The Necessity of Reality or Indeterminism Based on Aristotle's Temporal Approach to Modalities  Based on the Ninth Chapter De Interpretatione

Mousavian, Seyed Amirali

doi:10.22059/jop.2021.322555.1006603

Document Type : Scientific-research

Author

Seyed Amirali Mousavian

PhD of Ancient and Medieval Philosophy at Shahid Beheshti University

https://doi.org/10.22059/jop.2021.322555.1006603

Abstract

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.

Keywords

References

ارسطو (1392)، خطابه، ترجمۀ اسماعیل سعادت، تهران، هرمس.

ارسطو (1390)، منطق ارسطو ( ارگانون)، ترجمۀ میرشمس‌الدین ادیب سلطانی، چ2، تهران، نگاه.

بهشتی، محمدرضا و امیرعلی موسویان (1398)، «بخت، اتفاق و علیت عرضی از دیدگاه ارسطو»، جاویدان خرد، دورۀ 16، ش 36، ص 271-298.

Ackrill, J. (1963), Categories and De Interpretatione, Translated with notes, Oxford, Oxford University.

Ammonius, (1998), Ammonius On Aristotle’s On Interpretation 9 with Boethius On Aristotle’s On Interpretation 9, Translated by David Blank & Norman Kretzmann, Ithaca, New York, Cornel University.

Anscombe, G. (1956), “Aristotle and the Sea Battle, De Interpretatione, Chapter Ⅸ.” Mind 65, 1-15.

Aristotle, (1831–1870), Aristotelis Opera, Vols. 1, 2 Text, ed. I. Bekker, Berlin.

Aristotle. (1984), The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, Two Vols. Edited by Jonathan Barnes, Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University.

Broadie (Waterlow), Sarah (1998), “Thinking about De Interpretatione 9”, in Mario Mignucci (ed.), Proceedings of the 13th Symposium Aristotelicum.

Hintikka, J. (1973), Time and Necessity, Studies in Aristotle’s Theory of Modality, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Hintikka, J. with U. Remes and S. Knuuttila, (1977), Aristotle on Modality and Determinism, Acta Philosophica Fennica 29, Amsterdam.

Kirwan, C. A. (1971), Aristotle: Metaphysics Books Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon, Oxford: Clarendon.

Kneale, William, & Martha Kneale )1962(, The Development of Logic, Oxford, Clarendon.

Liddle, H. G. and Scott, R. (1996), A Greek-English Lexicon, revised and augmented by H. Stuart Jones, with the assistance of R. McKenzie and with the co-operationof many scholars, Oxford, Clarendon.

Lukasiewicz, Jan, (1957), Aristotle’s Syllogistic from the Standpoint of Modern Formal Logic, second edition, Oxford, Clarendon.

Makin, S. (2006), Metaphysics Theta, Translated with an introduction and commentary, Oxford, Oxford University.

Ross, W. D. (1924), Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Sorabji, R. )1980(, Necessity, Cause and Blam, Perspectives on Aristotle’s Theory, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.

Sorabji, R. (1998a) “The three deterministic arguments opposed by Ammonius” In David Blank & Norman Kretzmann (Trans.), AMMONIUS On Aristotle’s On Interpretation 9 with BOETHIUS On Aristotle’s On Interpretation 9: Ithaca, New York: Cornel University Press, pp. 3-15.

Strang, Colin, (1960), “Aristotle and the Sea Battl”, Mind, 69, 447-465.

Waterlow, Sarah. (2003), Passage and Possibility: A study of Aristotle’s Modal Concepts, Oxford University Press.

Williams, C. J. F. (1980), “What is, Necessarily Is, When It Is”, Analysis, Vol. 40, No. 3 , 127-131.

Williams, C. J. F. (1982), Aristotle’s De Generatione et Corruptione, Oxford, Oxford University.

The Necessity of Reality or Indeterminism Based on Aristotle's Temporal Approach to Modalities Based on the Ninth Chapter De Interpretatione

References

References

Volume 19, Issue 2 - Serial Number 37January 2022Pages 189-211

Volume 19, Issue 2 - Serial Number 37
January 2022
Pages 189-211