Abstract
De Interpretatione 9 is often referred to as a source of information about Aristotle’s view of the relation between time and necessity. And, indeed, notwithstanding its notorious obscurity and the absence of any consensus even as to what Aristotle is here dealing with, it is certain that time and tense on the one hand and the necessity of whatever is being discussed on the other play a central role in Aristotle’s discussion of the problem this chapter is devoted to.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes to Chapter Six
19a28ff.
Rescher (1963), pp. 45–46.
Hintikka (1964), reprinted in Hintikka (1973a), p. 147.
Ryle (19562), pp. 15–35.
Hintikka (1973a), p. 152.
Ibid., p. 165.
The translation is taken from Hintikka (1973a), p. 165.
Elsewhere, in “Aristotle and the ‘Master Argument’ of Diodorus”, Hintikka takes this sentence to mean that the present is necessary (Hintikka (1973a), p. 185).
Hintikka (1973a), p. 161.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 151.
Ibid., p. 160.
Ibid., p. 167.
See for example P. Cooke’s translation in the Loeb edition. Ackrill’s translation ‘true rather than false’ (Ackrill (1963)), which is identical with that of Anscombe (Anscombe (1956), p. 6), seems to entail that a sentence expressing a future contingency is neither true nor false. In her commentary Anscombe paraphrases this sequence as “more probable”. This is also how Frede interprets Aristotle (Frede (1970), p. 61).
De Interpretatione 10, 20a35.
Metaphysics IV.4, 1008b5; see Frede (1970), p. 61.
See Sorabji (1980), pp. 23–25 for references and comments.
Ibid., chapter one, esp. pp. 19ff., for a survey of the several positions taken with respect to this issue.
Nicomachean Ethics VI.2, 1139b7–9; De Caelo I.12, 283bl2–14; Rhetoric III.17, 1418a3–5. Compare Nicomachean Ethics III.3, 1112b27.
See Thomason (1970), Burgess (1978), (1979), and McCall (1979).
See Prior (1967), chapter VII, esp. pp. 121–127. Compare Ockham’s Tractatus de Praedestinatione, Boehner edition, p. 6 and p. 12.
De Interpretatione 7, 17b28.
See, for example, the translations of Cooke, Anscombe and Ackrill.
See Frede (1970), p. 88.
19a2f.
19a27–32.
19a36–19b4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1989 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van Rijen, J. (1989). Modality and Time (III). De Interpretatione 9. In: Aspects of Aristotle’s Logic of Modalities. Synthese Historical Library, vol 35. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2651-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2651-6_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-7696-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-2651-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive