If contingency is not an epiphenomenon and cannot be eliminated as an irrelevant (in)sense, if contingency does not submit to any and all expectations, if it cannot be tamed in any way – does this imply that contingency puts every little incident in this world on our hump? Does the concept of chance tell us that all events are in fact important? That we must grasp everything, take advantage of the liveliness of objects, of the world, of life? Only once to live, to seize the moment? But this is too much, there are too many events, we cannot take them all into account. The concept of chance refuses to make us the camel of life who puts all events in its backpack. The concept of chance puts a limit on us, it puts a limit on the very tendency to seize the moment, to use it for ourselves, to assert ourselves in it – the tendency to want to inscribe our own necessity, which is freedom, in chance, because we are creatures condemned to freedom. So we want an objective chance to serve our freedom, our subjective necessity, in one way or another? But what if that is precisely the problem: why do we subject the world to the necessity of our freedom? If chance cannot be tamed, then we impose on ourselves the burden of taming what cannot be tamed, of asserting ourselves where we are not and could not be. Isn’t this the very cause of our burden? Man is not wolf to man – rather, man is camel to himself.