 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 489 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614128 Today 7 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The phrases listed in the “luck” article in The Canadian Oxford Dictionary contradict the first two definitions cited in the very same article. The phrases’ use of the word “luck” are consistent only with the third definition: “good fortune; success due to chance.” So we must make a choice. Is luck the equivalent of “chance regarded as the bringer of good or bad fortune” and “circumstances of life (beneficial or not) brought by this”? Or is luck only good fortune? If we choose the former, which I am tempted to do, then we must regard all the phrases containing the word “luck” as erroneus. We can reasonably assume that the phrases were coined by people who favoured good fortune, and thus, optimistically (and foolishly) decided to ignore the darker side of the definition of “luck.” I think we should blame these optimists for the concept of luck still being entertained today. If luck was only the first two definitions, the word would be unnecessary. Good fortune would be good fortune, bad fortune would be bad fortune; circumstances of life would either be helpful to particular individuals, or detrimental. People would not be “lucky,” just fortunate. “Fortunate” is already a subjective term; “lucky” is just as subjective, and even more vague and meaningless. When one perceives luck, he becomes isolated in his or her own perception. At least if he considered himself fortunate, they could rationalize what circumstances brought them their fortune. If he considers himself lucky, he ignores rationality. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
luck as superstition merged with probability? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
absolutely, all effects are the product of causes. so the concept of luck accounts for the unseen causes, just as the concept of a subconscious accounts for unexplained mental content. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There is no factor of probability. Probability is rational; luck is irrational. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Phrases like "with any luck" or "out of luck" suggest that it is not a matter of accounting for the unseen causes, but a matter of sitting in a room with your fingers crossed hoping for good fortune. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so when a person improbably experiences a favourable outcome, they often attribute that to good luck. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Not good luck. Just luck. They'll say "I'm lucky." So when they say lucky, what are they talking about? Good fortune for them. Therefore, good fortune = luck. But luck = good or bad fortune. This is my problem. The word luck is a big mess and it should be eliminated from our language. The concept is faulty too. People shouldn't think in terms of luck. They should pay attention to circumstances. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i know what youre saying. i guess like most english words it has about a dozen meanings and uses. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
luck is the son of Vader |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
God bless Canada |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
