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
The Open View and Radical Suffering
Jessica Kelley spoke at Open2013 this morning, sharing her journey with tenderness and authority. Jessica began wrestling with her view of God a couple of years ago and embraced Open Theism prior to the diagnosis and eventual death of her four-year-old son, Henry. Everyone here at the conference was profoundly affected by her story and…
Q&A: If Salvation Depends on our Free Choice, How are we Saved by Grace?
As a companion to today’s testimony and the link to Greg’s thoughts on Romans 9, we thought it would be helpful to post this Q&A on salvation by grace within the Open View of the future. Enjoy! Question: I’m an Arminian-turned-Calvinist, and the thing that turned me was the realization that if salvation hinges on whether…
What’s the significance of Acts 17:26-27?
This passage is frequently cited by determinists, for Paul here states that God “marked out” the “appointed times in history and the boundaries” of nations (Ac. 17:26). This doesn’t entail omni-control on God’s part, however. It only entails that God is involved in setting temporal and geographical parameters around nations. Moreover, nothing suggests that God…
How can we determine what is and is not “open” about the future?
Question: You believe that the future is partly open. You’re writing has pretty much convinced me this is true, but I’ve still got some serious questions about it. For example, how does anyone determine what part is open and what part is not? If we can’t determine what is and is not open, isn’t the…
Open Theism: A Basic Introduction
On Monday and Tuesday, Greg explained Molinism and contrasted it against the open view of the future. (Click here for part 1). Because many see the open view as a limited view of God, it’s helpful to be clear that this has less to do with the nature of God and is about the nature…
How do you respond to Galatians 1:15–16?
“…when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me…I did not confer with any human being…” As with Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5), John the Baptist (Luke 1:13–17) and other God-ordained prophets, Paul was aware that God had decided on a…