In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

7 CHANCE AND INTUITION Si non omnia caderent secunda, fortunam esse industria sublevandam. – Julius Caesar, De Bello Civili, III, 73, 4-5 In the last chapter it was seen that external prosperity, which is a requirement of happiness, is dependent upon chance. The extent to which Aristotle makes happiness dependent upon external prosperity , and accordingly upon chance, was examined. It was seen that external prosperity plays a subordinate role in the achievement of happiness, since external prosperity is not a source of happiness, but a mere condition required by the sources of happiness. In this chapter it will be seen, however, that Aristotle in EE and MM also considers whether chance plays a role in enabling the sources of happiness to lead to successful outcomes (external prosperity) to a greater or lesser extent. The reason for the investigation is the same as in the last chapter, namely because of popular opinion, which is the basis of his philosophy. According to popular opinion some people achieve happiness (‘are fortunate’) by nature, meaning ‘by chance’ (see below). In this chapter EE VIII, ii will be examined first, followed by MM II, viii. In EE it will be seen that Aristotle distinguishes two cases. Firstly, there are those who desire the right thing in the right way at the right time (1247 b 24) and this leads to ‘more continuous good fortune’ (1248 b 6-7), i.e. fairly regular unforeseen success. (The good nature required for this depends to a certain extent on (prior) external prosperity, as seen in chapter 6.) Secondly, there are those who act contrary to their impulse and yet succeed again and again, as a diceplayer sometimes succeeds in throwing a series of sixes, although he cannot always do so. It will be seen that Aristotle also attributes this CHANCE AND INTUITION 237 kind of non-permanent success to chance, i.e. chance can also play a role in the achievement of successful outcomes – external prosperity and the addition to happiness it provides – based on (i.e. accidental to) the exercise of the sources of happiness (the virtues) contrary to impulse. In MM it will be seen that Aristotle also investigates two kinds of good fortune, namely the first kind mentioned in EE and secondly the ‘haphazard’ or chance in the sense of the material cause. In the following account EE is taken to be posterior to NE, although no conclusions are based upon this chronology.1 The numerous arguments for dating EE late and NE as a youthful work cannot be dealt with here. MM is also taken to be an authentic work, although a definitive study supporting its authenticity and refuting the arguments against its authenticity has still to appear.2 The argument in this chapter will be seen to favour the chronology NE – EE – MM.3 1 Cf infra additional note at the end of this chapter on the chronology of Aristotle 's ethical works. 2 On the authenticity of MM cf. von Arnim, Die drei aristotelischen Ethiken…; Dirlmeier, Magna Moralia...; Düring, Art. Aristoteles…281-2; Cooper, The Magna Moralia...; Kenny, Aristotle on the Perfect Life...114-5. Its authenticity is also maintained by Case, Aristotle…514; Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness...493. Opponents of authenticity include Jaeger, Über Ursprung…; Allan, Magna Moralia …; Donini, L’Etica dei MM…; Rowe, A Reply to John Cooper…; Rist, The Mind of Aristotle…189, 310, whose brief remarks do not add to our knowledge. On further controversy surrounding MM cf. Chroust, The First Thirty Years…43-4. Düring, Art. Aristoteles…281-2 follows the view of Dirlmeier, Magna Moralia… that Aristotle originally wrote MM before the death of Plato and then had it revised for the use of Neleus towards the end of Aristotle’s life. However, it is extremely unlikely that Aristotle got someone else to polish up one of his works or that he himself polished up a youthful work after he had written other ethical works. It is far more likely that MM belongs to Aristotle’s latest years, as held by von Arnim. The reference to Neleus of Scepsis (son of Coriscus) at MM II, vii, 1205 a 23 is perfectly compatible with a date towards the end of Aristotle’s career, as Dirlmeier, Magna Moralia…404-5 and Donini, L’Etica dei MM…146 point out. Cooper, The Magna Moralia…rightly holds that MM consists of notes taken at Aristotle’s lectures. However, I cannot agree with Kenny, The Aristotelian Ethics...

Share