|This is a file in the archives of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.|
In these approaches to the constituents of the universe, modal terms are used in accordance with the so-called statistical or temporal frequency model of modality where the meaning of modal terms is spelled out extensionally as follows: what is necessary is always actual, what is impossible is never actual and what is possible is at least sometimes actual. The term statistical interpretation of modality was introduced into the modern discussion by Oscar Becker (1952), and it has been applied since in descriptions of certain ways of thinking in the history of philosophy as well, particularly by Jaakko Hintikka (1973).
Even though Aristotle did not define modal terms with the help of extensional notions, this model can be found in his discussion of eternal beings, the natures of things, the types of events, or generic statements about such things. Modal terms refer to the one and only world of ours and classify the types of things and events on the basis of their occurrence. This paradigm suggests that actualization is the general criterion of the genuineness of possibilities, but the deterministic implications of this view compelled Aristotle to seek ways of speaking about unrealized singular possibilities. Diodorus Chronus (fl. 300 B.C.) was a determinist who found no problem in this way of thinking. (For different interpretations and evaluations of the role of this model in Aristotle, see Hintikka 1973, Sorabji 1980, Seel 1982, Waterlow 1982a, White 1985, van Rijen 1989, Gaskin 1995.) In Posterior Analytics I.6 Aristotle seems to imply that certain predicates may belong to their subjects at all times without belonging to them necessarily. Averroes and his followers took this to mean that invariant connections are necessary in a strict sense (per se) only if they are essential; otherwise they are accidentally necessary (Lagerlund 1999). This is one of the texts some modern scholars have referred to in arguing that Aristotles views showing similarities to the statistical model are not based on the meaning of modal terms but on some special metaphysical and ontological doctrines (van Rijen 1989; cf. Waterlow 1982a).
Another Aristotelian modal paradigm was that of possibility as potency. In Met. V.12 and IX.1 potency is said to be the principle of motion or change either as the activator or as the receptor of a relevant influence. (For agent and patient in Aristotles natural philosophy in general, see Waterlow 1982b.) The types of potency-based possibilities belonging to a species are recognized as possibilities because of their actualization - no natural potency type remains eternally frustrated. Aristotle says that when the agent and the patient come together as being capable, the one must act and the other must be acted on (Met. IX.5). I shall return to this formulation.
In De Caelo I.12 Aristotle supposes, per impossibile, that a thing has contrary potencies, one of which is always actualized. He argues that the alleged unactualized potencies cannot be real, because one cannot assume them to be realized at any time without contradiction. Aristotle applies here the model of possibility as non-contradictoriness which is defined in Prior Analytics I.13 as follows: when a possibility is assumed to be realized, it results in nothing impossible. In speaking about the assumed non-contradictory actualization of a possibility Aristotle thinks that it is realized in our one and only history. The argument in De caelo excludes from the set of genuine possibilities those which remain eternally unrealized. It also shows how strongly Aristotles modal thought was influenced by the absence of the idea of synchronic alternatives. (See also Met. IX.4.)
Aristotle heavily criticized some of his contemporaries who claimed
that only that which takes place is possible (Met. IX.3). His
problem was that the assumptions of his modal thinking pushed him
towards a very similar position with respect to singular
possibilities. In Chapter 9 of De interpretatione Aristotle
says that what is necessarily is when it is, but he then qualifies
Aristotles conceptual difficulties can be seen from his various attempts to characterize the possibilities based on dispositional properties such as heatable, separable, or countable. Analogous discussions were not unusual in later ancient philosophy. In Philos definition of possibility (ca. 300 B.C.), the existence of a passive potency was regarded as a sufficient ground for speaking about a singular possibility. The Stoics revised this definition by adding the condition of the absence of external hindrance, thinking that otherwise the alleged possibility could not be realized. They did not add that an activator is needed as well, because then the difference between potentiality and actuality would disappear. According to the deterministic Stoic world view, fate as a kind of active potency necessitates everything, but the number of passive potencies with respect to a definite future instant of time (t1) is greater than what will be realized. As long as these possibilities are not prevented from being realized by other things which will be actual at t1, they in some sense represent open possibilities. When t1 is present, all unrealized possibilities are prevented from being actualized by other things. (The Stoics did not accept the Master Argument of Diodorus Cronus against possibilities which will not be realized.) Passive potencies as alternative prospective possibilities show what might happen at a certain moment, but because everything is determined, the alternatives seem to be only epistemic possibilities relative to our ignorance. (For different interpretations of the Stoic and Megarian conceptions of modality, see Vuillemin 1984, White 1985, Bobzien 1986, Engberg-Pedersen 1990, Bobzien 1993, Gaskin 1995.)
Alexander of Aphrodisias claimed in De fato that the Peripatetics, as distinct from the Stoics, thought that there are genuine prospective alternatives which remain open options until the moment of time to which they refer. It was the Stoic doctrine of future alternatives which led Alexander to consider diachronic modalities which he then tried to interpret in a different way (Sharples 1983). Aristotle sometimes referred to diachronic modalities of this kind (Met. VI.3), but he did not elaborate this idea, which might have been his most promising attempt to formulate a theory of unrealized singular possibilities. (The importance of this model is particularly stressed in Waterlow 1982a; see also Weidemann 1986, Gaskin 1995.) Neither Aristotle nor his followers had any conception of synchronic alternatives. They thought that what is necessarily is when it is, and that the alternative possibilities disappear when the future is fixed. The Peripatetic theory of alternative prospective possibilities could be called the model of diachronic modalities without synchronic alternatives: there are transient singular alternative possibilities, but those which will not be realized disappear instead of remaining unrealized.
Boethiuss view that the types of potencies and potency based possibilities are sometimes actualized is in agreement with the Aristotelian statistical interpretation of modality. This is another Boethian conception of necessity and possibility. He thought that modal notions can be regarded as tools for expressing temporal or generic frequencies. According to the temporal version, what always is is by necessity, and what never is is impossible. Possibility is interpreted as expressing what is at least sometimes actual. Correspondingly, a generic property of a species is possible only if it is exemplified at least in one member of that species (In Periherm. I.120-1, 200-201, II.237, 239).
Like Aristotle, Boethius often treated statement-making utterances as temporally indeterminate sentences. The same sentence can be uttered at different times, and many of these temporally indeterminate sentences may sometimes be true and sometimes false, depending on the circumstances at the moment of utterance. If the state of affairs the actuality of which makes the sentence true is omnitemporally actual, the sentence is true whenever it is uttered. In this case, it is necessarily true. If the state of affairs associated with an assertoric sentence is always non-actual, the sentence is always false and therefore impossible. A sentence is possible only if what is asserted is not always non-actual (I.124-125). The statistical interpretation of modal terms is also employed in Ammoniuss Greek commentary on Aristotles De interpretatione which shares some sources with Boethiuss work (88.12-28).
In dealing with Chapter 9 of Aristotles De interpretatione Boethius argues (II.241) that because
(1) M(pt & ¬ pt)is not acceptable, one should also deny
(1) It is possible that p obtains at t and not-p obtains at t.
(2) pt & Mt ¬ptThe denial of (2) is equivalent to
(2) p obtains at t and it is possible at t that not-p obtains at t.
(3) pt Lt ptThis line of thought is natural only when possibilities are treated without any idea of synchronic alternatives. (2) was generally denied in ancient philosophy and its denial was taken as an axiom by Boethius as well. Correspondingly, (3) shows how the necessity of the present was understood in ancient thought. Boethius thought that the temporal necessity of p can be qualified by shifting attention from temporally definite cases or statements to their temporally indeterminate counterparts (I.121-122, II.242-3). The same statistical idea occurs in Ammonius (153.24-6). This was one of Boethiuss interpretations of the Aristotelian distinction between necessity now and necessity without qualification. But he also made use of the diachronic model according to which the necessity of p at t does not imply that, before t, it is necessary that p obtains at t.
(3) If p obtains at t then it is necessary at t that p obtains at t.
Boethius developed the diachronic ideas as part of his criticism of Stoic determinism. If it is not true that everything is causally necessitated, there must be genuine alternatives in the course of events. Free choice was the source of contingency in which Boethius was mainly interested, but he thought in addition that according to the Peripatetic doctrine there is a real factor of indeterminacy in the causal nexus of nature. When Boethius refers to chance, free choice, and possibility in this context, his examples include temporalized modal notions which refer to diachronic prospective possibilities at a given moment of time. A temporally determinate prospective possibility is unrealized before the time to which it refers, and it may be not realized even when the time is present. This means, however, that the possibility no longer exists. Boethius did not develop the idea of simultaneous synchronic possibilities which would remain intact even when diachronic possibilities had vanished. On the contrary, he insisted that only what is actual at a certain time is at that time possible at that time (cf. (3) above). But he also thought that there are objective singular contingencies, so that the result of some prospective possibilities is indefinite and uncertain not only to us who are ignorant, but to nature (In Periherm. I.106, 120, II.190-192, 197-198, 203, 207). Boethiuss modal paradigms are discussed in Kretzmann 1985, Mignucci 1989, and Knuuttila 1993.
As for future contingent statements, Boethius seems to think the principle of bivalence is universally valid, but statements about future contingents, unlike those about past and present things, do not obey the stronger principle that each affirmative or negative statement is either determinately true or determinately false. A true statement is indeterminately true as long as the conditions which make it true are not yet fixed (In Periherm. I.125, II.208; Mignucci 1989). Boethiuss formulations are somewhat ambiguous and it is possible that indeterminate truth sometimes means that a statement will be either true or false (Kretzmann 1987). The first alternative became the standard medieval view, but there were different opinions of whether Aristotle abandoned bivalence for future contingent statements. (See Normore 1982, Lewis 1987, Normore 1993.) Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, and many others thought that God can know future contingents only because the flux of time is present to divine eternity. Many late medieval thinkers defended Gods ability to foreknow free acts. This led to the so called middle knowledge theory of the counterfactuals of freedom (Craig 1988, Freddoso 1988).
From the point of view of the history of modal thought, interesting things took place in theology in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Augustine had already criticized the application of the statistical model of possibility to divine power; for him, God has freely chosen the actual world and its providential plan from alternatives which he could have realized but did not will to do (potuit sed noluit). This way of thinking differs from ancient philosophical modal paradigms, because the metaphysical basis is now the eternal domain of alternative possible histories instead of the idea of one necessary world order (De spiritu et littera 1-2, De civitate Dei 12.19, 21.5-10, 22.4, 11, Contra Faustum 29.4). The idea of a discrepancy between the Catholic doctrine of Gods freedom and power and the philosophical modal conceptions was brought into the scope of discussion by Peter Damians De divina omnipotentia (Holopainen 1996) and was developed in a more sophisticated way by Peter Abelard, Gilbert of Poitiers and some other twelfth century authors. This is how the new modal paradigm based on the idea of synchronic alternatives became a part of Western theology, and it was particularly applied in the discussions of the distinction between Gods absolute and ordained power and between divine and natural possibilities.
The modal paradigm based on synchronic alternatives was very different from the traditional ones, but there were few people in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries to realize its general philosophical significance. It was more usual to consider it a specially theological matter which did not affect the use of traditional modal paradigms in other disciplines. Abelard and Gilbert were inclined to think in this way, and this attitude was supported by the general reception of Aristotles philosophy which clearly contributed to the frequent use of the Aristotelian modal paradigms in thirteenth century logical treatises on modalities, in metaphysical theories of the principles of being, and in the discussions of causes and effects in natural philosophy (Knuuttila 1993; for Jewish and Arabic discussions, see also Rescher 1974, Manekin 1992, Bäck 1992).
(4) quantity/subject/modalized copula/predicate (Some As are necessarily B)In this form, the negation can be located in different places, either
(5) quantity/subject/copula modalized by a negated mode/predicate (Some As are-not-necessarily B)or
(6) quantity/subject/modalized negative copula/predicate (Some As are-necessarily-not B)If sentences with a negation sign are read in accordance with (5), then the mode is denied in them; if they are read in accordance with (6), the modal adverb qualifies a negated predication (De Rijk 1967, II-2, 479.35-480.3).
As for the modal sentences with nominal modes, the author says that they can be read in two ways. One can apply an adverbial type of reading to them, which is said to be how Aristotle treats modal sentences in the Prior Analytics. The quality and quantity of such a de re modal sentence is determined by the corresponding non-modal sentence. In a de dicto modal sentence that which is asserted in a non-modal sentence is considered as the subject about which the mode is predicated. When modal sentences are understood in this way, they are always singular, their form being:
(7) subject/copula/mode. (That some As are B is necessary.)This reading is said to be the one which Aristotle presented in De interpretatione (480.3-26). The idea of the systematic distinction between the readings de dicto (in sensu composito) and de re (in sensu diviso) of modally qualified statements was introduced into medieval discussions in Abelards investigations of modal statements (Super Periherm. 3-47, Dialectica 191.1-210.19), and was often mentioned, as in the Dialectica Monacensis, in discussions of the composition-division ambiguity of sentences.
The author of the Dialectica Monacensis says that the matter of an assertoric sentence may be natural, remote, or contingent. True affirmative sentences about a natural matter maintain the existence of natural compounds which cannot be otherwise; these sentences as well as the natural compounds are called necessary. False affirmative sentences about a remote matter maintain the existence of compounds which are necessarily non-existent; they are called impossible. Sentences about a contingent matter are about compounds which can be actual and which can be non-actual (472.9-473.22). The theory of the modal matter was popular in early medieval logic and was also dealt with in mid-thirteenth century handbooks. Another often discussed theme was the distinction between modalities per se and per accidens which was based on the idea that the modal status of a temporally indefinite sentence may be changeable or not - for example You have not been in Paris may begin to be impossible, whereas You either have or have not been in Paris may not. Another distinction between sentences necessary per se and per accidens was based on Aristotles theory of per se predication in Posterior Analytics I.4. A sentence was said to be accidentally necessary when it was unchangeably true but there was no conceptual connection between subject and predicate.
One example of the prevalence of the traditional use of modal notions can be found in the early medieval de dicto/de re analysis of examples such as A standing man can sit. It was commonly stated that the composite (de dicto) sense is It is possible that a man sits and stands at the same time and that on this reading the sentence is false. The divided (de re) sense is A man who is now standing can sit and on this reading the sentence is true. Many authors formulated the divided possibility as follows: A standing man can sit at another time. It was assumed that a possibility refers to an actualization in the one and only world history and that it cannot refer to the present moment because of the necessity of the present understood in the Aristotelian sense formulated in (2) and (3) above. When authors referred to another time, some of them thought in accordance with the statistical model that the possibility would be realized at that time. But the Boethian idea of diachronic prospective alternatives was also often used in thirteenth century logical treatises, and some authors thought that the divided possibility refers to the future even though it may remain unrealized. A third group of authors made use of the modern idea of synchronic alternatives in this connection. The composite reading refers then to one and the same state of affairs and the divided reading to alternative states of affairs (at the same time). This analysis was also applied to the question of whether Gods knowledge of things makes them necessary. (There are textual references for all these themes in Knuuttila 1993. See also Maierù 1972, Jacobi 1980.)
The variety of intuitions about the meanings of modal notions may be
one of the reasons for the fact that the logical analysis of de
re modalities remained sketchy in early terminist
logic. Modifying Boethiuss systematization of Aristotles remarks in
De interpretatione 12 and 13, the logicians often presented
the equipollences and other relations between unanalysed modals with
the help of a square of opposition. Abelards attempt to extend this
analysis to quantified de re modals was badly confused
(Super Periherm. 26.8-15) and the later progress in this area
was slow. It was only in the fourteenth century that they were
analysed in a satisfactory manner. (See Hughes 1989 and his
Dialectica Monacensis involves a brief summary of Aristotles
modal syllogistic. (Its first Latin discussion is found in an
anonymous twelfth century commentary on the Prior Analytics;
Ebbesen 1981.) The first thorough commentary was
There are several recent works on Aristotles modal syllogistic but no generally accepted historical construction which would make it a coherent theory. (For recent attempts of reconstruction, see van Rijen 1989, Patterson 1995, Thom 1996, Nortmann 1996.) Robert Kilwardby and Albert the Great thought that Aristotles modal syllogistic was a consistent theory and that the difficulties of understanding some parts disappear when certain philosophical presuppositions are explicated. Instead of employing the de dicto/de re distinction they suggested that the notion of necessity in syllogistic premises refers to the Aristotelian per se necessity of an essential predication and they also applied many ad hoc restrictions pertaining to the notion of contingency in order to give a uniform reading of Aristotelian moods and conversion rules. This approach, which shows similarities to some modern reconstructions of Aristotles theory, was partially influenced by Averroess works. While Kilwardbys interpretation of modal statements and modal syllogisms was influential in the thirteenth century, in the early fourteenth century it gave way to a quite different theory (Lagerlund 1999).
The principles of propositional
Scotuss model theoretical approach to modalities brought some new themes into philosophical discussion. One of these was the idea of the domain of possibility as a non-existent objective precondition of all being and thinking. This was well known in the seventeenth century as well through Suárezs works (Honnefelder 1990). In his discussion of eternal truths, Descartes criticized the classical view of the ontological foundation of modality as well as the Scotist theory of modality and conceivability. He seems to have thought that the domain of conceivability is freely set by God and that it could therefore be different from what it is. (There are different views of Descartess theory and its connections to late medieval views; see Alanen and Knuuttila 1988, Alanen 1990, Normore 1991.)
Another influential idea was the new distinction between logical and
natural necessities and possibilities. In Scotuss theory, logically
necessary attributes and relations are attached to things in all
those sets of compossibilities in which they occur. Against this
background one could ask which of the natural invariances treated as
necessities in earlier natural philosophy were necessary in this
strong sense of necessity, and which of them were merely empirical
generalizations without being logically necessary. The distinction
between logical and natural necessity is crucial to the works of
One important branch of medieval logic developed in treatises called De obligationibus dealt, roughly speaking, with how an increasing set of true and false propositions might remain coherent. According to the thirteenth century rules, false present tense statements could be accepted only if they were taken to refer to a moment of time different from the actual one. Scotus deleted this rule, based on the Aristotelian axiom of the necessity of the present, and later theories accepted the Scotist revision. In this new form, obligations logic could be regarded as a theory of how to describe logically possible states of affairs and their mutual relationships. These discussions influenced the philosophical theory of counterfactual conditionals (Yrjönsuuri 1994.)
With the new modal semantics, William Ockham, John Buridan and some
other fourteenth century authors could formulate the principles of
modal logic much more completely and satisfactorily than did their
predecessors. Questions of modal logic were discussed separately with
respect to modal propositions de dicto and de re; modal
propositions de re were further divided into two groups
depending on whether the subject terms refer to actual or possible
beings. It was thought that logicians should also analyse the
relationships between these readings and, furthermore, the
consequences having various types of modal sentences as their
parts. Richard of Campsall played an interesting role in the
development of medieval modal syllogistics. He introduced the habit
of treating the de dicto and de re moods separately,
but he was also dependent on Kilwardbys interpretation. The new
modal logic of William Ockham, John Buridan and Pseudo-Scotus was
among the most remarkable achievements of medieval logic. In its
light Aristotles modal syllogistic was regarded as a fragmentary
theory in which the distinctions between different types of fine
structures were not explicated. These authors did not try to
reconstruct it into a uniform system; they believed, like some modern
commentators, that such a reconstruction is not possible (Lagerlund
1999). Buridans modal logic was dominant in late medieval times. It
was embraced by Marsilius of Inghen, Albert of Saxony, and Jodocus
Trutfetter. (For the later influence of medieval modal theories, see
Coombs 1990, Roncaglia 1996.) The rise of the new modal logic was
accompanied by theories of epistemic logic (Boh 1993) and deontic
logic (Knuuttila 1993) which also belong among the remarkable
achievements of late
Table of Contents
First published: June 30, 1999
Content last modified: June 30, 1999