# Tag Info

8

The short answer is "no". Your main question is whether (2) follows from (1); (1) P → Q [ P is a sufficient condition for Q ], (2) Q → P [ P is a necessary condition for Q ]. The reason the entailment from (1) to (2) doesn't hold is that it's possible that Q follow from some proposition R that is not equivalent to P. The only instance where the ...

6

This is a topic of current controversy among social theorists. One prominent stance can be traced to activist educators Pat Bidol and Judith Katz, to the effect that "racism is power plus prejudice." In other words, any one can have a prejudice, which is to say, a preconception about another person based on characteristics such as race and gender. But ...

6

To be an elephant is sufficient but not necessary for being a mammal. To be a mammal is necessary but not sufficient for being an elephant.

3

If you're asking about predicate valency then there are a few examples of tritransitive/quadrivalent verbs with four arguments. For example: I1 bet you2 five dollars3 that it would rain4.

3

The roots are unrelated. (Btw questions of this type are easily resolved using a lexicon or Wiktionary.) If you enjoy conceptual investigations of etymological roots you might be interested in Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics.

3

Just one quick example: Two numbers are coprime if they do not share any common factors (other than 1) and are not equal. From the definition, it is sufficient to show that two numbers are prime numbers to show that they are coprime, but it isn't necessary: 8 and 9 are coprime, but neither are prime. Thus, not all sufficient conditions are necessary.

2

(This is an extended comment, not a properly sourced answer) I have a feeling that you are looking for an explanation where it is shown that loving/treating two or more people equally results in some sort of contradiction or fallacy. That is not the case. Based on logic alone, there's no apriori reason that an agent can't assign the exact same value/ranking ...

2

Aristotle resolves the argument in Physics bk. Δ On Place, ch. 3 (210b): Zeno's problem—that if Place is something it must be in something—is not difficult to solve. There is nothing to prevent the first place from being 'in' something else—not indeed in that as 'in' place, but as health is 'in' the hot as a positive determination of it or as the hot is '...

2

There is not a single universal concept of Ownership. Consider the following definitions: Wikipedia Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property, which may be an object, land/real estate or intellectual property. Ownership involves multiple rights, collectively referred to as title, which may be separated and held by ...

2

The Categories, chap.7 /On Relatives/ contains a remarkable discussion in just a few pages and its author, supposedly Aristotle, might well be the first to have 'studied' asymmetric relations. So Aristotle distinguishes contrariety and reciprocation, adding further consideration on simultaneity. All relatives are 'reciprocated', but no all of them have '...

2

Forgiveness is complex. I bought a copy of Forgiveness: A Philosophical Exploration by Charles Griswold. It's more than 200 pages long and includes a lot of good ideas - along with a few lemons. For example, Griswold talks about the U.S. government giving X amount of money to victims of the WWII Japanese internment, then claiming that everything is now ...

2

You are right to feel baffled by this conclusion because it hinges on a baseless assertion - that people and their personalities are somehow static and unchanging. People are constantly experiencing new things, acquiring new knowledge, and learning more about their environments and their own psychology, whether they're conscious of the process or not. It is ...

2

Society does forgive. When you recieve a parking ticket, you pay the fine and then society forgives you. The same goes for other matters. Forgiveness doesn't only have to be unconditional; you can forgive someone after they've done necessary steps to make up for what they did. So should we forgive? It depends on the exact situation and is arbitrarily down ...

1

If you are being sincere when you say "you don't see them as your future spouse for some unknown reasons" perhaps you should see a therapist to figure out what those reasons are and if they are good reasons. Love is more than a feeling. Love is a kindly action in response to a shared connection or to a lack of a shared connection.

1

My understanding of the use-mention distinction is that the former refers to a disposition (behavior) or proposition (meaning bearer) while the latter is merely a reference (syntactical expression such as a string). In this way, dispositions correspond to correspondent truths (combining two individual cookies in results in a state of affairs that a box has a ...

1

1+1=2 is a formula (an expression of mathematical language that express a statement) and "1+1=2" is the way to refer to the expression: correct. 1+1 is a term, i.e. an expression that denotes a number. Thus, it is not a formula. The principle of the Indiscernibility of Identicals (the converse of the Identity of Indiscernibles) in its predicate logic ...

1

Isn't this question off-topic here? Religion and to some degree philosophy, may promote forgiveness. If you consider religions, such as biblical Christianity, the message might be to forgive, but it is to be given under specific circumstances. Before one can be forgiven, one must regret what one has done, and must repent by changing one's ways. Yes, if ...

1

William Rowan Hamilton's discovery of quaternions in the 19th century may be the first studied non-commutative relations. Here is Wikipedia: In mathematics, the quaternions are a number system that extends the complex numbers. They were first described by Irish mathematician William Rowan Hamilton in 1843 and applied to mechanics in three-dimensional ...

1

Punishing defectors There's the concept of 'punishing defectors' which has multiple valid basis - there's a game theory justification that a (credible) promise to punish defectors, even if it costs you, is (in certain cases) an effective strategy that makes things better for everyone. By extension, "not doing your part" and not punishing defectors is also ...

1

From p. 1162 on "virtus" of A Lexicon of St. Thomas Aquinas by DeFerrari: omnis virtus una operatione vel uno actu fertur in obiectum et in rationalem formalem obiecti (C. G. 1. 76), every power [virtue] aims with one and the same action at its object and at the formal relationship according to which it is its object,* sicut eadem visione videmus lumen et ...

1

Ethics of care I offer a definition to ensure that we all have the same thing in mind in talking of an 'ethics of care' (or to sort things out if we don't) : The key idea is that the detached, impartial observer ideal of morality, characteristic of ethics since the enlightenment, is flawed and inappropriate, particularly for women. In its place ...

1

If you have no knowledge of how you perceive the cube, could you even know that you were presented with a three-dimensional object ? Wouldn't there just be a two-dimensional shape in your visual field ? The same with the sphere : it would appear merely as a circular shape, and still only a circular shape even if it were rotated. You could gain contrastive ...

1

I think one thing that would help your line of questioning a bit is that you can restrict your question to this: can you love two people maximally and equally. It seems obvious and intuitive that I can love/value people equally. For instance, there's a category of people who I do not know. For such people, I value them as human beings and from this ascribe ...

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible