> Well, it goes together with "preparatory felicity" for me. Why > wouldn't you ask someone to do something you know they can't do? > Because it's unethical. That's distinct from "because it's > infelicitous", because that is not a reason to do or not do something > (like making that request), whereas ethics is. Okay, yes, as marking it distinct from infelicity. I'll acquiesce re: appropriateness. > But I don't claim my ethics are necessary truths. ;-) Mine are but only for me. :-) >Perhaps it's *with* her blessing that it is so? :-P "Hail, Eris, accept this offering. Now, please..... IGNORE ME!" >And of course, there's the sidestep - which is what seems to >be actually requested / desired in most cases - which is that >it is not actually a request for belief (or whatever), but a >request for behaviour *as if* there is that belief. I.e. to >"act straight" etc. And that, indeed, can be a very effective >and convincing argument, as well as a lot more easily implemented. Indeed. I agree. I brought this up many posts ago. I consider it an important part of the role of the imperative. Most others seem not. >Muh? I think we're definitely a very small minority... Okay. I had pretty much filed these under "minor siddhis" - those interesting distracting abilities that arise during Buddhist meditation.