I disagree. :-)
To be contrary would be to have a particular disposition, a tendency
to disagree with any particular suggestion or instruction. There is a
whole branch of philosophy (behaviourism) that posits that we are no
more than dispostions generating behaviours - that we are disposed to
act in particular ways in response to stimulii.
It no more requires an object than if we describe someone as being
angry. Of course you can argue that there is always a potential
object but that misses the point somewhat - it's claiming that there
is a potential object of any behaviout type. Disagreeable would
certainly be in the same class as contrary - it really means the same
thing but the agreed meaning has shifted.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 28/02/2007, at 10:11 PM, Moose wrote:
> To be contrary, as I said before, is not logically possible without
> something with which to disagree. It is possible to be dispepsic,
> disagreeable (oddly enough), bloody minded, etc. in a free floating
> state, but contrary has its root in counter, and that requires
> something
> to be counter to.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|