Is this not a conditional?
Started by
Ryn
· started 2021-11-26 21:29
· last activity 2022-01-18 00:26
· 2 replies
"A work of architecture, if it is to be both inviting and functional for public use, must be unobtrusive, taking second place to the total environment"
so to make a conditional of:
Unobtrusive --> 2nd place
Is not good and isn't a proper conditional? I made this into a conditional which led me to believe the "2nd place" necessary condition.
Another question: So if it says "the precept is violated" it means the conditional being stated is violated so that the contrapositive's sufficient condition exists?
-
Ryn
· 2021-11-26 21:55
And if there are two conditional how do we know which one is being violated?
-
Jay-Etter
· 2022-01-18 00:26
Hi Ryn, so we would actually diagram this conditional as:
If inviting and functional -> unobtrusive
The phrase "taking second place to the total environment" is just clarifying what the argument means by unobtrusive. We wouldn't diagram it as unobtrusive->2nd place because the argument is just using these ideas synonymously.
As to your question about precepts, yes "the precept is violated" means that the conditional is being broken. This would mean that we have a sufficient condition without the necessary. In this example, we would violate the precept (inviting and functional -> unobtrusive) if we had a building that was inviting and functional and also obtrusive (because according to the conditional it's supposed to be UNobtrusive).
Sign in to reply.