In this post, I will discuss Propositional Logic.
This will start off somewhat abstract, and will be very boring.
I do have a point to wish to make at the end of it, so to anyone bothers to read it, you have my thanks.
Let us Implication.
"A implies B"
To understand this, look at it as a if statement.
If A is true, than B must be true.
For example, If it is raining, then it must be cloudy.
Or, "It is rainy implies it is cloudy"
By itself, this is fairly boring. The interesting part is what other statements we can deduce from this
Here is an example of a correct deduction
1"A implies B"
therefore
2"not B implies not A"
I will not be providing a formal proof of this, however, the intuitive explenation for this is this:
Statement 1 says that B
must be true
if A is true. In that case, if we observer B to be false, then A must not have been true.
"It is rainy implies it is cloudy"
therefore
"it is not cloudy implies it is not rainy"
Simple, and as boring as I have warned.
Here is an
incorrect decuction. The deduction below does not follow the rules of propositional logic
1"A implies B"
therefore
2"not A implies not B"
Intuitively, this might make sense, after all, we are only inverting both our objects.
However, this is completely wrong. Statement one only tells us what happens if A is true, it does not tell us anything about the world when A is false. This deduction does not follow the rules of propositional logic. This is simply not true.
"It is rainy implies it is cloudy"
therefore
"It is not rainy implies it is not cloudy"
As mentioned, this deduction is false
Lets look at another statement.
A = You are a good neighbour
B = You deserve respect (or deserve not to be spied on, dominated, etc.)
If we have the axiom "You are a good neighbout implies that You deserve respect"
then it follows that "You do not deserve respect implies that you are not good neighbour"
this is the only thing that we can deduce from this statement.
If you tried to deduce something like "You are not a good neighbour, then you do not deserve respect", then that would be wrong, due to the same explenation I already gave.
And so, finally, about the neighbour insight.
A good neighbor listens without spying, speaks without demanding, takes without dominating, gives without submitting. Respect is the foundation of community. (Community, Communication, Home
From these statements, if we find someone who does not deserver respect* (ie. does not "listens without spying", etc,etc) then we can mark them as a bad neighbour.
However, this insight says nothing about how a bad neighour should be treated.
*It is very important to note that how we deduce who does not deserve respect is also outside of the scope of this insight. If someone does not "speaks without demanding" then you could say they're a bad neighbour, but deciding what is and isn't demanding is not a trivial decision, the fact that we have rulers who have a right to 'demand' things of their vassals muddies that even further.
Lastly, I want to say that this does not fully refute what AbeoLogos has been saying.
"You are a good neighbout implies that you deserve to not be spied on"
therefore
"You deserve to be spied on implies that you are not a good neighbour"
By the axioms of this insight, anyone we spy on, dominate, demand from, etc.
must be a bad neighbour.
If we plan to do any of the things above, then we must be ready to call others bad neighbours.
This is not a problem
yet, because we simply have nothing to dictate how a bad neighour is treated.
Marking someone as a bad neighbour means we don't
need to "listens without spying", but it doesn't stop us from doing so.
Our options are
more open for bad neighbours than for good ones.
The greatest weakness of this insight is if we define someone as a good neighbour, and they do something we hate, then we cannot spy, dominate, or demand anything from them, because they are still a good neighbour.
However, ironically enough, marking someone as a good neighbour is also not defined within this art.
Back to propositional logic.
1"A implies B"
It does
not follow that
2"B implies A"
The example above does not follow the rules of propositional logic. Therefore, we cannot deduce statement 2 from statement 1.
The real example of the above is
"You are a good neighbour implies that you listen without spying
"
From this, we
cannot deduce, that
"If you listen without spying, then you are a good neighbour".
This is not a real deduction, nor can we deduce anything that would imply that you are a good neighbour.
So, what AbeoLogos implied here true
This is what I mean when I raise concerns that the insight either gets ignored or it gets in the way in ways we can't do much of anything with.
Abeo said that this insight could get "ignored", and they're half right. It will not be ignored, but it will have no practical effects, because this insight by itself does nothing!
This insight tells us what a good neighbour should do, but tells us nothing about who we must mark as a good neighbour.
On the other hand, this insight tells us how we can mark someone as a bad neighbout, but tells us nothing on how to treat a bad neighbour.
As for other insights, I see nothing that addresses these shortcomings. There no insight that tells us "if they act like this, then they must be a good neighbout", nor do I see anything stating that "if they are a bad neighbour, then we must treat them this way"
