Thesis. Antithesis. Synthesis.

When we think of philosophy, ancient Greece comes to mind.  The Roman Empire adopted the accumulated wisdom of Greece as they advanced Western Civilization.

During the "Dark Ages," the teachings of Aristotle, Hippocrates, Pythagoras, Archimedes and Socrates were all trod under foot by Barbarians after Rome fell, right?

No.

Greco-Roman traditions carried on with the Byzantines, who still thought of themselves as "Romans" even after Rome had been reduced to ruins.

Islam took the baton of wisdom as well as the capital of Constantinople before having it again plowed under by later brands of extremists.

In the ninth century, while the Muslims were still on the rise, Emperor Charlemagne brought knowledge back to the forefront in what historians call the Holy Roman Empire in central Europe. Charlemagne purportedly never learned to write in any of the five or six languages he could read and speak, but he was a brilliant military and administrative leader who encouraged his subjects to learn.



With the arrival of the Renaissance, scientific research in Europe began anew.  Over subsequent decades, brilliant minds like Copernicus, Galileo and Newton challenged ancient precepts, often resulting in the Catholic Church damning them for daring to recite truths that went against fundamentalist teachings, such as challenging the belief that the earth was the center of the universe.

With the Age of Reason, you might say that science and philosophy went back to the drawing board, trying to prove previously accepted truths for themselves, challenging the wisdom of the ages, and establishing alternative theories proven through scientific experimentation and observation.

While we may think of Germanic giants of that era more in terms of music, with prominent names like Beethoven and Mozart, brilliant philosophers also emerged, including Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, who helped bridge the gap between purely scientific, "Classical" ways of thinking to the "Romantic Era" notion that an observer is an active participant who conveys meaning, a concept that becomes clearer when illustrated.



German philosophers pioneered the concept of climbing a metaphorical ladder to "absolute knowledge" using the method summarized in the title of this post: "Thesis.  Antithesis.  Synthesis."

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel used something akin to that method on a regular basis, but it was actually the lesser known Johann Gottlieb Fichte who defined it with that particular phrasing (in German, of course).

Essentially, it means that rather than simply coming up with a thesis, the best possible solution will be found by also considering the antithesis, or opposite theory, to eventually arrive at a synthesis.  Recently in the forefront has been a debate between those who believe we all must be quarantined in order to stop COVID-19 from spreading no matter what happens to the economy,  versus those who advocate for citizens living freely, allowing the free market to buzz along and self-correct as usual.



For several weeks, the original thesis of quarantine won the day relatively unchallenged in order to "flatten the curve"  so our health care system did not become overwhelmed.  Those who believed that to be an overreaction to "the latest flu epidemic" went along on the promise that it would just be a couple of weeks or maybe a month at most.  Many governors and big city mayors, however, adopted that shutdown as the end all, be all strategy, one that gave them sweeping power that they are now reluctant to relinquish.

With these extended lock-downs becoming increasingly destructive to the economy in general and to small businesses in particular, the antithesis argument has now gained strength and is pushing back more forcefully.

For some reason, people on both sides of this COVID-19 dichotomy --- and in fact most other political arguments these days --- treat their counterparts as straw men proponents of the extreme opposite position while they often voice some less strict version themselves to indicate how much more reasonable they are.  It's that desire to be seen as reasonable that makes synthesis possible.



In fact, the best resolution will usually be found only by considering both extremes and then synthesizing the two through progressive point and counterpoint propositions with open minds.

Some people in favor of universal quarantine now accept limited freedoms to go outside in moderation and compromises like curbside service for retail stores trying to compete against Amazon.  Mandated masks and maintaining a six foot "social distance" are generally advocated by that side in conjunction with gradually expanded freedoms, not unlike the restrictions on all women accepted in Islamic cultures as the norm at any time in public.

On the other hand, many people like me have said we should quarantine people with the illness plus specifically those in nursing homes, which have continued to be a source of something like 40 to 50% of all deaths involving COVID-19.  I would further say that at-risk groups with serious pre-existing medical conditions should self-quarantine.

However, I would go on to say that the USA is a free republic.  If a 95 year-old veteran who stormed the beaches at Normandy despite imminent carnage before him wants to go out for an ice cream cone at McDonald's during a pandemic, then by what right does dapper Governor Gavin Newsom stop him?  That proposition would lead to a counterpoint, as we gradually continue up the ladder.

Note that neither position is as extreme as the original thesis and antithesis attributed by the opposing side, and by gradually working through the steps of reason, we may come up with a synthesis acceptable to both sides.  Hopefully that progresses beyond simply acceptable to being regarded as the best possible outcome by all parties.