But both parties agree that unrestricted universality is
a logically necessary condition of laws.
Not exact matches
The meaning of these distinctions for my present dispute with Professor Cobb is simply this: the concept of regions as potentialities that can not, qua potentialities, be said to originate with the becoming of occasions
logically presupposes as its
necessary condition the concept of regions as actualities, regions which, qua actualities, do originate with the becoming of occasions.
I agree that regions as potentialities presuppose as their
necessary condition (I would say ontologically or metaphysically rather than
logically) actual occasions and their standpoints, although they presuppose no particular occasions or standpoints — any will do.
For one can not
logically conclude that ethical theory is impossible if what was demanded of it, namely absolute values, was not in fact
necessary as a minimal
condition.