ModaI logic is concerned with the logic of
necessity and possibility. The central problem of modal
ontology is summed up in the following question, "What
are the ontological commitments of the user of modal
terminology? " This thesis is primarily about the
ontological commitments that Aristotle made when he
employed modal terms. Aristotle’s modal ontology is h e r e
analysed in conjunction with four modal problems. My
primary objective, is to clarify some of the discussions
of Aristotle's modal ontology that have been advanced by
certain twentieth century philosophers.
The first problem to be considered is the famous
' sea battle’ argument of De Interpretatione 9 . Here is
a summary of the problem: If it is currently true that
there will be a sea battle tomorrow, then in
some sense it is inevitable that there will in fact be a
sea battle; if predictions are true, is not a form of
determinism being supported? One analysis in particular
is studied at length, namely that of Jaakko Hintikka.
Hintikka holds that the sea battle argument is best
Interpreted if the metaphysical principle of plenitude
is attributed to Aristotle. The principle of plenitude
effectively merges modality with temporality; what is necessarily
the case is always true, and vice versa.
Hintikka also interprets Aristotle's stand on the
‘Master Argument’ of Diodorus in light of the
attribution of the principle of plenitude to Aristotle.
Diodorus' argument is the second of the four problems
that this essay considers,. Unlike Aristotle, Diodorus
appears to have favored a strong version of determinism.
According to Hintikka, Diodorus actually strove to
prove the principle of plenitude (as opposed to assuming
it, as Aristotle presumably did).
I am very sceptical regarding Hintikka's
interpretations of these two problems. The sea battle
argument is not adequately answered by the solution
which Hintikka sees Aristotle adopting. Alternative
answers are relatively easy to come by. The evidence
cited by Hintikka for ascribing the principle of
plenitude is, it is shown, somewhat inconclusive.
As for the Master Argument, there is a great deal of
paucity in regards to textual evidence. Hinikka himself
virtually concedes this point. (Thus, whereas I feel it
to be incumbent to offer an alternative interpretation
of the sea battle argument, I do not share this attitude
towards the Master Argument.)
The third and fourth problems play a key role in
twentieth century analytic philosophy. Both were first formulated
by W.V. Quine in the forties. These problems
are somewhat subtle and will not be explained further.
Suffice it to say that an analysis of Aristotle's works
by Alan Code reveals that the Stagirite had an answer to
Quine's criticisms of modal logic. / Arts, Faculty of / Philosophy, Department of / Graduate
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UBC/oai:circle.library.ubc.ca:2429/42125 |
| Date | January 1989 |
| Creators | Dickson, Mark William |
| Publisher | University of British Columbia |
| Source Sets | University of British Columbia |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Text, Thesis/Dissertation |
| Rights | For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use. |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds