Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The necessity of the past (necessitas consequentis) is conflated by many medievals with the weaker necessity of consequence (necessitas consequentiae).
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Medieval logicians explicitly developed formal systems distinguishing logical consequence from metaphysical necessity in their commentaries.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Attributing confusion to 'many medievals' requires specific textual evidence; sweeping claims obscure the sophistication of individual thinkers.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim itself requires clear definitions of both necessities, which may be harder to extract from medieval sources than the claim assumes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Medieval texts frequently use 'necessitas' without distinguishing between what must be true and what follows logically from premises.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Conflating these distinctions would lead to determinism, a problem many medievals struggled with, suggesting the confusion was common.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Boethius and Aquinas's discussions of divine foreknowledge show ambiguity between logical consequence and metaphysical necessity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.