Abstract

Two ways of stating and solving the problem of epistemic fatalism elaborated by Boethius and G. Ryle are compared. It is argued that Boethius and Ryle state the problem in similar ways but the premises they use in solving it substantially differ. It is shown that the doctrine of eternity of God’s knowledge plays a crucial role in the Boethian solution, while the Rylean solution, purified of theological premises, is based on the semantic idea that no proposition about a future object is possible.