In a message dated 4/20/2013 8:55:53 P.M. UTC-02, donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: If one adds "or not" as a qualifier to everything, does that mean we are right about everything or not? Or does it just mean that by claiming both an assertion and its negation we are not taking the risk of being wrong about anything we claim, or not? We have discussed this before. The locus classicus, as R. D. Fenton, a Latin teacher, calls it, is, no doubt, Alice in Wonderland: THE WHITE KNIGHT (to Alice): You look sad. Let me sing you a song to comfort you. ALICE: Is it too long? THE WHITE KNIGHT: It _is_ long. But very _very_ beautiful. Everybody that hears me sing it -- either it brings the tears into their eyes, or ALICE: Or? ("Alice interrupted, for the Knight had made a sudden pause.") THE WHITE KNIGHT: Or not. ---- McEvoy's analysis: THESIS 1: McEvoy's question: "If one adds "or not" as a qualifier to everything, does that mean we are right about everything or not?" Answer (One Of Many): Or not, I guess. THESIS 2: McEvoy's question: "Or [rather] does it just mean that by claiming both an assertion and its negation we are not taking the risk of being wrong about anything we claim, or not? Answer (One of Many): Again, or not, I guess. ----- The best way to deal with this is symbolically. I will introduce "v" as the disjunction operator and refer to "The Genealogy of Disjunction", a book -- or rather, the title of a book. The Latins used "vel" as "or". The particle survives in Italian, in some place names. On the other hand, the Latins also used "aut". In English, "or" is short of "other", which complicates the logical form. Strictly, it means "second". Aristotle saw this and talks of a _third_ man as an impossibility (in his view). ---- And so on. Cheers, Speranza ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html