Skip to content

Tag: Necessity

Substitution.

Published on February 24, 2026

I spent two weeks on this chapter. I think it was the most difficult I’ve encountered thus far, but my perseverance, and struggle has yielded some very illuminating fruits from the labor. First of all, I was not expecting Aristotle to switch the middle from B to A in the first part of this chapter. That caught me completely off guard, and I could not understand what in the world was going on, what we were talking about, why we were talking about it, and the purpose of these demonstrations.

Nothing made any sense at all. My mind, having become accustomed to B being the automatic middle, struggled to disassociate it from being anything else other than the middle term. This caused many problems in my comprehension and tracking of necessity with the 2nd figure. My mind incorrectly assumed that: B was still the middle, the examples given were still in first figure, C A was the original conclusion now being temporarily tested as the minor premise, and somehow that was supposed to tell me whether this reconfigured 2nd figure syllogism could be necessary or not. Only after much wrangling with the tutor did I then realize that A was the new middle, and everything suddenly become clear and simple. The only thing I could ask is: “Why would he not tell me when the middle was about to change?”. Whatever the reason, as I go into this next chapter, I’m going to be far more sensitive to term positions, and ontological nuance. It’s as if every word in the syllogism is now significant to me and drastically affects the meaning of what is being asserted.

EAR

Aristotle, Prior Analytics. Book 1, Chapter 10.

Necessity.

Published on December 31, 2025

What is necessary seems to be a convergence point for the intellect to enter into, in order to be transfigured by what is in energy, in order to be at rest and at peace. I.e., what is necessary is what happens right now. What is priority is right now. What happened before, or what could happen later, are useful to know, in moderation. It seems to me that an unhinged, wild mind is incapable of resting in what is in energy now and is tormented by what was or what could be. Perhaps without training in Prior or Posterior Analytics, there would be no possibility of a human mind, naturally predisposed for analysis, to escape this inevitable fate of insanity. This seems to be the great parody of the human rational faculty. Indeed, it might be the reason why some, by consequence of their decisions as new independent and young adults, suddenly find themselves distracted by various earthly things in order to relieve themselves of the potency of insanity by way of unhinged abstractions.

Therefore, I think peace seems to be tied to what is necessary right now; yet, to defend that peace, I think one needs to be trained in how to properly deal with what was and what could be. Having both of these—a condition of being present while being absolutely capable of entering into inductive or deductive abstraction, regressively or progressively to deal with whatever comes—is essential to living in the way we were designed to.

EAR

“It is not necessary not to be.”

Published on December 5, 2025

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

Aristotle, On Interpretation, Chapter 12.