In Defense of Bad Luck
Published on SepĀ 6, 2017 (updated FebĀ 5, 2024), filed under philosophy (feed). (Share this on Mastodon orĀ Bluesky?)
Luck had never been on my radar. I rarely did anything that required luck (viz., that was chance-based) and never got hooked on anything like that, either (like gambling). During my philosophical studies I picked up one book about luck (Guntherās The Luck Factor) but, while interesting, it didnāt teach me much tangible.
Yet the topic came up again, in the context of bad luck. One evening I was sitting at home over a big A3 notepad brainstorming (you know), feeling pensive, occasionally staring at the whiteboard at the wall where I had thrown some thoughts, too, when I wondered, what if in the situations that bothered me, I had simply had bad luck? For I was miserably upset, andāthe ironyāI was mostly upset because I donāt believe that thereās any reason in life to be upset. Like, literally none: All my philosophical research centers around that idea that everything is in our thinking, and so if something bothers us, itās not that thing bothering us, itās our thinking thatās not helpful.
That is, perhaps, why I at first thought to refuse the idea of bad luck. But I forced myself not to discard it immediately, and to think about it instead. What did it mean not to believe in bad luck?
And I realized that my own world view didnāt even permit any luck. My world view said, youāre making your own reality, your experience originates in your thinking, and hence, if something negative happens to you, you yourself brought it up. (Simplified.) VoilĆ , no bad luck.
Such view is disastrous.
When we take up the idea that everything is on us, then clearly also the negative we experience is on us. But as long as we donāt understand how events are brought into the worldāand there are models that suggest everything has its roots in the psychicalā, this is brutal. This is brutal for it clashes with our potential missionāto learn, to learn to be responsible with our power and creativity.
Iām throwing this at you and it may not immediately make much sense, for youād need to subscribe to, at least be sympathetic to this thinkingāthe thinking that our world is not just physical, and that everything has its causes in the psychical. If you donāt, youāre subscribing to no less brutal of a world view, for youāre then a chance product, and your life has no or only temporary meaningĀ *.
These kinds of thoughts led me to consider that perhaps we need some conception of chanceāa limited conception, however, one that offers some kind of āventā but doesnāt get to dominate our entire world view. Luck, and bad luck, seem to provide that, and the consideration of both seems to have some quite positive effects:
Bad luck takes responsibility off of us, and it can help us not to unnecessarily make ourselves a target or victim by blaming ourselves for each negative event we experience.
Luck, in turn, can humble us, for we wonāt attribute every single positive experience to our talents or powers or such, either.
To me, and I canāt help mixing general and personal thoughts here, this both immediately looked more helpful and healthy than this metaphysically dogmatic view that we controlled everything, and the scientifically dogmatic view of us controlling nothing.
What we may attribute to luck and bad luck, now, Iām not sureāthere may not be a set boundary, much like what may be the case for the psychical and the physical. But the point I want to make, no matter how slightly, is that there may well be luck, and bad luck, and explicitly in a magical, not a statistic way, and playing with the idea seems useful and constructive. For the one who has always operated on luck, chance, fate, destiny, this may be no news, but they may want to consider their own powers. And for the one who never considered the option of luckāand bad luckā, the idea may prove liberating.
Update (December 17, 2019)
More than two years later Iām a little unsure (and also a little indifferent) about this post and our conceptions of luck and bad luck. What I find more interesting at this point is the apparent contradiction between mentioned responsibility for nothing, and responsibility for everything. I feel reminded of Kantās antinomies, I think of the idea that contradictions seem to be a problem in logic, but not of reality, and that therefore perhaps both could be true.
* The prevailing scientific world view is destructive, and although many scientists seem actually aware of the problems of their assumptionsāfrom nothing can be proven to sugar pills aiding up to a probability of 80%, which, think about it, are crazy to dogmatically build knowledge on and evangelize an entire planet forā, this destructiveness may be at the center of many our problems.
About Me
Iām Jens (long: Jens Oliver Meiert), and Iām a web developer, manager, and author. Iāve been working as a technical lead and engineering manager for companies youāve never heard of and companies you use every day, Iām an occasional contributor to web standards (like HTML, CSS, WCAG), and I write and review books for OāReilly and Frontend Dogma.
I love trying things, not only in web development and engineering management, but also in other areas like philosophy. Here on meiert.com I share some of my experiences and views. (I value you being critical, interpreting charitably, and giving feedback.)