Avicenna’s discussion of future contingent propositions is sometimes considered to entail metaphysical indeterminism. In this paper, I argue that his logical analysis of future contingent statements is best understood in terms of the epistemic modality of those statements, which has no consequences for modal metaphysics. This interpretation is corroborated by hitherto neglected material concerning the question of God’s knowledge of particulars. In the Taʿlīqāt, Avicenna argues that God knows particulars by knowing their complete causes, and when contrasted with the human (...) knowledge of particulars, this epistemically superior access shows that the contingency of statements about future particulars is not due to the modal properties of real particulars but to the nature of human access to them. (shrink)

A position that has been called ‘classical indeterminism’ has recently been developed in order to model vagueness: this approach appeals to an object-language ‘determinately’ operator, the semantics of which are defined in such a way as to preserve the principle of bivalence. I suggest that a prominent argument against this strategy, which I call the Field–Williamson argument, fails. The classical indeterminist position in its general form was anticipated by the Aristotelian commentators in their discussions of Aristotle’s famous ‘sea battle’ passage (...) concerning future contingency. But I maintain that, ironically enough, the strategy is less happily applied in this case, where a version of the Field–Williamson argument succeeds. (shrink)

"The world is a finite body, and therefore has finite power." John Philoponus is remembered for using this Aristotelian premise to break ranks with Aristotle and argue that the world is not everlasting. This investigation reconsiders Philoponus’s arguments from finite power, and then explores the aftermath of this line of thinking in the works of three lesser-known Arabic intellectuals active in the generation before Avicenna (d. 1037): Abū l-Ḫayr Ibn Suwār (d. after 1017), Abū al-Ḥasan al-ʿĀmirī (d. 992), and Abū (...) Sahl al-Masīḥī (d. after 1025). Each engaged with this dictum in unique and novel ways, and in so doing anticipated a number of central features of Avicenna’s writings. The history of this argument is of crucial importance for understanding the evolution of natural philosophy and metaphysics in this formative period, away from tedious and simplistic arguments about creation and towards a more robust modal ontology based on intrinsic and extrinsic necessity. (shrink)