The Language of Necessity

I noticed that josh kind of avoided using the language of necessity. Ye, in'tknow if that was, i don't know if that was on purpose. It's because that term necessary is open to so much interpretation. I think what i want to do, in stead of opening the argument is maybe even leave it open, as open as we can, and make an argument. Because there's a kind of argument structure. If you think of the argument as a tool investigating, rather than as a tool for debating or defending a prior view,. And then we can maybe tighten our understanding of, ok, what is the nature of this necessity?