Aristotle 's Role Of Luck And Chance As Causes For Change

However, a great deal of conflict was in-part, the result of chance’s influence. Chance is an unknown and unpredictable series of events that causes a certain end result, and it is sometimes

Analysis of Moral Luck Views of Aristotle and Epictetus Aristotle, the founder of western science, and Epictetus, one of the greatest stoicists, both has their theories for the issue of "Moral Luck". To have a basic idea about the topic, I believe we should describe it from a non-philosophical point of view. After doing that we can compare both Aristotle's and Epictetus' points of views and distinguish between them with examples from "Into Thin Air"(ITA), written by Jon Krakauer. Moral Luck, if described from general perspective, consists of the actions that happen by luck and result in moral ends.

This description of how order to an end comes about in a thing that sounds sensible, but when one tries to apply it to the origin of living things the alternative explanation of chance presents itself. The

Chances (naturally existing and somewhat determined) do not primarily cause actions, as it is the choices (individual volitions) that one has decided which permit an action to occur (Doyle). All in all, the model assumed that free will is essentially “…chance in a present time of random alternatives, leading to a choice, which grants consent to one possibility and transforms an equivocal ambiguous future into an unalterable and simple past” (Doyle, 2010, p.7).

Chance is a very interesting concept. The belief things happen unknowingly and by mere luck. In the play chance is over shadowed by fate, a pre-determined destiny. A prime example of

Some believe that their lives and the events that take place within it are left up to fate, while others strive to make their own destinies. Fate is defined as events that develop in a manner that is out of one’s own control. Events that some believe would have occurred regardless of ones efforts. While free will is defined as the power to shape one’s own future through ones actions. The complete disregard of fate and supposed predetermined events. The tale of Sophocles, Oedipus The King is a good example of fate in action. Oedipus’s misfortune followed him relentlessly wherever he went, regardless of his choices. While the tale of Hamlet shows Hamlet making conscious decisions that effected his life in powerful ways that could have been avoided had he made other decisions.

The problem of the fate has always been exciting and mysterious. Fate is linking with problems such as the purpose and meaning of life, death and immortality. Thus, the idea of ​​the fate is intertwined into a single node all of the burning questions a human is trying to find answers from immemorial times. On the one hand, the fate is a universal category, serving as a universal context of human relationships with the world, but on the other hand, the destiny of each person is individual and unique. However, the concept of fate reflected to two opposite ideas: fatalism and faith in humans' ability to influence their destiny. Is a human an object of influence of the fate, or a creator of his life and future? The religious point of view states that the fate is stronger than an

The four causes that Aristotle mentions are the material cause, the formal cause, the efficient cause, and, lastly, the final cause. Each cause helps to answer the question “Why?” in different forms. The material cause is the raw substance that forms an object or a thing. It is the essence of the product and without it the product would not be available. An example of this can be the material cause for a blanket. Cotton is used to make it and because of this, it is the essence of the product. The formal cause gives reason as to why a certain material is what it is. Without form, a ball of cotton could not be a blanket. Someone cannot compare a blanket with gathered cotton because it is not the same thing even though both materials are cotton. The efficient cause is the answer to what did that. Something that causes change or stability is the efficient cause. The blanket is made by a person interweaving the cotton is the source of change. The final cause is supposed to answer why this material exists or was made. In the example of the blanket, it was constructed with the idea to keep the person wearing it

Aristotle’s understanding of the four causes begins with the assumption that is present in all Greek philosophy, the notion of pre-existing matter. He observed the world around him and noticed that it was in a state of constant motion, a movement from potentiality to

When thought of as a factor beyond one's control, without regard to one's will, intention, or desired result, there are at least two senses that people usually mean when they use the term, the prescriptive sense and the descriptive sense. In the prescriptive sense, luck is a supernatural and deterministic

One of the main types of being acted upon that he identifies is where there is a qualitative change, the destruction of a contrary. An example is learning a language. You start with the potential to learn French. Then that potential is actualized by being acted upon, learning French. After, the potential to learn French is gone, a qualitative change. Since, you already realized the potential to learn French, you cannot learn it again without having to go through another qualitative change.

In this paper, I will discuss Aristotle’s and Boethius’ (Through Lady Philosophy) views on fortune, reflected in the Book 1 of the Nicomachean Ethics and Book 4 of The Consolation of Philosophy. Furthermore, I will present and analyze their arguments, present the conclusion, and make a claim about which ancient philosopher makes the best argument. I will talk about Lady Philosophy’s conclusion that all fortune is capable of benefiting a person, and Aristotle’s inference that even a good and virtuous individual can be affected and harmed by very unfortunate events, by examining their arguments. Moreover, I will conclude and argue that Philosophy’s argument successfully establishes the conclusion.

As Aristotle saw his general surroundings, he watched that things are moving and changing in certain ways. Aristotle found that specific things cause different things, which thusly bring about something else. Aristotle trusted that a boundless chain of causation was unrealistic, subsequently, a prime mover or some likeness thereof should exist as the main source of everything that progressions or moves.

Like Avicenna, Averroes uses the example of the man encountering his debtor in the market as a chance occurrence (Belo 130). In this occurrence there is both an efficient cause and a final cause. The efficient cause is the act of going to the marketplace and a final cause would be the intention to do business at the market. Chance comes into play when the final cause is, on rare occasions, thwarted, as the unexpected outcome of meeting one’s debtor follows (Belo 130).

It is a great pleasure once again to write to you my dear friend. I have been studying this semester about Aristotle’s physic and it definitely which opened my eyes. In our generation it is easy for me to not give value to the realities that happen in my daily life. There are many things that we take for granted like time, chance, change, place etc... For example in today’s society the is a strong belief that time is equal to money and it is so difficult to give one’s time to friend and family because time is mostly misused. Every second there are many events that changes depending on particular causes and we taking for granted because we are so used to our changing world and our life is based on time. But who is the cause of changes, why it time so important to us, what is is space, who causes motion? These are the basic factor that we face every single day. I will use Aristotle’s masterpiece work physics to explain what time is, and how relates to change. I will explain the causality of changes. Hopefully at the end of my work you come to an understanding that there must be a supreme being who is behind chance, time, change, motion. If God is not behind time, change, change, the harmony of beings would be absurd.