In Walter Chatton on Future Contingents, Jon Bornholdt presents the first full-length translation, commentary, and analysis of the various attempts by Chatton (14th century C.E.) to solve the ancient problem of the status and significance of statements about the future. At issue is the danger of so-called logical determinism: if it is true now that a human will perform a given action tomorrow, is that human truly free to perform or refrain from performing that action? Bornholdt shows that Chatton constructed (...) an original (though problematic) formal analysis that enabled him to canvass various approaches to the problem at different stages of his career, at all times showing an unusual sensitivity to the tension between formalist and metaphysical types of solution. (shrink)

This paper argues for a possible-worlds interpretation of the arguments marshalled by Socrates against Protagoras in Plato’s Theaetetus. Specifically, it reads Protagoras’ position as implying a limited form of modal realism, and evaluates both the self-refutation sequence at 170a–71d and the Future Argument at 177c–9c on the basis of this reading. It emerges that Socrates’ project is only partly successful: while the three main arguments of the self-refutation sequence force Protagoras into ever more awkward and metaphysically top-heavy positions, and the (...) Future Argument is psychologically compelling, these arguments do not force a collapse of the relativist position. Protagoras can still defend himself, though the cost is high. (shrink)

This paper examines Walter Chatton’s discussion of the problem of prophesied future contingents in his Lectura super Sententias. Faced with the challenge of reconciling the supposedly veridical character of divine prophecy with human freedom to do otherwise, Chatton casts the relation of prophecy to event in the form of a logical consequentia and formulates two rules which depend on the character of the antecedent in question. In the case of antecedents involving divine knowledge and related phenomena, the freedom of the (...) wayfarer to do otherwise is secured by the assumption that the consequence is necessary but the antecedent is semantically contingent. In the case of concrete utterances and phenomena, on the other hand, the wayfarer’s freedom is secured by the assumption that the consequence itself is contingent. Chatton’s treatment, while analytically subtle and rigorous, leaves a number of important questions unanswered, most notably that of the ontological openness or closure of the future. Nevertheless, it is interesting both in its own right and insofar as it provides a clarifying source for Chatton’s later discussion of the same topic in his Quodlibet. (shrink)

In his Reportatio super Sententias (ca. 1321–1323), Walter Chatton proposes a solution to the problem of future contingents based on propositional analysis. Future-tense statements must be disambiguated with the help of a scope distinction between temporal and truth operators, such that a statement like “Socrates will sit” comes out either as (1) “it is true now that Socrates will sit,” or (2) “it will be true that Socrates sits.” On the first analysis, Socrates’s action is necessitated, whereas on the second (...) it remains contingent. In his later Quodlibet (ca. 1330), Chatton maintains his original analysis but augments it with an ingenious use of the traditional distinction between actus exercitus and actus significatus. His use of the distinction enables him both to give some speech-act-theoretical content to the scope analysis, which had been open to the charge of mere formalism, and to defend it cogently against an apparently strong counterargument. (shrink)