In a message dated 6/4/2015 1:42:51 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes:
"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)."
Well, I believe the received opinion (from this Oxford initial whose second
name was "Paul") is the exclusive reading of 'or' is a mere conversational
implicature from the one and only truth-functional meaning of 'or' which
is inclusive.
Etymologically, oddly, 'or' meant 'other', or 'second' (before 'second' was
adopted from the Latin).
So, perhaps the "or"-Auden (versus the "and"-Auden) perhaps meant:
We must love each other FIRST or, then, second, DIE.
Cheers,
Speranza
1. We must love one another OR die.
2. □(p ∨ q)
3. □p ∨ □q
4. We must love one another AND die.
5. □(p ∧ q)
6. □p ∧ □q
7. □p ∨ □q
8. □q ∨ □p
9. We must DIE OR love one another.
10. ~□p ⊃ □q
11. ~□q ⊃ □p
12. IF we must NOT die, we must love one another.
13. □p ∧ □q
14. □q ∧ □p
15. We must DIE AND love one another.
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].
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
