Fabius Argument's Failure In Communication

Incommensurability between propositional logic’s use of abstraction and the layman’s attachment to sentimental attachments to things such as pride, sense of self, etc. have always existed and continue to do so in the modern era. In some instances, this can be beneficial, as it forces logicians to look at the real world implications of their work and find disparities between their arguments and the actualities of the world. However, there are times when the opponents of abstraction are not merely pointing out its flaws, but are failing to comprehend how any individual could take out the sentimental aspects of the world, as abstraction does. This leads to an immense issue of incommensurability. This failure in communication has occurred throughout
Highly unpopular, ¬ N ≡ D was a postulate Fabius had likely learned by studying history. Fabius knew of Memnon of Rhodes, who had greatly hindered Alexander the Great during the latter’s conquest of Asia Minor through scorched earth tactics, and might have successfully defeated the Macedonian upstart, had Memnon not died in 333 B.C.E. However, Rome’s citizens and allies did not hear ¬ N ≡ D or, as it would have been presented to them, that Hannibal’s army would not receive supplies from nearby towns if and only if the supplies in the nearby towns were destroyed. Rome’s citizens and allies could only hear Fabius asking them to burn their own crops and abandon their homes. These people, so staunchly opposed to Fabius treating them as an abstract figure in his overall plan, could not separate their attachments to their homes, pride, and supplies from logic. The ultimate conclusion of keeping their supplies, was not a part of their decision making. On the other hand, Fabius just saw through “the realm of logic… a realm in which things just are what they are and claims of
It is more, for some, than disagreeing with the process by which a logician may come to this conclusion. It is an inability to comprehend it, due to moral outrage. Thus, for a long time, there was an issue of incommensurability between parts of the population and certain logicians. However, as the APA has stated, these individuals are correct in their assertion that homosexuality is not a mental illness, so perhaps sentimental reasonings should be given more weight when considering abstraction. After all, similarly to how hundreds of thousands lost their lives due to the incommensurability between Fabius's use of propositional logic and the Romans’ sentimentality, countless have suffered due to the inability to communicate between those following the logic behind homosexuality’s classification as a mental illness and those opposing it — specifically those opposing it for sentimental reasons. No matter which side is in the right, incommensurability is a major issues where abstraction conflicts with sentimentality, often resulting in devastating consequences. Lapses in communication are never good, but incommensurability between logicians’ use of abstraction and the layman’s attachment to things of sentimental value, which often cannot be abstracted properly, ends