Aristóteles e a Lógica da Contingência: uma interpretação tradicional do argumento da batalha naval




De interpretatione, batalha naval, bivalência


Since Antiquity, the meaning and purpose of Aristotle’s sea-battle argument have been highly controversial. On the so-called traditional interpretation of De Interpretatione 9, the argument is intended to prove that not every statement is always true or false on the assumption deemed evident that facts may occur contingently in our sublunar world. In this paper I argue that this interpretation is for many reasons much more plausible than any of its competitors, so that its correctness is worthy at least of moral certainty. In particular, I contend that it can coexist in perfect logical harmony with a moderately charitable reading of Aristotle’s texts that at first glance it seems to confute. As a matter of fact, I contend that it is faithful to Aristotle’s view of logical laws as consequent upon the metaphysical structure of reality.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Luiz Henrique Lopes dos Santos, Universidade de São Paulo

Professor visitante. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro/CNPq. Brasil.


Al-Farabi 1981, Al-Farabi’s Commentary and Short Treatise on Aristotle’s De Interpretatione, London.

Ammonius 1897, In Aristotelis De Interpretatione commentarius, A. Busse (ed.), Berlin.

Ammonius 1998, On Aristotle: On Interpretation 9, David Blank (trans.), with Boethius, On Aristotle: On Interpretation 9, Norman Kretzmann (trans.), London and Ithaca.

Anscombe, G.E.M. 1956, “Aristotle and the sea battle”, Mind 65 (257), 1-15.

Aquinas Thomas 1882, Commentaria in Aristotelis libros Peri hermeneias et Posteriorum analyticorum, Editio Leonina, vol. I, Romae.

Boethius 1877/1880, Commentarii in librum Aristotelis Peri Hermeneias, C. Meiser (ed.), Leipzig.

Broadie, Sarah 1986, “On What Would Have Happened Otherwise: A Problem for Determinism”, The Review of Metaphysics 39, 433-56.

Broadie, Sarah 1987, “Necessity and Deliberation: an Argument from De Interpretatione 9”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 17, 289-306.

Fine, Gail 1984, “Truth and Necessity in De Interpretatione 9”, History of Philosophy Quarterly 1 (1), 23-47.

Gaskin, Richard 1995, The Sea-Battle and the Master Argument: Aristotle and Diodorus Cronus on the Metaphysics of the Future, Berlin.

Judson, Lindsay 1988, “La Bataille navale d’aujourd’hui: De Interpretatione 9”, Revue de Philosophie Ancienne 6, 5-37.

Kretzmann, Norman 1998, “Boethius and the truth about tomorrow’s sea battle”, in Ammonius 1998, 24-52.

Lowe, Malcom F. 1980, "Aristotle on the sea-battle: a clarification", Analysis 40 (1), 55-59.

Lukasiewicz, Jan 1970, Selected Works, L. Borkowski (ed.), Amsterdam and Warszawa.

Mignucci, Mario 1998, “Ammonius’ sea battle” in Ammonius 1998, 53–86

Rescher, Nicholas 1963, “An interpretation of Aristotle’s doctrine of future contingency and excluded middle”, in Rescher, Nicholas 1963, Studies in the History of Arabic Logic, Pittsburgh, 43-54.

Seel, Gerhard (ed.) 2000a, Ammonius and the Sea Battle. Texts, Commentary and Essays, Berlin and New York.

Seel, Gerhard 2000b, “‘In a Definite Way True’; Truth-Values and their Modalization in Ammonius”, in Seel 2000a, 234–246.

Sharples, Robert 1992, Alexander of Aphrodisias: Quaestiones 1.1–2.15, London and Ithaca.

Simplicius 2000, Simplicius: on Aristotle’s Categories 9-15, London.

Spellman, Lynne 1980, “DI 9: an exegetical stalemate”, Apeiron 14 (2), 115-124.

Strang, Colin 1960, "Aristotle and the sea battle", Mind 69 (276), 447-465.




How to Cite

Santos, L. H. L. dos. (2021). Aristóteles e a Lógica da Contingência: uma interpretação tradicional do argumento da batalha naval. Journal of Ancient Philosophy, 15(1), 64-143.