عنوان مقاله [English]
The relationship between modality and time is a complex one; Aristotle's arguments about determinism are mainly focused on time rather than causation. The problem of De Interpretatione can be attributed to Aristotle's considerations on time and truth. From Aristotle's emphasis on the "necessity of something when it is the case (ὑπάρχειν)" and explaining it in the form of the negation of absolute necessity, at least three conclusions can be drawn: 1. The introduction of time into modalities and finally the evolution of The discussion on determinism and singular future events. 2. The importance of the consequences of Aristotle's theory of truth in denying or demanding the determinism based on the relation of truth and time. 3. Aristotle's fundamental distinction between conditional and absolute necessity, which leads to a better understanding of the various spheres of existence and knowledge, including the differences between monde sublunaire and monde supralunaire. The inference of necessity from the truth of one thing shows that just as truth in Aristotle's standpoint depends on correspondence with facts, so the concept of necessity must be understood as a description of reality. The connection between truth, necessity, and actuality suggests that it is not easy to regard unrealized reality of future as the realm of truth, apriori necessity and strict determinism. The aim of this paper is to clarify the boundaries of Aristotle's thought about necessity with determinism and causal determinism in the main question of the article and to seek the necessary evidence to prove this difference in the discussions of the ninth chapter of De Interpretatione.