Is pessimism or optimism the most useful starting point for thinking?
I raise this question because it does seem that a whole way of thinking stems from this division. There is a whole philosophy of pessimism, in the tradition of Schopenhauer.Others thinkers have seen the matter differently, most especially the whole tradition in psychology which emphasises positive thinking.
I juggle the two approaches to thinking. On one hand, I believe that we need to be realistic, in not seeing life in a romantic way, and thinking of the worst possible scenarios, with a view to being prepared. On the other hand, it does sometimes seem that the more negative one's outlook becomes, we sometimes pave the way towards the negative. It seems to me that pessimism and optimism are like the psychology optical illusion picture, which show a vase or two face profiles. Perhaps, we can zoom in one or the other. I am wondering about how we choose pessimism or optimism as ways of viewing life. I certainly don't think either one one is correct entirely. They are both extremes, but I wonder how are we best to navigate our position, in order to achieve a balanced perspective?
I juggle the two approaches to thinking. On one hand, I believe that we need to be realistic, in not seeing life in a romantic way, and thinking of the worst possible scenarios, with a view to being prepared. On the other hand, it does sometimes seem that the more negative one's outlook becomes, we sometimes pave the way towards the negative. It seems to me that pessimism and optimism are like the psychology optical illusion picture, which show a vase or two face profiles. Perhaps, we can zoom in one or the other. I am wondering about how we choose pessimism or optimism as ways of viewing life. I certainly don't think either one one is correct entirely. They are both extremes, but I wonder how are we best to navigate our position, in order to achieve a balanced perspective?
Comments (142)
What is the goal? Avoiding any deception at all costs, or living to see your grand-kids?
Cards on the table. I am a melioristic-optimist.
I think that it is both one of avoiding deception and of reaching our goals in life. My query is about the whole way of finding a balanced perception from which we are able to live.
I find pessimism as rather limited and prefer optimism. However, it seems to me that so much philosophy is biased in favour of pessimism. I would be interested to know more about your position of being a meleoristic-optimist.
I have to admit it. I am negative/pessimistic and sometimes I jump so easily to the nihilistic pit. But I guess these are the right points to start the act of thinking. Positivism or romanticism can drive us a painful situation where we except everything but we end up having nothing or something we did not except.
So despite pessimism can be sometimes tired, at least we have a more realistic figure of our life not expecting so much and then if we reach it the satisfaction is even better.
Quoting Pantagruel
Why is restrictive? You still acting but not as the motivation of a motivational/romanticism person.
Naive optimism might be construed as the belief that "things might improve" but I think this is an unsophisticated argument. I believe a true optimist is someone who interprets a situation optimistically in concert with the belief that his actions contribute materially to that possibility. Hence, why I characterize myself as a melioristic-optimist.
Conversely, naive pessimism assumes "things will get worse." However there is no other version of pessimism. If one is a pessimist, then one necessarily believes that there is nothing he can do to preclude things getting worse. Hence, pessimism is really simultaneously a denial of agency. And hence a denial of the meaning of choice, an invalidation or disclaimer of free-will. In that sense, pessimism is self-contradictory and absurd. Which is probably why pessimists are unhappy. Or maybe it is the other way around. Unhappy people are pessimists?
I guess, following that line of reasoning, pessimism could be seen as the experience of the "failure of agency." That I'd believe.
This is not pessimism but stoicism.
This is not stoicism but scepticism
Yes, because scepticism doesn’t provide expectations at all. It is similar to nihilism.
Sorry but I guess I am confused and I am making a big knot between pessimism, negativism and scepticism plus nihilism.
Pessimism, yes – Assume the worst, plan and proceed accordingly; and whether or not the worst happens, roll with those anticipated punches when they fall and keep moving forward, or as Winston Churchill purportedly quipped, "When you're going through hell, keep going." The pessimistic stance, which Does Not Entail 'miserabilism' 'cynicism' or 'futilism', cultivates courage – sing the blues and dance! – at the expense of hope (to wit: “There is an infinite amount of hope in the universe ... but not for us.” ~Franz Kafka); only optimism repeatedly disappointed, or under duress & traumatized, loses hope and 'falls' into despair.
[quote=Freddy Zarathustra]Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man.[/quote]
Re: "Pandora's Box" ...
That said, I'm an absurdist interpreting both pessimism and optimism dialectically, or against themselves (as above), and thereby live by improvisation, adapting on-the-fly as joyfully as I can to chaos & catastrophe, to loss & betrayal, to sorrow & boredom ...
https://youtu.be/TWNgzbgrDe0 (The Mud)
:death: :flower:
I am out at the moment, so plan to respond to comments when I get home, but I can respond to yours quickly while outside. I don't think that you should concern yourself with getting the answer come up, as I think that is just a feature of the software. I don't think that the one that shows up saying 'Answer' means that it is the definitive one. After all, it is about debate...
I see pessimism as a leading to a problem for choices. I once had a tutor who said that it was a mistake to try to give people a sense of hope. I see false hope as a problematic, because it can lead to a sense of futility. However, to discourage any sense of hope at all, taken to the maximum, would seem to imply that it is not worth bothering to try to make any improvements or changes to make one's own situation, or even that of others, any better. It would seem to me that it would be saying that the situation is hopeless and amount to the position of giving up all together. That would be the ultimate logic of nihilism, in its most negative form.
The spiritual decline of the earth has progressed so far that peopies are in danger of losing their last spiritual strength, the strength that makes it possible even to see the decline [which is meant in relation to the fate of "Being"] and to appraise it as such. This simple observation has nothing to do with cultural pessimism - nor with any optimism either, of course; for the darkening of the world, the flight of the gods, the destruction of the earth, the reduction ofhuman beings to a mass, the hatred and mistrust of everything creative and free has already reached such proportions throughout the whole earth that such childish categories as pessimism and optimism have long become laughable.
Yes, this is essentially my perspective as well Jack.
Optimism and pessimism seem complementary to me. Part of optimism is recognizing problems and facing them without shrinking away from the occasionally depressing truths, the only starting point from which the world can sometimes be made better. And part of pessimism is acknowledging that we might as well keep optimistically trying because giving up is the ultimate void of futility. Its sad some individuals have a combination of brain chemistry and conditioning that makes it so hard to remain stable as modern education leads everyone to inhabit this knowledge of good and evil perspective.
Your reference to Heidegger is very apt to the topic because my whole thinking around the idea of the question of pessimism and optimism was not meant to be about personal life. I do see it as applying to social and political issues. The fears about the destruction of the world are such that the spirit of people may become broken to the point where humanity on a mass level believe that we are on the brink of collapse and give up trying to make changes for the better. The whole rise of technology and the mass media is affecting people's perception of the world. We have means of mass destruction through nuclear weapons and the whole ecological threat are so apparent in the information available to us. The whole impact of this information is such that it could have a self fulfilling prophecy on the mass consciousness and unconscious of humanity.
This may have already been ushered in partially through the millennium belief in fear of the apocalypse. There have been many times when people thought that we were at the end of time already. However, the situation has become one which is not dependent on any set of religious beliefs, but on a very real possibility of a possible extinction of the human race, or of such environmental conditions that people may really begin speculating that the situation is beyond all possibility of remedies. Even the politicians and other leaders in the world may be affected in a negative way by a whole underlying perspective of the end of the human race. So, we are talking about a situation in which despair could engulf the mass psyche of humanity, and leading to people losing strength to achieve the best possible ways forward
The big question is, will the spirit of humanity continue to grow and blossom somewhere, despite the decay of its body? Or will a complete spiritual, moral, and intellectual bankruptcy long precede the eventual disappearance?
Decay of the body is one which we face individually. It is interesting to think of this in relation to the global crisis. Perhaps Gaia, or mother earth is reaching her menopause, but we have exploited her body and will have to live with the consequences. I do believe that we need to make changes in order to try to find ways for the potential future generations, and the biggest danger may be if we just view ourselves as the final inhabitants to the earth.
I do believe that it is possible to blend optimism and pessimism. Perhaps it can even be seen as a continuum.
You speak of brain chemistry and I think that this comes into it because depression comes into the picture. In some ways, negative thinking can set off the process of clinical depression. Or, the experience of depression may lead to negative thinking. It may be hard to determine which is the cause, or it may involve a complete feedback loop.
Assuming that either something good or something bad definitely will happen no matter what you do, or equivalently that either something good or something bad could not happen no matter what you do, is counterproductive, as it leaves you no apparent reason to try to make things turn out better, whether that's because it's all gonna work itself out or because there's no hope. And if you don't try, then there is less likely to be any hope.
I call the productive types of both optimism and pessimism the "broad" forms of them, and the counter-productive types the "narrow" forms (because the counter-productive types are a subset of the productive types). And I advocate embracing the broad, productive forms of both, because that's the only pragmatic way to look at things:
Pessimism or optimism? I think which one is best depends upon the toll your choice takes on your mental health.
Talking of a blend. Cellist Pablo Casals had a great quote - 'The situation is hopeless, we must take the next step.'
It is interesting that you bring in the topic of romanticism because the whole movement of romanticism came with very different views. Perhaps the most interesting was that of Nietzsche's nihilism. It was a philosophy of despair but in some ways it was a romantic one rather than the conventional form despair. In a way it created a glamour of despair and I do believe that this is an aspect of the philosophy of despair in our culture.
I do think that it is true that repeated attempts to strive for hope do give way to a more ultimate collapse into despair. It may be that the person keeps getting knocked down, gets knocked down and this can happen repeatedly. So, I wonder if the way of embracing the absurd is one way of finding a pathway of acceptance of futility without becoming broken by it.
Pessimism and optimism definitely seem to be partly a consequence of the states of mind we experience. Some people become depressed and some even develop manic defences, or fragment into psychotic states.
However, pessimism and optimism also operate on a cultural level. The professionals within mental health care come with their own values and attitudes. So, in a way pessimism can even be contagious as an underlying factor permeating social life and perhaps the ones who experience the profound states presenting in mental health care do so because they are the most sensitive ones.
But is this really what is meant by pessimism? I understand the desired symmetry, but I think your construction is misleading. "Be prepared for the worst but hope for the best" really doesn't fit what anyone means when they describe someone as a pessimist. Pessimism and optimism are meant to be understood as polar, I would argue. Hence what you are really advocating is just a brand of optimism, cautious optimism, I would say. Which I fully endorse!
Sure. There is also a difference between pessimism and hopelessness.
I have been called "pessimistic" by people who want to engage in what I call "narrow optimism", just for calling attention to the possibility of bad things happening. They complain that I "always focus on the negative", by being on the lookout for things that could go wrong. Some people really really just want to believe that everything is going to be fine no matter what and ignore the possible pitfalls because thinking about that makes them feel bad. Those are the counterproductive "narrow optimists" I mean, and the thing that they call "pessimism" (which you rightly call just caution) is what I mean by "broad pessimism".
Of course, there is a difference between pessimism and hopelessness but, surely, pessimistic thoughts can give rise to a sense of hopelessness.
This answer assumes that neither optimism or pessimism is the proper starting point, but that neutrality is. You then use the neutral perspective to determine that optimism is better than pessimism, but you fail to explain why neutrality is best.
This presumes that optimistic thoughts don't dictate positive outcomes and that pessimistic ones don't dictate negative ones.
There is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy, and, of course, let us not forget that we have the mystical power to dictate outcomes from our thoughts. Tracht gut vet zein gut.
You MUST differentiate the difference between dispositional (commonplace) notions of pessimism and philosophical pessimism proper (e.g. Schopenhauer/Buddhism).
I would imagine that it is not that there is a fundamental difference in the nature of the commonplace understanding of pessimism, but more about the depth of the idea. If anything, the history of pessimism and optimism is probably one which weaves its way through the whole of philosophy and other systems of thoughts. It also is behind the scenes of culture and politics. The most extreme version is probably nihilism. One form of it which is probably not the most obvious is in death metal music. You would probably be surprised to know that was the version of it that made me wonder about it.
My own understanding of it takes it as a position of viewing the future with a sense of doom and futility, and an overriding sense that there is no way of finding positive solutions.
Do you really think that Buddhism is a philosophy of pessimism?
I didn't mean to imply that neutrality was best. When I suggested to begin from a neutral standpoint, this was another way of saying ceteris paribus, all other things being equal, there being no antecedent reasons not to be pessimistic, nor to be optimistic.
No, no, and no.
Common place pessimism is a disposition, a personality-trait perhaps, or even a mood. It is not the same as philosophical pessimism. The common place pessimism is one where they think the glass is "half empty", so only see the negatives of a situation or only predict negative outcomes. However, philosophical pessimism is generally a metaphysical and epistemological stance on the inherent suffering or negative quality of the world. So Schopenhauer is a philosophical pessimist in that his worldview is that life is a suffering inherently due to Will and its playing out in the phenomenal epistemic stage. The only way out is denying the Will so completely, as to have a sort of Will-less state (i.e. ascetic saint). Buddhism is pretty much the same thing. The world is inherently suffering and one's epistemic illusion is keeping one from escaping it, thus a path towards nirvana, etc.
So with that being said, one can be a "happy-go-lucky" Schopenhaurian philosophical pessimist. That is to say, one can have a generally happy disposition and attitude in everyday life (so not a common place pessimist), but still hold to the views of philosophical pessimism.
I don’t think so. Would be very interested in meeting one but the “thematic discrepancy” would be too much I think. I find that generally, one’s attitude towards life in general is a huge factor in their philosophy. You can’t be optimistic for long while thinking that life is inherently suffering.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Is not Buddhist doctrine but this isn’t the thread for it.
Only one way to find out. :wink:
It is interesting that you mention death because it may be that ideas of death are an underlying aspect of many forms of pessimistic philosophy. It could be that belief that we are going to die, or that humanity is going to become extinct are central aspects of pessimism. Or, perhaps it is the idea of having to live with suffering on such a level that it would be simply 'unbearable'.
So, what is the one way to find out? I am a bit puzzled.
I didn't say it was common, I am saying there is a distinction though. You can't just lump it together in a philosophy forum and call it good.
Quoting khaled
If you wanna give your reasonings why it isn't philosophical pessimism, or explain how its not Buddhist doctrine go ahead. Buddhism has many schools of thought and probably many interpretations, I am giving a general characteristic as far as I see it. Life is suffering.. due to desire, 8 fold path, nirvana are the main tenets. The desire and all that, very similar to Schopenhauer and Will., etc.. you know this though I think.
Well that was the matter in question. “Which is the best proper starting point”? When you ask that, you can’t assume your answer already. Pantagruel’s answer was, basically “due to lack of evidence to indicate that either is more proper than the other, I’ll pick the one I like more because it is less limiting”
Also, if I said, "You have a stoic look on your face today" and then said "See I know the philosophy of Stoicism".. I hope you would make the distinction of the common parlance of the word "stoic" as it is used in everyday speech and "Stoic" the person who follows Stoicism. And yes, like the Greek statues.. the two might overlap :D.
I don't see why Buddhism can't be considered in this thread because it is a valid perspective. I am interested in looking at the whole question of pessimism in the broadest way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessimism
:up:
I do agree that one can have a philosophy of pessimism without necessarily being unhappy. I wonder if this is a set of ideas which is detached from the personal though. It may be possible to think of suffering on a philosophical level when one is enjoying the comforts of daily existence. What I wonder is what happens to the person who adopts the philosophy when he or she comes face to face with suffering on a personal level?
I think so. You can still say something like, "Oh look at me here.. I am desiring X, but yet another bubble of dissatisfaction being acted upon. If only I was to get out of this false illusion of attainment of the goal".. and then munch on your favorite potato chip, watching a movie you like, and laughing with a friend.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Then one is already equipped haha.
Also, think of an ascetic monk-type. They may follow doctrines of philosophical pessimism (maybe they wouldn't even think to call it that), and have a "happy" everyday attitude.
Certainly, it is more common for a pessimist to follow philosophical pessimism like Schopenhauer.
Why not Schopenhauer?
I have read some Camus, including, 'The Myth of Syphyus'. I do embrace despair to some extent, but I do find that if I focus on that philosophy too much I do start to become rather depressed.
Very true. Quoting 180 Proof
Agreed.. but is @Jack Cummins looking for pessimist literature or absurdist? If pessimist-proper, go with Schopenhauer. Jack, have you ever actually read Schop's World as Will and Representation? Perhaps get some books on it, either secondary literature or the "thing-itself" haha.. I threw a Schopy terms in there :D.
I have got a few books by Schopenhauer on my Kindle. Which do you recommend, because he has written a lot? I also realise that he is your mentor in some ways, but do you have other authors who inspire you, although maybe 'inspire' you? Perhaps the word 'inspire' is the wrong one to use in talking about pessimism.
I am seeing your reply come up as I am writing. The books I have by Schopenhauer seem to be collections, but I will look out for 'World and Representation' when bookshops and libraries reopen.
I think a bit puzzled why you think that monks are pessimists, and not sure why asceticism comes into the picture necessarily.
Because asceticism is one of Schop's key ethical/metaphysical concepts as written about in WWR book 4.
See here for a preview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_as_Will_and_Representation#Ethics_(Book_IV)
It is interesting that pessimism and asceticism can be linked because in some ways it could give rise to the view that nothing matters and that, therefore, everything is permitted, or this may be more of a modern take on nihilism.
Anyway, its almost midnight, so I am going to log off now, but will reply to any further comments tomorrow.
I am about to log off for the night, but it is an interesting idea that modern philosophy begins with despair.
I think this is a misconception of pessimism. Pessimism, is not Big Lebowski-style "Nihilism" (nothing matters/ no ethos). To the contrary, philosophical pessimism is very sensitive to the suffering of the world and others, and thus elevates compassion as the main essence of ethical thinking/actions.
Good night, Jack.
I think this what separates “the world is hell” kind of pessimism where I’ll consider how many children are starving in Africa and how many terrorists are blowing people up, because I can simply shrug it off since it doesn’t personally affect my life. Schopenhauer’s ideas if they’re true are constantly affecting everyone all the time
I think pessimism and optimism is a way for us to categorically organize uncertainty quickly. in daily life, it is not realistic to consider every future possibility in every situation, for example. Instead what we can do, is consider an extremely pessimistic view and an extremely optimistic view, one at a time. Once we have created those two views, we can ballpark the actual future to be somewhere in-between them. (This isn't the only way to organize uncertain information, merely one way.)
People also have a biological tendency to gravitate their attention towards "bad" things than "good" things. Which may explain why philosophers might start from pessimistic views. They just have an easier time thinking of the bad things first. Additionally, philosophy is complex (and uncertain) enough that I wouldn't be surprised if they just get stuck trying to form an accurate pessimistic view, and we never get to creating an optimistic view.
In conclusion, pessimism is the best starting point for thinking generally just because we gravitate easier to it instinctively. However you probably are just hurting yourself if you are only pessimistically thinking about something you will never finish thinking about.
Accurate. But sometimes a pessimistic philosopher does not depend on being happy or sad. I guess he is realistic but with a sense of negativism avoiding all kind of romanticism.
It is true is hard to be this kind of philosopher and randomly still happy for what the future/life holds. It would sound weird and without sense. Nevertheless, I think a pessimistic person is not forced to stay in a sadness behavior to think about "pessimism"
For example: I can talk to you and say:
Probably as you say this would sound so pessimistic but for me is just my realistic life but without sadness.
Quoting Albero
Interesting statement. I guess this also happens because we don't know yet what happiness actually means. Probably for someone getting those conclusions make them having a cheery face because they understand is impossible having a fulfilled life and it is ok too (?)
Pessism keeps you from an untimely death, optimism keeps you from a full life.
Imagine two people, X an optimist, Y a pessimist in a jungle. They hear leaves rustling in the bushes behind them. X, the optimist, thinks it's a cute little bunny rabbit and Y, the pessimist, thinks it's a ravenous jaguar. Who, X or Y, is likely to survive given this scenario repeats with a sylvan rhythm over the course of these two's jungle adventure?
That said, pessimism tends to wreak havoc on people's moods and I believe, some say, long-term melancholia shortens life-span. In saying this I'm bracketing out the benefits of never being disappointed that comes with adopting a pessimistic stance in life.
This example is important and perfect. Here we see how literally Y the pessimistic survives better in the jungle because he prefers to being more open up to all bad circumstances than the optimistic one. Furthermore, Y will always win because if there is a rabbit no problem at all and they keep going. If it is a dangerous jaguar at least he was in defense position due to he was expecting the worse. But the success of X is thin just a 50 %. If it is a rabbit everything will be OK but what about if it is a dangerous jaguar? He would be lost or dead because he wasn't expecting that.
So... I guess pessimistic persons tend to be more realistic and ready of what can the life bring to us. Romanticism or positivism could drive us in painful situations as deception or heart breaking, etc...
Being clinically paranoid could also keep you from an untimely death. But the question for me isn't just whether you survive, it is what kind of life you live and what else you might be missing owing to such tendencies.
And then there's the issue of the jungle metaphor. Is that really a useful analogue for what we call real life? What is the equivalent of a dangerous jaguar? I can see some potential contenders but I really can't see a great advantage to pessimism. Advocacy for pessimism often sounds to me like the teenager who says, "I'm not going to fall in love so I can never get hurt.'
Can you give me your email address? :joke:
I am glad that you can see the link between pessimism and mood. I am definitely not in favour of a whole empty philosophy of happiness but sometimes when I read too much in the direction of nihilism I find that I sink into melancholia. The term is not used that much now, or certainly not within psychiatry. However, going back to my time as a teenager, reading in a library, I can remember reading, 'The Anatomy of Melancholy', by Robert Burton.
I do think that it is easy for a general sense of disappointment in life to overlap with a whole philosophy of pessimism, and it seems that the two can collude together. Generally, I think those who experience more unhappiness are more likely to gravitate towards a pessimistic philosophy. I think it is how far one decides to go, because it can become a downward spiral.
However, perhaps it is also important to acknowledge the pits of despair. One of my favourite quotes from Carl Jung is, 'I live in my deepest hell and from there I cannot fall any further.' One idea which Jung refers to is the idea of enantiodromia by Heraclitus, which refers to the way in which when one of the poles is reached to the extreme, there is often a natural swing to the opposite one. Certainly, I find that if I get into a really negative state, it often seems that at some point, I swing to the a really positive swing. But, I am aware of people who seem to live most of the time in a state of negativity or positivity. I feel that I have a constant battle within myself between a general outlook of pessimism and optimism.
I have been reading, 'The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer: Studies in Pessimism, ' this morning and found it a good book to read. One aspect which I was quite surprised by was the way he sees Christianity as a form of pessimism, in its whole emphasis upon sin. Having been brought up within the tradition of Christianity, I had never really thought about it as a pessimistic philosophy. However, I certainly have worried about sinfulness.
Generally, I have read more in psychology than philosophy about despair, especially in depth psychology. One book which stands out for me is, 'Suicide and the Soul,' by James Hillman which looks at the whole experience of despair. I have known people who have committed suicide and I have also worked with people who are suicidal in mental health care and it does seem that it is necessary to enable people who are feeling despairing and suicidal to understand the depths of despair, rather than just short circuit into an attempt to fight the negative. I do think that the philosophy of pessimism can probably do this to some extent, almost as a form of consolation.
I am inclined to think we all need to find the right balance between pessimism and optimism. Certainly, I feel that I need to juggle them to adjust to the fluctuations in my own mental state. I find that I need both the insights of pessimistic philosophy, as well as some positive thinking to make sense of life, like the yin and the yang.
I am surprised that you could not function for about a month after reading Schopenhauer's ideas, especially on desire. I read his essays on pessimism this morning and feel perfectly okay. However, I have probably read many other writers on desires, and I was brought up with Christianity, so I probably reached the climax of such thinking a long while ago.
It is hard sometimes to face the world with 'a cheery face' when faced with a pessimistic philosophy. However, I do think our own life circumstances do affect mood so much. Even then, situations in the world can affect us. I find that if I watch a lot of news I get rather downcast, but, at the same time, I do want to be aware of what is going on. I don't want to be living in some kind of balloon floating over the world, oblivious to suffering.
This is your first post, so welcome to the forum. You make some important points, especially in saying that the question of pessimism and optimism seems to be one arising in facing uncertainty. It does seem that it is this which gives a need for approaching life with an optimistic or pessimistic viewpoint.
I do think that you are right to say that it is a matter of disposition. You say that you feel that the best starting point is pessimism. I am still a bit divided, thinking that both are important ways of seeing. I feel that it is worth zooming on each at different times. I am not sure if that means that I am just sitting on the fence. However, I believe in the importance of seeing problems with as much realism as possible. However, I do like to approach them with a certain amount of positivity too.
Yes, to reiterate your point, I think that pessimists should form "Communities of Catharsis" groups to vent about the suffering and see each other as "fellow sufferers", which is a term Schop wrote about in how we should address each other to remind us that we are part of the same scheme.
I have been in some experiential psychotherapy groups which seem to operate along those lines. But, we can also ask to what extent is moaning useful? Also, if done in a group rather than complaining about life it can become a matter of complaining about each other.
Yes, that would make our Communities of Catharsis different than psychotherapy or something like that. Psychotherapy is going to just say, "Don't complain, you have to get better.." and Communities of Catharsis would be 100% for complaining as much as you want an not feeling judged. That's the difference. I know the strategy of the modern day is to say that it is the individual who has to "Shape up" and adapt, but CoC will allow for fellow pessimists to gripe about the unescapable existential situation and feel better that others have allowed for them to freely crap on the existential situation at hand.. It is actually quite opposite of most types of therapy which do not like complaining.. and you don't have to reiterate that point, cause I get they don't and thinks its not helpful, etc. There's just two different goals and outlooks in these groups so its no use comparing it really.
As far as complaining about each other, I guess groundrules would have to be put up that this is about other problems outside the people in the group itself.
Of course, Freud's original idea was really one of catharsis, rather than of telling people that they should get better. Freud's philosophy was fairly pessimistic too.
I do believe that the arts, especially writing are a form of ventilating the experience of suffering. Diaries and journals can be a way of exploring difficulties. I have just come across a relevant quote from Kafka:
'I don't mean, of course, that my life is better when I don't write. Rather, it is much worse then and wholly unbearable and has to end in madness.'
One book which I believe is essential for understanding suffering and absurdity is Colin Wilson's, 'The Outsider'. He looks at the life and suffering of many creative individuals, including Nietzsche, Camus and Van Gogh. He does see the experience of suffering as an essential aspect of creativity. However, he does go beyond pessimism in speaking of peak experiences. So, we can ask whether the experience of anguish can give way to the possibility of peak experiences, or heightened states of creativity?
Yeah, but communal pessimism is an interesting concept I'd like to explore..Pessimism is almost always borne out in one's own head, so the idea of expressing it with others intrigues me- especially considering the hostility it gets from most.
Quoting Jack Cummins
You should DEFINITELY read Schopenhauer's ideas of aesthetics, as it looks right up your ally. He believed that the arts and music were small ways people can take to perceive the Forms and "stop" (briefly) the impinging Will. It some how "arrests" the willful nature temporarily to see things in a more "being" state rather than dross becoming of everyday state.
See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer%27s_aesthetics
Definitely. The representation of the Will itself, not just its Forms :D.
So how do you think communal pessimism would take place? Do you think that it would be about people sharing their experiences in a group? I do believe that there would have to be very firm boundaries because group dynamics are so complex. My own experience of groups is that often certain people dominate. Do you think it would need a leader?
I did once take part in a philosophy group which was more about sharing experiences. Of course, in groups some people feel more comfortable about sharing than others, and probably this depends on how much similarity and difference there is amongst the group.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/511450
sláinte :up:
That's a good question. I would imagine it would need a moderator.
I think ground rules are always a good idea in a group setting. I would suggest giving people some time limits to allow everyone to have a chance to share.
I think people can air all the grievances they have with their life, others, situations, etc. Others can say stuff like, "Right on!" and such.. but no negative judgements should be told of the participant during the meeting itself. It's more of a support group, not therapy really. But it's support for existential situation itself, not a particular topic; that's the key thing about it.
My music gets much darker. My pessimistic music includes The Doors, the Jesus and Mary Chain and an ultimate album for being down is Slipknot's, 'When All Hope is Gone.' Actually, I find that extremely dark music can lift my mood significantly, but it has to be the right music at the right time. It is all so subjective, but, personally, when listening to music it can be about transmuting the darkness within. I am probably a bit of a gothic pessimist.
Perhaps it would be Pessimists Anonymous.
Yes, clever name. However, AA is trying to reform people. This is more like everyone has an understanding of the pessimist perspective and so understand everyone is in the same boat and empathizes.
We would definitely need to omit the 12 step approach. Even though you say AA is for reform, I think that some people use it to offload, because many alcoholics probably have very difficult life experiences to share.
AA is a nice example of pessimism. It says you have a disease that can't be cured and that you will always be powerless. Even the world alcoholic (which Is no longer accepted in many circles) is a rather limited label. I prefer the SMART Recovery model for substance related issues.
It does seem that the whole approach to alcohol problems, even AA is based on a disease model. However, a lot of the people with alcohol issues seem to be the ones who label themselves alcoholics, although I think that they are probably doing this to acknowledge that it is a problem.
I am vaguely aware of the SMART recovery goal approach. What is the more preferable term instead of 'alcoholic'? I know that there is a whole spectrum of dual diagnosis.Unfortunately, most forms of diagnosis come from a disease model. I do favour the recovery approach model in general.We could even ask to what extent psychiatry psychoanalysis and other psychological approaches begin from pessimism or optimism? As models they do begin from certain perspective about human nature.
Thank you for the warm welcome. Glad to have found this place.
—Frederick Nietzsche
I've taken a liking to this metaphor, and working off of it, perhaps we can describe pessimism and optimism: optimism with little pessimism is like a tall tree with short roots, which will eventually fall down spectacularly in a storm. Pessimism with little optimism is like a short tree with many roots, safe and stable but perhaps lacking the light it needs to maintain itself properly.
I have not come across that particular quote from Nietzsche and it is a great quote. I also really like your images of 'pessimism as a tall tree with short roots'. I do believe that pessimism needs to be balanced with some optimism. It really would seem like a tall tree which may get blown down in the wind and storms.
I was interested in your remark to Madfool about how clinical paranoia. I do believe that these are exaggerated defense mechanisms. It seems that people can develop fantastic stories in order to protect themselves physically, as well as psychologically.
You're right, Jack. It's very easy to select a world view that helps you to survive but may also destroy your ability to connect. I have often thought of that famous Howard Zinn quote - “Pessimism becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; it reproduces itself by crippling our willingness to act.”
I think that we are all probably looking for a worldview that works for us. That is probably central to the whole philosophical quest and it is so interesting that what seems to work for one person doesn't seem to work for others at all.
Have you noticed however that the person with the carefully considered, coherent worldview, that seems to make sense of the world for them may not be any more tranquil? I remember a well known Buddhist teacher in my city some years ago who was a mess of anxieties and had a serious alcohol problem. This was generally kept from his students. The person with answers may also be lost.
Loosely this points toward a more ‘optimistic’ outlook.
Actually, what this has made me wonder is how pessimism and optimism fit together with the whole life instincts. I am making the connection with Freud's emphasis on the life and death instincts, Eros and Thanatos. I am wondering to what extent are optimism and pessimism part of our innate tendency towards survival and how we develop cognitive tendencies, especially at different stages in our lives. Or, alternatively, perhaps the gravitation towards pessimism or optimism plays a significant determinant role in establishing aspects of our physical and psychological survival.
It is a complex area, involving the question about our basic nature and our quest for meaning. In some ways, it could be argued that thinking and philosophy are all part of the survival process. However, that would seem to be reducing it all to the perspective of evolutionary biology. Culture seems so important. Could the purpose of biology itself be the evolution of consciousness? If that view was taken, the whole process of finding our own gravitation on the pessimism and optimism spectrum, and forming worldviews would be seen as essential.
I think that a lot of threads on this site ask about the cause of consciousness but we can also ask what is consciousness, and how it fits into the scheme of the universe. That is not forgetting the overall question of pessimism and optimism. At the moment, I am wondering if they may be the manifestation of the duality of life and death in the human psyche.
No. Biology (i.e. evolution) doesn't have a "purpose". Certainly "thinking & philosophy" are not "part of the survival process" given that modern homo sapiens have been around for two hundred or so millennia before anything like "thinking" or "philosophy" were acculturated.
I am about to go out, but will have a think before I reply because it is a really big question.
I can just as easily assert that "everything has a purpose." Rather than making pronouncements, I prefer to construct descriptions or models that fit with accepted facts as well as my own hypotheses. There is literally no way that you could know that biology doesn't have a purpose.
Yes, exactly like that. :roll:
Yes, I am glad for your little elegant post, to steer the thread back on track. I do think that the wish to live, or die, is at the centre of the consideration about pessimism and optimism. I think that an underlying aspect is that of will. I have seen people who have a great wish to live and that seems to provide the will to persist in spite of great obstacles. Also, I have seen people who seem to have given up, as if they have lost the will to carry on and, in some cases, it seems that they become more susceptible to severe organic illnesses. Of course, I am not saying that all people who become seriously ill physically have lost the will to live, as that would far be too simplistic.
Another aspect of the matter may be faith, not in the religious sense, but in the way the balance between pessimism and optimism are juggled. That is because there needs to be a certain positive motivating factor. Perhaps those who consider themselves pessimists or nihilists have faith in order to battle on in spite of living with an awareness of suffering, and death, hovering in the background.
Of course, we smile and things often do get worse. It is difficult to know how much is just us seeing patterns, or how much impact our subconscious wishes have upon us, for better or worse. So, you could ask to what extent does it matter whether we embrace a philosophy of pessimism or optimism, or certain psychological attitudes? Does it really matter, in determining experiences and how we interpret our experiences?
If you believe in an afterlife or some sort of defying death all the time then you are bound to be an optimist.
But it seems optimists do die, unless I am solipsistic and I am the only mind in existence; quite hard to believe in such an option.
Cheers!
A Realist
You may be mistaken in seeing the pessimism and optimism as a matter of believing in life after death or not. One of the main heroes of pessimism, Schopenhauer, pointed to whole philosophy of pessimism in Christianity, in the idea of sin. I would add to what he wrote in saying that Christianity has a whole heritage of belief in the fall of angels and the consequent fall of human beings. So, it is a fairly grim view of human nature. Also, the idea of life after death does have a potential sting, in the possibility of hell.
The art may be able to hold on to a slight glimmer of light amidst some form of bleak pessimism, in order to find ways of coping with the daily aspects of living.
Optimism, on the other hand, ignores this simple truth and insists that despite all the myriad ways one experiences disappointment, one should expect the best. There's a noticeable touch of irrationality in such a mindset but hey, to each his own, right?
The whole idea behind it all is to keep the world running smoothly - the pessimist, believing disaster is imminent and almost certain, recommends that there always be a plan B and the optimist's raison d'être is to cheer up the pessimist and together they manage to do something neither of them could've done alone. I guess what I'm saying is that if you're Bruce Wayne and you tell me, "I'm putting together a team..." I'd recommend and perhaps even vouch for at least one optimist and at a minimum one pessimist.
My own take on it is that it sometimes seems that there are so many potential obstacles that I am amazed and grateful that things go as well as they do. I am often busy making plan B and then the whole circumstances alter and both plan A and B disintegrate, with plan C appearing in the midst.
I am not trying to be complicated, but I find that the more prepared I am for certain eventualities, the more the picture seems to shift. But, in spite of the way life seems to come with plenty of harsh shocks, I find that there are usually some pleasant ones. But I am not convinced that what happens in life is random, and I do believe that on some level our consciousness has a key role, on some kind of subliminal level. It is probably for this reason, that I think that the whole question of pessimism and optimism is an important one for discussion.
No eternal reward will forgive us now
For wasting the dawn"[/i]
Quoting Jack Cummins
We are natural creatures. Nature lacks meaning. This natural lack we (mis)attribute to our nature as a basic need to find / make meaning. We, thereby, tend to confabulate either a self-positing (optimistic) or a self-negating (pessimistic) X-of-the-gaps stance. An absurdist stance, however, defiantly rejects both of these evasions from "giving all to the present" (Camus) by committing daily e.g. to creative pursuits & natural beauty or to solidarity struggles (or to both). Amor fati, Jack!
:death: :flower:
I am glad that the Doors crept in, especially as Jim Morrison was inspired by Nietzsche. It was Jim who led me to Nietzsche's books in the first instance. I do agree that we are all natural creatures, or I would have never written a thread on bodies. I probably do stand more on the brink of the embracing absurdity rather than stepping into the nihilistic wasteland. I really like Kafka as well as Camus and do think that sometimes can capture certain aspects of truth which can get lost in prose writing.
Anyway, I am logging out for today, so good night.
I wish someone would make the effort of gathering information that could be used to prove pessimism or optimism, neither, even both, I have no stake in it. Such a project would involve making a list of plans people make for whathaveyou and calculating the success/failure ratio of these plans. If the ratio is 1 then neither optimism nor pessimism is justifiable, if the ratio is greater than 1 then Go! Optimists! and if the ratio is less than 1, pessimists are right on the money. We could do this at the level of an individual too. Why don't you try it on yourself and check whether you should be a pessimist or an optimist or something else? Since there's a practical and sound statistical method for settling the matter, arguing about it without taking that into account is a complete waste of time unless one's intentions are of an exploratory character.
:point: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias (scroll down to the section on 'pessimistic bias')
[quote=Wikipedia]Pessimism bias is an effect in which people exaggerate the likelihood that negative things will happen to them[/quote]
I think a well-designed study should settle the issue once and for all.
That aside, the notion pessimism bias works only if we know that things aren't as bad as the pessimist believes. Whence this knowledge? It presupposes, along with the idea optimism bias, that both are flawed views of the world. How do the people who coined these terms know that?
Their biases long observed in experiments. Daniel Kahneman (Thinking, Fast and Slow) got the Nobel in 2011 for his work with the late Amos Tversky on the prevalence of cognitive biases and how they adversely impact decision-making & judgment.
Good job Daniel, my good man. The first step to a solution is recognizing that there's a problem.
More importantly, are the findings (of the experiments) generalizable? Or given that the fortune seems to be rather fickle about whom she favors or dislikes, should we carry out invididualized experiments? Could the trade-off between statistical generalizations and individual uniqueness be misleading?
[quote=Emil Cioran]Only optimists commit suicide, optimists who no longer succeed at being optimists. The others, having no reason to live, why would they have any reason to die?[/quote]
Sound advice. :up:
When I woke up this morning, I read your dialogue with Proof and had mixed feelings. I do think that the study of pessimism and optimism would be an interesting area for psychological research. However, I don't think it would come up with definitive answers because that would seem to be trying to solve translate the questions of philosophy into the perspective of experimental psychology. It would show some things but not the complete picture and, I am so glad about that. I prefer libraries to laboratories.
I have read some Rimbaud and he is a very powerful writer. I also agree with the quote you gave on suicide. It does seem that suicide is often an impulse which is done in the moment of rash despair. It does seem to me that is too easy, although it is not that easy to kill oneself. Many people try and fail, sometimes with long term physical consequences, which were far worse than the original ones they had. Perhaps suicide is about people only wishing for optimism and we have to take into ourselves, as opposed to killing it, as if it is some kind of vermin.
I want to take this question beyond the criterion of usefulness in the narrow sense though. I would argue that optimism and pessimism are valuable experiences in themselves, apart from any benefit or use. Each one expresses a fundamental truth about human existence. I would even say that a human life is incomplete if it hasn’t gone through both extremes of the spectrum and ‘conquered’ them in some fashion. Each extreme is metaphysical in its own way and opens the door to an experience that transcends ordinary reality. I agree with the folks who said that the key experience on the side of pessimism is anticipation of death (or Thanatos). One way I’ve found to reach this experience is through the Buddhist nine-point death meditation. Going through the nine points, one gradually feels the finitude of being a mortal, that uncanny feeling of the existentialists that expresses our homelessness and alienation in the world. Freud thought that the unconscious doesn’t have a concept of time, and it seems animals don’t have the experience of finitude in the way humans do. So this experience probably requires use of conceptual thought and the reality principle. I’ve heard that Buddhist monks meditate on death daily, as do Christian ones in another way. That’s not surprising, since it seems we’re wired to forget and evade thoughts of death and anything that might remind us of it, like pain, illness, trauma, failure and negative outcomes.
Eros (or life) to me is the oceanic feeling that Freud talks about, a kind of metaphysical union where boundaries dissolve and finitude is no longer felt. I think he’s right that we feel this whenever we join other living beings in larger units, like in family or religion. I think some such experience of union is necessary to hold an authentic optimistic view. The set of beliefs must have a real counterpart, so to speak. Otherwise they are just words empty of content. There must be some reason posited for why things will turn out well, and to my mind this is usually Providence. The same is true on the other side. I don’t think a person can be a pessimist without direct experience of the negative aspects of life, and ultimately death in some form. So, I would challenge not just usefulness but also thinking as the criterion in the original question. I would say that beyond the thoughts and positions that we consciously adopt we have intuitions of reality. The thoughts spring out of these intuitions, so to speak, and the only way to sustain the thoughts in the long run is to nurture the underlying intuitions.
Nothing is ever for certain, but the question is which is the better strategy? How many pessimists made it to the top of the mountain?
Which is better, to die trying or to rest in the safety of your bedroom eating your Twinkies?
For a more objective study on the advantages of a positivity bias, see: https://www.chabad.org/generic_cdo/aid/4382048/jewish/Positivity-Bias.htm
The line quoted by @180 Proof ("I'll tell you this no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn") could be considered anti-Christian (and therefore Nietzschean) in its focus on the worldly and not the heavens, but I'd deny that it's anti-religious generally. Asceticism and the denial of the significance of worldly events is not a common element respected in all religions as a virtue. I point that out because I read the Morrison quote as being very positive and very optimistic and not at all critical of religion generally and actually consistent with the religion of my youth.
If one views the glass as half empty, then one favours the past, when the glass had more to offer.
If one views the glass as half full, then one favours the future, where one may continue to enjoy the contents of the glass.
Regardless of ones attitude however, it does not change the reality of the situation or the contents of the glass. Therefore, a neutral attitude of accepting what IS, rather then being for or against a situation, may be the best way to think about reality.
The idea of 'no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn,' does seem to blend together the whole idea of gratification with eternal punishment. So, it is an interesting combination, but it probably does capture the contradictory set of values that I feel that I, and probably many others were raised on. My own sources of inspiration were Catholicism and rock'n'roll. I am not sure that asceticism was ever discussed with me at home or at school. I think it was a bit of a taboo area of discussion. Jim Morrison discussed the unspeakable and took me into a unexplored realms. So, is it any surprise that I needed philosophy to untie all the complicated knots.
Your reply is interesting and, you are right to say that apart from our conscious positions of optimism or pessimism we have intuitions. The opposite is still within our minds as well. One aspect of the conundrum of this opposition is that we know our past, but we don't really know where we are going or what will happen next in our lives, so we are making up our own life stories on an ongoing basis. So, we can also choose the whole tone of the daily realities we create, on the basis of how we frame our past experiences.
I am thinking about the search for freedom, but the special way we have to walk the careful and intricate path between the negative and the positive in order to survive individually and collectively. It is so easy to feel beaten up by oppressive experiences and just wish to give up. Alternatively, if people just try to think of the positive only, they may be in for some nasty shocks. Probably each of us finds what works for us, but it is likely that how we perceive the possible paths will affect the destinies we create for ourselves, even though it does seem that some people seem to have more obstacles to face than others.