[lit-ideas] Minor clarification about Logic and everything else

  • From: Eric Dean <ecdean99@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 14:47:58 +0000

I wrote:

"...one might be seduced by statements like S into thinking that all things
obey the laws of logic, which, as Robert I think will agree, they don't."

Which was an unfortunate paraphrase of this:

"...one might be seduced by statements like S into thinking that all things 
obey the laws of logic and doubting that there are any things which do not obey 
those laws of logic.  But, as I think Robert will agree, people often make 
statements about things which are too vague, ambiguous or otherwise uncertain 
to be confident the laws of logic apply to them.  Those things need not be any 
less real than things that obey the laws of logic, and statements about them 
may be every bit as urgent as statements about things that do obey the laws of 
logic."

Perhaps Robert won't agree with that either, but there was a plausible 
interpretation of my original sentence which I do not agree with, did not 
intend and certainly didn't intend to attribute to Robert, i.e. that no things 
obey the laws of logic.

Regards to all
Eric Dean
Washington DC

Other related posts:

  • » [lit-ideas] Minor clarification about Logic and everything else