quick follow-up on the Vitale response

Returning to the marriage example for a second, here’s how we could put it…

Assuming a free society, Columbine and Pierrot are the ones who “get to decide” whether to get married. But once it’s done, they certainly do not get to decide all aspects of the marriage. There are laws in any country that govern their mutual duties. Some of the friends of one of them may hate their chosen spouse and stop wanting to socialize with the couple. One of them may be viewed as a better or worse job candidate as a result of the marriage and thus opportunities could materialize or vanish.

There may even be hidden good or bad aspects of the marriage that no one ever notices. Maybe Columbine’s relaxed good nature is slowly eroded by Pierrot’s increasing paranoia over the years, but this happens so subtly that no one ever notices.

Furthermore, even though in a free society Columbine and Pierrot “get to decide” to be divorced if they wish, they are also not in control of the nature of that divorce. Here again there are legal codes governing alimony and child custody. On Pierrot’s next date he will either have to admit that he’s divorced or expend a lot of effort in covering it up, etc.

And what holds for marriages holds for all compound objects, if in less dramatic and sentimental fashion. The fact that you “decide” to enter into a relation does not mean that you control the relation and have all its features under perfect surveillance. In fact, you might have no idea what’s really happening to you, and in some cases even your parents, friends, psychiatrist, and biographer might not notice what’s really going on. It is a mistake to look for some Epistemological Supreme Court whose rulings on real and unreal objects are final.

Here is Henri Rousseau’s “Carnival Evening,” featuring our happy newlyweds, Columbine and Pierrot: