When Nietzsche wrote that remorse is like a dog’s bite on a stone, his avid readers well know that he was trying to establish a high-sounding critique against what he considered a form of denial of life and contempt for one’s own freedom to make decisions. : guilt and regret.
However, if we transfer Nietzschean philosophy to the chaotic scenario that some people experience when they perceive that their actions were wrong and that they no longer have a remedy, it is understandable that Nietzsche would be opposed to a habit that is not very useful in the immediate field, such as the remorse.
We have all been plagued by the certainty that a single decision made differently in the past would have been enough to make our present more in line with our desired reality.
He “and if there was” Sometimes it surpasses the mere function of hypothetical analysis to become a stormy ghost that darkens our past, depriving us of the opportunity to learn from our mistakes, embitters the present, preventing us from living the future. here and the now and hinders our future, since we uselessly invest time and energy trying to recreate a series of conditions and events that no longer exist.
“Counterfactual thoughts are mental representations of past events or alternative actions” (BYRNE, 2005; ROESE, 1997)
Of course, counterfactual thinking (counter-current) It is not necessarily a useless custom from which no benefit can be derived.
If you value articles like this, consider supporting us by becoming a Pro subscriber. Subscribers enjoy access to members-only articles, materials, and webinars.
A counterfactual perspective makes it possible to effectively conduct a risk analysis and minimize the negative consequences of a possible future catastrophe. In fact, counterfactual analysis is an extremely useful logical exercise in disciplines such as history, physics, economics and cosmology, where it is convenient to have a scenario of possible assumptions that favor a better understanding of the observable universe.
When and how to use counterfactual thinking
“Tragedy is the difference between what is and what could have been” (Abba Eban)
Counterfactual thinking is closely linked to the physical theory of Multiverses, according to which there are multiple universes with their own physical laws.
Under the multiple universe model, all probabilities are met and there is a Other me doing exactly the same thing that we have done, just as there is a Other me doing what we “should have done.”
This vision provides great utility as a scientific model and central thread of science fiction arguments, but it does not always generate equitable benefits for the common individual.
Counterfactual thinking is not and should not be limited to a merciless scrutiny of past events. In fact, engaging in persistent visualization of best alternatives that, in the end, did not occur, is the origin of regret, which has already been the protagonist per se of numerous literary works inspired by the difficulty of making correct decisions.
“Tragedy is the difference between what is and what could have been”Abba Eban once said.
Inadequate counterfactual thinking proliferates lives filled with tragedy.
Counterfactual thoughts are activated WITH a failed goal, and specify what would have to have happened to meet that goal (Markman et al., 1993; Roese, Hur, & Pennington, 1999).
Once again, the most transcendental usefulness of the counterfactual exercise consists of the possibility of anticipating negative events and preventing them. In the everyday realm of decision-making, this occurs when we evaluate the possible consequences of a decision before making it, or when we evaluate the impact our words may have on a person before saying them.
Counterfactual thinking is useful when it is applicable to the construction of a favorable scenario, but it becomes harmful and dysfunctional when it only promotes feelings of guilt for past events that can no longer be modified.
Curiously, counterfactual analysis is such a common habit that it goes unnoticed in everyday language. Thus, when we use terms like “almost” either “narrowly” We are actually envisioning a possible scenario of better—or worse—alternatives that did not materialize in the observable universe.
The activation of counterfactual thoughts occurs when you fail to meet an established goal, and follows a pattern of reasoning that specifies what should have happened to meet that goal. The problem, of course, is that the events involved in achieving said objective are no longer modifiable, nor is the initially stipulated achievement likely to be achieved.
When Gautama stated that the fact that every place is here and every moment be now It is already a reason for great joy, it is valid to consider that it referred to the relief that comes from knowing that you are part of the present, which is the only period in which it is possible to make changes that contribute to the achievement of goals and prevent outbreaks of regret.
In lower-achieving contexts, counterfactual thinking is not only an inconvenience, it is also an effective mechanism of psychological torture.
References: