Let ‘B’= to be; let ‘~B’=not to be.
P1: B v ~B
P2 is the negation of the left disjunct in P1, not the affirmation of the right disjunct in P1.
P1: To be or not to be.
P2: Not to be.
C: Not to be.
It seems to me that, argumentatively, there’s a difference between affirming ‘not to be’, the right disjunct, and negating ‘to be’, the left disjunct. It just happens that, in this case, what’s affirmed and what’s negated are logically equivalent. Is there a convention for conveying that argumentative difference? Also, can you recommend any articles or books where I can learn more about issues like this?
Thank you very much :)
Read another response by Stephen Maitzen
Read another response about Logic