Katherine Sierka
Dodd
PHL 150
20 September 2015
Aristotle’s “De Interpretatione”
Aristotle's Sea Battle Problem, discusses whether every assertion about the future must be either true or false. The contradiction to Aristotle’s concept is an assertion in which states what the other denies. Aristotle’s The Sea Battle specifically stresses, “With regard to what is and what has been it is necessary for the affirmation or the negation to be true or false,” (e.g. Aristotle, p. 1)
Aristotle’s two assertions were that, there will be a sea-battle tomorrow or that there will not be a sea-battle tomorrow. If there will be a sea battle tomorrow, and that is true, then it will still be true right now, and if it is true right now, it will be true no matter what. If the statement is true no matter what, there is no possibility for anyone to have the power to make it false. Thus, no one has free will. On the contrary, if there will be …show more content…
Aristotle, p. 1) If something were not the “case”, such as there will not be a sea battle tomorrow, then the belief that it will be the “case”, is not solely false, in return making it impossible. If the battle will not be fought at all, then it was made true in the past, that it would not take place. Due to these true statements about what will be the “case”, also makes them true in the past. According to Aristotle, all truths of the past are also considered necessary truths. From the belief that the sea battle would be fought, it directly goes forth in the sense that in the past it would also be true that the sea battle would be fought. Since it is impossible due to not following for a possibility, then the fact that a battle will be fought, it truly is not possible. Thus, if something were not the “case”, it is not possible for it to be the
Dodd
PHL 150
20 September 2015
Aristotle’s “De Interpretatione”
Aristotle's Sea Battle Problem, discusses whether every assertion about the future must be either true or false. The contradiction to Aristotle’s concept is an assertion in which states what the other denies. Aristotle’s The Sea Battle specifically stresses, “With regard to what is and what has been it is necessary for the affirmation or the negation to be true or false,” (e.g. Aristotle, p. 1)
Aristotle’s two assertions were that, there will be a sea-battle tomorrow or that there will not be a sea-battle tomorrow. If there will be a sea battle tomorrow, and that is true, then it will still be true right now, and if it is true right now, it will be true no matter what. If the statement is true no matter what, there is no possibility for anyone to have the power to make it false. Thus, no one has free will. On the contrary, if there will be …show more content…
Aristotle, p. 1) If something were not the “case”, such as there will not be a sea battle tomorrow, then the belief that it will be the “case”, is not solely false, in return making it impossible. If the battle will not be fought at all, then it was made true in the past, that it would not take place. Due to these true statements about what will be the “case”, also makes them true in the past. According to Aristotle, all truths of the past are also considered necessary truths. From the belief that the sea battle would be fought, it directly goes forth in the sense that in the past it would also be true that the sea battle would be fought. Since it is impossible due to not following for a possibility, then the fact that a battle will be fought, it truly is not possible. Thus, if something were not the “case”, it is not possible for it to be the