We are confused. — TheMadFool

Nah. We study linguistics and the meaning and role of idioms.

It's never to late but they will appreciate the ones who did it early than you.

we are confused

Yes, this is also similar to a routine by the well known stand up comedian Slavoj Zizek - he uses these contradictions to argue that wisdom is useless and a counterfeit of genuine knowledge. Or something like that.

Wise sayings are always applied after the event. If a cooperative venture succeeds its a case of many hands, and if it fails, too many cooks. These things are not a guide to life, but a classification system. Confusion arises from taking cliches as advice, because the nature of cliches is that there is one applicable to every outcome. That's why they are wise sayings; they encapsulate the wisdom of hindsight, and the main lesson of history is 'you never know.' It's easy to be wise after the event, so wise people always comment on the past.

Yep. Generic wise sayings are like off the rack suits. Hit and miss and not to be examined too closely.

Nah. We study linguistics and the [u[meaning[/u] and role of idioms. — baker

I'm also open to the possibility, and think it more likely, that we I am confused. However, in my defense, the meanings definitely point in opposite directions. It's like arriving at a junction in our journey through life and you're relieved that there's a signpost to give you directions but when you read it, it says to succeed go LEFT and just below that are the words to succeed go RIGHT.

That out of the way, my aim is to find out how to make sense of these frank contradictions. Is there some context in which we could reconcile these opposing recommendations? Reminds me of Taoism. Could be a false lead though.

we are confused — javi2541997

Can we achieve some kind of harmonious unification of contradictions, assuming they are contradictions in the first place?

wisdom is useless — Tom Storm

Socratic Paradox: I know that I know nothing!!!

Wise sayings are always appliedafter the event. If a cooperative venture succeeds its a case of many hands, and if it fails, too many cooks. These things are not a guide to life, but a classification system. Confusion arises from taking cliches as advice, because the nature of cliches is that there is one applicable to every situation. That's why they are wise sayings; they encapsulate the wisdom of hindsight, and the main lesson of history is 'you never know.' — unenlightened

Interesting take but even if these sayings are generally after the fact, that they contradict each other is still an unresolved problem. Why should it be that, in one instance, too many cooks spoil the broth, and in another, many hands make light work? You might want to dig a little deeper.

Can we achieve some kind of harmonious unification of contradictions, assuming they are contradictions in the first place? — TheMadFool

Probably. Because the main achievement here is harmonious something to understand it better, thus unification it. Despite they could be so contradictory.

Why should it be that, in one instance, too many cooks spoil the broth, and in another, many hands make light work? You might want to dig a little deeper. — TheMadFool

You really don't need to dig very far at all. One spade depth is sufficient. There are many different jobs to be done, and some of them can only be done alone, and some cannot be done alone. In between, there are many that can be either. The sayings don't contradict, because they are never applied to the same thing. If the soup is good it was made by many hands, and if it is bad, it was made by too many cooks. It is never made by both, because it is never good and not good at once.

hat they contradict each other is still an unresolved problem. — TheMadFool

I don't see how this is a problem. They are both true. It is the context or utility that determines the truth value of the maxim.

For instance- cleaning up after a messy party - many hands make light work. Writing a film script - too many cooks spoil the broth.

You really don't need to dig very far at all. — unenlightened

Well, from where I stand - looks and feels like quicksand - you've not given this enough thought. Unless you hit the right keys, you won't be able to make music is all I can say.

I don't see how this is a problem — Tom Storm

He who hesitates is lost i.e. one must act quickly. Haste makes waste i.e. one mustn't act quickly. You don't see a problem?

No I don't see the problem. They are both true or both false. These are not logical absolutes, they are folk sayings applied to individual situations.

That out of the way, my aim is to find out how to make sense of these frank contradictions. Is there some context in which we could reconcile these opposing recommendations? — TheMadFool

This is what the study of folk psychology addresses:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/folkpsych-theory/

No I don't see the problem. — Tom Storm

He who hesitates is lost i.e. one must act quickly. Haste makes waste i.e. one mustn't act quickly — TheMadFool

Can you do both at the same time?

This is what the study of folk psychology addresses:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/folkpsych-theory/ — baker

Thanks for the link. Will report if I find anything interesting.

No I don't see the problem. They are both true or both false. These are not logical absolutes, they are folk sayings applied to individual situations. — Tom Storm

I think they are similar to the way language allows one to sometimes say "I'm wearing brown shoes", and other times to say "I'm wearing black shoes". Ie. it's not the case that one is objectively true and the other false, but that in a particular context, one is true and the other is not.

When it comes to idioms/phrasemes, the matter may seem a bit more difficult because idioms/phrasemes can look like bits of universal wisdom that is supposed to apply regardless of context.

I think a solution to this is to remember that every linguistic utterance a person makes at any given times is just a use of words intended to bring across a particular meaning, and a less or more clear expression of the person's intention to communicate in the first place. And also, that idioms/phrasemes can be "translated" into neutral language (which can be quite verbose, though -- we use idioms/phrasemes to say more with fewer words).

To use an earlier example:
cleaning up after a messy party - many hands make light work
Someone in that context can utter the words:
"Come on, folks, many hands make light work!"
or
"Come on, folks, if everybody does some of the work, we'll be done with the cleanup sooner and nobody will be very tired afterwards!"

In that context, by saying "many hands make light work" the speaker intends to say "if everybody does some of the work, we'll be done with the cleanup sooner and nobody will be very tired afterwards". But the latter isn't as economical and as encouraging as the former.

Can you do both at the same time? — TheMadFool

Pretty sure that's not how they work. They are separate maxims for separate situations trading in the same thematic material.

He who hesitates is lost i.e. one must act quickly. (Describes a meeting I attended on Monday made some quick decisions to get things done) Haste makes waste i.e. one mustn't act quickly (Describes last Thursday when I spent over 2 hours on a budget for next year ensuring careful planning led to no mistakes.)

You chose the maxim that describes best the situation as you see it. The wisdom part is knowing which one applies.

You chose the maxim that describes best the situation as you see it. The wisdom part is knowing which one applies. — Tom Storm

Makes sense but I was hoping for something much, I confess, grander. Forgive me if for my reluctance to fully endorse your perfectly good response but it seems to lack the, how shall I put it, oomph factor I'm looking for. Perhaps I'm pissing into the wind.

It seems to lack the, how shall I put it, oomph factor I'm looking for. — TheMadFool

I've spent my life looking for the oomph factor. Let us know if you find it.

I've spent my life looking for the oomph factor. Let us know if you find it. — Tom Storm

:lol: Sorry for my lukewarm response to your explanation for why there are contradictory sayings. It's me and not its adequacy.

By the way, I just realized what I wanted from members who went through the OP viz. what such pairs of opposite recommendations, both of which, according to you, make complete sense, imply with respect to the nature of reality. For example, we can't generalize like in science à la the laws of nature which are universal; in fact, the "laws" of living the good life which sayings are about seem to flip flop between "do x" and "do the opposite of x". Isn't that odd? At the very least, that the scientific laws of nature, which are constant and govern all matter and energy [so say scientists] which includes us, should lead to a level of reality - that in which sayings dwell and apply - in which the "laws" (sayings) come in antipodal pairs, should make us want to take a closer look at this most intriguing state of affairs.

I hear you. I have seen people try to apply the foundations of reason to folk wisdom before and it can't work. I guess where you were coming from may have been the principle of non-contradiction - a thing isn't what it isn't. It that's so (and it is) - why would there be contradictions in folk wisdom? Answer - because, unlike logic, folk wisdom consists of sayings which are not tautologies or absolutes. They are situational recommendations.

I hear you. I have seen people try to apply the foundations of reason to folk wisdom before and it can't work. I guess where you were coming from may have been the principle of non-contradiction - a thing isn't what it isn't. It that's so (and it is) - why would there be contradictions in folk wisdom? Answer - because, unlike logic, folk wisdom consists of sayings which are not tautologies or absolutes. They are situational recommendations. — Tom Storm

I was hoping for more from you but that's just me I guess. I get what you're saying - every situation has its own unique features that preclude any attempts at generalization - and I'm with you on that score. Nevertheless, isn't it rather mysterious that the laws of nature which are, scientists claim, universal in scope should give rise to a world in which no laws seem to cover all cases? Going by your responses, you seem interested enough in this topic and so, I would like to submit a request to you and it's to find, if you're up to the task, some rationale why a solid bedrock of universal laws (the so-called laws of nature) should give rise to a world (the world where sayings are meaningful) in which there are no such laws (each saying is applicable in different situations and no saying covers every situation) at all?

Imagine yourself creating a simulated universe, you come up with certain rules that can't be violated under any circumstances, something I suspect is necessary if your simulation is to succeed. You run the sim for a while and then, to your surprise, you find certain levels of the simulation can't be made sense of in terms of a universal laws but that they actually operate under two mutually contradictory set of laws which, in other words means, both the laws are violated at one time or another. Wouldn't that cause you some puzzlement?

To further elucidate my point take heavier-than-air flight. There was a time when if I claimed objects made of iron can fly that would've immediately qualified me as a patient in a mental asylum. Now, in this day and age, to make the exact opposite claim would have the same result. What this illustrates, if anything, is that the laws of nature aren't actually being violated but what's really happening is one law of nature, in this case laws of aerodynamics) is being used against another law of nature (gravity) and this appears to us as a transgression of a physical law. As you can see, this is exactly like the explanation you gave that which saying ("law") applies depends on the situation. Now, if I maybe so bold, your task is to provide an explanation similar to the one I did for heavier-than-air flight i.e. try and come up with how the "apparent" disharmony of mutually contradictory sayings is an illusion and that there's actually an underlying harmony.

I was hoping for more from you but that's just me I guess. I get what you're saying - every situation has its own unique features that preclude any attempts at generalization - and I'm with you on that score. Nevertheless, isn't it rather mysterious that the laws of nature which are, scientists claim, universal in scope should give rise to a world in which no laws seem to cover all cases? Going by your responses, you seem interested enough in this topic and so, I would like to submit a request to you and it's to find, if you're up to the task, some rationale why a solid bedrock of universal laws (the so-called laws of nature) should give rise to a world (the world where sayings are meaningful) in which there are no such laws (each saying is applicable in different situations and no saying covers every situation) at all? — TheMadFool

One of the problems is the use of the word laws. This kind of smuggles in a lawmaker. The laws of logic are more properly known as foundations of reason. They appear inviolable. No one knows why, although an Islamic or Christian apologist would say God is the guarantor of these. All laws are true only because they emanate from God's nature. God is the lawmaker. When we can't explain something we say 'the magic man did it."

Do we discover these laws or are they simply how we are capable of seeing what we call reality?

Now, if I maybe so bold, your task is to provide an explanation similar to the one I did for heavier-than-air flight i.e. try and come up with how the "apparent" disharmony of mutually contradictory sayings is an illusion and that there's actually an underlying harmony. — TheMadFool

Right back at ya... I'll give you this. The answer is the Tao. For a given statement, the opposite is also true.

What is and what is not create each other. High and low rest on each other. First and last follow each other.

We can now return to the mysticism thread.

One of the problems is the use of the word laws. This kind of smuggles in a lawmaker — Tom Storm

Not really. Science has laws of nature and it, as you already know, avoids god (a purported law maker).

The answer is the Tao — Tom Storm

Taoism is about conflict between opposites and the alleged harmony that ensues. In Taoism the clash of antipodal is as real as the equilibrium that reportedly results.

My opinion, for what it's worth, differs in that the polarity that we see, good-bad, light-dark, and so on, is an illusion and that there really is no difference, despite appearances, between opposites in the sense that they're, in terms of "laws", the same law in operation. I know this take differs from what I said earlier in the post that precedes this one but if there's anything common between the two, it's that what we assume/think are two, is actually one.

In for a penny, in for a pound. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

1. Look before you leap but if you decide to leap after you've looked, don't hesitate.

2. Many hands make light work depending upon what in hell is going on.

3. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth until after the Greeks have left. Or look directly in the mouth of a gift horse gifted by Greeks.

4. The squeaky wheel gets the grease because silence is golden.

5. You're never too old to learn unless you are too old to care.

6. Absence makes the heart ache and familiarity makes the head ache.

7. Don't rely on idioms to mend your clothes.

#6 isn’t contradictory, and according to studies in social science is also untrue. Absence makes the heart grow indifferent and familiarity breeds attachment.