We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
The Hexagon of Opposition
Throughout the western philosophical and theological tradition, scholars have assumed that the future can be adequately described in terms of what will and will not happen. In this essay I, Alan Rhoda and Tom Belt argue that this assumption is mistaken, for the logical contradictory of will is not will not but might not. Conversely, the logical contradictory of will not is not will, but might. We suggest that the traditional assumption that the future is exhaustively describable in terms of what will and will not occur is influenced by an inadequacy in Aristotle’s famous “Square of Opposition.” We correct this deficiency and demonstrate that an adequate logical model of the future must incorporate might and might not, producing a “Hexagon of Opposition” rather than a “Square of Opposition.”
Click here to download this essay:
The Hexagon of Opposition: Thinking Outside the Aristotelian Box
Category: Essays
Tags: Essay, Open Theism
Topics: Defending the Open View
Related Reading
How should evangelicals “do” theology?
A central debate among evangelical theologians concerns the question of theological method. In other words, how should we “do” theology? All evangelical Christians believe the Bible is God’s inspired revelation. Thus, evangelicals agree that Scripture must form the foundation for theological thought. But Scripture is not the only factor to consider when doing theology. Many…
Response to Bruce Ware’s “Defining Evangelicalism’s Boundaries: Is Open Theism Evangelical?”
The following essay was written in response to Bruce Ware’s article, “Defining Evangelicalism’s Boundaries: Is Open Theism Evangelical?” Published in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 2002. Introduction I want to begin by expressing my utmost respect for the high value placed on academic fairness and integrity by the editorial board of JETS.…
How can people who believe the open view trust a God who doesn’t control the future and doesn’t know for sure what will happen?
It’s true that according to the open view of the future things can happen in our lives which God didn’t plan or even foreknow with certainty (though he always foreknew they were possible). In this view, trusting in God provides no assurance that everything that happens to us will reflect his divine purposes, for there…
What is the significance of Deuteronomy 8:2?
Moses tells the Israelites that the Lord kept them in the desert forty years “in order to humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commandments.” In the classical view, God would have of course eternally known the character the people would develop in the…
How do you respond to Mark 14:13–15?
In planning for the Passover meal, Jesus tells his disciples, “Go into the city and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him, and wherever he enters, say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks, Where is my guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’…
How do you respond to Psalm 139:16?
“In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed.” Psalm 139 is a beautiful poetic expression of God’s personal moment-by-moment involvement in our lives. So intimate is his involvement that he knows our thoughts before we utter them (vs. 2–4). His loving presence surrounds…