(revised on Medium) On the expression "not necessarily" (series: notes to myself)

I have a smart colleague who, when he disagrees about something, likes to premise his objection with a "Not necessarily". 

He is not a logician, a mathematician, or a serious philosopher (the hilarious ones use the expression "not necessarily" as he does, ad libitum). He is a scholar of great learning and of subtle views. Yet he deploys the expression with an attitude so cavalier that, no matter whether he might actually have a point, it grates on my rational nerves. Painfully. Because the clause gives a whiff of credibility to anything that follows, when in fact it is almost inevitably mere rhetoric, and of the pretentious kind to boot.

Say you argue that Brexit is a disaster, or that true AI of the Hollywood kind is not going to happen. "Non necessarily..." he may reply. And of course, he is right. Brexit is not necessarily a disaster, not in the same sense in which a triangle has necessarily three sides. But a disaster it is nonetheless. Patently, obviously, arguably. And yes, full and true AI is not necessarily impossible. Not at all. Not in the same sense in which a married bachelor is necessarily impossible. It is just not possible as winning the lottery every time you buy a ticket. Would you like to try?

The trick is that, strictly speaking, almost nothing is - or isn't - necessarily what it is - or isn't. Life is contingent, and once you exclude mathematical, logical, linguistic or conceptual truths, almost anything else may, perhaps just, but still may, be otherwise. The earth is round? Not necessarily. For actually, to be precise, it is not, and it could have been way bumpier. My name is Luciano? Not necessarily, only accidentally, for I could have been christened differently of course. Even water being necessarily H2O is open to debate, with natural kinds and all the rest. Real necessity is as rare as complete universality, or total randomness. Life and what surrounds it happens to be so and so, but could have been such and such. So, almost necessarily, nothing is necessary.

Any argument about the way the world is -  the strength of which depends only on "not necessarily" - can be resisted, and must be probably rejected. It is a conceptual evil that can be fought with a small refinement. True, Brexit is not necessarily a disaster. And true, Starwars-like AI is not necessarily impossible. But both have a chance in hell to succeed. There. Done. The beauty of the tempting details. Where the devil comfortably resides, playing with snowballs who believe "not necessarily", while melting.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

(revised on Medium) On a sachet of brown sugar (series: notes to myself)

Onlife: Sulla morte di Corman McCarthy e "the best writers" della letteratura americana

Breve commento su "Non è il mio lutto" e la morte di Berlusconi.

Sulla morte come "distanza che si apre nella vita"

On the importance of being pedantic (series: notes to myself)

The Loebner Prize from a judge's perspective

Between a rock and a hard place: Elon Musk's open letter and the Italian ban of Chat-GPT

On the art of biting one's own tongue (series: notes to myself)