没劲,想了一上午也没想明白Aristotle这句话是啥意思,村长给讲讲

“What is, necessarily is, when it is; and what is not, necessarily is not, when it is not.”
哲学家,又是希腊哲学家,不把我们绕晕了才怪。
What is, necessarily is, when it is; and what is not, necessarily is not, when it is not. But not everything that is, necessarily is; and not everything that is not, necessarily is not.
For to say that everything that is, is of necessity, when it is, is not the same as saying unconditionally that it is of necessity. Similarly with what is not. And the same account holds for contradictories: everything necessarily is or is not, and will be or will not be; but one cannot divide and say that one or the other is necessary.
I mean, for example: it is necessary for there to be or not to be a sea-battle tomorrow; but it is not necessary for a sea-battle to take place tomorrow, nor for one not to take place—though it is necessary for one to take place or not to take place.
So, since statements are true according to how the actual things are, it is clear that wherever these are such as to allow of contraries as chance has it, the same necessarily holds for the contradictories also.
This happens with things that are not always so or are not always not so. With these it is necessary for one or the other of the contradictories to be true or false — not, however, this one or that one, but as chance has it; or for one to be true rather than the other, yet not already true or false.
Clearly, then, it is not necessary that of every affirmation and opposite negation one should be true and the other false. For what holds for things that are does not hold for things that are not but may possibly be or not be; with these it is as we have said.
(..., in which Aristotle raised the question of whether the logical truth of a statement about the future might entail the necessity of the future event.
Aristotle never denied the law of the excluded middle, merely that the truth or falsity of statements about future events does not exist yet. Note that this implies at least some things in the past may be changed in the future, in particular, the truth values of statements about the future. )