Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

(Theory question) Why do you negate a conditional by negating the necessary?

CinnamonTeaCinnamonTea Member
in General 550 karma

Specifically, I am looking at PT 68.S2.Q23, the second sentence: "We must therefore reject Tolstoy's rash claim that if we knew a lot about the events leading up to any action, we would cease to regard that action as freely performed").

So that would be diagrammed out as:
Not (know about events ---> ~freely performed)
Which I was told turns into:
(Know about events ---> freely performed)

My question is a theoretical one, and that is: WHY do you negate a conditional by introducing the sufficient and denying the necessary?

2 follow up questions:
1) (Theory) Why is it incorrect to say when you negate a conditional, the sufficient could OR could not lead to the necessary?
2) Is there is this lesson in the CC (negating a conditional?) I could not find it.

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • DumbHollywoodActorDumbHollywoodActor Alum Inactive ⭐
    7468 karma

    So that would be diagrammed out as:
    Not (know about events ---> ~freely performed)
    Which I was told turns into:
    (Know about events ---> freely performed)

    This is incorrect. When you negate a conditional relationship, you create new intersectional relationship.

    The logical equivalent of "Not (know about events ---> ~freely performed)" is
    "know about events <-SOME -> freely performed" (Sometimes, we can know a lot about the events leading up to any action and regard that action as freely performed)

    Now to answer your question 1: you can! Why? I ask you a question: What does it mean to say A is a sufficient condition of B? It's saying that the presence of A guarantees or triggers B. Another way of saying it is that if A exists, B must exist as well. By negating the conditional relationship we are essentially saying that sometimes when A happens B does not happen.

    Pertininent Lessons.
    https://7sage.com/lesson/advanced-negate-some-statements
    https://7sage.com/lesson/advanced-negate-all-statements
    https://7sage.com/lesson/deny-the-relationship
    https://7sage.com/lesson/how-to-negate-statements-in-english

  • CinnamonTeaCinnamonTea Member
    550 karma

    Thanks so much @DumbHollywoodActor! To clarify, in the 3rd CC link you sent, JY said that to negate A--->B, you could say EITHER that:
    A <--some-->~B OR A and ~B.

    So in the case above, that would mean: Not (know about events--->~freely performed)
    Translates to:

    know about events <--some---> freely performed
    OR
    Know about events and freely performed

    Is that correct? Thanks in advance.

  • DumbHollywoodActorDumbHollywoodActor Alum Inactive ⭐
    7468 karma

    All correct. Well done!

  • CinnamonTeaCinnamonTea Member
    550 karma

    Thanks for the help! :D

  • Stimmy TurnerStimmy Turner Alum Member
    46 karma

    Thank you for your comments this thread helped me understand a separate problem with similar elements!

Sign In or Register to comment.