A is A

Hi Steemers, today I wanted to touch on some of my ideas in an original content post in which I cover effective, rational methods of overcoming unnecessary inner conflict.

I believe that an objective sense of reality is central to achieving robust mental health and fulfilling interpersonal relationships in life, so this article is my effort in sharing an Aristotelean perspective on human identity.

If it sounds dry, I promise it won't be—I've got Whitney Houston scheduled to make a guest appearance at half-time. Enjoy.

A is A

Aristotle's paradigm-shifting declaration in 350 B.C.E. that A is A remains an axiomatic truth which applies not only to matter, objects, animals and metaphysical entities, but also to mankind. Human beings, like any other entity, are also bound by the same Law of Identity. Accepting the fact that each person is unique—genetically, psychologically, metaphysically—it then follows that each individual person is only him or herself, and nobody else. Each person has one, and only one, identity. Gandhi is not Kim Kardashian, who is not Donald Trump, etc.

So, what does Aristotle have to do with your relationships?

More than you might think!

Simply stated: your spouse, boss, friend, coworker—whoever—IS whoever he or she is; that person is not a future possibility, a memory of what once was, or an idealized image of his or her "true character" somewhere deep down. Yes, people are complex, multi-faceted and retain the potential for numerous failures and achievements, but human potentiality is not the same as actuality, just as potential energy is different from kinetic energy in physics.

You may be correct in suggesting that a person could be or once was an individual exemplifying certain behaviors or beliefs, but it's vital to recognize that the only person he or she is, at this moment in time, is whoever he or she already is.

No Need for Paradox

Have you encountered someone who seemed to have a fatal flaw which appeared contradictory to every other aspect of his or her personality? I'd like to propose the idea that there is no contradiction as such.

A person's metaphysical identity—his or her character—is observed and determined by his or her average actions and behaviors over time. It's important to note that personality and cognitive traits are aspects of a person’s identity, and it is the sum of these attributes which constitutes a personality. A trait or action reflects a metaphysical aspect of a person's identity, not its ontological equivalent.

Let's examine a hypothetical example. One could say, "Andrew is short." However, one could not then logically conclude, "Short is Andrew." That would mean, ontologically, that Short (or rather, being short) is always Andrew because Andrew and Short are exact equivalents, and this illogical conclusion implies that any entity that is short must be Andrew. The only thing that Andrew is equal to is: Andrew. "Short" is an aspect of Andrew; they are not interchangeable equivalents. In Aristotle's terms, identity is a primary substance, whereas attributes are secondary substances.

Although this may seem like an unnecessary semantic argument, it's important to grasp the distinction in order to have the epistemic foundation on which to dispassionately and objectively gauge human behavior relative to metaphysical absolutes—such as good or evil—without which there would be no way of apprehending reality, morality or appropriate courses of action.

Too often, when one becomes inflamed by a perceived insult to one's character, problem-solving dialogue effectively meets an abrupt and unnecessary end, leaving the underlying conflict unresolved, lost in a torrent of insults. It's an imprecise colloquialism to say, for example, "You're a tyrant!" Not only is such a pronouncement philosophically inaccurate, but perhaps more important is that such kind of statement is one of the quickest ways to derail healthy conflict resolution.

This is part of the reason why so many therapists and psychologists suggest avoiding accusatory "you" statements. It's much more effective, and is also ontologically accurate, to say that a person behaves or is behaving in a certain way.

Thus, a person can exhibit incongruous elements, or aspects, of his or her personality without any ontological contradiction. Bearing in mind the distinction between aspects versus identity, it becomes easier to rationally and calmly evaluate a person's behavior and distinct qualities without conflating his or her capacity for an action or emotion with the totality of his or her character.

Keeping this in mind is crucial to overcoming cognitive dissonance and learning the art of non-contradiction in relationships.

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." - Ayn Rand

Cognitive Dissonance - A War in Your Mind

noun, Psychology.
1. anxiety that results from simultaneously holding contradictory or otherwise incompatible attitudes, beliefs, or the like, as when one likes a person but disapproves strongly of one of his or her habits.

Cognitive dissonance is, essentially, a psychological state of inner conflict which arises from the belief in paradox. This conflict, despite its outer manifestations, is almost always moral or ideological in nature, barring of course a state of psychosis. Examples of inner ideological conflict include: Right vs. Wrong, Altruism vs. Selfishness, and so on.

Inner conflict in the form of cognitive dissonance greatly diminishes one's capacity to effectively cope with reality and leads to stress, burnout, depression and anxiety.

Take a classic example of someone driven to despair by inner ideological conflict: a deeply religious, but closeted gay man who struggles to accept both his conservative faith and sexuality. Such a person will likely face a lifetime of dissonance and distress unless he finds a way, not to "reconcile" the paradox between an all-loving and hateful God, but rather, to guide himself to deliverance through careful, philosophic introspection toward an absolute, unified standard of reality.

The way to deliverance for this hypothetical, but archetypal, man is to either fully renounce his faith, renounce his sexuality, or find a more inclusive religious community which will accept him as he is. So long as he grants credence to the view that his sexuality is depraved, while also maintaining his own justified conviction that he has the right to exist as he is, he will never find happiness in the battlefield that is his own mind.

Every time a person acts against what he or she knows to be right or postpones a necessary decision, he or she increases feelings of impotence and cognitive dissonance. A mentality of chronic victimization is self-created.

Fortunately, cognitive dissonance is ultimately a choice.

The choice to resolve inner conflict is a deeply personal one, and is primarily an intellectual undertaking, despite its appearance of being an emotional journey. Changing one's life begins with changing one's perspective, and in order to do that, one must first courageously come to terms with the facts of reality, no matter how uncomfortable they may be.

Resolving Conflict

Inner conflict, or cognitive dissonance, arises when one irrationally expends energy entertaining two contradictory belief systems simultaneously. Interpersonal conflict, on the other hand, is essentially a struggle for control between two or more people with opposing desires, values or beliefs.

The key to resolving conflict lies firstly in accepting two principles: one, that human beings possess free will; and two, that reality exists exactly as it is.

The fact that human beings have free will means that, ultimately, each individual person is responsible for his or her own life and decisions therein. Fantasizing otherwise is nothing more than wishful thinking or egotistical delusion. Further, each person is limited by the constraints of reality, including his or her ability to influence external forces and circumstances. A true mark of wisdom and diplomacy is demonstrated by taking responsibility for the factors within one’s actual control, and abdicating or accepting those which cannot be changed. If one comes to the point of choosing acceptance, one also must forfeit the right to complain.

In cases where acceptance is not possible, one must either set boundaries in an unfulfilling relationship or circumstance, or one must set out to resolve the inner ideological war at hand through careful, rational introspection.

Attempting to to pursue multiple courses of action at the same time inevitably results in some degree of cognitive dissonance. However, with the two foundational principles of free will and reality existing axiomatically held as irrefutable truths, one finds that conflict can be elegantly resolved without undue, self-imposed psychological distress.

In such instances of unresolved conflict, remember: A is A. It is what it is; reality exists exactly as it exists. One must objectively and dispassionately gather and accept the facts, a corollary of which is that one must also not attempt to pervert the Law of Identity by evading responsibility or making excuses, neither for oneself nor for others. Juggling contradictions and circumventing reality in an attempt to protect ego or image will only result in psychological distress. One must cultivate a state of mindful detachment to one’s emotional reactivity, and instead respond to circumstances as they are in reality.

The difficulty in resolving conflicts need not lie in weighing and judging the facts; the difficulty instead lies in committing oneself to total honesty and bearing the consequences of potential pain in response to a chosen course of action. This is the true meaning of taking responsibility for one's actions and life.

The most disempowering form of self-deception lies in wishing for options or potentialities which do not exist.

Relationships are a challenge. One need not further complicate them through self-deception; learning to navigate reality will always be the path of least resistance, no matter how difficult the circumstances or conflict.

The Art of Non-Contradiction

Not always, Whitney, not always.

The idea that one must learn to love oneself unconditionally before loving someone else has become something of a bromide over the years.

Self-love is a powerful emotional state which should be attributed to the highest appraisal of oneself: one's virtues.

To love oneself for failure and weaknesses is a corruption and contradiction of what it means to love.

Acceptance, however, is a more apt term and encouraging goal. One can rightfully accept his or her shortcomings, mistakes and defects while striving to improve his or her character. One can conditionally accept shortcomings or challenges which one aspires to change—such as one's physical appearance, income, or degree of life satisfaction—or alternatively, one can accept his or her unchangeable personal circumstances or characteristics—the death of a loved one, or physical disability, for example—based on the condition that these immutable facts of reality are totally outside human power.

Similarly, one can accept another’s shortcomings relative to his or her virtues (if they can be said to demonstrably exist), or one can love someone in spite of the fact that he or she physically cannot or emotionally will not change, perhaps even then conceding that the contested issue wasn’t vitally important given that acceptance was possible.

Immense courage and insight are required to effectively cope with inner and interpersonal conflict.

Life need not be lived in helpless submission to suffering; free will allows each and every human being the possibility of coming to peace with reality and acting on his or her best judgement, even if doing so isn't always easy.

Reality is beautiful.

It's beautiful that human beings are fundamentally free, free to seek out a more compatible life partner; free to find a more fulfilling job; free to improve oneself each and every day.

When a course of action is decided upon, act on it unwaveringly. One must choose to act in consonance with one’s rational judgement, not in dissonance.

Free will is what makes love and life valuable, meaningful, and—non-contradictory.

It’s simple:

A is A. □