Necessity, Cause and Blame: Perspectives on Aristotle's Theory

TLDR

Aristotle’s views on determinism, necessity, cause, and blame are examined, linking his ideas to both ancient and contemporary debates on determinism and causation. The paper argues that Aristotle distinguishes necessity from cause, rejecting the view that all events are necessarily determined and that a non‑necessitated event must be non‑caused, and situates this debate within modern controversies. Sorabji supports his argument through a broad discussion of explanation, time, free will, essence, purpose in nature, Stoic arguments about necessity, and the social and legal context of Aristotle’s thought. Choice.

Abstract

A discussion of Aristotle's thought on determinism and culpability, Necessity, Cause, and Blame also reveals Richard Sorabji's own philosophical commitments. He makes the original argument here that Aristotle separates the notions of necessity and cause, rejecting both the idea that all events are necessarily determined as well as the idea that a non-necessitated event must also be non-caused. In support of this argument, Sorabji engages in a wide-ranging discussion of explanation, time, free will, essence, and purpose in nature. He also provides historical perspective, arguing that these problems remain intimately bound up with modern controversies. 'Original and important ... The book relates Aristotle's discussions to both the contemporary debates on determinism and causation and the ancient ones. It is especially detailed on Stoic arguments about necessity ... and on the social and legal background to Aristotle's thought. ' Choice