Thread about material conditionals for no reason.

It's wacky that literally every statement of the form P->Q is true so long as it is not the case that P is true and Q is false. No one likes this. I haven't read about relevant logics yet, but I think they're a neat idea.

This thread is not about relevant logics. It's about how I think about the wackiness.

Take the truth conditions of the four basic connectives. They all have this in common: they give the conditions under which statements formed with them are necessarily false.

On a traditional reading, they also give the conditions for which statements formed with them are necessarily true. Everyone is fine with this reading for negation, conjunction, and disjunction, but no one likes it for implication.