Ham -- Ham: I anticipate that others may want to ring in on this, but you seem to be
stressing "contrariety" in the contingencies of my AB dichotomy. While I don't dispute that possibility, I see no reason to specify the contents of these contingencies in the relational proposition AB, nor the need to posit a not-AB (i.e., nothingness). What if I deny that "BOTH AB and NOT AB may exist without contradiction"? Ron: According to Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, this is a fundamental principle of thought, which is so basic that it can be successfully argued for merely by showing that any opponents of the principle must be using it (and thus be committed to it) themselves. Thus, Aristotle considers the case of someone who denies the principle in the strong way - holding that every proposition is both true and false - and asks why such a person goes on the Megara road to get to Megara from Athens, since on such a person's view it is just as true that any other road would get him to Megara. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
