| | |
| Paragraph 1 |
Logical sequences follow in due course when we have arranged the
propositions thus. |
| Paragraph 2 |
From the proposition 'it may not be' or 'it is contingent that it should not be'
it follows that it is not necessary that it should
not be and that it is not impossible that it should not be. |
| Paragraph 3 |
Let us consider these statements by the help of a table: |
| Paragraph 4 |
Now the propositions 'it is impossible that it should be'
and 'it is not impossible that it should be' are consequent upon the
propositions
'it may be', 'it is contingent', and 'it cannot be', 'it is not contingent',
the contradictories upon the contradictories. |
| Paragraph 5 |
We must investigate the relation subsisting between these
propositions and those which predicate necessity. |
| Paragraph 6 |
Yet perhaps it is impossible that the contradictory propositions
predicating necessity should be thus arranged. |
| Paragraph 7 |
Yet from the proposition 'it may be' it follows that it is not
impossible, and from that it follows that it is not necessary; |
| Paragraph 8 |
Moreover the proposition
'it is not necessary that it should not be'
is the contradictory of that which follows from the proposition
'it cannot be'; |
| Paragraph 9 |
It may be questioned whether the proposition 'it may be' follows
from the proposition 'it is necessary that it should be'. |
| Paragraph 10 |
Now both of these are false of that which necessarily is. |
| Paragraph 11 |
But in some cases the word is used equivocally. |
| Paragraph 12 |
Our conclusion, then, is this: |
| Paragraph 13 |
We may perhaps state that necessity and its absence are the
initial principles of existence and non-existence, and that all else
must be regarded as posterior to these. |
| Paragraph 14 |
It is plain from what has been said that that which is of
necessity is actual. |
HTML by 
created 1996/11/25 modified 2009/04/26