The Analogical Theory of Necessity or Pluralism about the Meanings of the Necessary in Metaphysics ∆

In Metaphysics Delta alone, there are five definitions of necessity, and understanding the relationship between these definitions plays an important role in our approach to necessity in Aristotle's philosophy. The way in which the various meanings of "necessity" are shared is reminiscent of the different meanings of Metaphysics Γ, in which Aristotle deals with the category of analogy of attribution or analogy of proportion by giving "medical" and "healthy" examples. In this article, we look at how the various uses of necessity express a single nature for it, and therefore necessity cannot be considered as a purely (irrelevant) equivocal in Aristotle's works. Among the five meanings of "necessary" in Metaphysics Delta, the fourth meaning must be taken as the original meaning of necessity, which is in fact definition of necessary on the basis of possibility. The relation of other meanings of the necessary to this basic meaning is of the kind of specific equivocality or in relation to (pros hen) a thing and origin. Pluralism of the necessary’s definitions indicates an analogy between them, not equivocality or being univocal in the definitions. The division of "necessary" in various senses is not the division of genus into its various species. While all of these are called necessary, one cannot speak of a single general concept of necessity. The analogical theory of necessity requires an understanding of the definition and nature of necessity in a particular way in each of the uses of the word. The relation that each of the meanings establishes with the original meaning determines the metaphysical degree and order of "necessity" in that meaning. For Aristotle, other meanings of the necessary are called necessary by virtue of this meaning and by the logical relation of analogy.