ISBN: 9780198795797, 9780198795803 Edited by Victor Caston.

In De Interpretatione 9 Aristotle considers the proposition that everything that is or comes to be, is or comes to be of necessity. From the supposition that this is so, he draws the following consequence: ‘[In that case] there would be no need to deliberate or take trouble, [saying] that if we do this there will be so and so, and if we do not do this there will not be so and so’. Finding this result absurd, he rejects the (...) supposition and concludes that some events or states of affairs are contingent. (shrink)

THIS PAPER is concerned with an ancient rebuttal of determinism, possibly the oldest in our Western tradition. It runs as follows: if whatever happens happens of necessity, there is no point at all in deliberating; but the consequent is intolerable, so the antecedent must be rejected. This objection is put forward by Aristotle, and it reappears in elaborated forms in later works of antiquity. But for the most part, philosophers on both sides of the determinist debate have remained unimpressed by (...) the argument. Determinists from early times have rejected it as fallacious, and their opinion is usually shared these days even by opponents of determinism. Here this negative verdict will be contested. It will be maintained in what follows that the Aristotelian objection expresses an important truth, namely that determinism is an absurd position for anyone not prepared to abandon the ordinary assumption that human beings have often good reason to deliberate. The absurdity will be shown to stem from a distinctive feature of the conditional judgments used in practical reasoning. (shrink)