Diodore Cronos

See also: Diodore

Diodore Cronos , in Greek old Διόδωρος Χρόνος/ Diódôros Chrónos (death in 296 av. J. - C.), Greek Philosopher of the megaric school.

Follower of the Dialectical eristic, it taught with Zénon de Citium. Its Χρόνος nickname (“time”) would come from a verbal tournament disputed in front of Ptolémée I {{er}} Sôter with Stilpon, one of its school-fellows: with the one of its questions, he had claimed more time to answer. Ptolémée would then have made fun of him and this nickname would have given him. According to the tradition, he would have died of spite. Its great principle was the impossibility of the movement.

Logic

The dominating argument

Statement

Diodore is at the origin of the Dominateur argument which is a whole of three proposals where there is obligatorily conflict with one of them, which it is.

Épictète delivers of them one of the rare formulations to us which arrived to us:

  1. “Any proposal true concerning the past is necessary. ”
  2. “the impossible one does not follow logically of the possible one. ”
  3. “Is possible what is not currently true and will not be it. ”

Épictète continues by noting that Diodore from of deduced falseness from the third Proposition.

Test of formalization of the argument

This is a test to give to the argument a mathematical form. One was constrained to modify the axioms to insert the reasoning in this form.

Theorem to be proven

Only the need exists.

Definitions

Contingency: what can not be. Need: what cannot not be.

Axioms

All that belongs to the past is necessary.

All that belongs to the present will belong to the past.

All that belongs to the future will belong to the past.

All that belongs neither to the past, neither at the present, nor with the future does not exist.

Demonstration

All that belongs to the past is necessary, thus all that will belong to the past will be necessary (principle of timelessness of the truth).

The contingency is what can not be, however the need is what cannot not be, thus the contingency and the need are contradictory (principle of the excluded third).

Case 1
The contingency belongs to the past, however, all that belongs to the past is necessary thus the contingency is necessary.

The contingency is necessary, however, the contingency and the need are contradictory, thus the contingency does not belong to last (principle of non-contradiction).

Case 2
The contingency belongs to the present, however, all that belongs to the present will belong to the past, thus the contingency will belong to the past.

The contingency will belong to the past, however, all that will belong to the past will be necessary, therefore, the contingency will be necessary.

The contingency is necessary, however, the contingency and the need are contradictory, thus the contingency does not belong to the present.

Case 3
The contingency belongs to the future, however, all that belongs to the future will belong to the past, thus the contingency will belong to the past.

The contingency will belong to the past, however, all that will belong to the past will be necessary, therefore, the contingency will be necessary.

The contingency is necessary, however, the contingency and the need are contradictory, thus the contingency does not belong to the future.

Conclusion
The contingency belongs neither to the past, neither at the present, nor with the future, however, all that belongs neither to the past, neither at the present, nor with the future does not exist, thus the contingency does not exist.

The contingency does not exist, however the contingency and the need are contradictory, thus only the need exists.

Reactions and perenniality of the argument

Contemporary reactions

Certain authors report that this argument “dominated” the Greek public life.

It is probable that Aristote was informed of it because chapter IX of the De Interpretatione seems to be a refutation about it.

It seems that the debate which took place thereafter is caused only by the morals difficulties posed by the argument. Moreover, it is not astonishing only Diodore Cronos does not appear in the program of Final. It seems impossible to found a morals without freedom. Here is a challenge for contemporary philosophy.

Modern exploitation of the argument

Jules Vuillemin was interested closely in this argument in its Nécessité or contingency. The aporia of Diodore and systems philosophical . It uses this argument systematically to classify the moral systems according to their explicit or implicit choices in the premises of the argument (idea suggested by Epictète in the Talks. It obtains thus with three types of philosophies morals.

Random links:Charles Swinhoe | Ali Dragon | Beli ap Rhun | Pendulum of Pohl | Marcel Queen | Logique_d'empire