structure for 'Modality'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

10. Modality / B. Possibility / 5. Contingency

[facts which could be otherwise]

10 ideas
'Contingent' means that the cause is unperceived, not that there is no cause [Hobbes]
     Full Idea: For contingent, men do not mean that which hath no cause, but that which hath not for cause any thing that we perceive, as when a traveller meets a shower, they both had sufficient causes, but they didn't cause one another, so we say it was contingent.
     From: Thomas Hobbes (Of Liberty and Necessity [1654], §95)
     A reaction: Contingent nowadays means 'might not have happened', or 'does not happen in all possible worlds'. Personally I share Hobbes' doubts about the concept of contingency, and this is quite a good account of the misunderstanding.
Contingency is an illusion, resulting from our inadequate understanding [Spinoza, by Cottingham]
     Full Idea: The common notion of 'contingency' is for Spinoza an illusion, which derives from the fact that our view of reality is often inadequate and incomplete.
     From: report of Baruch de Spinoza (The Ethics [1675]) by John Cottingham - The Rationalists p.8
     A reaction: The crux is if there could another universe with different natural laws. Spinoza is in no position to deny the possibility. Cosmologists assume it is possible, and run computer simulations to test it. There is 'metaphysical' and 'natural' necessity.
We only call things 'contingent' in relation to the imperfection of our knowledge [Spinoza]
     Full Idea: A thing can in no respect be called contingent, save in relation to the imperfection of our knowledge.
     From: Baruch de Spinoza (The Ethics [1675], I Pr 33)
     A reaction: A very good remark. Growing up is largely a realisation of the necessity of human affairs that you thought could be otherwise. (Forgive the pessimism!) As metaphysics, I find this appealing, too.
Reason naturally regards things as necessary, and only imagination considers them contingent [Spinoza]
     Full Idea: It is not in the nature of reason to regard things as contingent, but as necessary; ..hence, it is only through our imagination that we consider things, whether in respect to the future or to the past, as contingent.
     From: Baruch de Spinoza (The Ethics [1675], II Pr 44)
     A reaction: A very interesting claim, which seems to be central to rationalism. The empiricist response must be that imagination (which is founded on experience) is a better guide to metaphysical status than pure reason can ever be.
Necessary truths can be analysed into original truths; contingent truths are infinitely analysable [Leibniz]
     Full Idea: Derivative truths are of two sorts: some are analysed into original truths, others admit of an infinite process of analysis. The former are necessary, the latter are contingent.
     From: Gottfried Leibniz (On Freedom [1689], p.108)
     A reaction: An intriguing proposal. Hume would presumably see contingent truths as being analysed until you reach 'impressions'. Analysis of necessary truths soon comes to the blinding light of what is obvious, but analysis of contingency never gets there.
A reason must be given why contingent beings should exist rather than not exist [Leibniz]
     Full Idea: A reason must be given why contingent beings should exist rather than not exist.
     From: Gottfried Leibniz (works [1690])
     A reaction: Spinoza rejects all contingency, but this seems an interesting support for it, even though we may need a reason for something where God does not because it is self-evident.
Contingency arises from tensed verbs changing the propositions to which they refer [Russell]
     Full Idea: Contingency derives from the fact that a sentence containing a verb in the present tense - or sometimes in the past or the future - changes its meaning continually as the present changes, and stands for different propositions at different times.
     From: Bertrand Russell (Meinong on Complexes and Assumptions [1904], p.26)
     A reaction: This immediately strikes me as a bad example of the linguistic approach to philosophy. As if we (like any animal) didn't have an apprehension prior to any language that most parts of experience are capable of change.
The necessary/contingent distinction may need to recognise possibilities as real [Armstrong]
     Full Idea: It may be that the necessary/contingent distinction is tied to a metaphysics which recognises possibility as a real something wider than actuality.
     From: David M. Armstrong (What is a Law of Nature? [1983], 11.2)
     A reaction: Armstrong responds by trying to give an account of possibility in terms of 'combinations' from actuality. I think powers offer a much better strategy.
'Superficial' contingency: false in some world; 'Deep' contingency: no obvious verification [Evans, by Macią/Garcia-Carpentiro]
     Full Idea: Evans says intuitively a sentence is 'superficially' contingent if the function from worlds to truth values assigns F to some world; it is 'deeply' contingent if understanding it does not guarantee that there is a verifying state of affairs.
     From: report of Gareth Evans (Reference and Contingency [1979]) by Macią/Garcia-Carpentiro - Introduction to 'Two-Dimensional Semantics' 2
     A reaction: This distinction is used by Davies and Humberstone (1980) to construct an early version of 2-D semantics (see under Language|Semantics). The point is that part comes from understanding it, and another part from assigning truth values.
Possible non-being which must be realised is 'precariousness'; absolute contingency might never not-be [Meillassoux]
     Full Idea: My term 'precariousness' designates a possibility of not-being which must eventually be realised. By contrast, absolute contingency designates a pure possibility; one which may never be realised.
     From: Quentin Meillassoux (After Finitude; the necessity of contingency [2006], 3)
     A reaction: I thoroughly approve of this distinction, because I have often enountered the assumption that all contingency is precariousness, and I have never seen why that should be so. In Aquinas's Third Way, for example. The 6 on a die may never come up.