[lit-ideas] Re: The Genealogy of Disjunction
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 16:51:01 +0000 (UTC)
In a message dated 5/29/2015 8:00:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes: "I suppose that it should be taken as, 'If we don't
love
another, we will die'. That is: what will happen if we love each other It
doesn't specify what will happen if we love each other."
Exactly. This goes well with taking 'or' as inclusive. >
JLS has missed a trick. While "what will happen if we love each other" isn't
specified (i.e. made explicit) it is implicatured that if we love each other we
will do better on the death front. The clear implicature of 'If we don't love
another, we will die' is to rule out 'Equally we will die if we do love each
other' - as is clear because the latter statement would, if additionally
stated, negate the implicature of the former.
By implicature, the sense of "we will die" is different above to how it is in
"in the long run we will die no matter what we do". This latter statement is
true provided there is a time 't1' after which each of us will be dead; but
this is consistent with there also being a prior time 't2' when we are alive
when we would not be if we did not love each other. The "we will time" in the
above concerns a time like "t2" and does not deny, by implicature, that there
will be a time like "t1" when we will all be dead.
DnlCounting implicatures This message was smuggled out by a friend
England
On Friday, 29 May 2015, 15:29, "dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In a message dated 5/29/2015 8:00:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes: "I suppose that it should be taken as, 'If we don't
love
another, we will die'. That is: 'If we don't love one another, we will
die.' It doesn't specify what will happen if we love each other."
Exactly. This goes well with taking 'or' as inclusive.
If "∨" is a non-primitive constant of the language, typically it will be
introduced by an abbreviative definition.
In presentations of classical systems in which the conditional constant "⊃
" ("if", as used by O. K. above) and the negational constant "~" ("not",
also used by O. K. above, in the abbreviation 'don't') are taken as
primitive, the disjunctive constant "∨" might be introduced in the abbreviation
of a
well-formed formula: "~p ⊃ q" as "p ∨ q".
Cheers,
Speranza
In a message dated 5/28/2015 10:24:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx writes: "Auden tries to end it with an
affirmative
advocation that we "Love one another or die." But I believe the consensus
is that we all would rather die than share our world."
i. We must love one another or die.
ii. p v q
iii. We must love one another or die; I don't mean to imply, of course,
that we must not try to do both.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
