“Please Tell Me you Didn’t. . . How to Keep Clients Out of the Jailhouse, Poorhouse and Lawyers Out of the Nuthouse” -Blog
“Philosophy,” is Greek for “love” (philo) of “knowledge” (sophy.) Before social media, intellectuals would sit around places like the Algonquin Hotel in Times Square just to talk about life and what they thought about it. One of the ideas that seems to have landed with them is something called “Schrödinger’s Cat,” which is a kind of “thought experiment” (another thing people who think too much often say.)
Schrödinger’s Cat is an imaginary cat, closed in a box with a potentially lethal atomic device, which would only activate and kill the cat half the time. There was no way to know if the random atomic event occurred (whether the cat is dead or alive), unless someone opened the lid and looked inside.
Admittedly, no one is handing out awards for an idea you can read in a comic book. Schrödinger used the idea in talks with Albert Einstein to illustrate that subatomic, quantum mechanics do not behave the same way as things in the larger world, like cats. (Maybe when the universe was created, the creator didn’t think we’d look that closely.) But that’s another story for another day.
It is the potential “dual nature” of existence, where the cat could be both dead and alive in different universes, which makes “existentialism” interesting. On the one hand, life is almost too absurd to be real. Then again, the only reason Schrödinger’s Cat exists at all, is because we exist to think of it. Proving Descartes, cogito, ergo sum, “You think, therefore, you are.” But who’s to say, maybe we only exist, because someone imagined us?
What good can we make of a half-dead cat? I prefer to make more practical use of thinking. Schrödinger’s Cat resonates with people because of this—we all sometimes feel like Schrödinger’s Cat —trapped in a box waiting for life to blow up. Worse, we all kinda know we are screwed either way. Even if bad luck doesn’t kill us, time eventually will. So, what are we to do with that?
The millionaire’s paradox. Let’s do another thought experiment to illustrate what good we can make of Schrödinger’s Cat.
Suppose one man has a goal of becoming a millionaire before he retires. He scrimps and saves and on the final day of his working life, he reaches his goal of having one million dollars. Although he is a millionaire by any objective measure— if he spends one penny of it, he is no longer a millionaire. He has failed.
Suppose a second man makes similar money, but he spends a bit lavishly and at the end of his working life, he has no money at all.
The question becomes, if we are like the first man, who can’t bring himself to enjoy a penny of his money (or perhaps any other facet of his life), is he any different from the penniless second man? Maybe they are parallel versions of the same man (or us). The box we find ourselves in, might just depend on a few choices we make here and there.
And this isn’t limited to money. It scales across all the things where life could be much richer for all of us, if we just weren’t trapped in our imaginary boxes. At least life could be better, if we decided to climb out of them once in a while.
If you want to read more about this kind of thinking, just go to Wikipedia, “Existentialism.” It hyperlinks to all of the great modern philosophers.