I have a notion that binary thinking has been around longer than the Enlightenment. “He who is not for me is against me,” as the man said. I like thinking about paradox as an engine for thinking, though: it’s like an ideational pun where both meanings are defensible.
While that's true, the Enlightenment made it systematic and usual. I'd argue that the example you give isn't really binary thinking, though. In the context of the rest of the passage, it's more about divisiveness. If anything, it condemns binary thinking (no house divided against itself . . . etc.) in favor of unity. Jesus actually seems to be saying that that there's room for all sorts of different ways of thinking ("people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy"), not just that of the "in" group. "He who is not for me is against me," though certainly a binary, is really talking about the problem of not being in relationship, which seems like a different issue to me.
I have a notion that binary thinking has been around longer than the Enlightenment. “He who is not for me is against me,” as the man said. I like thinking about paradox as an engine for thinking, though: it’s like an ideational pun where both meanings are defensible.
While that's true, the Enlightenment made it systematic and usual. I'd argue that the example you give isn't really binary thinking, though. In the context of the rest of the passage, it's more about divisiveness. If anything, it condemns binary thinking (no house divided against itself . . . etc.) in favor of unity. Jesus actually seems to be saying that that there's room for all sorts of different ways of thinking ("people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy"), not just that of the "in" group. "He who is not for me is against me," though certainly a binary, is really talking about the problem of not being in relationship, which seems like a different issue to me.