One might think that philosophy dwells on what is not relevant to life, especially in areas such as logic which can seem so abstract and hence divorced from reality. Arthur Schopenhauer acknowledges this when he writes: “To seek to make practical use of logic would … mean to seek to derive with unspeakable trouble from universal rules what is immediately known to us with the greatest certainty in the particular case. It is just as if a man were to consult mechanics with regard to his movements.”[1] Lest you misunderstand, Schopenhauer does think logic is of great theoretical importance, it just isn’t practically useful. Nonetheless, I want to talk about an application of the concept of counterfactual conditionals to real life, to illuminate what might not really be so obvious.
To begin, what is a conditional? It is a type of logical proposition, which takes the form: If X then Y. The first part, X, is known as the antecedent, and the latter part, Y, is known as the consequent. What is a counterfactual? It is a statement that is contrary to the facts, such as “the moon is made of cheese.”
Counterfactual conditionals have an interesting property. If X, the antecedent, is false, then one can say whatever they like for Y, the consequent, and the entire proposition will be true. For instance,
“If I am living in the stone age, I would have invented the wheel,”
is as true as saying,
“If I am Bill Gates, I would solve global poverty.”
While both statements do seem possible, perhaps even admirable, the fact is, I am not living in the stone age nor am I Bill Gates. Hence, the latter part of the statement, the consequent, could have been anything, and the statement will still be logically correct. For example, “if I am Bill Gates, horses will be able to fly,” is a logically correct statement. Try it. Think, “if the moon is made of cheese, …” then fill in whatever you like for the consequent, and you would be right, regardless of how absurd it is. In short, in a counterfactual conditional, if the antecedent is false, the consequent can be anything.
While this property of logical propositions is in itself rather interesting, it more usefully highlights a kind of fallacious thinking. For instance, gamblers of the lottery might think, if I had chosen the right ticket or the right numbers, I would have won. The fact is, they did not choose the right ticket, and hence they did not win. Have you ever been in a situation where if you had just been a moment later or earlier, things would have turned out better or worse? For example, “it was a good thing I missed the 8am train today, because that train later crashed.” We can reformulate that statement to become: “If I caught the 8am train, I’d have been in a train crash.”
We often think in terms of what could have been: “If I worked harder, perhaps my life now would have been better.” “If I had been a better person, my spouse would not have left me.” Such thoughts are common, indeed, sometimes, they can be helpful. Since I know working harder makes my future life better, then perhaps I should work harder now. Since being a better person makes me more lovable, then I should start doing that now. This is a helpful effect of counterfactual thinking. However, we must realise, working harder, being better, only helps the future. The present time is the best time to start, that may be true, but it does not change the past.
The plausibility of the counterfactual can be misleading. It makes us think of what could have been, but the fact is, what could have been was not what actually happened. What happened has happened, all the other possibilities for that specific time are now irrelevant. Going back to my earlier example, say I did catch the 8am train today and was involved in a crash. We might wish we delayed a bit, or overslept but the fact is, we did not. We caught that train and it crashed. We could not have known in advanced, since if we did, we would have obviously avoided that train. But we did not. A good way to think about this is not what could have happened, but how to make the best of the current situation. So now my leg is broken due to the train accident, but perhaps I can take the time it takes to recover to do more reading or listen to more music, for instance. No amount of wishful thinking is going to reverse time and undo that train accident or my taking of that train. However, I can make the best of the current situation.
As they say, hindsight is 20/20. In retrospect, we might think we would have made a different decision. If I knew that the 8am train was going to crash, obviously I would have avoided it. But there is no way to know that in advanced. So a rational way to think about the situation is, given what we know up to 8am that day, what decision would I have made? Like the servant in the story, The Appointment in Samarra, we should not think we can outsmart the future. Don’t know the story? Listen to it here. The point is, we have to decide, and if we are going to let the unknown future and all its accidentals dictate how we live, then we would be paralysed.
In summary, counterfactual conditionals where the antecedent is false allows one to make any claim for the consequent. The life lessons we can take away from this are:
- Firstly, we cannot change the past but we can certainly learn something from what could have been, and apply it to help our future. We cannot change the past. Because of my carelessness, the milk has been spilt but we can be less careless in the future.
- Secondly, to dwell on what could have happened is an act of regret, and some remorse might help us act better in future but no matter how much regret, the past cannot change. A good way of dealing with what has happened is instead to consider how best can we act going forward.
- Thirdly, when making decisions, we only have information, including our expectations of the future, up to now. Based on that, we try to make the best decision. Even if on hindsight, there is a better possible alternative, we cannot know that in advanced. We can certainly take the lessons from it, and do better in future, but we cannot change the past, and we can only work based on reasonable expectations of the future. Otherwise, we will be crippled by indecision.
[1] Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, trans. EFJ Payne (New York: Dover Publications Inc., 1969), 46.
No comments:
Post a Comment