Aristotelian Diagrams in the Debate on Future Contingents
- 100 Downloads
In the recent debate on future contingents and the nature of the future, authors such as G. A. Boyd, W. L. Craig, and E. Hess have made use of various logical notions, such as (the difference between) the Aristotelian relations of contradiction and contrariety, and the ‘open future square of opposition.’ My aim in this paper is not to enter into this philosophical debate itself, but rather to highlight, at a more abstract methodological level, the important role that Aristotelian diagrams (such as the open future square of opposition, but also others) can play in organizing and clarifying the debate. After providing a brief survey of the specific ways in which Boyd and Hess make use of Aristotelian relations and diagrams in the debate on the nature of the future, I argue that the position of open theism is best represented by means of a hexagon of opposition (rather than a square of opposition). Next, I show that on the classical theist account, this hexagon of opposition ‘collapses’ into a single pair of contradictory statements. This collapse from a hexagon into a pair has several aspects, which can all be seen as different manifestations of a single underlying change (viz., the move from a tripartition to a bipartition of logical space).
KeywordsOpen theism Future contingents Gregory Boyd Square of opposition Hexagon of opposition Aristotelian diagrams
I would like to thank Hans Smessaert, Margaux Smets, and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback on an earlier version of this paper. The research reported in this paper is financially supported through a Postdoctoral Fellowship of the Research Foundation–Flanders (FWO), and was partially carried out during research stays at the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Oxford (Spring 2017) and at the Institut für Philosophie II of the Ruhr-Universität Bochum (Summer 2017).
- Blanché, R. (1966). Structures intellectuelles. Essai sur l’organisation systématique des concepts. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
- Boyd, G. A. (2011). God limits his control. In D. W. Jowers (Ed.), Four views on divine providence (pp. 183–208). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.Google Scholar
- Craig, W. L. (1999). The only wise God: the compatibility of divine foreknowledge and human freedom. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers.Google Scholar
- Craig, W. L. (2011). Response to Gregory A. Boyd. In D. W. Jowers (Ed.), Four views on divine providence (pp. 224–230). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.Google Scholar
- Demey, L., & Smessaert, H. (2017). Combinatorial bitstring semantics for arbitrary logical fragments. Journal of Philosophical Logic forthcoming.Google Scholar
- Hess, E. (2017). The open future square of opposition: a defense. Sophia forthcoming.Google Scholar
- Jaspers, D., & Seuren, P. A. M. (2016). The square of opposition in Catholic hands: a chapter in the history of 20th-century logic. Logique et Analyse, 59(233), 1–35.Google Scholar
- Rhoda, A. R. (2011). The fivefold openness of the future. In W. Hasker, T. J. Oord, & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), God in an open universe: science, metaphysics, and open theism (pp. 69–93). Eugene: Pickwick.Google Scholar
- Sesmat, A. (1951). Logique II. Les raisonnements. La syllogistique. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar