An Alternative to “Simultaneous” in the Logic of Priority and Posteriority

I am engaged in some thinking, surely elementary, about logical (or ontological) priority and posteriority and their analogy with temporal priority and posteriority. More specifically, I am thinking that, just as there is the one word, “simultaneous,” meaning “at the same time,” i.e., “neither temporally prior to nor temporally posterior to,” so there could or should be some one word, other than “simultaneous,” meaning “neither logically (or ontologically) prior to nor logically (or ontologically) posterior to.” The contrary thought is that I should just go ahead and use the one word, “simultaneous,” to express “neither logically (or ontologically) prior to nor logically (or ontologically) posterior to.” I will appreciate any suggestions or related thoughts.

The ruminations just noted came up as I thought about Aquinas’s understanding of superiority and inferiority, in the theory of which “equal” holds a place similar to that of “simultaneous” in the theory of time, and, more specifically, about his understanding of causal priority and posteriority.

Once again, I will appreciate any suggestions or related thoughts.

Until next time.

Richard

About Rchard E. Hennessey

See above, "About the Author/Editor."
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to An Alternative to “Simultaneous” in the Logic of Priority and Posteriority

  1. Tankut says:

    What about “coincident”? For instance, “premisses and conclusion are conincedent in logic,” both in the senses of occurring together and being in agreement.
    Regards

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.