Still ruined?
Consider, for the sake of argument, the contrary.
"Thanksgiving [is not] ruined."
However, logically we must go all the way, ruthlessly to negate all components of the proposition.
"[Everything other than Thanksgiving] [is not] [in a non-ruined state]."
Which of course resolves itself into:
"[Non-Thanksgiving] [is ruined]."
Of course, to be ruined, Non-Thanksgiving must first exist and be.
But to consider the contrary of this, as in turn of course we must, means:
"[Thanksgiving] must [not be]."
Therefore Thanksgiving must simultaneously exist and not exist.
This is a contradictory dead end, a logical impossibility.
So to return to square one, to our initial hypothetical:
"Thanksgiving [is not] ruined."
If we put aside the merely contingent, accidental property of "ruined"-ness, we are left with:
"Thanksgiving [is not]."
Thus returning us to the same conclusion: Thanksgiving both exists and does not exist. Unpossible!
It seems, then, that our initial hypothetical, above, of Thanksgiving's non-ruinedness, therefore must be totally rejected a priori.
Still -- and forever -- ruined?
[TiR insists to the reader that the above contains absolutely no fallacies or errors of reasoning whatsoever, we asuuuure you.]
posted by TiR at 7:01 AM
