The Pythagoreans, Socrates, and Plato attempted to reconcile an element of human freedom with material determinism and causal law. But the first major philosopher to argue convincingly for some indeterminism
was probably Aristotle
. This is despite the fact that he described a causal chain back to a prime mover or first cause, and he elaborated the four possible causes (material, efficient, formal, and final).
In his Physics and Metaphysics Aristotle also said there were "accidents" caused by "chance
(τυχή)." In his Physics (Book II, chapter iv), he clearly reckoned chance among the causes. Aristotle might have added chance as a fifth cause - an uncaused or self-caused cause - that happens when two causal chains come together by accident (συμβεβεκός). He noted that the early physicists found no place for chance among the causes.
Aristotle knew that many decisions were quite predictable based on habit and character, but they were no less free if one's character itself and predictable habits were developed freely in the past and were changeable in the future. This was the view of Eastern philosophies and religions. Our karma has been determined by our past actions (even from past lives), and strongly influences our current actions, but we are free to improve our karma by future good actions.
As a principal architect of the concept of causality
, and the formulator of the four causes, Aristotle's statements on indefinite
causes are perhaps his most significant contribution to freedom, in the world and in human decisions.
See more philosopher profiles at the Logic Gallery by David Marans
In his Metaphysics
and the Physics
, Aristotle makes the case for chance
and uncaused causes (causa sui
). And in the Nicomachean Ethics he shows our actions can be voluntary and "up to us
" so that we can be morally responsible
Nor is there any definite cause for an accident, but only chance (τυχόν), namely an indefinite (ἀόριστον) cause.
Without such indefinite (uncaused) causes, everything would happen by necessity.
It is obvious that there are principles and causes which are generable and destructible apart from the actual processes of generation and destruction; for if this is not true, everything will be of necessity: that is, if there must necessarily be some cause, other than accidental, of that which is generated and destroyed. Will this be, or not? Yes, if this happens; otherwise not.
Some determinist philosophers have interpreted Aristotle's "accident" as the convergence of two causal chains as being compatible with determinism, but Aristotle himself is unequivocal in opposing strict necessity. Accidents are a consequence of chance.
Aristotle rejected determinism
in his statement on chance
. Unfortunately, his description of chance as "obscure" (ἄδηλος) to human reason led centuries of philosophers to deny the existence of chance:
Causes from which chance results might happen are indeterminate; hence chance is obscure to human calculation and is a cause by accident.
Aristotle clearly believed our deliberations
(βουλευτῶν) involve choices (προαιρετῶν) between alternative possibilities
. At a minimum it is "up to us" whether to act or not to act, and this implies both the possibility to do otherwise
and moral responsibility
for our actions.
Aristotle's definition of the voluntary will as caused by deliberations within an agent (the first agent-causal libertarianism
) is still valid today.
If then whereas we wish for our end, the means to our end are matters of deliberation and choice, it follows that actions dealing with these means are done by choice, and are voluntary. But the activities in which the virtues are exercised deal with means. Therefore vίrtue also depends on ourselves. And so also does vice. For where we are free to act we are also free to refrain from acting, and where we are able to say No we are also able to say Yes; if therefore we are responsible for doing a thing when to do it is right, we are also responsible for not doing it when not tο dο it is wrong, and if we are responsible fοr rightly not doing a thing, we are also responsible fοr wrongly doing it. But if it is in our power tο dο and tο refrain from doing right and wrong, and if, as we saw, being good οr bad is doing right οr wrong, it consequently depends οn us whether we are virtuous οr vicious.
But if it is manifest that a man is the author of his own actions, if we are unable to trace conduct back to any other origins than those within ourselves, then actions of which the origins are within us (ἐν ἡμῖν), themselves depend upon us (ἐφ' ἡμῖν), and are voluntary (ἐκούσια - willed).
In his Physics, Book II, Aristotle described chance as a cause and deliberation
(βουλευτῶν) by an agent as a cause. Both these causes stand as possible causes separate from causal necessity
In the century after Aristotle, Epicurus
described these same three causes. Following Aristotle, Epicurus thought human agents have an autonomous ability
to transcend the necessity and chance of some events. This special ability makes us morally responsible
for our actions.
...some things happen of necessity (ἀνάγκη), others by chance (τύχη), others through our own agency (παρ’ ἡμᾶς).
Epicurus, clearly following Aristotle, finds a tertium quid
, beyond necessity
(Democritus' physics) and chance
The tertium quid
is agent autonomy
. Aristotle describes it as the agent's deliberation
as to what to choose from the chance possibilities.
...necessity destroys responsibility and chance is uncertain; whereas our own actions are autonomous, and it is to them that praise and blame naturally attach.
λέγει ἐν ἄλλοις γίνεσθαι ἃ μὲν κατ’ ἀνάγκην, ἃ δὲ ἀπὸ τύχης, ἃ δὲ παρ’ ἡμᾶς, διὰ τὸ τὴν μὲν ἀνάγκην ἀνυπεύθυνον εἶναι, τὴν δὲ τύχην ἄστατον ὁρᾶν, τὸ δὲ παρ’ ἡμᾶς ἀδέσποτον, ᾧ καὶ τὸ μεμπτὸν καὶ τὸ ἐναντίον παρακολουθεῖν πέφυκεν
(Letter to Menoeceus, §133)
Aristotle challenged those who said our actions are determined by our character. That would deny moral responsibility
. He admitted that some aspects of our character may be innate and thus limit our responsibility. But we are at least partially free to form our character.
Even when our character adequately determines
our choices, since we were directly responsible for forming at least part of that character at an earlier time in our lives, so we are now indirectly responsible for all those choices.
But suppose somebody says: "All men seek what seems tο them good, but they are not responsible for its seeming gοod: each man's conception οf his end is determined by his character."
If then, as is said, our virtues are voluntary (and in fact we are in a sense ourselves partly the cause of our states of character, and it is our having a certain character that makes us set up an end of a certain kind), it follows that our vices are voluntary also; they are voluntary in the same manner as our virtues.
That Aristotle believes in an open and ambiguous future with alternative possibilities
is also shown by his denial of the logical Master Argument for determinism of Diodorus Cronus
, in the form of Aristotle's famous "sea battle."
Diodorus argued from an assumed necessity
of past truths (which is understandable, if a misapplication of logic to physical reality) that something is impossible that neither is or ever will be true.
Aristotle reframed the argument as the truth or falsity of the statement that a sea battle will occur tomorrow. Despite the law of the excluded middle (or principle of bivalence
), which allows no third case (or tertium quid
), Aristotle concluded that the statement is neither true nor false, supporting an ambiguous future.
What is, necessarily is, when it is; and what is not, necessarily is not, when it is not. But not everything that is, necessarily is; and not everything that is not, necessarily is not. For to say that everything that is, is of necessity, when it is, is not the same as saying unconditionally that it is of necessity. Similarly with what is not. And the same account holds for contradictories: everything necessarily is or is not, and will be or will not be; but one cannot divide and say that one or the other is necessary.
I mean, for example: it is necessary for there to be or not to be a sea-battle tomorrow; but it is not necessary for a sea-battle to take place tomorrow, nor for one not to take place — though it is necessary for one to take place or not to take place. So, since statements are true according to how the actual things are, it is clear that wherever these are such as to allow of contraries as chance has it, the same necessarily holds for the contradictories also. This happens with things that are not always so or are not always not so. With these it is necessary for one or the other of the contradictories to be true or false — not, however, this one or that one, but as chance has it; or for one to be true rather than the other, yet not already true or false.
Aristotle never denied the law of the excluded middle, merely that the truth or falsity of statements about future events does not exist yet
. Note that this implies at least some things in the past may be changed in the future, i.e., the truth values of statements about the future.
In the century following Aristotle, Epicurus
proposed a random swerving of some atoms, at no particular places and times, as the cosmological source of chance. Although this physical model for chance is ingenious and anticipated twentieth-century quantum mechanics, Epicurus provides little of deep significance for free will
and moral responsibility
that is not already implicit in Aristotle.
On the Soul (De Anima)
In Book III, Parts IV and V, perhaps the most controversial and confusing part of his entire corpus, Aristotle says that the soul (psyche) or mind is immaterial
. Intellect (nous) is that part of the soul whose active thinking gives it a causal (aitia) power (dynamis) over the material (hyle) body (soma). This claim appears to anticipate the mind-body problem
of Descartes, how exactly does an immaterial thing (substance) or property exert a causal force on the material body?
Turning now to the part of the soul with which the soul knows and (whether this is separable from the others in definition only, or spatially as well) we have to inquire what differentiates this part, and how thinking can take place.
If thinking is like perceiving, it must be either a process in which the soul is acted upon by what is capable of being thought, or a process different from but analogous to that. The thinking part of the soul must therefore be, while impassible, capable of receiving the form of an object; that is, must be potentially identical in character with its object without being the object. Thought must be related to what
is thinkable, as sense is to what is sensible...
Thus that in the soul which is called thought (by thought I mean that whereby soul thinks and judges) is, before it thinks, not actually any real thing. For this reason it cannot reasonably be regarded as blended with the body: if so, it would acquire some quality, e.g. warmth or cold, or even have an organ like the sensitive faculty: as it is, it has none. It was a good idea to call the soul 'the place of forms', though this description holds only of the thinking soul, and even this is the forms only potentially, not actually.
Since in every class of things, as in nature as a whole, we find two factors involved, (1) a matter which is potentially all the particulars included in the class, (2) a cause which is productive in the sense that it makes them all (the latter standing to the former, as e.g. an art to its material), these distinct elements must likewise be found within the soul.
And in fact mind as we have described it is what it is what it is by virtue of becoming all things, while there is another which is what it is by virtue of making all things: this is a sort of positive state like light; for in a sense light makes potential colours into actual colours.
Mind in this sense of it is separable, impassible, unmixed, since it is in its essential nature activity (for always the active is superior to the passive factor, the originating force to the matter which it forms).
Actual knowledge is identical with its object: in the individual, potential knowledge is in time prior to actual knowledge, but in the universe as a whole it is not prior even in time. Mind is not at one time knowing and at another not. When mind is set free from its present conditions it appears as just what it is and nothing more: this alone is immortal and eternal (we do not, however, remember its former activity because, while mind in this sense is impassible, mind as passive is destructible), and without it nothing thinks.
Part V in Greek
Ἐπεὶ δ' [ὥσπερ] ἐν ἁπάσῃ τῇ φύσει ἐστὶ [τι] τὸ μὲν ὕλη ἑκάστῳ γένει (τοῦτο δὲ ὃ πάντα δυνάμει ἐκεῖνα), ἕτερον δὲ τὸ αἴτιον καὶ ποιητικόν, τῷ ποιεῖν πάντα, οἷον ἡ τέχνη πρὸς τὴν ὕλην πέπονθεν, ἀνάγκη καὶ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ ὑπάρχειν ταύτας τὰς διαφοράς·
καὶ ἔστιν ὁ μὲν τοιοῦτος νοῦς τῷ πάντα γίνεσθαι, ὁ δὲ τῷ πάντα ποιεῖν, ὡς ἕξις τις, οἷον τὸ φῶς· τρόπον γάρ τινα καὶ τὸ φῶς ποιεῖ τὰ δυνάμει ὄντα χρώματα ἐνεργείᾳ χρώματα. καὶ οὗτος ὁ νοῦς χωριστὸς καὶ ἀπαθὴς καὶ ἀμιγής, τῇ οὐσίᾳ ὢν ἐνέργεια·
ἀεὶ γὰρ τιμιώτερον τὸ ποιοῦν τοῦ πάσχοντος καὶ ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς ὕλης.
[τὸ δ' αὐτό ἐστιν ἡ κατ' ἐνέργειαν ἐπιστήμη τῷ πράγματι· ἡ δὲ κατὰ δύναμιν χρόνῳ προτέρα ἐν τῷ ἑνί, ὅλως δὲ οὐδὲ χρόνῳ, ἀλλ' οὐχ ὁτὲ μὲν νοεῖ ὁτὲ δ' οὐ νοεῖ.] χωρισθεὶς δ' ἐστὶ μόνον τοῦθ' ὅπερ ἐστί, καὶ τοῦτο μόνον ἀθάνατον καὶ ἀΐδιον (οὐ μνημονεύομεν δέ, ὅτι τοῦτο μὲν ἀπαθές, ὁ δὲ παθητικὸς νοῦς φθαρτός)· καὶ ἄνευ τούτου οὐθὲν νοεῖ.
Chance as a Fifth Cause, Physics, Book II, Parts 4-6
But chance also and spontaneity are reckoned among causes: many
things are said both to be and to come to be as a result of chance and
spontaneity. We must inquire therefore in what manner chance and spontaneity
are present among the causes enumerated, and whether they are the same
or different, and generally what chance and spontaneity
Some people even question whether they are real or not. They say
that nothing happens by chance, but that everything which we ascribe to
chance or spontaneity has some definite cause, e.g. coming 'by chance'
into the market and finding there a man whom one wanted but did not expect
to meet is due to one's wish to go and buy in the market. Similarly in
other cases of chance it is always possible, they maintain, to find something
which is the cause; but not chance, for if chance were real, it would seem
strange indeed, and the question might be raised, why on earth none of
the wise men of old in speaking of the causes of generation and decay took
account of chance; whence it would seem that they too did not believe that
anything is by chance. But there is a further circumstance that is surprising.
Many things both come to be and are by chance and spontaneity, and although
know that each of them can be ascribed to some cause (as the old argument
said which denied chance), nevertheless they speak of some of these things
as happening by chance and others not. For this reason also they ought
to have at least referred to the matter in some way or
Certainly the early physicists found no place for chance among
the causes which they recognized-love, strife, mind, fire, or the like.
This is strange, whether they supposed that there is no such thing as chance
or whether they thought there is but omitted to mention it-and that too
when they sometimes used it, as Empedocles does when he says that the air
is not always separated into the highest region, but 'as it may chance'.
At any rate he says in his cosmogony that 'it happened to run that way
at that time, but it often ran otherwise.' He tells us also that most of
the parts of animals came to be by chance.
There are some too who ascribe this heavenly sphere and all the
worlds to spontaneity. They say that the vortex arose spontaneously, i.e.
the motion that separated and arranged in its present order all that exists.
This statement might well cause surprise. For they are asserting that chance
is not responsible for the existence or generation of animals and plants,
nature or mind or something of the kind being the cause of them (for it
is not any chance thing that comes from a given seed but an olive from
one kind and a man from another); and yet at the same time they assert
that the heavenly sphere and the divinest of visible things arose spontaneously,
having no such cause as is assigned to animals and plants. Yet if this
is so, it is a fact which deserves to be dwelt upon, and something might
well have been said about it. For besides the other absurdities of the
statement, it is the more absurd that people should make it when they see
nothing coming to be spontaneously in the heavens, but much happening by
chance among the things which as they say are not due to chance; whereas
we should have expected exactly the opposite.
Others there are who, indeed, believe that chance is a cause, but
that it is inscrutable to human intelligence, as being a divine thing and
full of mystery.
Thus we must inquire what chance and spontaneity are, whether they
are the same or different, and how they fit into our division of
First then we observe that some things always come to pass in the
same way, and others for the most part. It is clearly of neither of these
that chance is said to be the cause, nor can the 'effect of chance' be
identified with any of the things that come to pass by necessity and always,
or for the most part. But as there is a third class of events besides these
two-events which all say are 'by chance'-it is plain that there is such
a thing as chance and spontaneity; for we know that things of this kind
are due to chance and that things due to chance are of this
But, secondly, some events are for the sake of something, others
not. Again, some of the former class are in accordance with deliberate
intention, others not, but both are in the class of things which are for
the sake of something. Hence it is clear that even among the things which
are outside the necessary and the normal, there are some in connexion withwhich
the phrase 'for the sake of something' is applicable. (Events that are
for the sake of something include whatever may be done as a result of thought
or of nature.) Things of this kind, then, when they come to pass incidental
are said to be 'by chance'. For just as a thing is something either in
virtue of itself or incidentally, so may it be a cause. For instance, the
housebuilding faculty is in virtue of itself the cause of a house, whereas
the pale or the musical is the incidental cause. That which is per se cause
of the effect is determinate, but the incidental cause is indeterminable,
for the possible attributes of an individual are innumerable. To resume
then; when a thing of this kind comes to pass among events which are for
the sake of something, it is said to be spontaneous or by chance. (The
distinction between the two must be made later-for the present it is sufficient
if it is plain that both are in the sphere of things done for the sake
Example: A man is engaged in collecting subscriptions for a feast.
He would have gone to such and such a place for the purpose of getting
the money, if he had known. He actually went there for another purpose
and it was only incidentally that he got his money by going there; and
this was not due to the fact that he went there as a rule or necessarily,
nor is the end effected (getting the money) a cause present in himself-it
belongs to the class of things that are intentional and the result of intelligent
deliberation. It is when these conditions are satisfied that the man is
said to have gone 'by chance'. If he had gone of deliberate purpose and
for the sake of this-if he always or normally went there when he was collecting
payments-he would not be said to have gone 'by chance'.
It is clear then that chance is an incidental cause in the sphere
of those actions for the sake of something which involve purpose. Intelligent
reflection, then, and chance are in the same sphere, for purpose implies
It is necessary, no doubt, that the causes of what comes to pass
by chance be indefinite; and that is why chance is supposed to belong to
the class of the indefinite and to be inscrutable to man, and why it might
be thought that, in a way, nothing occurs by chance. For all these statements
are correct, because they are well grounded. Things do, in a way, occur
by chance, for they occur incidentally and chance is an incidental cause.
But strictly it is not the cause-without qualification-of anything; for
instance, a housebuilder is the cause of a house; incidentally, a fluteplayer
may be so.
And the causes of the man's coming and getting the money (when
he did not come for the sake of that) are innumerable. He may have wished
to see somebody or been following somebody or avoiding somebody, or may
have gone to see a spectacle. Thus to say that chance is a thing contrary
to rule is correct. For 'rule' applies to what is always true or true for
the most part, whereas chance belongs to a third type of event. Hence,
to conclude, since causes of this kind are indefinite, chance too is indefinite.
(Yet in some cases one might raise the question whether any incidental
fact might be the cause of the chance occurrence, e.g. of health the fresh
air or the sun's heat may be the cause, but having had one's hair cut cannot;
for some incidental causes are more relevant to the effect than
Chance or fortune is called 'good' when the result is good, 'evil'
when it is evil. The terms 'good fortune' and 'ill fortune' are used when
either result is of considerable magnitude. Thus one who comes within an
ace of some great evil or great good is said to be fortunate or unfortunate.
The mind affirms the essence of the attribute, ignoring the hair's breadth
of difference. Further, it is with reason that good fortune is regarded
as unstable; for chance is unstable, as none of the things which result
from it can be invariable or normal.
Both are then, as I have said, incidental causes-both chance and
spontaneity-in the sphere of things which are capable of coming to pass
not necessarily, nor normally, and with reference to such of these as might
come to pass for the sake of something.
They differ in that 'spontaneity' is the wider term. Every result
of chance is from what is spontaneous, but not everything that is from
what is spontaneous is from chance.
Chance and what results from chance are appropriate to agents that
are capable of good fortune and of moral action generally. Therefore necessarily
chance is in the sphere of moral actions. This is indicated by the fact
that good fortune is thought to be the same, or nearly the same, as happiness,
and happiness to be a kind of moral action, since it is well-doing. Hence
what is not capable of moral action cannot do anything by chance. Thus
an inanimate thing or a lower animal or a child cannot do anything by chance,
because it is incapable of deliberate intention; nor can 'good fortune'
or 'ill fortune' be ascribed to them, except metaphorically, as Protarchus,
for example, said that the stones of which altars are made are fortunate
because they are held in honour, while their fellows are trodden under
foot. Even these things, however, can in a way be affected by chance, when
one who is dealing with them does something to them by chance, but not
The spontaneous on the other hand is found both in the lower animals
and in many inanimate objects. We say, for example, that the horse came
'spontaneously', because, though his coming saved him, he did not come
for the sake of safety. Again, the tripod fell 'of itself', because, though
when it fell it stood on its feet so as to serve for a seat, it did not
fall for the sake of that.
Hence it is clear that events which (1) belong to the general class
of things that may come to pass for the sake of something, (2) do not come
to pass for the sake of what actually results, and (3) have an external
cause, may be described by the phrase 'from spontaneity'. These 'spontaneous'
events are said to be 'from chance' if they have the further characteristics
of being the objects of deliberate intention and due to agents capable
of that mode of action. This is indicated by the phrase 'in vain', which
is used when A which is for the sake of B, does not result in B. For instance,
taking a walk is for the sake of evacuation of the bowels; if this does
not follow after walking, we say that we have walked 'in vain' and that
the walking was 'vain'. This implies that what is naturally the means to
an end is 'in vain', when it does not effect the end towards which it was
the natural means-for it would be absurd for a man to say that he had bathed
in vain because the sun was not eclipsed, since the one was not done with
a view to the other. Thus the spontaneous is even according to its derivation
the case in which the thing itself happens in vain. The stone that struck
the man did not fall for the purpose of striking him; therefore it fell
spontaneously, because it might have fallen by the action of an agent and
for the purpose of striking. The difference between spontaneity and what
results by chance is greatest in things that come to be by nature; for
when anything comes to be contrary to nature, we do not say that it came
to be by chance, but by spontaneity. Yet strictly this too is different
from the spontaneous proper; for the cause of the latter is external, that
of the former internal.
We have now explained what chance is and what spontaneity is, and
in what they differ from each other. Both belong to the mode of causation
'source of change', for either some natural or some intelligent agent is
always the cause; but in this sort of causation the number of possible
causes is infinite.
Spontaneity and chance are causes of effects which though they
might result from intelligence or nature, have in fact been caused by something
incidentally. Now since nothing which is incidental is prior to what is
per se, it is clear that no incidental cause can be prior to a cause per
se. Spontaneity and chance, therefore, are posterior to intelligence and
nature. Hence, however true it may be that the heavens are due to spontaneity,
it will still be true that intelligence and nature will be prior causes
of this All and of many things in it besides.
1 Λέγεται δὲ καὶ ἡ τύχη καὶ τὸ αὐτόματον τῶν αἰτίων, καὶ πολλὰ καὶ εἶναι καὶ γίγνεσθαι διὰ τύχην καὶ διὰ τὸ αὐτόματον· τίνα οὖν τρόπον ἐν τούτοις ἐστὶ τοῖς αἰτίοις ἡ τύχη καὶ τὸ αὐτόματον, καὶ πότερον τὸ αὐτὸ ἡ τύχη καὶ τὸ αὐτόματον ἢ ἕτερον, καὶ ὅλως τί ἐστιν ἡ τύχη καὶ τὸ αὐτόματον, ἐπισκεπτέον.
2 Ἔνιοι γὰρ καὶ εἰ ἔστιν ἢ μὴ ἀποροῦσιν· [196a] οὐδὲν γὰρ δὴ γίγνεσθαι ἀπὸ τύχης φασίν, ἀλλὰ πάντων εἶναί τι αἴτιον ὡρισμένον ὅσα λέγομεν ἀπὸ ταὐτομάτου γίγνεσθαι ἢ τύχης, οἷον τοῦ ἐλθεῖν ἀπὸ τύχης εἰς τὴν ἀγοράν, καὶ καταλαβεῖν ὃν ἐβούλετο μὲν οὐκ ᾤετο δέ, αἴτιον τὸ βούλεσθαι ἀγοράσαι ἐλθόντα. 3 Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν ἀπὸ τύχης λεγομένων ἀεί τι εἶναι λαβεῖν τὸ αἴτιον, ἀλλ' οὐ τύχην, ἐπεὶ εἴ γέ τι ἦν ἡ τύχη, ἄτοπον ἂν φανείη ὡς ἀληθῶς, καὶ ἀπορήσειεν ἄν τις διὰ τί ποτ' οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀρχαίων σοφῶν τὰ αἴτια περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς λέγων περὶ τύχης οὐδὲν διώρισεν, ἀλλ' ὡς ἔοικεν, οὐδὲν ᾤοντο οὐδ' ἐκεῖνοι εἶναι ἀπὸ τύχης.
4 Ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτο θαυμαστόν· πολλὰ γὰρ καὶ γίγνεται καὶ ἔστιν ἀπὸ τύχης καὶ ἀπὸ ταὐτομάτου, ἃ οὐκ ἀγνοοῦντες ὅτι ἔστιν ἐπανενεγκεῖν ἕκαστον ἐπί τι αἴτιον τῶν γιγνομένων, καθάπερ ὁ παλαιὸς λόγος εἶπεν ὁ ἀναιρῶν τὴν τύχην, ὅμως τούτων τὰ μὲν εἶναί φασι πάντες ἀπὸ τύχης τὰ δ' οὐκ ἀπὸ τύχης. 5 Διὸ καὶ ἁμῶς γέ πως ἦν ποιητέον αὐτοῖς μνείαν. Ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδ' ἐκείνων γέ τι ᾤοντο εἶναι τὴν τύχην, οἷον φιλίαν ἢ νεῖκος ἢ νοῦν ἢ πῦρ ἢ ἄλλο γέ τι τῶν τοιούτων. Ἄτοπον οὖν εἴτε μὴ ὑπελάμβανον εἶναι εἴτε οἰόμενοι παρέλειπον. 6 Καὶ ταῦτ' ἐνίοτε χρώμενοι, ὥσπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς οὐκ ἀεὶ τὸν ἀέρα ἀνωτάτω ἀποκρίνεσθαί φησιν, ἀλλ' ὅπως ἂν τύχῃ. Λέγει γοῦν ἐν τῇ κοσμοποιίᾳ ὡς “οὕτω συνέκυρσε θέων τοτέ, πολλάκι δ' ἄλλως”· καὶ τὰ μόρια τῶν ζῴων ἀπὸ τύχης γενέσθαι τὰ πλεῖστά φησιν.
7 Εἰσὶ δέ τινες οἳ καὶ τοὐρανοῦ τοῦδε καὶ τῶν κόσμων πάντων αἰτιῶνται τὸ αὐτόματον· ἀπὸ ταὐτομάτου γὰρ γενέσθαι τὴν δίνην καὶ τὴν κίνησιν τὴν διακρίνασαν καὶ καταστήσασαν εἰς ταύτην τὴν τάξιν τὸ πᾶν.
8 Καὶ μάλα τοῦτό γε αὐτὸ θαυμάσαι ἄξιον· λέγοντες γὰρ τὰ μὲν ζῷα καὶ τὰ φυτὰ ἀπὸ τύχης μήτε εἶναι μήτε γίγνεσθαι, ἀλλ' ἤτοι φύσιν ἢ νοῦν ἤ τι τοιοῦτον ἕτερον εἶναι τὸ αἴτιον (οὐ γὰρ ὅ τι ἔτυχεν ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος ἑκάστου γίγνεται, ἀλλ' ἐκ μὲν τοῦ τοιουδὶ ἐλαία ἐκ δὲ τοῦ τοιουδὶ ἄνθρωπος), τὸν δ' οὐρανὸν καὶ τὰ θειότατα τῶν φανερῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτομάτου γενέσθαι, τοιαύτην δ' αἰτίαν μηδεμίαν εἶναι οἵαν τῶν ζῴων καὶ τῶν φυτῶν. 9 Καίτοι εἰ οὕτως ἔχει, τοῦτ' αὐτὸ ἄξιον ἐπιστάσεως, καὶ καλῶς ἔχει λεχθῆναί [196b] τι περὶ αὐτοῦ. Πρὸς γὰρ τῷ καὶ ἄλλως ἄτοπον εἶναι τὸ λεγόμενον, ἔτι ἀτοπώτερον τὸ λέγειν ταῦτα ὁρῶντας ἐν μὲν τῷ οὐρανῷ οὐδὲν ἀπὸ ταὐτομάτου γιγνόμενον, ἐν δὲ τοῖς οὐκ ἀπὸ τύχης πολλὰ συμβαίνοντα ἀπὸ τύχης· καίτοι εἰκός γε ἦν τοὐναντίον γίγνεσθαι.
10 Εἰσὶ δέ τινες οἷς δοκεῖ εἶναι μὲν αἰτία ἡ τύχη, ἄδηλος δὲ ἀνθρωπίνῃ διανοίᾳ ὡς θεῖόν τι οὖσα καὶ δαιμονιώτερον.
11 Ὥστε σκεπτέον καὶ τί ἑκάτερον, καὶ εἰ ταὐτὸν ἢ ἕτερον τό τε αὐτόματον καὶ ἡ τύχη, καὶ πῶς εἰς τὰ διωρισμένα αἴτια ἐμπίπτουσιν.
1 Πρῶτον μὲν οὖν, ἐπειδὴ ὁρῶμεν τὰ μὲν ἀεὶ ὡσαύτως γιγνόμενα τὰ δὲ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ, φανερὸν ὅτι οὐδετέρου τούτων αἰτία ἡ τύχη λέγεται οὐδὲ τὸ ἀπὸ τύχης, οὔτε τοῦ ἐξ ἀνάγκης καὶ αἰεὶ οὔτε τοῦ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ. Ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ ἔστιν ἃ γίγνεται καὶ παρὰ ταῦτα, καὶ ταῦτα πάντες φασὶν εἶναι ἀπὸ τύχης, φανερὸν ὅτι ἔστι τι ἡ τύχη καὶ τὸ αὐτόματον· τά τε γὰρ τοιαῦτα ἀπὸ τύχης καὶ τὰ ἀπὸ τύχης τοιαῦτα ὄντα ἴσμεν.
2 Τῶν δὲ γιγνομένων τὰ μὲν ἕνεκά του γίγνεται τὰ δ' οὔ (τούτων δὲ τὰ μὲν κατὰ προαίρεσιν, τὰ δ' οὐ κατὰ προαίρεσιν, ἄμφω δ' ἐν τοῖς ἕνεκά του), ὥστε δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ἐν τοῖς παρὰ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον καὶ τὸ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ ἔστιν ἔνια περὶ ἃ ἐνδέχεται ὑπάρχειν τὸ ἕνεκά του. Ἔστι δ' ἕνεκά του ὅσα τε ἀπὸ διανοίας ἂν πραχθείη καὶ ὅσα ἀπὸ φύσεως. 3 Τὰ δὴ τοιαῦτα ὅταν κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς γένηται, ἀπὸ τύχης φαμὲν εἶναι (ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ ὄν ἐστι τὸ μὲν καθ' αὑτὸ τὸ δὲ κατὰ συμβεβηκός, οὕτω καὶ αἴτιον ἐνδέχεται εἶναι, οἷον οἰκίας καθ' αὑτὸ μὲν αἴτιον τὸ οἰκοδομικόν, κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς δὲ τὸ λευκὸν ἢ τὸ μουσικόν. 4 Τὸ μὲν οὖν καθ' αὑτὸ αἴτιον ὡρισμένον, τὸ δὲ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἀόριστον· ἄπειρα γὰρ ἂν τῷ ἑνὶ συμβαίη). 5 Καθάπερ οὖν ἐλέχθη, ὅταν ἐν τοῖς ἕνεκά του γιγνομένοις τοῦτο γένηται, τότε λέγεται ἀπὸ ταὐτομάτου καὶ ἀπὸ τύχης (αὐτῶν δὲ πρὸς ἄλληλα τὴν διαφορὰν τούτων ὕστερον διοριστέον· νῦν δὲ τοῦτο ἔστω φανερόν, ὅτι ἄμφω ἐν τοῖς ἕνεκά τού ἐστιν). 6 Οἷον ἕνεκα τοῦ ἀπολαβεῖν τὸ ἀργύριον ἦλθεν ἂν κομιζομένου τὸν ἔρανον, εἰ ᾔδει· ἦλθε δ' οὐ τούτου ἕνεκα, ἀλλὰ συνέβη αὐτῷ ἐλθεῖν, καὶ ποιῆσαι τοῦτο τοῦ κομίσασθαι ἕνεκα· τοῦτο δὲ οὔθ' ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ φοιτῶν εἰς τὸ [197a] χωρίον οὔτ' ἐξ ἀνάγκης· 7 ἔστι δὲ τὸ τέλος, ἡ κομιδή, οὐ τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ αἰτίων, ἀλλὰ τῶν προαιρετῶν καὶ ἀπὸ διανοίας· καὶ λέγεταί γε τότε ἀπὸ τύχης ἐλθεῖν, εἰ δὲ προελόμενος καὶ τούτου ἕνεκα ἢ ἀεὶ φοιτῶν ἢ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ [κομιζόμενος], οὐκ ἀπὸ τύχης.
8 Δῆλον ἄρα ὅτι ἡ τύχη αἰτία κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἐν τοῖς κατὰ προαίρεσιν τῶν ἕνεκά του. 9 Διὸ περὶ τὸ αὐτὸ διάνοια καὶ τύχη· ἡ γὰρ προαίρεσις οὐκ ἄνευ διανοίας. 10 Ἀόριστα μὲν οὖν τὰ αἴτια ἀνάγκη εἶναι ἀφ' ὧν ἂν γένοιτο τὸ ἀπὸ τύχης. Ὅθεν καὶ ἡ τύχη τοῦ ἀορίστου εἶναι δοκεῖ καὶ ἄδηλος ἀνθρώπῳ, καὶ ἔστιν ὡς οὐδὲν ἀπὸ τύχης δόξειεν ἂν γίγνεσθαι. Πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα ὀρθῶς λέγεται, εὐλόγως. 11 Ἔστιν μὲν γὰρ ὡς γίγνεται ἀπὸ τύχης· κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς γὰρ γίγνεται, καὶ ἔστιν αἴτιον ὡς συμβεβηκὸς ἡ τύχη· ὡς δ' ἁπλῶς οὐδενός· 12 οἷον οἰκίας οἰκοδόμος μὲν αἴτιος, κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς δὲ αὐλητής, καὶ τοῦ ἐλθόντα κομίσασθαι τὸ ἀργύριον, μὴ τούτου ἕνεκα ἐλθόντα, ἄπειρα τὸ πλῆθος· καὶ γὰρ ἰδεῖν τινὰ βουλόμενος καὶ διώκων καὶ φεύγων καὶ θεασόμενος.
13 Καὶ τὸ φάναι εἶναί τι παράλογον τὴν τύχην ὀρθῶς· ὁ γὰρ λόγος ἢ τῶν ἀεὶ ὄντων ἢ τῶν ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ, ἡ δὲ τύχη ἐν τοῖς γιγνομένοις παρὰ ταῦτα. Ὥστ' ἐπεὶ ἀόριστα τὰ οὕτως αἴτια, καὶ ἡ τύχη ἀόριστον. 14 Ὅμως δ' ἐπ' ἐνίων ἀπορήσειεν ἄν τις, ἆρ' οὖν τὰ τυχόντα αἴτι' ἂν γένοιτο τῆς τύχης· οἷον ὑγιείας ἢ πνεῦμα ἢ εἵλησις, ἀλλ' οὐ τὸ ἀποκεκάρθαι· ἔστιν γὰρ ἄλλα ἄλλων ἐγγύτερα τῶν κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς αἰτίων.
15 Τύχη δὲ ἀγαθὴ μὲν λέγεται ὅταν ἀγαθόν τι ἀποβῇ, φαύλη δὲ ὅταν φαῦλόν τι, εὐτυχία δὲ καὶ δυστυχία ὅταν μέγεθος ἔχοντα ταῦτα· 16 διὸ καὶ τὸ παρὰ μικρὸν κακὸν ἢ ἀγαθὸν λαβεῖν μέγα ἢ εὐτυχεῖν ἢ ἀτυχεῖν ἐστίν, ὅτι ὡς ὑπάρχον λέγει ἡ διάνοια· τὸ γὰρ παρὰ μικρὸν ὥσπερ οὐδὲν ἀπέχειν δοκεῖ. 17 Ἔτι ἀβέβαιον ἡ εὐτυχία εὐλόγως· ἡ γὰρ τύχη ἀβέβαιος· οὔτε γὰρ ἀεὶ οὔθ' ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ οἷόν τ' εἶναι τῶν ἀπὸ τύχης οὐθέν.
1 Ἔστι μὲν οὖν ἄμφω αἴτια, καθάπερ εἴρηται, κατὰ συμβεβηκός – καὶ ἡ τύχη καὶ τὸ αὐτόματον – ἐν τοῖς ἐνδεχομένοις γίγνεσθαι μὴ ἁπλῶς μηδ' ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ, καὶ τούτων ὅσ' ἂν γένοιτο ἕνεκά του. 2 Διαφέρει δ' ὅτι τὸ αὐτόματον ἐπὶ πλεῖόν ἐστι· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἀπὸ τύχης [197b] πᾶν ἀπὸ ταὐτομάτου, τοῦτο δ' οὐ πᾶν ἀπὸ τύχης.
3 Ἡ μὲν γὰρ τύχη καὶ τὸ ἀπὸ τύχης ἐστὶν ὅσοις καὶ τὸ εὐτυχῆσαι ἂν ὑπάρξειεν καὶ ὅλως πρᾶξις. Διὸ καὶ ἀνάγκη περὶ τὰ πρακτὰ εἶναι τὴν τύχην (σημεῖον δ' ὅτι δοκεῖ ἤτοι ταὐτὸν εἶναι τῇ εὐδαιμονίᾳ ἡ εὐτυχία ἢ ἐγγύς, ἡ δ' εὐδαιμονία πρᾶξίς τις· εὐπραξία γάρ), ὥσθ' ὁπόσοις μὴ ἐνδέχεται πρᾶξαι, οὐδὲ τὸ ἀπὸ τύχης τι ποιῆσαι. 4 Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οὔτε ἄψυχον οὐδὲν οὔτε θηρίον οὔτε παιδίον οὐδὲν ποιεῖ ἀπὸ τύχης, ὅτι οὐκ ἔχει προαίρεσιν· οὐδ' εὐτυχία οὐδ' ἀτυχία ὑπάρχει τούτοις, εἰ μὴ καθ' ὁμοιότητα, ὥσπερ ἔφη Πρώταρχος εὐτυχεῖς εἶναι τοὺς λίθους ἐξ ὧν οἱ βωμοί, ὅτι τιμῶνται, οἱ δὲ ὁμόζυγες αὐτῶν καταπατοῦνται. 5 Τὸ δὲ πάσχειν ἀπὸ τύχης ὑπάρξει πως καὶ τούτοις, ὅταν ὁ πράττων τι περὶ αὐτὰ πράξῃ ἀπὸ τύχης, ἄλλως δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν.
6 Τὸ δ' αὐτόματον καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ζῴοις καὶ πολλοῖς τῶν ἀψύχων, οἷον ὁ ἵππος αὐτόματος, φαμέν, ἦλθεν, ὅτι ἐσώθη μὲν ἐλθών, οὐ τοῦ σωθῆναι δὲ ἕνεκα ἦλθε· καὶ ὁ τρίπους αὐτόματος κατέπεσεν· ἔστη μὲν γὰρ τοῦ καθῆσθαι ἕνεκα, ἀλλ' οὐ τοῦ καθῆσθαι ἕνεκα κατέπεσεν. 7 Ὥστε φανερὸν ὅτι ἐν τοῖς ἁπλῶς ἕνεκά του γιγνομένοις, ὅταν μὴ τοῦ συμβάντος ἕνεκα γένηται ὧν ἔξω τὸ αἴτιον, τότε ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτομάτου λέγομεν· ἀπὸ τύχης δέ, τούτων ὅσα ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτομάτου γίγνεται τῶν προαιρετῶν τοῖς ἔχουσι προαίρεσιν. 8 Σημεῖον δὲ τὸ μάτην, ὅτι λέγεται ὅταν μὴ γένηται τὸ ἕνεκα ἄλλου ἐκείνου ἕνεκα, οἷον εἰ τὸ βαδίσαι λαπάξεως ἕνεκά ἐστιν, εἰ δὲ μὴ ἐγένετο βαδίσαντι, μάτην φαμὲν βαδίσαι καὶ ἡ βάδισις ματαία, ὡς τοῦτο ὂν τὸ μάτην, τὸ πεφυκὸς ἄλλου ἕνεκα, ὅταν μὴ περαίνῃ ἐκεῖνο οὗ ἕνεκα ἦν καὶ ἐπεφύκει, ἐπεὶ εἴ τις λούσασθαι φαίη μάτην ὅτι οὐκ ἐξέλιπεν ὁ ἥλιος, γελοῖος ἂν εἴη· οὐ γὰρ ἦν τοῦτο ἐκείνου ἕνεκα. Οὕτω δὴ τὸ αὐτόματον καὶ κατὰ τὸ ὄνομα ὅταν αὐτὸ μάτην γένηται· κατέπεσεν γὰρ οὐ τοῦ πατάξαι ἕνεκεν ὁ λίθος· ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτομάτου ἄρα κατέπεσεν ὁ λίθος, ὅτι πέσοι ἂν ὑπὸ τινὸς καὶ τοῦ πατάξαι ἕνεκα.
9 Μάλιστα δ' ἐστὶ χωριζόμενον τοῦ ἀπὸ τύχης ἐν τοῖς φύσει γιγνομένοις· ὅταν γὰρ γένηταί τι παρὰ φύσιν, τότε οὐκ ἀπὸ τύχης ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἀπὸ ταὐτομάτου γεγονέναι φαμέν. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ τοῦτο ἕτερον· τοῦ μὲν γὰρ ἔξω τὸ αἴτιον, τοῦ δ' ἐντός.
10 [198a] Τί μὲν οὖν ἐστιν τὸ αὐτόματον καὶ τί ἡ τύχη, εἴρηται, καὶ τί διαφέρουσιν ἀλλήλων. 11 Τῶν δὲ τρόπων τῆς αἰτίας ἐν τοῖς ὅθεν ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κινήσεως ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν· ἢ γὰρ τῶν φύσει τι ἢ τῶν ἀπὸ διανοίας αἰτίων ἀεί ἐστιν· ἀλλὰ τούτων τὸ πλῆθος ἀόριστον.12.Ἐπεὶ δ' ἐστὶ τὸ αὐτόματον καὶ ἡ τύχη αἴτια ὧν ἂν ἢ νοῦς γένοιτο αἴτιος ἢ φύσις, ὅταν κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς αἴτιόν τι γένηται τούτων αὐτῶν, οὐδὲν δὲ κατὰ συμβεβηκός ἐστι πρότερον τῶν καθ' αὑτό [cause per se], δῆλον ὅτι οὐδὲ τὸ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς αἴτιον πρότερον τοῦ καθ' αὑτό. Ὕστερον ἄρα τὸ αὐτόματον καὶ ἡ τύχη καὶ νοῦ καὶ φύσεως· ὥστ' εἰ ὅτι μάλιστα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ αἴτιον τὸ αὐτόματον, ἀνάγκη πρότερον νοῦν αἴτιον καὶ φύσιν εἶναι καὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν καὶ τοῦδε τοῦ παντός.
Possibilities and Actualities
In his Metaphysics, Aristotle described the "real" or physical status of "actualities" (ἐνέργεια) or "complete reality" (ἐντελέχειαν), as compared to "possibilities" that Aristotle says exist only "potentially" (δυνάμει). His ideas were briefly cited by quantum physicist Werner Heisenberg
in his 1955 Gifford Lectures, as helping to explain the role of probability in quantum mechanics.
In Metaphysics Book IX, iii (1047a) we find
"The word 'actuality', which we connect with 'complete reality', has, in the main, been extended from movements to other things; for actuality in the strict sense is thought to be identical with movement. And so people do not assign movement to non-existent things, though they do assign some other predicates. E.g. they say that non-existent things are objects of thought and desire, but not that they are moved; and this because, while ex hypothesi they do not actually exist, they would have to exist actually if they were moved. For of non-existent things some exist potentially; but they do not exist, because they do not exist in complete reality.
ἐλήλυθε δ᾽ ἡ ἐνέργεια τοὔνομα, ἡ πρὸς τὴν ἐντελέχειαν συντιθεμένη, καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἐκ τῶν κινήσεων μάλιστα: δοκεῖ γὰρ ἡ ἐνέργεια μάλιστα ἡ κίνησις εἶναι, διὸ καὶ τοῖς μὴ οὖσιν οὐκ ἀποδιδόασι τὸ κινεῖσθαι, ἄλλας δέ τινας κατηγορίας, οἷον διανοητὰ καὶ ἐπιθυμητὰ εἶναι τὰ μὴ ὄντα,  κινούμενα δὲ οὔ, τοῦτο δὲ ὅτι οὐκ ὄντα ἐνεργείᾳ ἔσονται ἐνεργείᾳ. [1047β]  τῶν γὰρ μὴ ὄντων ἔνια δυνάμει ἐστίν: οὐκ ἔστι δέ, ὅτι οὐκ ἐντελεχείᾳ ἐστίν.
1. Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book V, 1025a25
οὐδὲ δὴ αἴτιον ὡρισμένον οὐδὲν του̂ συμβεβηκότος ἀλλὰ τὸ τυχόν: του̂το δ' ἀόριστον.
Metaphysics, Book V, 1025a25
2. Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book VI, 1027a29
ὅτι δ' εἰσὶν ἀρχαὶ καὶ αἴτια γενητὰ καὶ φθαρτὰ  ἄνευ τοῦ γίγνεσθαι καὶ φθείρεσθαι, φανερόν. εἰ γὰρ μὴ τοῦτ', ἐξ ἀνάγκης πάντ' ἔσται, εἰ τοῦ γιγνομένου καὶ φθειρομένου μὴ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς αἴτιόν τι ἀνάγκη εἶναι. πότερον γὰρ ἔσται τοδὶ ἢ οὔ; ἐάν γε τοδὶ γένηται: εἰ δὲ μή, οὔ.
Metaphysics, Book VI, 1027a
3. Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book XI, 1065a33
τὰ δ' αἴτια ἀόριστα ἀφ' ὡ̂ν ἂν γένοιτο τὰ ἀπὸ τύχης, διὸ ἄδηλος ἀνθρωπίνῳ λογισμῳ̂ καὶ αἴτιον κατὰ συμβεβηκός, ἁπλω̂ς δ' οὐδενός.
Metaphysics, Book XI, 1065a
4. Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, III.v
ὄντος δὴ βουλητοῦ μὲν τοῦ τέλους, βουλευτῶν δὲ καὶ προαιρετῶν τῶν πρὸς τὸ τέλος, αἱ περὶ ταῦτα πράξεις κατὰ προαίρεσιν ἂν εἶεν καὶ ἑκούσιοι. αἱ δὲ τῶν ἀρετῶν ἐνέργειαι περὶ ταῦτα. ἐφ' ἡμῖν δὴ καὶ ἡ ἀρετή, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἡ κακία. ἐν οἷς γὰρ ἐφ' ἡμῖν τὸ πράττειν, καὶ τὸ μὴ πράττειν, καὶ ἐν οἷς τὸ μή, καὶ τὸ ναί: ὥστ' εἰ τὸ πράττειν καλὸν ὂν ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἐστί, καὶ τὸ μὴ πράττειν ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἔσται αἰσχρὸν ὄν, καὶ εἰ τὸ μὴ πράττειν καλὸν ὂν ἐφ' ἡμῖν, καὶ τὸ πράττειν αἰσχρὸν ὂν ἐφ' ἡμῖν. εἰ δ' ἐφ' ἡμῖν τὰ καλὰ πράττειν καὶ τὰ αἰσχρά, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ μὴ πράττειν, τοῦτο δ' ἦν τὸ ἀγαθοῖς καὶ κακοῖς εἶναι, ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἄρα τὸ ἐπιεικέσι καὶ φαύλοις εἶναι.
Nichomachean Ethics, III.v.1-3
εἰ δὲ ταῦτα φαίνεται καὶ μὴ ἔχομεν εἰς ἄλλας ἀρχὰς ἀναγαγεῖν παρὰ τὰς ἐν ἡμῖν, ὧν καὶ αἱ ἀρχαὶ ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ αὐτὰ ἐφ' ἡμῖν καὶ ἑκούσια.
Nichomachean Ethics, III.v.6
5. Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, III.v,17-20
εἰ δ' οὕτω, καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων αἱ ἐπιτιμώμεναι τῶν κακιῶν ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἂν εἶεν. εἰ δέ τις λέγοι ὅτι πάντες ἐφίενται τοῦ φαινομένου ἀγαθοῦ, τῆς δὲ φαντασίας οὐ κύριοι,
Nichomachean Ethics, III.v.17
εἰ οὖν, ὥσπερ λέγεται, ἑκούσιοί εἰσιν αἱ ἀρεταί ̔καὶ γὰρ τῶν ἕξεων συναίτιοί πως αὐτοί ἐσμεν, καὶ τῷ ποιοί τινες εἶναι τὸ τέλος τοιόνδε τιθέμεθἀ, καὶ αἱ κακίαι ἑκούσιοι ἂν εἶεν: ὁμοίως γάρ.
Nichomachean Ethics, III.v.20