WikiDiscuss

pc:
> --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
> wrote:
> > But there is a more interesting direct
> > relationship.
> > "because" and "despite" are duals:
> > because = NOT despite NOT
> > despite = NOT because NOT
>
> This is not exactly right. It is not the absence
> of the cause that generates despite, but rather
> its presence without effect.

It is not the absence of the cause, and I never said
it was. I said it is the absence of the prevention.

X prevents Y = X causes not Y

X does not prevent Y = Y despite X

> If the potential
> cause did not occur, we might say "not z (namely
> y) because not x" where x is a cause of z. But
> we wouldn't say despite, since that requires
> (even etymologically) x to be around to be
> overriden or whatever it is.

And I never said we would.

> (The fact that "not
> z because not x" where x is a cause of z is also
> bad reasoning — unless x is also a necessary
> cause of z — does contribute to this not quite
> working as well.)

Right, but it doesn't address my point.

> As for the convoluted nature of the rest of the
> derivation, that is what pragmatic derivations
> generally look like, requiring as they do looking
> into unasked and often barely answerable
> questions about intentions and the like --
> mysterious creatures all.

"Despite" doesn't seem all that mysterious to me. It
is simply the dual of "because". Not its negation!

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com