- A+
Now that which is must needs be when it is, and that which is not must
needs not be when it is not. Yet it cannot be said without qualification that all
existenc e and non-existence is the outcome of necessity. For there is a
difference between saying that that which is, when it is, must needs be, and
simply saying that all that is must needs be, and similarly in the c ase of that
which is not. In the case, also, of two contradictory propositions this holds
good. Everything must either be or not be, whether in the pres ent or in the
future, but it is not always poss ible to distinguish and state determinately
which of these alternatives must necessarily come about.
Let me illustrate. A sea-fight must either tak e place to-morrow or not, but it
is not necessary that it should take place to-morrow, neither is it necessary
that it should not take place, yet it is necessary that it either should or should
not take place to-morrow. Since propositions correspond with facts, it is
evident that when in future events there is a real alternative, and a potentiality
in contrary directions, the corresponding affirmation and denial have the
same character.
This is the case with regard to that which is not always existent or not
always nonexistent. One of the two propositions in such instances must be
true and the other false, but we cannot say determinately that this or that is
fals e, but must leave the alternative undecided. One may indeed be more
likely to be true than the other, but it cannot be either actually true or actually
fals e. It is therefore plain that it is not necessary that of an affirmation and a
denial one should be true and the other false. For in the case of that which
exists potentially, but not ac tually, the rule which applies to that which exists
actually does not hold good. The case is rather as we have indicated.
- 我的微信
- 这是我的微信扫一扫
-
- 我的微信公众号
- 我的微信公众号扫一扫
-