Contingency asks why an event occurred, inherency why it did not

Evidence

Per contra, something is inherent either if it always will happen (e.g., entropy) or if the potentiality for it always exists and actuality can only be obstructed. Just when the inevitable occurs or hindrances are removed is decided by contingencies: chance occurrences that hinder or facilitate. As contingency does not entail randomness or inability to control, so inherency does not imply fully predictable determinacy. The decay of an automobile surely is inherent, even without any accidents. When or how it will fall apart, though, is not fully predictable. But basic questions of explanation differ in cases of inherency: we usually want to know why the inherent did not occur sooner, what obstructed or delayed decay and “termination.” In contingencies, then, the puzzle is “why”; in inherency it is “why not?” — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4269 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: The essence of necessity is contingency, grounded in an event — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel: Plasticity,…, 128; Contingency and inherency always mix but cannot both be equally basic — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4270; Events and constancies are mutually exclusive yet mutually defining — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 117 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Inherent phenomena raise the explanatory question why-not-sooner, not why #corroborates (0.92) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4269