1) To dive into the puzzle of the Sea Battle we must first discuss the Principle of Bivalence. The Principle of Bivalence can be summarized as follows: for any well-formed proposition, the truth value of that statement must be either true or false. The truth value of the proposition cannot be both (a contradiction), nor neither (a gap). And when looking at the puzzle of the Sea Battle it is of special importance to us to keep in mind that a proposition cannot be neither true nor false, for like we have said, a gap arises. Aristotle seems to recognize and even like this principle (in relation to the past and the present), but also recognizes the problem that arises if we are to apply it to future contingents as well. For, as Aristotle recognizes,
…show more content…
But again, Aristotle cannot accept this, saying, “For we see that both deliberation and action originate things that will be.” Thus, he concludes the Principle of Bivalence cannot be applied to future contingents. However, this perhaps creates even more problems. By denying bivalence Aristotle is essentially denying the existence of any future whatsoever. To return to Aristotle’s original proposition, “there will be a sea battle tomorrow” without giving it a true or false truth value is to say that the statement is neutral. But if we are to say that “there will be a sea battle tomorrow” is neutral, its negation must be neutral as well. This puts us in a very difficult situation. If we are to say that “there will be a sea battle tomorrow” and at the same time say “there will not be a sea battle tomorrow” are both neutral, then we are essentially declaring there is no future whatsoever. For if neither can be true or false, then nothing can happen at …show more content…
However, this is not to say they shared the same reasons for holding their beliefs. First, and most broadly, they are both materialists in some sense. Meaning both are primarily concerned with matter and the material world. Both are attempting to do philosophy without abstract objects or ‘fancy things’. For example, things like Plato’s forms did not fit into either of their ideologies. While the Stoics did admit there must be some sort of abstract things, they denied they were anything like Plato’s forms. This is in stark contrast to major philosophers before them (Plato, Aristotle, Etc.) that believed knowledge could be found outside the material world. Secondly, both the Epicureans and the Stoics held an empirical view of philosophy. Both were mainly interested in what our senses could provide us. The Epicureans especially so. Their somewhat hedonist views show this. Another similarity between the two would be their love for system building. Both sought to build a philosophical system to not only apply to their lives, but to all of humanity to ‘cure the world of anxiety.’ Lastly they both shared similar ideas concerning free will. Although for completely different reason, they both sought to keep free will and moral responsibility. For the Epicureans, it was the ‘swerve’ that could alter the chain of determinism. Whereas, for the Stoics, Chrysippus attempted to combine determinism and
But again, Aristotle cannot accept this, saying, “For we see that both deliberation and action originate things that will be.” Thus, he concludes the Principle of Bivalence cannot be applied to future contingents. However, this perhaps creates even more problems. By denying bivalence Aristotle is essentially denying the existence of any future whatsoever. To return to Aristotle’s original proposition, “there will be a sea battle tomorrow” without giving it a true or false truth value is to say that the statement is neutral. But if we are to say that “there will be a sea battle tomorrow” is neutral, its negation must be neutral as well. This puts us in a very difficult situation. If we are to say that “there will be a sea battle tomorrow” and at the same time say “there will not be a sea battle tomorrow” are both neutral, then we are essentially declaring there is no future whatsoever. For if neither can be true or false, then nothing can happen at …show more content…
However, this is not to say they shared the same reasons for holding their beliefs. First, and most broadly, they are both materialists in some sense. Meaning both are primarily concerned with matter and the material world. Both are attempting to do philosophy without abstract objects or ‘fancy things’. For example, things like Plato’s forms did not fit into either of their ideologies. While the Stoics did admit there must be some sort of abstract things, they denied they were anything like Plato’s forms. This is in stark contrast to major philosophers before them (Plato, Aristotle, Etc.) that believed knowledge could be found outside the material world. Secondly, both the Epicureans and the Stoics held an empirical view of philosophy. Both were mainly interested in what our senses could provide us. The Epicureans especially so. Their somewhat hedonist views show this. Another similarity between the two would be their love for system building. Both sought to build a philosophical system to not only apply to their lives, but to all of humanity to ‘cure the world of anxiety.’ Lastly they both shared similar ideas concerning free will. Although for completely different reason, they both sought to keep free will and moral responsibility. For the Epicureans, it was the ‘swerve’ that could alter the chain of determinism. Whereas, for the Stoics, Chrysippus attempted to combine determinism and