WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Super-Section: BAI sumtcita

posts: 2388


wrote:

>
> 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

I seem to have misread your abbreviated notation;
I took "not because not" to man "not y because
not x," i.e., "not x cause not y." Now I am not
sure what it means:apparently "it is not the case
that x causes not y."

> > 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
>
>
>
>
>