An insightful analysis. I think I have to update toward my view being a rationalization.
In fact I have had discussions about this question but nobody else clearly showed that the alternative would necessarily have been to have no kids and no relationship.
What would previous self have said and done with this argument? Contrafactual reasoning is difficult but lets first assume that my previous self had had sound and trustworthy advice about this. And that the most likely prediction for the future would have been essentially the occurrence of such a crisis earlier or later.
In that case my previous self would have considered what would be the best for her. And taken her input about that into account. And her input could have been a) I don’t want to lose you but I still cannot promise or b) I don’t want to lose you and I do promise with all my strength to love you too or c) I don’t want to hurt you more later so better to break up now. Obviously the current state resulted from an implied a). The difference being explicit and aware of the risk which is good in itself.
In case c) I could have let het go. But the missing point is: Could I have forced the choice between only b) and c) on her? b) has the benefit of really committing her thus drastically reducing the risk of our crisis. And c) even though it has the largest spread (hello risk-aversion) might still have a better average than a).
Thus from a rational point of view I should have forced the choice.
But I can tell you: I couldn’t have done that. No way. Not in my state of mind at that time. Forcing? Violence? Are we uncivilized barbarians? I learned only later (and at it own costs) that anger and aggression have their place too (I knew it theoretically but not in relation to me in particular).
And if I had also known that I would have been someone else. More the person I am now.
An insightful analysis. I think I have to update toward my view being a rationalization.
In fact I have had discussions about this question but nobody else clearly showed that the alternative would necessarily have been to have no kids and no relationship.
What would previous self have said and done with this argument? Contrafactual reasoning is difficult but lets first assume that my previous self had had sound and trustworthy advice about this. And that the most likely prediction for the future would have been essentially the occurrence of such a crisis earlier or later.
In that case my previous self would have considered what would be the best for her. And taken her input about that into account. And her input could have been a) I don’t want to lose you but I still cannot promise or b) I don’t want to lose you and I do promise with all my strength to love you too or c) I don’t want to hurt you more later so better to break up now. Obviously the current state resulted from an implied a). The difference being explicit and aware of the risk which is good in itself.
In case c) I could have let het go. But the missing point is: Could I have forced the choice between only b) and c) on her? b) has the benefit of really committing her thus drastically reducing the risk of our crisis. And c) even though it has the largest spread (hello risk-aversion) might still have a better average than a).
Thus from a rational point of view I should have forced the choice.
But I can tell you: I couldn’t have done that. No way. Not in my state of mind at that time. Forcing? Violence? Are we uncivilized barbarians? I learned only later (and at it own costs) that anger and aggression have their place too (I knew it theoretically but not in relation to me in particular).
And if I had also known that I would have been someone else. More the person I am now.
End of the if-then game for today.