The content presented in this lesson was fairly difficult, but straightforward; however, the implications of what was being said, with regards of nuanced additions to verbs, was extremely subtle, perhaps too deep, and fine, at this point for me to abstract on with any hope of staying rooted to reality. I suppose it will become clearer in the next few chapters, maybe more examples, and demonstrations, will be provided. We’ll see.
Firstly, this jumped out at me from Aristotle, “In a similar manner of this [enunciation] it is necessary to be, the negation is not this, it is necessary not to be, [the negation] is this, it is not necessary not to be.” I asked myself, and the tutor, “Why is this different from the rule that affirmations and negations center around the verb, with the subject’s positive or negative condition? Why is this different from the other enunciations? Is it because if something is ‘to be’, then it was by necessary causes? Likewise, if it was ‘not to be’, then it was not necessary for any prior causes to generate what never existed in the first place?”
The tutor explained that my interpretation was in line with Aristotle, but qualified it further, “‘Necessary’ in the absolute sense is connected to prior causality… Conversely, ‘necessary not to be’ would indicate absolute impossibility or absence of prior causality for existence… Between these extremes lies contingency, which Aristotle expresses logically as ‘not necessary not to be.’ Contingent things are neither necessarily existent nor necessarily non-existent.”
So, I am now perceiving the past and present conditions as being necessary; and what is not necessary, as being open to the future. I don’t fully understand what this all means, it’s like seeing an island on the horizon while out at sea; but, not seeing that island up close, in full focus, and with full understanding of what it is that you are looking at.
EAR