Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Philo's definitions of modality introduce mere conceptual... — Carmelics
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Philo's definitions of modality introduce mere conceptual modalities, not temporally indexed ones

    Modality & PossibilityProof of definition segments
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Philo defines possibility as what is capable of being true by the proposition's own nature
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Philo defines necessity as what is true and not capable of being false by its own nature
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.These definitions rely on intrinsic nature rather than temporal facts about what is or will be the case
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Philo's definition of possibility as 'capable of being true by the proposition's own nature' implicitly invokes what holds across times, since natural capacity is assessed relative to circumstances that obtain or could obtain temporally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Diodorus Cronus, Philo's contemporary interlocutor, explicitly framed his rival modal definitions in terms of what is or will be the case, and Philo's definitions are historically preserved as direct responses to that temporal framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A definition formulated as a direct dialectical contrast to temporally-indexed modality necessarily inherits temporal reference as part of its semantic content, even if it negates rather than affirms temporal indexing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The ancient sources recording Philo's definitions, primarily Boethius and the commentators on Aristotle, embed those definitions within discussions of the Master Argument where temporal passage is the central explanatory variable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When 'own nature' (oikeia phusis) is used in Stoic and Megarian contexts, it refers to the constitutive properties of a thing as they manifest through time, not to atemporal essences abstracted from temporal reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityProof of definition segments

    Connections

    1 topic

    Causation1 linked

    Related

    A definition formulated as a direct dialectical contrast to temporally-indexed m...Diodorus Cronus, Philo's contemporary interlocutor, explicitly framed his rival ...Philo defines necessity as what is true and not capable of being false by its ow...Philo defines possibility as what is capable of being true by the proposition's ...
    +4 moreShow less
    Philo's definition of possibility as 'capable of being true by the proposition's...The ancient sources recording Philo's definitions, primarily Boethius and the co...These definitions rely on intrinsic nature rather than temporal facts about what...When 'own nature' (oikeia phusis) is used in Stoic and Megarian contexts, it ref...

    Similar

    The scholastic treatment of modality is inadequate because it restrict...79%A modal distinction obtains between a thing and an intrinsic mode of t...79%Latin expresses modality through many additional terms such as 'likely...79%Under Diodorus' definitions, some propositions may change their modal ...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: logic-ancient
    View source passageHide passage
    Philo and Diodorus each considered the four modalities possibility, impossibility, necessity and non-necessity. These were conceived of as modal properties or modal values of propositions, not as modal operators. Philo defined them as follows: ‘Possible is that which is capable of being true by the proposition’s own nature … necessary is that which is true, and which, as far as it is in itself, is not capable of being false. Non-necessary is that which as far as it is in itself, is capable of be
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit