Shared Content – Lawrence Horn
But such ridicule is not without equivocation, given that litotes, or “logical” (non-concordial) double negation, may or may not be semantically redundant. When the negation of a logical contrary yields an unexcluded middle, it contributes to expressive power: someone who is not unhappy may not be happy either, and an occurrence may not be infrequent without being frequent. But if something is not possible, what can it be but possible?
Originally published on SpringersLink, that is only a summary of an article you have to pay for to consume. The paraphrased examples of history and personal anecdotes make me want to purchase it but I’d rather write my own stuff on this logical fallacy that a lot of people are guilty in proclaiming doom and gloom over the positive in the present. Simply put, it is two negative words used in the same sentence.
Coming from the saying two wrongs don’t make a right, it is generally discouraged due to poor grammar or overtly intended in being confusing. Mixing an undesirable pronoun with a verb or an adverb with an unpositive connection of conjuncture. The phenomenon of many world language elements in concord is grammatically incorrect to use anything but the double negative. You can assume they are unnatural aberrations but contain some value in regarding the focus of positions.
Intuitively and instinctively is a double negative, in my opinion, it is affirmative action jumping to a conclusion from a negative premise. In other common paradoxes, read more details in my link right here written at the start of the year > https://ungroovygords.com/2020/02/24/logical-fallacies-explained/. Overall to reach a mutual resolution after double negatives or flawed logic requires some sort of moral neutralism. Admit the case is inconsistent or try harder to achieve the peace that any purpose of any of this use is not to filter out into nihilism.