Sayings Which Seem to Contradict Each Other, But (Usually) Don't
Some Apparent Conflicts Are Actually Just Two Sides of the Same Coin
There are many common expressions that seem to flow so easily from our lips because they rhyme, or we’ve heard others say them a few gazillion times, and are thus easy to remember. We don’t always take the time to think about whether they make sense or are apropos to the present situation, though; we just blurt them out, as if our tongue had been plonked by a doctor’s reflex hammer. And quoting some unknown sage (“wise guy”) who came up with the axiom, maxim, adage, idiom, proverb, or aphorism is easier than coming up with something fresh. Not all of these shrewd sayings really hold water, though, or at best are contradicted by other “words of wisdom.” Other times, both seemingly disparate sayings simply apply in different circumstances (context matters).
Here are a few of those sayings we’ve all heard and may tend to accept because they’re so common and familiar:
I used to respond to the saying “Opposites attract” with, “Yeah: males are attracted to females, and vice versa.” But some think that the adage “Birds of a feather flock together” contradicts the statement that opposites attract. In a literal sense, this is definitely true. After all, how many times have you seen a murder of crows perch on the telephone wires, and then have a hawk or a robin join them? Crows flock with crows, the same as cows herd with cows. I think when people say “opposites attract,” though, they are usually talking about sexual attraction, whereas “birds of a feather flock together” has more to do with people with a shared set of interests or personal philosophies who tend to hang out together (the proverbial echo chamber). e.g., you don’t see Wall Street bankers hanging out with Hell’s Angels or Surgeons socializing with welders too often.
Two other sayings that have been contrasted are “The early bird gets the worm” and “Haste makes waste.” I get why some think these contradict each other, but they are not necessarily at odds. The first champions a “get-up-and-go” attitude, while the latter is simply warning against failing to prepare before commencing with a task or making a decision. In other words, “Look before you leap.” Go ahead and be the early bird that is first to take a gander, but only leap if your chance of surviving the leap is greater than the chance of surviving whatever danger you are attempting to leap your way out of (see Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid). As for the “early bird” thought, Ecclesiastes 11:4 says: “The one who watches the wind will not sow seed, and the one who looks at the clouds will not reap.” Which is sort of another way of saying, “Get ‘er done!” But, in harmony with not jumping into things without considering the likely results, Proverbs 18:13 says, “When anyone replies to a matter before he hears the facts, It is foolish and humiliating.”
Similar things could be said about the sayings “He who hesitates is lost” and the above referenced “Look before you leap.”
We’ve all heard “Clothes make the man.” This does seem a bit superficial. After all, a monkey can be dolled up in a tuxedo. That doesn’t make the monkey any more dignified or important than when he’s wearing his native garb (fur), and the same goes for humans, when it comes down to it. Just because a politician is wearing an expensive three-piece-suit doesn’t mean he’s a trustworthy person. A hobo dressed in rags could have a purer heart and a better functioning conscience than the pol. But then again, a person should at least dress modestly and wear clean clothing, lest he display a lack of respect for his fellow citizens — and himself, too. As far as this goes, listen to Stevie Wonder’s song Living for the City (although half a century old now, it’s message is timeless).
Mark Twain responded to “clothes make the man” by saying something like, “True; naked people have very little influence in society.”
Contrasting with that saying, though, is “You cannot judge a book by its cover.” This is certainly literally true. John 7:24 says, “Stop judging by the outward appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”
As for literal covers of books, a great one can persuade one to buy the book that it decorates, but it doesn’t mean the words in the book are worth the time it takes to read them. The other side of that coin is a great book may have a plain cover, such as Mark Twain’s The Innocents Abroad:
It was said at the time that many of the common folk (such as farmers) had three books in their house: the Bible, Pilgrim’s Progress, and The Innocents Abroad. The latter was Twain’s best-selling book during his lifetime (no, it wasn’t The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Prince and the Pauper, Life on the Mississippi, or any of the others).
Another pair of supposedly contradictory sayings are “Familiarity Breeds Contempt” and “Home is Where the Heart Is.” The first seems to say that the more you get to know somebody, the less you will like them (and thus the less they will like you), which is kind of a depressing thought. Mark Twain’s response to “Familiarity Breeds Contempt” was to agree with it but append, “And children.” The second of the two sayings (“home is where the heart is”) is often true, but then again it cannot be denied that there is a lot of animosity and even violence that occurs in some homes; not in your home, hopefully, but in many. Neither saying is always true.
Two sayings that some say contradict each other are “Money is the Root of all Evil” and “Money Makes the World Go Around.” Those two sentiments aren’t necessarily in opposition to each other, though. But first a note: the saying “Money Is the Root of All Evil” is actually a misquote of what the Bible says at 1 Timothy 6:10 which says that it’s the love of money that is the root of all sorts of injurious things; in other words, money itself is not evil, and even the love of it is not the root of all evil. So it’s a quote which has an element of truth to it, but is misleading when rendered in its common form. But to return to whether they contradict: no, they don’t. Just because something makes the world go ‘round (assuming it did) doesn’t mean it’s necessarily evil or the opposite.
How about these two: “Too many cooks spoil the broth” compared with “Many hands make the load light.” If viewed simplistically, these seem to contradict each other, saying that too many workers worsify things vs. the more workers you have on a task, the easier it will be to accomplish. Looking a little beneath the surface, though, the first seems to be talking more about decisions being made: one cook wants to add more spice, the other would like to add a spice that clashes with that one, or wants to eschew spices altogether, yet another throws in a turnip and some hemlock. Too many different opinions or influences can conjure up a witches’ brew of too much of everything or non-complementary ingredients. The same idea could be conveyed by saying, “Too many artists spoil the painting.” Imagine if Albert Bierstadt and Picasso were to work on the same tapestry — it would probably end up being the worst painting either of them ever did (and heated arguments between the artists may ensue). As for the multitude of hands being more efficient in accomplishing work, the idea seems to be about physical labor that doesn’t require a lot of decision-making, such as stacking bricks, carrying lumber, or passing buckets of water at a fire. So the thoughts behind these sayings don’t contradict each other, they just apply in different situations.
Two other contrasting sayings similar to those above are “Two heads are better than one” and “Paddle your own canoe.” The advantage of having a partner is explained in the Bible at Ecclesiastes 4:9-12: Two are better than one because they have a good reward for their hard work. For if one of them falls, the other can help his partner up. But what will happen to the one who falls with no one to help him up? Moreover, if two lie down together, they will stay warm, but how can just one keep warm? And someone may overpower one alone, but two together can take a stand against him. And a threefold cord cannot quickly be torn apart.
Who can effectively argue with that logic? But it’s also sometimes beneficial, or even necessary, to work alone.
What about Benjamin Franklin’s advice, “Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise” against “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.” Both are referring to patterns of living based on one’s philosophy. Do you think that you will live long enough to benefit from taking care of your health? If so, then follow Franklin’s advice. If you are on death row (either literally or figuratively), then an argument could be made that a fatalistic, hedonistic course — just “going for the gusto” and living it up (dying it up?), so to speak — might have its merits.
This phrase and philosophy (of eating, drinking, etc.) is actually discussed in the Bible. At 1 Corinthians 15:32, the apostle Paul said of this maxim of the Epicureans that he may as well adopt it himself if there were no resurrection. But he did believe in a resurrection, so he was, in fact, rejecting such an ideology.
How about this pair: “Absence makes the heart grow fonder” vs. “Out of sight, out of mind.” These do seem to be diametrically opposed. My take on it is that the saying that proves true in any given case shows whether true love exists in the relationship. If the person is sorely missed when absent, true affection exists; if they are basically forgotten and little if any thought is given to them, it must be a shallow relationship indeed. At Song of Solomon 8:6, the Bible poetically compares true love to fire, and says it is equal to death in its strength:
Place me as a seal upon your heart,
As a seal upon your arm,
For love is as strong as death is,
And exclusive devotion is as unyielding as the Grave.
Its flames are a blazing fire, the flame of Jah.
And how about: “A word to the wise is sufficient” against “Talk is cheap.” Both are true, depending on the words and people involved. A sage bit of advice, if heeded, is valuable. People just spouting nonsense, though, or trying to convince someone out of self-interest (shysters, predators, used-car-salesmen, etc.) are certainly babblers of worthlessness.
Another pair of sayings where both can be true are “It’s better to be safe than sorry” and “Nothing ventured, nothing gained.” Being cautious, that is to say, safety conscious, is the course of wisdom, but just sitting on your hands and haunches all the time will get you nowhere. Do things, but make sure they’re the right things at the right time and place, and performed in the right way.
Here are a couple of interesting ones that require some knowledge of history to understand: “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth” and “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.” The age, and therefore to some extent the value, of a horse, and/or its health, can be determined by looking at its teeth: has the equine been well taken care of? So if you’re in the market for horseflesh, you want to know the value of what you’re considering purchasing. If it’s a gift, though, it would be rude to cast aspersions on the value of the present (a similar thought is “beggars can’t be choosers”). As far as Greeks bearing gifts, though, this refers to a horse of a different color: a large wooden horse filled with enemy soldiers. So consider the motives of someone offering you something seemingly “without obligation” — what are they after? What do they want from you? Maybe nothing, but at least consider the possibility of impure motives. Here, too, both pieces of advice are good, depending on the precise circumstances.
These two sayings really do contradict each other: “You’re never too old to learn” and “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” They contradict, though, because the latter is untrue (at least when it comes to humans). I don’t know for sure about canines, but I imagine even aged dogs still have the ability to be taught certain things. Maybe pulling out that saying is just an excuse used by those who consider themselves old and don’t want to put forth the effort to acquire new skills.
Similarly, these two sayings differ due to one of them being false: The first one is commonly, if archaically, rendered: “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” This is from Matthew 7:12. The other is “Nice guys finish last.” The latter may seem to be true, but note the word “finish” — what is the end of the matter? Matthew 26:52 says that one who lives by the sword will die from the same. And Galatians 6:7 promises that we will reap what we sow (this can be good news or bad for us, depending on how we live our lives).
What about “Hitch your wagon to a star” vs “Don’t bite off more than you can chew.” In other words, set lofty goals for yourself, but beware of taking on more than you can handle. These don’t necessarily contradict each other. Both can be true. For example, you may have a goal of becoming a proficient piano player (hitch your wagon to a star), but don’t give yourself a goal of learning the ten most difficult piano pieces perfectly within a month or two of your first ivory tickling session (don’t bite off more than you can chew). In poetic language, Carmel poet Robinson Jeffers advised his sons to “carve deep their heel marks,” but he didn’t tell them to kick Yosemite’s El Capitan into the Pacific Ocean.
Finally, there’s “The squeaky wheel gets the grease” and “Silence is golden.” I actually have a problem with the first saying, and not because it’s not true. It often is true, but I hate that it is. The whiners and complainers shouldn’t get special treatment that more polite and patient people don’t receive. Yet, “Silence is Golden” is also a true statement, which reminds me of one of the sagest things I’ve ever read, namely “Nothing is often the best thing to do, and usually the best thing to say.” Ecclesiastes 3:1,7 provides a balanced view of the matter, saying:
There is an appointed time for everything,
A time for every activity under the heavens:
. . .
A time to rip apart and a time to sew together;
A time to be silent and a time to speak;
REBUTTALS
Similar to contradicting sayings are negative responses, or rebuttals, to common sayings. Here are a few examples:
Oscar Wilde responded to “Don't count your chickens before they hatch” with this impeccable logic: “People who count their chickens before they are hatched act very wisely because chickens run about so absurdly that it's impossible to count them accurately.”
On a more serious note, the Bible says this of someone who presumptuously considers himself “set” (see Luke 12:16-21 for more context; this is just verses 19 and 20): I will say to myself: “You have many good things stored up for many years; take it easy, eat, drink, enjoy yourself.”’ But God said to him, ‘Unreasonable one, this night they are demanding your life from you. Who, then, is to have the things you stored up?’
Benjamin Franklin recommended stifling your inner procrastinator with, “Don't put off until tomorrow what you can do today.” Mark Twain’s reaction to this was: “Never put off until tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow.”
As for that advice of Franklin’s, some think that it is contradicted by the saying, “Don’t cross the bridge until you come to it.” Not really, though — Franklin was talking about something you can do now; you can’t cross a bridge before you come to it. That’s patently obvious, but I imagine the intent of the latter saying is, “Don’t worry about something that may not even happen.” Or, “Don’t make up your mind how you’re going to react to a situation before you see what exactly is involved.” See “haste makes waste” above.
Shakespeare wrote: All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts. George Carlin reasoned this way: “If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?”