In De interpretatione 9, Aristotle argues against the fatalist view that if statements about future contingent singular events (e.g. ‘There will be a sea battle tomorrow,’ ‘There will not be a sea battle tomorrow’) are already true or false, then the events to which those statements refer will necessarily occur or necessarily not occur. Scholars have generally held that, to refute this argument, Aristotle allows that future contingent statements are exempt from either the principle of bivalence, or the law (...) of excluded middle. This paper offers a new interpretation of Aristotle’s refutation of fatalism. According to this interpretation, each member of a pair of contradictory future contingent statements, in virtue of expressing modal necessity, is simply false. (shrink)

It is generally agreed that Aristotle’s aim in De Interpretatione 9 is to rebut arguments purporting to show that bivalence entails fatalism. But the nature of his rebuttal is controversial. Some have argued that Aris- totle accepts the arguments as valid and responds by limiting biva- lence; others have argued that he accepts unlimited bivalence and responds by showing the arguments to be invalid. This paper develops and defends a novel version of the latter view, one which diverges from (...) extant varieties in four main ways. First, it shows that there is good reason to view the chapter’s opening sentences as revealing a commitment to unlimited bivalence. Second, it argues that Aristotle rejects the fatalist arguments on the grounds that they equivocate bet- ween two distinct senses of necessity – absolute and hypothetical. Third, it explains the distinction between the two senses of necessity as deriving from their different explanatory bases. Fourth, it describes the distinct ways in which the two forms of necessity apply to states of affairs and assertions. The paper concludes by discussing the fatalist arguments and how Aristotle’s criticism applies to them. (shrink)

Regarding the famous Sea Battle Argument, which Aristotle presents in De Interpretatione 9, there has never been a general agreement not only about its correctness but also, and mainly, about what the argument really is. According to the most natural reading of the chapter, the argument appeals to a temporal concept of truth and concludes that not every statement is always either true or false. However, many of Aristotle’s followers and commentators have not adopted this reading. I believe that (...) it has faced so much resistance for reasons of hermeneutic charity: denying the law of universal bivalence seems to be overly disruptive to logical orthodoxy – the kind of logical orthodoxy represented by what we now call classical propositional logic, much of which Aristotle clearly supports in many texts. I intend to show that the logical-semantic theses that the traditional reading finds in De Interpretatione 9 are much more conservative than they may seem to be at first glance. First, I will show that they complement, and do not contradict in any way, the orthodox definitions of the concepts of truth and statement that Aristotle advances in other texts. Second, by resorting in an anachronistic vein to concepts and methods peculiar to contemporary logic, I will show that a trivalent modal semantics conforming to those theses can be built for a standard formal language of the classical propositional calculus. It is remarkable that reasonable concepts of logical truth and logical consequence that may be defined on the basis of this trivalent modal semantics are coextensive with their orthodox counterparts, the concepts of tautology and tautological consequence of classical bivalent and extensional semantics. (shrink)

In De Interpretatione 9 Aristotle considers the proposition that everything that is or comes to be, is or comes to be of necessity. From the supposition that this is so, he draws the following consequence: ‘[In that case] there would be no need to deliberate or take trouble, [saying] that if we do this there will be so and so, and if we do not do this there will not be so and so’. Finding this result absurd, he rejects (...) the supposition and concludes that some events or states of affairs are contingent. (shrink)

The goal of this paper is to figure out whether Aristotle's response to the argument for fatalism in De Interpretatione 9 is a success. By "response" it is meant not simply the reasons Aristotle offers to highlight why fatalism does not accord with how we conduct our lives, but also the solution he devises to block the argument for fatalism. This paper finds that a) Aristotle's argument for fatalism is essentially bivalence plus that the truth of a proposition implies (...) necessity, b) that Aristotle's solution is to restrict bivalence, c) that this solution is coherent, and d) that while this solution does not rule out the possibility of fatalism, it does succeed in blocking the argument for fatalism offered within chapter 9. El objetivo de este trabajo es esclarecer si la respuesta de Aristóteles al argumento a favor del fatalismo en De Interpretatione 9 resulta exitosa. Por "respuesta" se entienden no solo las razones que da Aristóteles para destacar porqué el fatalismo no concuerda con la manera en que llevamos nuestras vidas, sino también la solución que ofrece para bloquear el argumento a favor del fatalismo. El artículo plantea a) que el argumento de Aristóteles respecto del fatalismo consiste esencialmente en la bivalencia más el hecho de que la verdad de una proposición implica necesidad; b) que la solución de Aristóteles es restringir la bivalencia; c) que esta solución es coherente, y d) que si bien esta solución no elimina la posibilidad del fatalismo, sí logra bloquear el argumento a favor del fatalismo ofrecido en el capítulo 9. O objetivo deste trabalho é esclarecer se a resposta de Aristóteles ao argumento a favor do fatalismo em De Interpretatione 9 é bem-sucedida. Por "resposta" se entendem não somente as razões que Aristóteles dá para destacar por que o fatalismo não está de acordo com a maneira em que levamos nossas vidas, mas também a solução que oferece para bloquear o argumento a favor do fatalismo. Este artigo propõe que: a) o argumento de Aristóteles a respeito do fatalismo consiste essencialmente na bivalência mais o fato de que a verdade de uma proposição implica necessidade; b) a solução de Aristóteles é restringir a bivalência; c) essa solução é coerente, e d) embora essa solução não elimine a possiblidade do fatalismo, consegue bloquear o argumento a favor dele oferecido no capítulo 9. (shrink)

My aim is to figure out whether Aristotle’s response to the argument for fatalism in De Interpretatione 9 is successful. By “response” here I mean not simply the reasons he offers to highlight why fatalism does not accord with how we conduct our lives, but also the solution he devises to block the argument he provides for it. Achieving my aim hence demands that I figure out what exactly is the argument for fatalism he voices, what exactly is his (...) solution, whether his solution is coherent, and whether it does indeed succeed. I find that the argument is essentially bivalence plus that the truth of a proposition stating that an event will happen in the future entails that this event will necessarily happen, that Aristotle’s solution is to restrict bivalence when it comes to propositions about contingent future events, that this solution is coherent, and that while it does not rule out the possibility of fatalism, it does succeed in blocking the argument for fatalism offered within chapter 9. (shrink)

This article considers three medieval approaches to the problem of future contingent propositions in chapter 9 of Aristotle's _De interpretatione_. While Boethius assumed that God's atemporal knowledge infallibly pertains to historical events, he was inclined to believe that Aristotle correctly taught that future contingent propositions are not antecedently true or false, even though they may be characterized as true-or-false. Aquinas also tried to combine the allegedly Aristotelian view of the disjunctive truth-value of future contingent propositions with the conception of all (...) things being timelessly present to God's knowledge. The second approach was formulated by Peter Abelard who argued that in Aristotle's view future contingent propositions are true or false, not merely true-or-false, and that the antecedent truth of future propositions does not necessitate things in the world. After Duns Scotus, many late medieval thinkers thought like Abelard, particularly because of their new interpretation of contingency, but they did not believe, with the exception of John Buridan, that this was an Aristotelian view. (shrink)

In the first part of De Interpretatione 9, Aristotle introduces an argument for fatalism that he obviously does not subscribe to. Readers of the chapter wonder how Aristotle replies to that argument. In this paper I claim that the main basis of his reply is the principle of equimodality stated in 19a33 (“statements are true in the same way as the actual things are”). I defend that this principle should be interpreted in the most straightforward way, as saying that (...) the modality with which any statement is true is the same as the modality with which the actual things referred to in the statement are what they are. This entails that something is (or will be) necessarily such and such only if the statement saying that it is (or will be) such and such is necessarily true. By applying this principle to Aristotle’s distinction between two kinds of non-necessary things – those that happen as chance has it and those that happen for the most part (hôs epi to poly) in one way rather than another –, one should conclude that, because these things are contingent, statements about them can only be contingently true. (shrink)

Boethius represents one of the most important milestones in Christian reflection about fate and providence, especially considering that he takes into account Proclus’ contributions to these questions. For this reason, The Consolation of philosophy is considered a crucial work for the development of this topic. However, Boethius also exposes his ideas in his commentary on the book that constitutes one of the oldest and most relevant texts on the problem of future contingents, namely Aristotle’s De interpretatione. Although St. Thomas (...) refers to Boethius many times in his systematic works and even devotes two commentaries to two of his theological opuscules, it is of special interest that both authors composed a commentary on the abovementioned work by Aristotle. The commentary of Saint Thomas does not interpret the whole book, but it does study the pages about future contingents in dialogue with Boethius. We will study such texts in our presentation. They constitute one of the greatest contributions of Aquinas to the problem of necessity and contingency and therefore to the vexata quaestio of divine intervention in the world and particularly in human free will. Not only Augustin but also Aristotle (read by Boethius) and Nemesius of Emesa will be decisive in Aquinas’ perception of this matter. (shrink)

In De Interpretatione 6-9, Aristotle considers three logical principles: the principle of bivalence, the law of excluded middle, and the rule of contradictory pairs (according to which of any contradictory pair of statements, exactly one is true and the other false). Surprisingly, Aristotle accepts none of these without qualification. I offer a coherent interpretation of these chapters as a whole, while focusing special attention on two sorts of statements that are of particular interest to Aristotle: universal statements not made (...) universally and future particular statements. With respect to the former, I argue that Aristotle takes them to be indeterminate and so to violate the rule of contradictory pairs. With respect to the latter, the subject of the much discussed ninth chapter, I argue that the rule of contradictory pairs, and not the principle of bivalence, is the focus of Aristotle's refutation. Nevertheless, Aristotle rejects bivalence for future particular statements. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Aristotle’s “De Interpretatione”: Contradiction and Dialectic by C. W. A. WhitakerEugene GarverC. W. A. Whitaker, Aristotle’s “De Interpretatione”: Contradiction and Dialectic. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Pp. x + 235. Cloth, $60.00.Traditionally, the De Interpretatione is placed in the Organon between the Categories and the Prior Analytics. Where the Categories is about single terms and the Analytics about inferences, the De Interpretatione is about propositions. (...) That traditional view is presupposed by most contemporary studies of the work, which “concentrate on a small number of passages, which have been treated as isolated oases of philosophical interest in an otherwise barren work,” highlights which include “Aristotle’s semantic theory of philosophy of language” in the first chapter, the first four “linguistic chapters,” and chapter 9 on the Sea Battle (1). I suppose that the square of opposition could be added to Whitaker’s list.Whitaker, in this republication of a doctoral dissertation, wants to challenge both the traditional view and the contemporary concentration by instead studying the work as a coherent whole, whose subject, it turns out, is not propositions after all but “contradictory pairs, which are central to the working of dialectic” (2). The book then proceeds through the De Interpretatione, chapter by chapter. If he succeeds, the De Interpretatione will henceforth be read as preparation for the Topics, rather than for the Analytics. There are also three appendices examining the use of such contradictory pairs in Metaphysics IV, the Topics, and the Posterior Analytics.Thus, the first five chapters of the De Interpretatione explain the nature of assertions, name and verb, and “before that, how language is related to thought and to the real world, and how it is that utterances can make claims about things which are true or false” (8). Where names, verbs, and propositions are part of our ordinary understanding of language, contradictory pairs are not, but are a philosophical understanding of a linguistic structure that has a specifically philosophical, dialectical, purpose. The rest of the De Interpretatione, from chapter 6 on, is the examination of contradiction. Chapters 7–9 classify contradictory pairs by different criteria. Each of these chapters isolates an exception to “the rule that, in every contradictory pair, one member is true and the other false” (79). Chapter 7 looks at the first exception to the rule, “non-universal statements about universals” (91). Whitaker’s project looks good here, since he then shows the dialectical uses of such propositions, and denies their value for the deductive logic of the Analytics. Similarly, in Chapter 8 Aristotle looks at “apparently simple assertions... which are not single” (105), which also have important uses in dialectic. Finally, chapter 9 looks at the third exception to the rule, future singular assertions. One payoff of this book is to place the sea battle discussion in its Aristotelian context. [End Page 459] Whitaker says that most discussions of the sea battle assume that what is at stake is what he calls the “Principle of Bivalence” in which every assertion is either true or false. He instead insists that it is contradictory pairs, not single assertions, that are being tested by future contingents. He thus concludes: “Dialectic is a universal discipline, and its questioning can cover any subject where a question can be posed which has a right and a wrong answer. Chapters 7 to 9... demonstrate that there are limits to the universality of dialectic” (128).Whitaker follows the De Interpretatione chapter by chapter in the remainder of the book. He shows how the later chapters assist the dialectician in “sorting assertions into contradictory pairs” (181). And just as De Interpretatione begins with a consideration of the relation of language, thought, and the world, so it ends by showing the connection between contradictory propositions and opposed beliefs.Whitaker rarely strays from the De Interpretatione to show how our understanding of dialectic is improved by attention to this prerequisite. When he does, for example in a very short discussion of the relation of problems and propositions in the Topics, the results are illuminating. I would have liked more. This book should be useful to the growing numbers of scholars interested in Aristotle’s art of dialectic... (shrink)

It is argued that an indefinite statement as introduced by Aristotle in De Int. 7 refers to a universal which may partly partake in contradictory accidental predicates together. This fact is mirrored on the semantic level by ascribing truth to some degree to both parts of a contradiction. Accordingly, Aristotle should be interpreted as saying in De Int. 9 that the statement that a certain individual object will be F at some time in its contingent future is to be taken (...) to be true to some degree. This is because an individual object cannot yet, with respect to its contingent future, be regarded as factual but only as - time-independently - exemplifying a universal. In this context, fundamental connections become apparent between indefinite statements on the one hand and Aristotelian modal logic, statistics and theory of science on the other. (shrink)

In De int. 9 Aristotle argues that some declarative sentences are neither true nor false. This raises the problem of how we should understand the words of ch. 4, which introduces the declarative sentence as ‘that in which being true or being false holds’. In this paper I remove the contradiction by arguing that in ch. 4 Aristotle does not intend to claim that *all* declarative sentences are either true or false, but rather that *only* they are either true or (...) false, unlike other kinds of sentence; I defend the soundness of this interpretation on the linguistic and textual level; and I show how we can make good philosophical sense of it. (shrink)

In chapter 9 of De Interpretatione, Aristotle offers a defense of free will against the threat of fatalism. According to the traditional interpretation, Aristotle concedes the validity of the fatalist's arguments and then proceeds to reject the Principle of Bivalence in order to avoid the fatalist's conclusion. Assuming that the traditional interpretation is right on this point, it remains to be seen why Aristotle felt compelled to reject such an intuitive semantic principle rather than challenge the fatalist's inference from (...) truth to necessity. The answer, I contend, lies in Aristotle's theory of truth and truthmakers. (shrink)

It is the aim of this paper to show that [the theological argument from Divine omniscience] is not more than a needlessly (and confusingly) elaborate version of the argument for fatalism discussed by Aristotle in de Interpretatione 9, which, since its sole premise is the Principle of Bivalence, may conveniently be called the logical argument for fatalism. If this is right, if the theological premisses of the theological argument can be shown to be strictly irrelevant to the fatalist conclusion, (...) then it follows that it is pointless to try to avoid fatalism by modification of those theological premisses. (shrink)

There are three versions of determinist conceptions that Aristotle was the first to address and work out in detail: logical/semantical determinism of ‘future truth’ concerning propositions about contingent events in the future in De interpretatione 9 ; physical determinism in the sense that there are no uncaused events, a point that he addresses in his Physics; ethical determinism in the sense that the actions of human beings are determined by psychological preconditions that Aristotle addresses in his ethical works, most (...) of all concerning the questions whether human actions are determined by their character—and in what sense our actions are ‘up to us’. Despite the fact that Aristotle discovered these different versions of determinism, he clearly did not regard them as reasons for denying that there are contingent events in the world or that humans are responsible for their own actions. After a brief introduction of these three different forms of deterministic assumption and their background in Aristotle’s philosophy, it will be shown why and in what sense Aristotle is to be regarded as the father of a ‘benign’ form of determinism. (shrink)

This article investigates Abelard’s defence of the compatibility between universal bivalence and the existence of future contingent events. It first considers the standard strategy put forward by twelfth-century commentators to solve Aristotle’s dilemma in De Interpretatione 9, which fundamentally relies on Boethius’ distinction between definite and indefinite truth values. Abelard’s own position on the dilemma is then introduced, focusing on a specific deterministic argument considered in his logical works that aims to demonstrate that, given the determinacy of present-tense propositions (...) such as ‘“that Socrates will eat tomorrow” is true’, future contingent events such as that Socrates will eat tomorrow are determinate in advance. In addition to presenting Abelard’s reply to the argument, the article offers an analysis of his notions of contingency, determinacy, and future events, and a comparison between Abelard’s position and other twelfth-century discussions on future contingents. (shrink)

Cet article examine les deux thèses attribuées à Aristote depuis l’Antiquité à propos de la bataille navale dans le De interpretatione 9 : soit Aristote a résolu le problème du déterminisme dans ce chapitre en restreignant l’application du principe de bivalence, soit il a rejeté le déterminisme, en qualifiant la vérité ou la fausseté des propositions concernant les futurs contingents comme vérité ou fausseté indéfinies. On dit que la première est la réponse aristotélicienne traditionnelle, tandis que la seconde est (...) parfois désignée comme l’autre solution. Cependant, quand on revisite nos principales sources sur cette question, la première réponse semble être la branche d’un dilemme dans lequel les Stoïciens ont poussé les Péripatéticiens, et ne peut pas en tant que telle figurer comme une solution au problème du déterminisme, tandis que la seconde est la solution que les Péripatéticiens ont trouvée comme solution au dilemme auquel ils étaient confrontés, et donc correspond premièrement au défi stoïcien et seulement secondairement au texte aristotélicien. (shrink)

One concern bothering ancient and medieval philosophers is the logical worry discussed in Aristotle's De Interpretatione 9, that if future contingent propositions are true, then they are settled in a way that is incompatible with freedom. Another is if we grant God foreknowledge of future contingent events then God's foreknowledge will determine those events in a way precluding freedom. ;I begin by discussing the standard compatibilist solution to these problems as represented in Boethius's Consolation of Philosophy and then examine (...) theories that allegedly deviate from the Boethian solution. Boethius's solution to these separate problems involves showing that both problems operate on an ambiguity in the scope of the modal operator 'necessarily' present in the articulation of the problem. Once the ambiguity is removed we see that both disambiguations fail to offer a sound argument against the compatibility of free action with either God's omniscience or future contingent proposition's being true. The only difference between the solutions is that before executing the scope distinction strategy in the theological problem, Boethius reminds us that God knows future contingents rather than foreknowing them, since God is timeless. ;The rest of my discussion examines positions that allegedly deviate from the Boethian solution: positions held by Peter de Rivo, William Ockham and Plotinus. I argue that Ockham doesn't in fact deviate from the Boethian solution to the theological problem as is commonly held. Instead of offering a compatibilist position where God's omniscience includes foreknowledge, Ockham denies that God foreknows the future advocating instead a more sophisticated Boethian position. The other two philosophers, Rivo and Plotinus, deviate from Boethius, but unfortunately neither position appears philosophically plausible. Rivo's incompatibilist solution to the logical problem is inconsistent with his retention of the Boethian solution to the theological problem and is probably implausible on its own. Plotinus's compatibilist account fails not because it claims that necessity and freedom are compatible, but because the account of moral responsibility Plotinus offers to justify the compatibility fails. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Hypatia 17.4 (2002) 238-243 [Access article in PDF] Book Review Feminist Interpretations of Aristotle Feminist Interpretations of Aristotle. Edited by Cynthia A. Freeland. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998. This volume consists of twelve essays, mostly newly published, on a variety of topics in Aristotelian scholarship ranging from the theoretical to the practical and productive parts of the corpus. The volume divides the papers into one group addressing (...) topics in Aristotle's metaphysics, physics, epistemology, biology, and logic on one hand, and his ethics, politics, poetics, and rhetoric on the other. The contributors include established scholars in ancient philosophy, such as Cynthia Freeland, Deborah Modrak, Martha Nussbaum, and Charlotte Witt, and younger scholars such as Angela Curran, as well as those in disciplines outside ancient philosophy, including literature, law, and political science. The latter group of essays includes a chapter by Luce Irigaray on Book IV of Aristotle's Physics from her work, An Ethics of Sexual Difference (1993), Freeland's interpretation of Irigaray's essay, as well as papers on Aristotelian political emotion, the historiography of Aristotle's rhetoric, and his political anthropology from Texas Law Review (1992). The very range of methodological perspective that lends breadth to the volume presents difficulties for an overview, in light of which four papers were selected for detailed comment, those on Aristotle's logic, Freeland's essay on Irigaray's reading of Physics IV, Aristotelian virtue ethics, and Aristotelian political emotion. Feminism and Aristotelian Logic While it is familiar to cite the inherent biases of theoretical disciplines like the social sciences and philosophy, it is less common to read how areas like mathematics and logic are similarly biased. It seems hard to see how a system of proof with rules, axioms, and formal notation is inherently biased against any one group. Yet feminists like Andrea Nye, Valerie Plumwood, and Luce Irigaray have criticized formal logic on the ground that it is antithetical to women's experience and interests. 1 In "Feminist Readings of Aristotelian Logic" (1998), Marjorie Hass takes on criticisms of Aristotle's logic, including three main objections: his logic is motivated by unequal relations of power, uses binary [End Page 238] truth-value, and ignores the concrete and the subjective in experience. In being thus characterized, Aristotle's logical theory represents a "gendered" way of reasoning, and should be avoided. Hass does well in replying to these objections with one exception. The first objection, that logic masks unequal power relations, is answered by Hass noting that logic and logical systems (in mathematics and philosophy) have arisen among various cultures and classes worldwide, and are not the domain of an elite group of men. Hass's further point that attaining logical skill can be liberatory to women needs to be underscored: it is surely politically loaded for feminists to argue that women cannot, or should not, do logic. Hass rightly responds to the third objection concerning the need for concrete experience on two grounds: first, for Aristotle the end of logical argument is in part the illumination of observed experience, not its dissolution, and second, that it is impossible to conceive of a language without any abstraction. We cannot construct a feasible language without abstract terms or categories, as Nye's criticism suggests.Hass's response to the second criticism, that bivalence is noxious, is correct but incomplete. The ground of this objection stems from the idea that in classical logic the laws of excluded middle and noncontradiction obtain such that given two contradictory propositions, only one can be true, and this fact implies inequality to feminist critics. But, as Hass points out, this objection does not acknowledge Aristotle's notion of contrariety in which both sentences are false—the point being that contrariety does not yield the same results as negation. Still, Hass admits, the "fluid" form of negation sought for by thinkers like Irigaray is not forthcoming in Aristotle's logic. 2 Here Hass overlooks what Aristotle has to say about future contingents in De Interpretatione 9, that statements about the future are neither true nor false: "it is not necessary that of every affirmation... (shrink)

On Jaakko Hintikka’s understanding of Aristotle’s modal thought, Aristotle is committed to a version of the Principle of Plenitude, which is the thesis that no genuine possibility will go unactualized in an infinity of time. If in fact Aristotle endorses the Principle of Plenitude, everything becomes necessary. Despite the strong evidence that Aristotle indeed accepts that Principle of Plenitude, there are key texts in which Aristotle seems to contradict it. On Hintikka’s final word on the matter, Aristotle either endorses the (...) Principle of Plenitude or Aristotle is simply inconsistent. Without challenging Hintikka’s interpretation of the relevant texts, I show how Aristotle may accept a form of the Principle of Plenitude that allows for genuine unactualized possibilities in the world. What allows me to reconcile the seemingly inconsistent data is to show how Aristotle is only committed to a de re version of the Principle of Plenitude. After I lay out my proposal, I show how it opens up new ways in which we might understand Aristotle’s attempt to reject fatalism in his De interpretatione 9. (shrink)

THIS PAPER PRESENTS THE SEMANTIC THEORY FOR A TEMPORAL-MODAL LOGIC WITH RIGIDLY REFERENTIAL TEMPORAL OPERATORS ('dtomorrow' AND 'dnow') IN WHICH THE 'TRADITIONAL' INDETERMINIST INTERPRETATION OF ARISTOTLE'S _DE INTERPRETATIONE 9 CAN BE MODELED. THIS LOGIC HAS, I BELIEVE, SOME INTRINSIC PHILOSOPHICAL INTEREST AND PLAUSIBILITY. HOWEVER, THE PRESENT PAPER IS PRINCIPALLY DEVOTED TO AN INITIAL EXAMINATION OF THE RELATION BETWEEN THE LOGIC AND SUCH TOPICS IN THE ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY OF THE TIME AND OF THE MODALITIES AS THE NECESSITY OF THE PAST, (...) ABSOLUTE VERSUS TEMPORALLY RELATIVE ALETHIC MODALITIES, THE 'PLENITUDE' PRINCIPLE AND UNACTUALIZED POSSIBILITIES, AND THE CYCLICAL NATURE OF TIME. (shrink)

The central aim of this short and pithy book is to challenge the widely held view that the concepts expressed by Aristotelian modal idioms are essentially temporal modalities, by which is meant that they can be defined wholly by means of non-modal and temporal idioms. More specifically, Waterlow contends that two notorious Aristotelian theses, if it is possible that p, then at some time it is the case that p, and if it is always the case that p, then it (...) is necessary that p, are not to be understood, even in restricted forms, as analytic outfall of the very nature of Aristotle's modalities. Rather, she argues, they are viewed by Aristotle himself as substantive principles whose truth he undertakes to establish in De Caelo 1.12 by means of an assortment of premises, some of which do flow from the nature of the modalities involved, but others of which pertain to the peculiar metaphysical setting in which the arguments occur. Now since, on Waterlow's account, this metaphysical setting centrally involves the notion of omnitemporality, and inasmuch as she also endeavors to explain how these same modalities operate in Aristotle's discussion of future contingents in De Interpretatione 9, her basic thesis is that for Aristotle, modal and temporal notions never merge, but occasionally mingle. (shrink)

Almost all the chapters of this book have appeared earlier as separate articles in American and Finnish journals between 1957 and 1971, but are now reprinted together as dealing with Aristotle’s theory of modal notions and its underlying doctrines and assumptions. Recital of the chapter headings illustrates the scope of the book: "Aristotle and the Ambiguity of Ambiguity" ; "Aristotle’s Different Possibilities" ; "On the Interpretation of De Interpretatione 12-13" ; "Time, Truth and Knowledge in Aristotle and Other Greek (...) Philosophers" ; "Aristotle on the Realization of Possibilities in Time" ; "Aristotelian Infinity" ; "On Aristotle’s Modal Syllogistic" ; "The Once and Future Sea Fight: Aristotle’s Discussion of Future Contingents in De Interpretatione 9" ; and "Aristotle and the ‘Master Argument’ of Diodorus". The volume ends with "Index of Texts" cited from Aristotle and other Greek authors and "General Index". (shrink)

A revised version of the author’s Göttingen doctoral dissertation, this book is as much an independent essay in modal logic as it is an interpretation of Aristotle’s modal syllogistic. In chapter 1 the author develops what he calls a "rich framework" including speech-act operators as well as epistemic and alethic modal operators, all expressed in a notation of his own devising; for example, "Pc if ENj Pc RNc S, Rc ENj Pa Rp S" translates as "The speaker claims that if (...) he is not justified in claiming that it is not certain that S, it is certain that he is not justified in allowing that it is possible that S." A dual system of quantification is then introduced, with and without existential import for both universal and particular propositions. In chapters 2 and 3 the author uses his framework as a model for discussing various difficulties in Aristotle’s assertoric and modal logic, insisting that his results are relevant to Aristotle’s even when they do not "correspond" to them. An appendix takes up the famous sea-battle of De interpretatione 9. The author is at his best when examining particular problems in Aristotle’s logic; in this regard his criticism of the operation of conversion stands out as especially effective. He is at his worst when pursuing the "intrinsic interest" of his model above and beyond its usefulness in studying Aristotle and when making unwarranted claims of originality for his objectives. One such objective is to stress what he calls the "teleological" character of Aristotle’s logic, a character which he says "is lost sight of in modern accounts" of Aristotle’s work. He appears to be unaware of Ernst Kapp’s classic Greek Foundations of Traditional Logic, which repeatedly calls attention to just this character. The author acknowledges the existence of twentieth century modal logic only once, in a one page criticism of Prior’s defense of the distinction between de dicto and de re modalities. This occurs within a curious argument, based on a premise taken from Ammonius and Abelard, that the concept of logical necessity is "bogus."—J.D. (shrink)

This new edition of Aristotle s De interpretatione provides an improved text compared to the 1949 Oxford edition, based upon an evaluation of the seven earliest surviving medieval manuscripts as well as many translations and commentaries from late antiquity. A text-critical apparatus provides information about the different readings.".

O artigo trata da análise ockhamiana do tema da determinação da verdade nas proposições sobre o futuro contingente, segundo a formulação proposta por Aristóteles em De interpretatione, cap. 9, e de sua relação com o que é proposto sobre este assunto, segundo o próprio Ockham, “de acordo com a verdade e a fé”. A esse respeito, três pontos geralmente são levantados como possíveis decorrências desta leitura de Aristóteles: a assunção de que Ockham discordaria efetivamente da solução aristotélica, porque errônea; (...) a proposta de que Ockham tenha claramente vislumbrado na resposta aristotélica a indicação de uma lógica de três valores e, por fim, a recusa ockhamiana da tese da “necessidade do conseqüente”. Pretendemos mostrar aqui, porém, que apenas o último desses três pontos parece correto. (shrink)

"De interpretatione" from Aristoteles. Aristotle (384-322 BCE) was a Greek philosopher born in Greece.

Aristotle's treatise De Interpretatione is one of his central works; it continues to be the focus of much attention and debate. C. W. A. Whitaker presents the first systematic study of this work, and offers a radical new view of its aims, its structure, and its place in Aristotle's system, basing this view upon a detailed chapter-by-chapter analysis.By treating the work systematically, rather than concentrating on certain selected passages, Whitaker is able to show that, contrary to traditional opinion, it (...) forms an organized and coherent whole. He argues that the De Interpretatione is intended to provide the underpinning for dialectic, the system of argument by question and answer set out in Aristotle's Topics; and he rejects the traditional view that the De Interpretatione concerns the assertion and is oriented towards the formal logic of the Prior Analytics. In doing so, he sheds valuable new light on some of Aristotle's most famous texts. (shrink)

Carlo Natali se ocupa de examinar las bases y detalles del debate de Alejandro con los deterministas, así como sus razones para mostrar el papel decisivo de la deliberación en la explicación de la acción. El punto de partida de Alejandro es el capítulo 9 del De interpretatione, texto que indica de una manera bastante clara que Aristóteles visualizó las consecuencias, absurdas en su opinión, del determinismo. En su discusión Natali examina la influencia de los argumentos de Alejandro en (...) el comentario de Boecio al De interpretatione; un aspecto particularmente destacable del ensayo de Natali es que éste muestra que Alejandro –y Aspacio antes de él–, aun dando por supuesta la relevancia decisiva de la deliberación en la explicación de la acción, modifica en parte la teoría aristotélica de la deliberación, ya que trata de adaptarla a la nueva situación cultural y al nuevo debate filosófico de su tiempo. Natali hace notar que la aparente incorporación por parte de Alejandro de terminología y nociones estoicas (como la de asentimiento) es parte de una inteligente estrategia para combatir a los deterministas estoicos en su propio terreno: lo decisivo es la deliberación como ingrediente central en la explicación de la acción, así como el hecho de poder elegir una cosa o algo distinto de ella (De fato 178, 22), si eso parece preferible. (shrink)

In this book the most important aristotelian passages concerning the question of determinism are thoroughly reexamined: chapter 9 of de interpretatione, chapter 3 of Metaphysics's book VI, several chapters from the Ethics, as well as some texts from the aristotelian commentator Alexander of Aphrodisias. This is the author's main contention: "In Aristotle's view the world of social relations and of human behaviours really is always highly undetermined; but this is mainly due to the unpredictable intersections of the different causal (...) series issuing from each agent involved, while in each of these series at least one element tends to remain constant (indeed, it is the most stable element in every situation): the personal character of the human agent and the kind of response this character offers to the new situations that constantly arise.". (shrink)

Zeno’s arrow does not move “in the now” (Phys. VI 8, 239b2) or, equivalently, “in the place it is” (DK 29 B 4). Zeno concludes from this that the arrow does not move at all. In Aristotle (ibid. 9, 239b5–9, 31–33), Zeno’s argument takes the form of an invalid inference from instants to periods of time. Insofar as it fails to bring out an inconsistency in Aristotle’s account of motion, the paradox is thus eliminated. That instantaneous motion is a contradiction (...) in terms belongs to the common ground Aristotle shares with Zeno. That’s why information concerning Zeno’s relevant argument must be sought elsewhere (see section 3). Aristotle’s discussion of the Arrow pertains to the conclusions drawn from the denial of instantaneous motion. But the argument he refutes is of his own making, or so I will argue (section 2). In particular, Aristotle fails to address the presentist commitment adumbrated in his account, which would leave nothing beyond the denial of instantaneous motion for Zeno to prove. Presentism is no option in Phys. VI where a tenseless account of time and motion is offered. I will argue that Aristotle’s account of the tenses in De interpretatione is prone to Zeno’s argument if the present is conceived as an instant – which it arguably is not (section 4). (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:FATALISM AND TRUTH ABOUT THE FUTURE }AMES w. FELT, S.J. Santa Clara University Santa Clara, California WHEN WE SPEAK of future events, does today's ruth mean tomorrow's necessity? The question is as old as Aristotle's sea battle tomorrow. The last ships should have been sunk long ago, but after two thousand years the textual analysis of this passage is still controverted. Yet I think something new can be said (...) about it if we consider afresh the philosophic issues themselves. What philosophic consequences must we accept if we suppose that predictions, that is, propositions referring to future events, are either true or false antecedently to the events themselves? In particular, if a prediction be true now, does its present truth imply a fixity inherent in the future such that fatalism is unavoidable? 1 It has been argued that it does. Aristotle sketched such an argument in the sea battle passage already alluded to:... [If anything] is white now it was true to say earlier that it would be white; so that it was always true to say of anything that has happened that it would be so. But if it was always true to say that it was so, or would be so, it could not not be so, or not be going to be so. But if something cannot not happen it is impossible for it not to happen; and if it is impossible for something not to happen it is necessary for it to happen. Everything that will be, therefore, happens necessarily. So nothing will come about as chance has it or by chance; for if by chance, not of necessity.2 1 Whether it makes any sense to speak of a proposition as true " now " or at any other time will be considered below. 2 De Interpretatione (trans. J. L. Ackrill; Oxford University Press: 1963), ch. 9, 18b9 ff. 209 210 JAMES W. FELT, S.J. If, then, a prediction is true in the present or false in the present, its very truth value today seems to create an ineluctable fixity upon tomorrow's event such that fatalism would be unavoidable. And as is implied in Aristotle's example, it seems natural to suppose that a prediction must, after all, be either true or, if not true, then false. Does not the law of excluded middle demand this? Thus the logic of truth relations seems to impose a fatalistic view of events. Indeed, fatalism is sometimes defined precisely in terms of logic, so that a contemporary author writes : " Fatalism is the thesis that the laws of logic alone suffice to prove that no man has free will, suffice to prove that the only actions which a man can perform are the actions which he does, in fact, perform, and suffice to prove that a man can bring about only those events which do, in fact, occur and can prevent only those events which do not, in fact, occur." 3 I shall, however, argue that ( 1) neither the law of excluded middle nor any other logical consideration requires that predictions be true or else false when they are asserted; (2) the antecedent truth (or falsity) of predictions would not necessitate fatalism by reason of any logical considerations, (3) though it could necessitate fatalism for causal reasons; and (4) predictions are never, absolutely speaking, true or false before the occurrence of the events to which they refer, though they may be true or false in an attenuated, relative sense. Thesis 1: Neither the law of excluded middle nor any other logical consideration requires that a prediction be, prior to the event, true or, if not true, then false. I understand the law of excluded middle (LEM) to mean that, for any meaningful proposition p, it is (logically) necessary that p be true or, if not true, then false. By ordinary usage a proposition referring to a state of affairs in the world, as distinguished from one referring to logical re3 Steven M. Cahn. Fate, Logic, and Time (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), p. 8. FATALISM AND TRUTH ABOUT THE FUTURE 211 lationships, is called ' true' if and only if that state of affairs obtains. The... (shrink)

Edition of the commentary on Aristotle's De interpretatione by an anonymous Parisian master from the first half of the 13th century.

Both the title of this treatise and its traditional placement as the second of Aristotle's logical writings are highly misleading. What, on the one hand, De Interpretatione deals with is not, as its title suggests, a theory of interpretation, but rather a theory of statement-making sentences of different sorts and the logical relations that obtain between them; and what, on the other hand, this theory aims at is not, as suggested by the place which De Interpretatione traditionally occupies (...) in the Organon between the Categories and the Prior Analytics, providing preliminaries to the study of syllogistic by analyzing statement-making sentences as possible parts of syllogisms, but rather underpinning the study of dialectical debates by examining such sentences as possible members of contradictory pairs. Among other things, De Interpretatione deals with symbols or signs, truth, bivalence, determinism, modal logic, and modal statements. (shrink)

ABSTRACT: In this paper I show that, contrary to the prevalent view, in his De Interpretatione chapter 8, Aristotle is concerned with a kind of ambiguity, i.e. with homonymy; more precisely, with homonymy of linguistic expressions as it may occur in dialectical argument. The paper has two parts. In the first part, I argue that in the Sophistici Elenchi 175b39-176a5 Aristotle indubitably deals with homonymy in dialectical argument; that De Interpretatione 8 is a parallel to Sophistici Elenchi 175b39-176a5; (...) that De Interpretatione 8 is concerned with dialectical argument; that, hence, De Interpretatione 8, too, deals with homonymy in dialectical argument. In the second part I discuss objections that have been put forward against the view that De Interpretatione 8 is about homonymy and demonstrate that they do not succeed. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:American Journal of Philology 124.2 (2003) 295-301 [Access article in PDF] Some Recent Controversies in the Study of Later Greek Rhetoric George A. Kennedy The Greeks of the Roman Empireproduced no equal to Cicero or Quintilian: among their extensive writings there is no profound philosophical examination of political rhetoric and no comprehensive account of rhetorical education based on a lifetime of teaching. But the numerous later Greek rhetorical treatises, (...) dry reading as they may seem, sometimes even poorly written, have considerable significance for the intellectual history of the early centuries of the Christian era. They are a major source for our understanding of education, its materials, goals, and values, as experienced by most important thinkers of the times, pagan and Christian; the training they describe directly influenced the form and style of composition of much of the writing that has survived; they are evidence for cultural change and for the perception of Greek language and literature of the classical period more than five hundred years later; and they provide linguists and philologists with useful concepts and terminology to describe the workings of texts, pagan and Christian, ancient and modern.From 1931, when Hugo Rabe published the last of his editions of later Greek rhetorical texts, to 1974, when Josef Martin published Antike Rhetorik: Technik und Methode(1974), making extensive use of later Greek rhetorical treatises, study of later Greek rhetoric was at a low point. There was of course continued interest in On the Sublime, traditionally attributed to Longinus and surely the finest Greek work on rhetoric of the imperial period. Other important exceptions include Guilelmo Ballaira's edition of Tiberius' handbook of Demosthenic figures and Dieter Hagedorn's monograph, Zur Ideenlehre des Hermogenes(1964). Since the 1970s, with the expansion of research opportunities and younger scholars' search for opportunities in original work, there has been a modest renaissance that has produced new insight and new controversy. In some ways we now know more about the authors and their works; in some ways we are now uncertain about what we thought we [End Page 295] knew. Here I shall comment on several major contributions to the field and various continuing controversies, limiting the discussion to rhetorical theory from the time of the Roman Empire (thus omitting Demetrius and Philodemus as well as the orators).First, however, readers unfamiliar with this subject may appreciate a brief historical background. The antecedents of the concept of Rhetores Graecican be found in composite manuscripts of the tenth and eleventh centuries, which collect a number of works that the teachers and scribes of the times thought basic for their studies. 1 One of these manuscripts, now known as Parisinus 1741, was the basis for the first printing of Rhetores Graeci, the Aldine edition in two volumes (Venice 1508-9). The principal texts included are, in the following order: Aphthonius' Progymnasmata, the five rhetorical treatises attributed to Hermogenes, Aristotle's Rhetorica, the pseudo-Aristotelian Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, Aristotle's Poetica, Sopatros' Quaestiones de compendis declamationibus, the Ars rhetoricathen attributed to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Demetrius' De interpretatione, Alexander's De figuris sensus et dictionis, Menander Rhetor's works on epideictic, two treatises on style attributed to Aelius Aristeides, and Apsines' De arte rhetorica.During the next four hundred years several of these works were given better editions, and additional rhetorical treatises were discovered in other manuscripts. Thus when Christian Walz set out in 1832 to edit Rhetores Graeciin what became an authoritative nine-volume edition, he felt able to omit the three Aristotelian works and the work attributed to Dionysius and to add additional handbooks of progymnasmata (in vol. 1), a few short treatises on rhetoric there and in volumes 3 and 9, and a very large amount of Byzantine scholia and commentary on Hermogenes, constituting all of volumes 2 and 4 through 8.Although Parisinus 1741 has remained a major authority for the text of Aristotle's Rhetoric, by 1854 when Leonard Spengel began publication of his Rhetores Graeciin three volumes, several manuscripts offering better texts of other works had been... (shrink)

The Aristotelian commentaries by Petrus de Rivo, still unedited, represent a valuable instrument for our understanding of the major trends in the teaching of Aristotle at the fifteenth-century Faculty of Arts at Louvain. We published a preliminary survey of the manuscript material in last year’s issue of this journal, together with an account of the status quaestionis concerning Peter’s biography, works and the historical context of his thought. In the present article, we consider more closely a selection of his commentaries (...) on logic and natural philosophy. First, we offer an overview of Peter’s division of the sciences as expressed in his tractatus prohemiales, particularly those introducing his commentaries on Porphyry’s Isagoge and Aristotle’s Physics. Next, we considers Peter’s explanation of De interpretatione chapter 9, and his exposition of specific parts of Aristotle’s Physics and De anima. (shrink)