Arguments against pessimism philosophy

Pessimism is just an excuse to not try.

Philosophical pessimism has produced a lot of interesting work in literature and plays, and probably in other fields that don’t come to mind. Which is sort of ironic.

I think philosophical pessimism can certainly contribute (and indeed has contributed greatly) to rational, logical, intelligent and realistic thought. I think it needs to at least inform any philosophy that claims to be comprehensive. A philosophy that doesn’t recognise the uncertainty or fallibility of the assumptions and constructed concepts upon which it is based, or that fails to account for the necessary experience of pain, loss and humiliation in life, is fundamentally incomplete, in my view.

But pessimism philosophy regularly stops short of doing philosophy, in my view. In this way, I tend to see them as a ‘reality check’ or process of ‘cleaning house’.

Beautifully put.

Quoting niki wonoto

Some examples of pessimism philosophy are: Depressive Realism, Antinatalism, Efilism.
Initially at first, I would like to include Nihilism as well, but as we know, there also exists what's called "Optimistic Nihilism", which basically says that Nihilism is not necessarily pessimistic in its view towards this life/reality/existence.

And I'm not sure too, if people who adhere to pessimism are mostly also depressed, or not necessarily?

Is there any good arguments against pessimism philosophy?
Or, is pessimism actually a rational, logical, intelligent, and realistic thought?

Thank you

I'm afraid the realist is closer to the pessimist than the optimist.

It seems that the world has enough variety to admit a wide range of philosophies and attitudes. If one believes in luck then the circumstances of life will determine which attitude one adopts. Very much like when a buttered slice of bread drops to the floor. Do I need to remind anyone which side usually contacts the dirt-ridden floor? To those who are unfortunate enough to live in a world where the buttered side hits the floor I suggest the so-called five-second rule.

Quoting Pfhorrest

Pessimism is just an excuse to not try.

That seems like fatalism, not pessimism - futility, not agon-y. The latter says, in effect, no matter what happens, things always can be more difficult and, more often than not, things will get more difficult; whereas the former says outcomes cannot be changed, before or after the fact, no matter what you do. Conflating them is just an excuse to be an optimist. :eyes:

Quoting TheMadFool

Very much like when a buttered slice of bread drops to the floor. Do I need to remind anyone which side usually contacts the dirt-ridden floor? To those who are unfortunate enough to live in a world where the buttered side hits the floor I suggest the so-called five-second rule.

:snicker: :up:

Quoting niki wonoto

Or, is pessimism actually a rational, logical, intelligent, and realistic thought?

Being a thoroughgoing philosophical pessimist, I will say that it is all of the things you mentioned. There is a structural suffering behind human experience, it isn't proven that any positive ethic should be placed above and beyond prevention of suffering, non-existence never hurt anyone (literally), we are not on a mission to experience X (put your positive goal here), often the positive reasons for procreation are thwarted by the collateral damage of much negative experience, people often don't process pain after-the-fact in a way that properly reports it to themselves or others (the Pollyanna principle), procreation is not an exception to the principle of non-aggression, people are often used for an agenda of individuals and society in the form of labor and consumption. Given all of this, indeed there is no reason NOT to be a philosophical pessimist, naturally :grin:.

Reply to niki wonoto Hello, you might be interested to read some of the arguments and poll data contained in this discussion.

The conclusion I drew was that a balanced response is probably be the best. Be pessimistic about the future but optimistic about your ability to act in the present to make that future a little better. Narrow pessimism and narrow optimism are two extremes it is best to steer clear from.

Some of @Pfhorrest contributions to that discussion were extremely helpful.

Quoting Pfhorrest

Pessimism is just an excuse to not try.

Ha, I love that!

An ex-colleague of mine who has a lot of book smarts (PHD) is always glass-half empty/has negative energy. You can see it on his face; his demeanor and body language. I feel that he's projecting his displeasure about how the world seemingly treats him-in his mind anyway. Projecting insecurities about himself and the people in the world like the character in the old Seinfeld sitcom (George).

I think it's a cognitive dysfunction or pathology...philosophically, the law of attraction would preclude, or at least make difficult, the realization for positive energy.

To answer one of the OP questions, cognitively, pessimism has the strange effect of empowering the individual. By manifesting pessimism, they create an illusion of projecting their Freudian Superego/Neurotic Psyche as a protection mechanism. It all has to do with intrinsic fears.

Slay your Gilligan's!!!!!
LOL

To quote myself from the old thread Mark linked to, there's different kinds of "optimism" and "pessimism" that I think it's useful to distinguish between:

"Broad Optimism" in the sense that a solution is possible, the negation of narrow pessimism.
"Narrow Optimism" in the sense that a solution is guaranteed, a subset of broad optimism.
"Broad Pessimism" in the sense that a solution is not guaranteed, the negation of narrow optimism.
"Narrow Pessimism in the sense that a solution is impossible, a subset of broad pessimism.

These are just the four basic logical modalities (possibility, necessity, contingency, and impossibility) applied to the solvability of the problem.



My earlier comment was targeted against narrow pessimism, and is equally applicable to narrow optimism. Taking success to be either guaranteed or impossible is an excuse to not try; there's no point in trying unless success is merely possible, possible but contingent, and there's no possibility of success without trying, so assuming success is merely possible is necessary for success to be possible at all.

??????

Quoting armonie

So it's like the pessimism vision goes through life as a frustrated, defending that image has of himself because he is afraid that what is outside will attack his authenticity.

Philosophically, Aristotle remains relevant here in that the best gift we can give to ourselves (and each other) is to 'know thyself'.

Perhaps there are those who have fears about knowing themselves. Or maybe a fear that they need other people. Or maybe a fear that there is some truth out there that may negatively impact their self-esteem needs.

Anyway, I think Aristotle would not repudiate fears/pessimism. He might integrate pessimism instead, as a yin-yang virtuous balance that everyone chooses.

In this context, if pessimism is a choice to avoid fears, why not choose optimism? But if we choose optimism and ignore the truth that life can be filled with our own fears and anxiety, is that virtuous?

Existentially, we must make choices. We have no other choice but to make choices. Seems to me in either case, we cannot dichotomize those existential volitions/emotions. Otherwise happiness becomes static and not dynamic.

So, is knowing thyself the first step... ?