Contingent vs. Necessary Truths

close up of cat's claw
AnasiZ/wikimedia commons/public domain

Definition:

The distinction between contingent and necessary statements is one of the oldest in philosophy. A truth is necessary if denying it would entail a contradiction. A truth is contingent, however, if it happens to be true but could have been false. For example:

Cats are mammals.
Cats are reptiles.
Cats have claws.

The first statement is a necessary truth because denying it, as with the second statement, results in a contradiction.

Cats are, by definition, mammals - so saying that they are reptiles is a contradiction. The third statement is a contingent truth because it is possible that cats could have evolved without claws.

This is similar to the distinction between essential and accidental qualities. Being a mammal is part of a cat's essence, but having claws is an accident.

Also Known As: none

Alternate Spellings: none

Common Misspellings: none

Format
mla apa chicago
Your Citation
Cline, Austin. "Contingent vs. Necessary Truths." ThoughtCo, Aug. 28, 2016, thoughtco.com/contingent-vs-necessary-truths-4079977. Cline, Austin. (2016, August 28). Contingent vs. Necessary Truths. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/contingent-vs-necessary-truths-4079977 Cline, Austin. "Contingent vs. Necessary Truths." ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/contingent-vs-necessary-truths-4079977 (accessed November 18, 2017).