“I Could” and “I Could Have”
Austin starts to investigate these idioms on page 214 of “Ifs and Cans” (Phil Papers 3rd ed). The view he is opposing, first floated by G.E. Moore, is that “I could/could have” declarations are necessarily iffy, in the sense such declarations always and only occur as the consequents of a counterfactual conditional, though the antecedents are sometimes omitted in ordinary speech as understood.
Austin carries the first half of his (counter)claim very easily. Consider the utterance “I could do that 20 years ago”, referring perhaps to my ability at age 30 to run a 16 minute 5K. (No longer, alas!) There is no suppressed condition here. I claim that I was able to do something at age 30 that I no longer can do. What supports my claim of fleetiness of foot years ago? I ran several timed 5K races and finished under 16 minutes in those days. I could because I did. I could do that 20 years ago. This could is not iffy.
Austin also seems to carry the second half of his (counter)claim easily. Consider the utterance “I could have ruined you this morning (although I didn’t).” That is Austin’s example on p. 215. The parenthetical, I think, is redundant and would be omitted in ordinary speech. The speaker is again describing a real ability he had at a previous point in time. There is no (unfulfilled) contingency associated with this ability , as there would be if I had said “I could have ruined you if I had had one more vote against you.” In this latter case, I allow that I did not in fact have the ability to ruin you. I fell short in the motion to unseat you by one vote. In actuality, I could not ruin you.
“I could have ruined you this morning” , by contrast, is not a counterfactual claim. It is not iffy in the sense of depending on any implied and unrealized condition. I assert that I actually had, not lacked, the ability to unseat and ruin you. I could have ruined you BY calling for a confidence of the trustees who were overwhelmingly against you. The means to do so were in my power.
“I could have ruined you this morning if I had chosen to” is a redundant expansion, and the if-clause does not state a condition upon my ability. I had the ability whether or not I wished to use it. The proper counterfactual expression would be "I would have ruined you this morning if I had chosen to." What is counterfactual is my acting to ruin you, not my ability to do so. There is nothing counterfactual about my ability to have ruined you.
Austin carries the day on both points. But a lot more obviously remains to be said about "I could/would/should/ might have."
Austin starts to investigate these idioms on page 214 of “Ifs and Cans” (Phil Papers 3rd ed). The view he is opposing, first floated by G.E. Moore, is that “I could/could have” declarations are necessarily iffy, in the sense such declarations always and only occur as the consequents of a counterfactual conditional, though the antecedents are sometimes omitted in ordinary speech as understood.
Austin carries the first half of his (counter)claim very easily. Consider the utterance “I could do that 20 years ago”, referring perhaps to my ability at age 30 to run a 16 minute 5K. (No longer, alas!) There is no suppressed condition here. I claim that I was able to do something at age 30 that I no longer can do. What supports my claim of fleetiness of foot years ago? I ran several timed 5K races and finished under 16 minutes in those days. I could because I did. I could do that 20 years ago. This could is not iffy.
Austin also seems to carry the second half of his (counter)claim easily. Consider the utterance “I could have ruined you this morning (although I didn’t).” That is Austin’s example on p. 215. The parenthetical, I think, is redundant and would be omitted in ordinary speech. The speaker is again describing a real ability he had at a previous point in time. There is no (unfulfilled) contingency associated with this ability , as there would be if I had said “I could have ruined you if I had had one more vote against you.” In this latter case, I allow that I did not in fact have the ability to ruin you. I fell short in the motion to unseat you by one vote. In actuality, I could not ruin you.
“I could have ruined you this morning” , by contrast, is not a counterfactual claim. It is not iffy in the sense of depending on any implied and unrealized condition. I assert that I actually had, not lacked, the ability to unseat and ruin you. I could have ruined you BY calling for a confidence of the trustees who were overwhelmingly against you. The means to do so were in my power.
“I could have ruined you this morning if I had chosen to” is a redundant expansion, and the if-clause does not state a condition upon my ability. I had the ability whether or not I wished to use it. The proper counterfactual expression would be "I would have ruined you this morning if I had chosen to." What is counterfactual is my acting to ruin you, not my ability to do so. There is nothing counterfactual about my ability to have ruined you.
Austin carries the day on both points. But a lot more obviously remains to be said about "I could/would/should/ might have."
posted by Macuquinas d' Oro at 9:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home