Causes, Luck
and Chance
In “Physics, Book II,” Aristotle examines the nature of cause
and effect. Aristotle argues that effects can be attributed to one of four
causes: “material, formal, efficient and final.” The essential causes are
causes which have a natural order. The “Material cause” includes the materials
that something is going to be made from: i.e. we need stone and wood to build a
house. The “Formal cause” is, for
example, the blueprints used to design a house. The “Efficient cause” is “the
source of the primary origin of change or stability,” (Physics, 207) such as a carpenter
making a product to create the final product, e.g., the house. The same thing
may have more than one cause, but it’s “The final” cause that makes the big
difference as it’s the purpose of result of all the other causes. Aristotle
maintains that these four causes can be thought of as essential because they directly
produce an effect. Thus, any natural
change must be the result of one or more of these four causes. After presenting
his well developed thoughts on these four essential causes one might ask why Aristotle
went further into other causes namely as accidental causes?
Aristotle observes that some natural changes
appear to be caused by accident. When this occurs, we attribute such coincidences
to luck or chance. This presented a logical problem for Aristotle because he already
argued that all natural changes are the result of his essential causes. Aristotle
further notes that while past philosophers had even described events as caused
by luck in their writings, they completely ignored this apparent cause in their
formal analyses of cause and effect. Aristotle sought to address this contradiction.
To account for this apparent
contradiction, Aristotle makes a clear distinction between essential causes and
accidental causes. Essential causes have a direct impact on an outcome, but accidental
causes can affect an outcome only indirectly through their effect on an
essential cause. Aristotle provides a useful example to illustrate this subtle
point. Suppose person A goes to the market for some unrelated reason with no awareness
that person B, who owes A money, will be there. So A ends up in the same place
as B purely by coincidence, which gives A the opportunity to collect the money
from B. Thus, in this example, while it was clearly lucky that A ran into B,
this coincidence could not have occurred if A had not decided to go to the
market in the first place. So in this sense, while the outcome was largely a
product of luck because A was not aware that B would be there, the “lucky”
event could not have happened if A had not first chosen to go to the market.
Aristotle goes even further by making a
definite distinction between chance and luck. Even though they are similar “luck”
is something that happens because of a purpose involved, whereas “chance” is
something that happens by itself with no decision at all. Since, according to
Aristotle, only adults are able to make conscious decisions, we can say that luck
leads to coincidental outcomes for adults, but chance leads to coincidental
outcomes for beasts, children and inanimate objects, as Aristotle argues “Chance
on the other had belongs to other animals that man and to many inanimate object”
(Physics, 210), because none of the latter categories are capable of conscious
thought. If rock falls and hits a passerby, it did not make a conscious decision
to do so therefore it is not luck.
Aristotle elevates his four causes, such that luck and chance
only comes after these causes. Aristotle shows us that neither luck nor chance
exists without the other four causes. With difference between them being, that
in thinking beings we call it luck; in non thinking beings we call it nature as
chance is caused by nature.
As Mairead pointed out the example of a rock falling on a passerby – we might think about that as (bad) luck - but Aristotle would say that it is only possible as a result of essential causes. A rock falling does not happen in a vacuum; there are a series of natural events that would have to happen to lead to that event (for example, erosion, weathering, perhaps after-effects of an earthquake or shifting tectonic plates, etc.). Furthermore, the events that lead the person to stand in that particular spot must be the result of a series of choices (though I would say that even children and animals do make choices, maybe not as “rationally” as an adult human). Then the “luck” piece is the intersection of these two trajectories crossing at the perfect moment, to create an “unusual” outcome (Physics 209).
ReplyDeleteAccording to Aristotle, luck and chance are two separate entities
ReplyDeletethat help a natural or artificial object to achieve their final
purpose (Physics 209). These two occurrences, along with necessity, set off the cause and effect of whatever substance is in question. Overall, luck happens to adults, due to the different choices they make in their everyday life, while chance happens to those incapable of making fully conscious decisions (Physics 210). I tend to agree with the writer of the above essay, on the concept of cause and effect, and how many things go through phases or are caused by chance or luck. However, like Aristotle, I also believe necessity is a vital reason for why events take place.
To add to the points concerning luck, chance and the involvement of nature, there is a quote that I found quite helpful. Aristotle states that "Chance and luck are therefore posterior to mind and nature" (Physics 211). He continues to say that although chance may be the cause of something it is still only secondary to that of mind and nature.
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting what Aristotle says about the value judgment that we place around luck. We speak of it always in terms of good or bad results. We say someone has “good luck” when they avoid that which is considered negative, even though that negative thing never actually happened to them in the first place. Because it came close enough, it appears that they have good luck just for not having had to experience it when someone else may have. However, an occurrence at first glance considered to be “good” luck, can later have negative implications, making is seem more like “bad” luck. This may be one reason he describes luck as being “unstable” (209).
ReplyDeleteAn interesting idea of luck being contrary to reason as well as being irrational (209) is stated because a rational or a simple reason, in other words chance, always happen to be a usual or typical case that happens. As in previous examples stated, luck is the factor that creates unusual results from ordinary cases such as the example of the man walking and the rock falling onto his head. No rational idea would have made the man walk through the path that would lead him to get hit by the rock, but luck's factor is the only explanation for the result. Luck's form is indeterminate meaning its a coincidental cause with coincidental results.
ReplyDeleteAristotle states that “some people even wonder whether there is such thing as chance and luck. For, they say, nothing results from luck; everything said to result from chance or luck has some definite cause”.(Physics 207)
ReplyDeleteI think this means that philosphers have wondered whether or not luck and chance plays a part in nature and what are those results. I think luck requires a decision and reason, therefore it is not really luck at all. The example that Aristotle states, when as a result of luck someone comes to the marketplace and finds a person he wanted to meet but did not expect, the cause is his wishing to go to the marketplace. The person had a choice to make, and he made the decision to go to the market place. He had reason behind that decision. However, we may never know that reason. It was a reason none the less. So if this person decided not to go to the market place would his outcome be different? Would it still be considered as luck or a lucky event to others? Chance comes into play with nature by having no influence of humans and human activity. As Mairead stated in his example of, "If rock falls and hits a passerby, it did not make a conscious decision to do so therefore it is not luck" I agree in which there was no human influence. However, that doesn't mean that nature didn't influence the rock. I think nature has a purpose. Nothing results from luck but from chance because thing happened for a reason and that reason is nature.
As Vasi stated "luck requires a decision and reason, therefore it is not really luck at all." Winning the mega million lottery, for example, is not the result of being "lucky" but rather the cause of wishing to play it. Lets say the lottery system is trig to produce certain numbers to prevent people from winning but with the notion of the millions of playing it there should a winner since the numbers has limited combination possibilities. But how is it no one wins daily? I think it's because of chance. The chance of two people playing having the same number combination. Is this an error on the system or caused by the system so there would be no winner? Despite that we still keep playing because of the slim chance that one is bound to be a winner whether it'll be an error or caused by the system.
ReplyDelete