The general belief of luck by Aristotle is the influence on the particular act of luck as it occurs in the moral sphere. This leads to the denial that the relevant causes of good fortune are luck. The order of the relevant features of the person’s life can be compelled to the rule in the scope of luck. Thus, luck is, according to Aristotle, an accidental cause that is indefinite, unbounded, and unaccountable by the reason. The qualification of his definition is by his addition that not just two events can be related to the accidental causes and effects.
In order to understand an object or an event, there are some aspects that need to be answered concerning nature. Understanding a thing in the whole, the causes of its existence must be well known as it may be; there are four causes of the explanatory factors, in which this thing can be explained. The four causes are: material, formal, efficient, and final, which aid to the claim that there is the complete understanding of the thing (Aristotle 9). The arguing over the fifth cause is being an explanatory factor that has been argued correctly by Aristotle; according to him, chance is not a fifth cause of the explanatory factors.
The four causes have been accounted in-depth by Aristotle giving the meaning to each of them. The cause of material is the element from which a thing is made, as in the case of furniture the material it is made from is wood, and the furniture is made of wood. The formal cause focuses on the shape and the arrangement as the shape and the dimensions are unique to this thing; the efficient cause of the thing is, thus, the source by which a thing as it is. This defines how a thing came to the existence the way it is. The final cause is the purpose, in which it is intended or the end of its existence. In the case provided, the purpose of furniture is the provision of comfort to people, and these are the four causes of the thing.
Aristotle argued that there were only four causes for defending his position that in order to understand something. There are the questions on the account of what a thing is. He argued that there were only four answers that fully satisfy the question, as there is nothing else left to explain the question. All objects and events according to Aristotle will only admit to the four explanatory factors.
The objection of notion of having only four causes has been argued that ther were the things that happened by chance, or by the account of luck. If two people are romantically interested in one another but there is no one daring to initiate anything beyond friendship. They both plan separately to have a vacation and bump into each other in the same place and on the same day of their vacation. They fall in love during their vocational stay. The situation is seen as an event of chance or luck.
This can be described to be the luck due to the fact that they welcome the outcome, though they had been earlier willing to initiate. The circumstances they had created triggered their romantic relationship, thus, the event happened by chance as both were on vacation at the same period in the same place without not knowing of each other (Coffrin 12). This event could be explained by chance or luck as there were no intentions from each agent during the outcome.
The occurrences of these events happened by chance as Aristotle accepts, but the outer side of their meeting can only be explained by the cause of efficiency. The fact of their vacation was due to necessity as it had been the cause of their meeting. The sequence of events can be explained through the reference of efficient causes due to the action of agents these events occurred. Love was the final cause that had been developed as the description of the event occurring by luck or chance; it is not the explanation of causes of the events occurring (Coffrin 11). Thus, the outcome was by luck but the cause was not by luck. This is because the chance and luck cannot produce an event that happened concurrently with the other four causes of this event.
The simultaneous occurrence of events and circumstances is concurrence, and, thus, the meeting of the two ones was a coincidence. If a man builds a house, he is a real cause of the house. If he is still a musician, the statement has no sense as that music was the cause of the house. The admission that music was a concurrence cause of the house being sensible, as this man is a musician, and this happened simultaneously with the house building (Aristotle). The cause of anything is not by chance, rather than knowing that music was indeed the cause of the house and this lacks the power of explanation. It does not help to the fact how the house came to be the explanation that it had been built by that person knowing music (Aristotle 16). Thus, there is no way that chance can help in explaining how an event came to be as it is only an explanatory factor.
According to Aristotle chance is the concurrence cause of things, as it can be formulated; for the happening of any event by chance, there is no intention from the side of an agent to achieve the outcome at that time. The intentional acts are the ones that cause an event, and the occurrence of anything during the time of the cause is a concurrence with the event and not a cause of the event. The concurrence by chance with other causes, thus, puts the chance as a cause by the virtue of concurrence.
Though this argument is not implicitly made by Aristotle, he agreed with each of the premises as he gave an example of a man meeting with someone owing him money; the man did not do anything there in the time for the reason. Thus, his intension was not to collect money, but it was by chance that he had fulfilled this till the end. It is agreeable with Aristotle that the occurrence of events by chance is the unintentional acts, and that the objects and events were caused by some intentional acts as the four causes identified as intentional acts.
Aristotle gives the account of a sculptor who is creating a statue. It is he who intends to use the material; he intends for the statue to take the shape and the form it is taking; he intends to be a creator of the statue as a source of the statue existence and the intended purpose of the statue. The four causes are the intentional acts, and due to the fact they are the only causes, all the causes are intentional; hence, the events are triggered by intentional acts (Coffrin). The presentation of these arguments is believed to be by that chance, and the luck exists, though they are not the real causes of events (Johnson 22). This is due to the fact that the chance can be a cause of anything but it is more reasonable that the chance is simultaneous with the actual cause of objects and events. Thus, Aristotle claimed of the four causes to be binding.
Aristotle is making points that there is nothing that comes to by by luck the way the things happen as a result of four causes; as this could mean that calling the causes of things to be the luck is that the true cause is unknown. His theory brings to light being a genuine cause wherever there is a cause of luck. His definition of luck is an accidental cause; the correct analysis of luck is if it is a true cause, , it can be conceded the luck to be an accidental cause due to which it is existing.