That was just an off-hand suggestion, I now think that it is better
understood as an exclusive disjunction:
It is necessary that we either love one another or die.
(But both is not necessary)
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx for
DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
i. We must love one another or die.
ia. □(p ∨ q)
ib. □p ∨ □q
ii. We must love one another and die.
iia. □(p ∧ q)
iib. □p ∧ □q
In a message dated 5/31/2015 8:32:20 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxx.uk_ (mailto:donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
In [the "and"] version, this point is made more subtly [than in the "or"
version].
It occurred to me yet another disanalogy: commutativity and their
'implications'. For in the 'or' version indeed
ib. □p ∨ □q
is equivalent to a proposition where the ORDER of the disjuncts is
inverted:
ic. □q ∨ □p
as if Auden were to say, not (i), but (i')
i'. We must die or love one another.
And (ib) and (ic) being equivalent, so are their definitions in terms of
'not' and 'if':
id. ~□p ⊃ □q
-- as if Auden were to say, as O. K. suggested:
i''. If we must not love one another, we must die.
and
ie. ~□q ⊃ □p
as if Auden were to say
i'''. If we must not die, we must love one another.
Granted, while commutativity also applies to conjunction, with
iib. □p ∧ □q
being equivalent to
iic. □q ∧ □p
not only is a conditional analysis ruled out, but there seems to be surely
something implicaturally odd (yet true) about
ii'. We must die and love one another.
Cheers,
Speranza
References:
Barfield, O. Poetic diction.
-- Speaker's Meaning.
-- The Rediscovery of Meaning.
This relates to the definability of 'or' in terms of 'not' and 'if', and
Omar K.'s point made earlier about the 'conditions' to what Auden's claim
may
be made to make.
Granted, 'and' is also commutative:
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
