Illogical Negativism

Aristotle maintained that, for everything describable, there is some other thing which acts as its opposite; that such things as ``happy'' and ``sad'' are the rubber-stoppered ends of some ill-defined metaphysical baton. This may sound a bit silly, but, like all silly things, it's completely accurate. The reason that we haven't found the metaphysical opposites of things like ``pickle'' and ``umbrella'' (their opposites are not, it should be noted, their mere absence, which is the centerpoint of the baton, and not the far end [in much the same way that ``darkness'' isn't the opposite of ``light'']) is, most likely, that we haven't worried overmuch about them. However, I digress. There is a school of philosophy called Logical Positivism, a fact which suggests (at least, it might suggest to Aristotle) that there should be a school of Logical Negativism, one of Illogical Positivism and Illogical Negativism. Now, logical negativism is clearly the full name of Negativism, but the other two schools have been left conspicuously unoccupied. In one fell swoop, Pope Icky Fundament, PZK's wife, Pope Dr. Pink Mini, DDF, defined both of the heretofore unknown schools.
      The Fundaments were, it is said, embroiled in some kind of debate, when the good Pope Icky slammed down a conclusion which was, so far as he could tell, utterly indisputable. His wife simply replied ``Nuh-uh,'' and thus directly founded one philosophy and indirectly founded another. Though this only tenet of Illogical Negativism is lacking nothing, I will nevertheless attempt to flesh it out the philosophy for the more obtuse.
      As David Hume demonstrated in A Treatise of Human Nature, we cannot ever prove the existence of causal laws; we only perceive them in events that constantly occur together. Since we can never prove (but only suppose) that they are laws, then they are always open to revision should a counter-example ever show up -- they cannot be said to be true, but only possibly true. W.V. Quine went even further, insisting that even math and logic truths are, in principle, open to revision if the need to do so should arise. Illogical Negativists combine these two positions and see that no statement, however iron-clad, need ever be accepted as true beyond revision. Hence, their credo: ``Nuh-uh.''
      Their sister school, Illogical Positivism (credo: ``Uh-huh.'') is simply a different view of the same tukus; since no statement need be accepted as true, that means that the denial of any statement can itself be denied, and hence any statement affirmed.
      As should be obvious, the potential applications of these schools of thought are limitless and will, in time, shake the very foundations of the philosophical community.