Impossibility properly applies only to contradictory propositions, not to objects
Evidence
The sort of occasion on which, without any such assumption, these terms can be applied, is that of a contradiction in terms, – a self-contradictory proposition, or two mutually contradictory propositions issuing, at the same time, from the same mouth or the same pen. But here the objects to which these attributes are, with propriety, applicable, are not the objects, for the designation of which the propositions are applied, but the propositions themselves. — Jeremy Bentham, The Panopticon Writings, 616
Categorization
- DEFINE: Precisely restricts the proper domain of impossibility claims to self-contradictory propositions.
- XREF: connects to: Fallacies in missing disjuncts stem from omitting alternative possibilities — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 976; Rules without concrete instances are meaningless hindrances — Burton, Steven J, An Introduction to Law and Legal…, 148; The them symbolizes the impossibility of any us, not a concrete opposite. — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 63
Related
- Fallacies in missing disjuncts stem from omitting alternative possibilities (similarity 0.79)
- Disjunctive fallacies occur through missing disjuncts or nonexclusivity of options. (similarity 0.79)
- The them symbolizes the impossibility of any us, not a concrete opposite. (similarity 0.78)
Broader Connections
- Fallacies in missing disjuncts stem from omitting alternative possibilities
#qualifies(0.75) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 976 - Rules without concrete instances are meaningless hindrances
#qualifies(0.72) — Burton, Steven J, An Introduction to Law and Legal…, 148