Posted by alexandra_k on October 6, 2006, at 21:11:05
In reply to Re: reasons that sound identical, but aren't » alexandra_k, posted by Jost on October 4, 2006, at 18:07:08
I'm not sure what is going on in the taste case...
1.
P1) I don't like things that are sour
(aka - for all things that are sour, I don't like them)
P2) Cherry pies are sour
______________________________________
C) I don't like cherry piesC logically follows from P1 and P2 which is to say that IF P1 and P2 are true then to deny C is to contradict oneself. If one also believed:
C*) I do like cherry pies - then this would conflict with C.
Here is another argument with the same logical form:
2.
P1) I disapprove of things that exclude others
(aka - for all things that exclude others, I disaprove of them)
P2) Small boards exclude others
______________________________________
C) I disapprove of small boardsC logically follows from P1 and P2 which is to say that IF P1 and P2 are true then to deny C is to contradict oneself. If one also believed:
C*) I do not disapprove of small boards - then this would conflict with C.
Just one more:
3.
P1) I disapprove of things that exclude others
(aka - for all things that exclude others, I don't like them)
P2) Restricted chat excludes others
_____________________________________
C) I disapprove of restricted chatC logically follows from P1 and P2 which is to say that IF P1 and P2 are true then to deny C is to contradict oneself. If one also believed:
C*) I do not disapprove of restricted chat - then this would conflict with C
Now there are two things one can to to regain consistency:
1) One could deny that either P1 or P2 are true after all. If you deny either (or both) then there is no contradiction in accepting C as true hence there would be no contradiction in accepting C*.
2) One could choose not to accept C*.A fairly natural way to go would to be deny P1. Instead of dissaproving of ALL sour things or ALL exclusive things one might dissaprove of some but not others. If that is right then I don't think one can legitimately cite sourness or exclusiveness as a reason for disliking or dissaproving of something, however. What is crucial is *why* you dislike or dissaprove in the one case but not the other.
So I guess the person who dislikes some sour things but not others could appeal to the degree of sourness. There could be some kind of threshold and when that is passed the like turns to dislike. Kind of like how I like cigarettes but I wouldn't like to chainsmoke a whole pack. There is no contradiction in that.
I'm not sure that appealing to degrees of exclusion would help in this case. One could say that the kind of exclusion is different and one only dissaproves of certain kinds of exclusion. Thus there is exclusion1 and exclusion2 and one dissaproves of exclusion1 but not exclusion2. So what is the difference between exclusion1 and exclusion2?
The reason for the exclusion?
Perhaps...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:690598
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/692536.html