Contingency represents an open field of possibilities — things could always have happened otherwise. The universe, though it may have originated in the Big Bang, contains no sufficient reason or necessity within itself for existing as it does; in this sense, it can be considered contingent. Both proponents of determinism and indeterminism have argued for the universe’s contingent nature — the former seeing it as the result of prior causes that, in the end, could just as well have been different, and the latter emphasizing the openness and unpredictability built into physical reality.
In the general flow of everyday life the word rarely pops into my mind. But when it does, I find it highly accurate and satisfying. It describes an idea, situation or potential that can hardly be conveyed by any other term.
<span class="firstcharacter">U</span>sually, as a native German speaker, I use the German version of the word (Kontingenz) and as chance has it, I like that version slightly more since it is less ambiguous than contingency (think of contingency plan in English). I use it when I want to describe a certain potential of possibility. It describes a third option besides something being necessarily the way it has to be or the idea of it being impossible. It can describe a plethora of possibilities or states regarding a circumstance or being. I like that it can allude to a certain levity – of course it is also possible to associate a negative connotation to it – as in overwhelming, excess, too much to grasp (<span style="color: #a37f07;">see below</span>).
I’m more interested in the ontological use of it than the use in philosophical modal logic. The idea and concept of what contingency can be has evolved over the last thousands of years with modern scholars drawing from the Aristotle, Thomas of Aquin, or Kant and thus has been widely discussed amongst all kinds of disciplines. First and foremost in philosophy of course where it remains popular until today. It is both the expected, which may not take place nevertheless, and the unexpected which cannot be ruled out.
One perspective
Since this cannot and is not supposed to be an exhaustive description of the term, I want to offer some quotes instead to hint at what it can be – and it will get a bit complicated. But I always find it rewarding, sometimes confusing and oftentimes enlightening to animate my brain to practice such mental exercises:
Since the term became more and more popular in the 20th century, at times it is used casually, in a subclause, alluding to a larger idea which is not explained fully, like in the case of the South Korean-German philosopher Byung-Chul Han’s short book »Müdigkeitsgesellschaft« (The Burnout Society)[1]
Only through the negativity of pausing can the acting subject traverse the entire space of contingency that eludes mere activity.[2]
My interpretation is that he alludes to the »space of contingency« as the abovementioned space of possibility and ambiguity. He could mean that it cannot be (fully) experienced or perceived without personal agency while simply performing activities without contemplation. This could build on his previous argument that our neoliberal fast-paced way of life narrows our minds and prohibits us from experiencing anything other than that which is right in front of our eyes.
That being said, his understanding of such a space to be »fully« traversed seems a bit foreign to me and forms a different concept vis-à-vis philosophical ideas of such a space of imaginary and real possibilities being endless. In today’s overflowing information – and fake news – societies he seems to view »radical contingency« as a threat to the constitution of the subject, and perhaps, the well-being of our societies. He puts it in the same semantic ballpark with terms such as volatility and excess, often referring to it from a pathological point of view when describing modern socio-psychological phenomena.[3, 4]
In his short but packed review of Peter Vogt’s extensive book »Contingency and Chance«, David Espinet mentions the duality of contingency and also tackles the complicated relationship between the concept and chance.[5]
On the one hand he mentions the ontological threat that contingency constitutes[6] because the idea of a lack of necessity would cause an existential instability, rid our life of meaning since it would assume that things exist without reason and due to pure chance. He refers to Leibniz’ and Kant’s reinterpretation of the concept which would then lead to the conflation of the terms chance and contingency for them to be used synonymously contrary to Aristotle’s originally more differentiated view of either.[7]
The ontologically positive aspect of contingency is best described directly in his words. In relation to William James’ core idea of contingency as a »moment of hopeful openness«…
...›[Vogt sees] a genuinely unique plea for a world full of possibilities, for an ontology of indeterminacies, for a conception of the world, in which reality and possibility are always intertwined, and, in this sense, for the ontological reality of chance.‹[8]
Contingency and Chance
As mentioned, contingency and chance are two terms which are closely intertwined (not to be confused with probability).
But why is that? Contingency describes a modal condition: Something that could be otherwise. Chance describes the realization of a contingent possibility, a chance event has really happened without necessity or causal determination regarding previous events.
But Espinet mentions that, when taking into account a possible clear distinction of chance and contingency, there cannot always be one. He differentiates insofar as he doesn’t call it conflation but rather a kind of vagueness which relates to a correlation between reality and possibility.[9]
Vogt in relation to Aristotle still sees the »›restriction of the concept of chance‹ to ›that which is not necessarily real‹: Chance constitutes ›the real […] which happened […] by chance.‹ Contingency, on the other hand, characterizes ›the possible which […] will neither necessarily be, nor necessarily is, nor will be impossible, nor is impossible‹ [...] in short: ›the not-necessarily possible‹«[10]
As mentioned Espinet challenges this notion and assumes a correlation or entanglement between reality and possibility. He even goes a step further and claims that the distinction of chance and contingency only serves the purpose of marking this correlation.[11]
In his words: »Entanglement here means: whatever becomes real by chance must have been possible. This means that every real chance event can only be conceived by assuming that this real chance event was indeed possible (no matter how improbable it may have been). For a contingency that was mere possibility and not already a possible reality — so, a possibility that could not become real — would ultimately have to be an impossible reality and thus, in Vogt’s sense, not a genuine possibility at all.«[12] As far as I can tell, this also hints at the problem of future contingency discussed by Aristotle and others[13] but since I did not want to dive into modal logical (almost did here) I will leave it at that.
In-yeon, Fate, providence and contingency
When I watched the romantic drama movie »Past Lives« (2023) I also had to think about contingency – in a different manner. The film discusses the popular Korean concept of In-yeon which strongly evokes the idea of fate or predetermination but with a focus on (romantic) relationships between people. The concept is old, probably stems from Buddhist teachings and was later absorbed into Confucian frameworks. In South-Korea, it is broadly used today in a romantic context, even to »seduce someone«.[14]
The idea that relationships arise from interdependent causes accumulated across time, therefore making them inevitable and necessarily true. Even though they may appear like they happen by chance or accident, they are predetermined and so, In-yeon is more or less the opposite of contingency.
Is what you would think… but then there are other views of contingency that are much more closely aligned with such a principle. In relation to Vogt and Odo Marquard, contingency can mean something else entirely – it is a crucial alteration of the concept of arbitrariness-contingency (»Beliebigkeitskontingenz«) which puts the focus radically more on the agency of the subject or its capacity to determine or shape their own world free of preordained events. According to Espinet, Vogt derived that thought from the »ethos of creativity« which came into being during romanticism.[15]
The alteration can also be called determination-contingency and describes the unavailability of contingency in one’s own life. That means that someone’s life is still subject to a plethora of possibilities and events that might otherwise happen – however, those possibilities are completely outside of the subject’s control. And this thought aligns best with ideas of fate and its uncontrollable dynamics or all-mighty entities which possess comprehension of and control over the, for humans, overwhelming plethora of possibilities.
There are other uses and adaptations of the word, e.g. in Niklas Luhmann’s »systems theory« where it helps define a framework for social interactions; in a more culturally critical perspective to frame today’s perception of contingency as a destabilizing force, which Byung-Chul Han alludes to. Or in postmodernism which draws from the idea that today’s sociopolitical order is not set in stone but rather a fleeting and localized occurrence which needs to be constantly revised, just like norms, morals or ideas of solidarity.[16]
But that will have to be part of another discussion.
<span class="headingcolor" style="display: block; text-align: center;">Thanks for your attention!</span>
[2] <span style="word-break: normal;">translation from German original: Ibid, p. 42.</span>
[3] <span style="word-break: normal;">Something he refers to it when talking about the nature of information and the modern problem with narratives:</span> https://artreview.com/byung-chul-han-i-practise-philosophy-as-art, <span style="word-break: normal;">last checked: 19th October 2025</span>
Let me know what you think