Optimism vs. Pessimism

[Capitalism Forever]

I understood your point. Your point is lacking a proper context.

Well, I am talking in the context that is relevant to our lives: the current state of the world. There is plenty of evil and even more mediocrity, but there is also America, a nation built on reason and individual rights that has been weakened by evil ideologies, but has still by far the strongest military--and has an exponentially growing number of Objectivists!

But even being outnumbered 1000 to 1 wouldn't necessarily mean death. Have you read Anthem?

[AwakeAndFree]

Capitalism Forever and Mister Swig,

I think the proper way to put it is this: If the good lives, then it will eventually triumph. But there is no way to be sure that it lives, unless we fight for what is good.

"Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe."

- H. G. Wells (1866-1946)

[Betsy]

If there is one good man against 1000 evil men, I wouldn't give the good man much chance of triumph, especially if both sides were nearly equal in weaponry.

I would. This is an intellectual battle, a battle of wits, and we are facing unarmed opponents.

As Ragnar observed:

If my fellow men believe that the force of the combined tonnage of their muscles is a practical means to rule me—let them learn the outcome of a contest in which there's nothing but brute force on one side, and force ruled by a mind, on the other.

Truth is power. As Thoreau said, in one of my favorite quotes, "One man more right than his neighbors is a majority of one."

[Capitalism Forever]

If the good lives, then it will eventually triumph. But there is no way to be sure that it lives, unless we fight for what is good.

Exactly!

[Elle]

A true optimist has positive ideas that are true. He is confident he can achieve his goals, because he has chosen goals that he knows are achievable. He has confidence in his ability to create wealth, because he is committed to the means by which man creates wealth: reason. He is confident that, if he should have any failings, he will be able to correct them, because he knows he has a free will that enables him to control his actions. He trusts that he will find rational men with whom he can value for value, because he knows that rationality is possible and trade can be mutually beneficial. He isn't afraid of being independent and acting in his self-interest, because he knows he doesn't need to sacrifice others for his survival, nor do others need sacrifices from him for theirs. He recognizes that evil exists, but he is confident that he and other good men can overcome evil--because, as Bearster so brilliantly put it, "in the long run, the truth has to win because it has the advantage of being true."

That is so succinctly what I wanted to say. Thankyou for such an eloquent description of something I have never been able to explain in words before.

[Capitalism Forever]

That is so succinctly what I wanted to say. Thankyou for such an eloquent description of something I have never been able to explain in words before.

Glad you liked it.

[MisterSwig]

Well, I am talking in the context that is relevant to our lives: the current state of the world ...

My context is: the requirements for survival. Having reason is not enough, because reason has a mortal enemy, which is force.

Force is banned from free societies, because it is the only thing a human can use to utterly defeat reason. You can have all the reason in the world, but someone can still come up and cut off your head or demand taxes under the threat of imprisonment.

In this context, what is relevant to estimating the future? Well, I think it is relevant how successfully we are stopping the spread of the force-initiators. And if you look around, I don't think you'll like what you see. But that is another argument.

In a semi-free society, also relevant is how successfully and quickly are we spreading reason and freedom. If you look around, I think this is a toss-up. But that is also another argument. I certainly wouldn't say that we have an "exponentially" growing number of Objectivists. What statistics are you using to back up that statement?

Besides, we do not need an exponentially growing number of Objectivists to change the culture. We need a strong and powerful minority well-placed in certain segments of society, with a focus on Academia, where fundamental ideas are disseminated.

But we need to face the fact that religion is trying to take over Academia, too. We may need more than brains to win this war, because religion has no qualms about using force to defeat reason.

[Capitalism Forever]

My context is: the requirements for survival.

Survival, but when and where? It's one thing to survive when you are alone with a hungry lion, another thing to survive in the Dark Ages, and yet another thing to survive in twenty-first-century America.

Having reason is not enough, because reason has a mortal enemy, which is force.

My point is exactly that reason, when exercised to its full extent and backed by a sufficient capability for retaliatory force, is more powerful than force.

You can have all the reason in the world, but someone can still come up and cut off your head or demand taxes under the threat of imprisonment.

You can have all the aggressivity in the world, but someone can still come up and design a more powerful weapon than yours. Without reason, man has only his bare hands to fight with--not very useful in a world of machine guns, RPGs, stealth fighters, and nukes.

Well, I think it is relevant how successfully we are stopping the spread of the force-initiators. And if you look around, I don't think you'll like what you see.

Out of 100 human interactions you see, how many are forceful and how many are voluntary? How many people have terrorists killed on U.S. soil since 9/12/01? How many do you think they intended to kill?

I don't say I love what I see, but I am not worried about my survival (pending the outcome of this year's election, anyway).

I certainly wouldn't say that we have an "exponentially" growing number of Objectivists. What statistics are you using to back up that statement?

I didn't intend that as a precise statement, but I do think that Objectivism is spreading. Ayn Rand's books have sold millions of copies, there are plenty of Objectivist websites on the Internet, and look at the growth of this forum! If every 100 Objectivists recruit N new Objectivists, the growth curve will be (1+N/100)^t, which is an exponential curve.

Besides, we do not need an exponentially growing number of Objectivists to change the culture. We need a strong and powerful minority well-placed in certain segments of society, with a focus on Academia, where fundamental ideas are disseminated.

OK, perhaps I should have said "people sympathetic to Objectivism" instead of "Objectivists."

[knuckles]

The good is the only thing that can acheive anything. Even in a dictatorship, the evil has to rely on the good: the thinkers and acheivers and builders (alive and dead).

While the evil often feeds on the carcases of the good, there is a bigger danger. The biggest danger is when good and evil reside in the same individual. As long as Bill Gates produces great stuff, and thinks he has to "give some of it back", the evil in him feasts off the good in him.

It is not the mullahs of the world who are leading it to perdition, it is the men of compartmentalized minds. We must fight Bin Laden, but that is easy. The tough fight is the one against George Soros.

[MisterSwig]

Out of 100 human interactions you see, how many are forceful and how many are voluntary?

I'd guess half or more are forceful. Every time you buy something, the government forces the seller to charge you taxes. That is force. And we live with it every day, not thinking twice about it.

And that doesn't even include all the other things that government forces people to do on a daily basis. But if you consider all the economic transactions in this country, nearly every single one, in some direct or indirect manner, involves an element of government force upon the citizenry.

I won't nitpick your other arguments. I think force is the essential issue here.

[Betsy]

But we need to face the fact that religion is trying to take over Academia, too.

They haven't got a prayer.

We may need more than brains to win this war, because religion has no qualms about using force to defeat reason.

It isn't the Religious Right that is staging sit-ins, trashing classrooms, shouting down speakers, and threating opponents with violence. It's the New Left and the Environmentalists.

[knuckles]

This is an intellectual battle, a battle of wits, and we are facing unarmed opponents.

While I agree with some interpretations of this, I would caution against any idea that the opposition are generally stupid or evil. Our strongest opposition on the "right" and the "left" are not the talking hjeads one sees on TV. They are the people who are very right about many things, and very honest about many things, and yet disagree with us. Like compartmentalized minds, the good and the bad are mixed in these individuals. The good "subsidizes" the evil.

My favorite left-winger is Christoipher Hitchens, who writes in Vanity Fair. A google search will bring up his articles. Read a sampling and decide just how witless the opposition is.

Get real folks!

[Betsy]

My favorite left-winger is Christopher Hitchens, who writes in Vanity Fair.

Hitchens once debated against Harry Binswanger and John Ridpath and has had a healthy respect for Objectivists ever since. Also another Socialist who debated Objectivists, Canadian Bob Rae, has abandoned many of his socialist ideals and turned toward the Right.

[Ed from OC]

Hitchens once debated against Harry Binswanger and John Ridpath and has had a healthy respect for Objectivists ever since.  Also another Socialist who debated Objectivists, Canadian Bob Rae, has abandoned many of his socialist ideals and turned toward the Right.

Really? I'd like to read more about this. I hadn't heard that either fellow had much respect for Objectivists before.

[MisterSwig]

It isn't the Religious Right that is staging sit-ins, trashing classrooms, shouting down speakers, and threating opponents with violence.  It's the New Left and the Environmentalists.

I wasn't equating "religion" with the Religious Right. Religion manifests itself in many forms, including radical environmentalism. It just so happens that the Christians are in power now.

[Betsy]

Really? I'd like to read more about this. I hadn't heard that either fellow had much respect for Objectivists before.

Here's an article on Bob Rae that I wrote in my December 1998 CyberNet:

ONE MIND AT A TIME

Objectivism is winning by changing the culture one mind at a time.

If you look closely you can see it happening. Objectivists become

confident and take action -- and take charge. Young people looking

for guidance find Objectivism and make it theirs. Those unwilling to

call themselves Objectivists find ideas in it they can advocate and

use and become Objectivist sympathizers. And, most interesting of

all, Objectivism's opponents begin to realize that they are losing and

give up, or that they are wrong and begin to drift in our direction.

An interesting case in point is Bob Rae -- then and now.

THEN:

[From the Second Renaissance Book catalog HR04D Audio $19.95]

IS CAPITALISM OR SOCIALISM THE MORAL SYSTEM? (Debate)

John Ridpath vs. Bob Rae

This unusual debate pits John Ridpath, Associate Professor of

Economics at York University, against Bob Rae, former Premier of

Ontario (just six months before he won office).

In his opening defense of capitalism, Dr. Ridpath eloquently

stresses Objectivism's unique views on morality, the nature of man

and the characteristics of a social system consistent with man's

nature.

By contrast, Mr. Rae [ ... ] defends the welfare state because

"what could be more moral than the institutionalization of love?

That is what welfare entitlements really are.... We owe each other

love, as a moral obligation."

NOW:

[Toronto Star, November 7, 1998]

[bob Rae] has produced a second book, The Three Questions. It's a

thought-provoking analysis of politics in the late 20th century

[...] Rae's essential thesis is that the old political polarity -

capitalism vs. socialism - is no longer relevant. Capitalism

[...] has won.

[...]

The traditional solutions advocated by the left - "bigger

centralized government, higher taxes, more intervention, and

public ownership" - are no longer acceptable to the electorate, he

argues.

To begin the search for new solutions, Rae refers to three

questions posed by Rabbi Hillel more than 2,000 years ago, the

first of which is: "If I am not for myself, who is for me?" From

here, he jumps to a discussion of the virtues of self-interest

that has echoes of Ayn Rand.

"Self-interest has a purpose and place at the heart of civil

society," Rae writes. "Appeals to self-sacrifice, compassion and

even generosity are rarely a successful substitute for appeals to

self-interest."

Bob Rae is still very much a Leftist, but many of his diehard

socialist's political positions are changing too. GLENN WOICESHYN

reports that a real estate entrepreneur told him rent control was dead

in Alberta, Canada "because most Albertan politicians now accept that

they were a disaster and that free markets work the best. Then he said

he recently had dinner with Bob Rae and said -- in a tone of complete

incredulity -- that even Bob Rae champions the free market in real

estate and is very much against rent controls."

[dadmonson]

I consider myself a natural optimist, but I also think of myself as a realistic evaluator of events, not biased by any fixed tendency to interpret things positively.

The reasons I am optimistic most of the time and about most issues are two:

(1). Most bad things that happen do not seriously affect my ability to enjoy life as an individual. Most good things contribute to my ability to enjoy it.

(2). I am tremendously aware of the power of good ideas over bad, and see the evil of the world as inherently weak and self-destructive.

The first was with me for most of my life. The second is acquired, and I think the more I learn history the more optimistic I get.

I've met a lot of Objectivists that are perpetual pessimists. They are dropping the context, since they seem to see only the bad, and ignore the good.

Some, however, seem to see both and focus on the bad, while I see both and focus on the good. The reason I do that is that on the basis of the good, I can work.

On the basis of the bad, I can only quit or whine.

So you wouldn't agree with the following quote?...

"The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails"

Edited December 31, 2008 by dadmonson

[agrippa1]

A pessimist is an optimist with experience.

[JASKN]

A pessimist is an optimist with experience.

Not sure if you're just being funny, but this is obviously not true. They are opposites: an optimist is one who expects the best out of life, a pessimist is one who expects the worst. How pessimistic to believe that optimism is mistaken!

[kainscalia]

I like your article a lot, Betsy. Thank you for sharing it with us!

Not sure if you're just being funny, but this is obviously not true. They are opposites: an optimist is one who expects the best out of life, a pessimist is one who expects the worst. How pessimistic to believe that optimism is mistaken!

[K-Mac]

I can be one way or the other when it comes down to certain issues, but overall, I think I have an optimistic sense of life. I wasn't always that way, and it nearly ruined me. Sometimes I feel foolish for being so optimistic, but I have to keep looking for the good and believe that it's out there, otherwise, I'll spiral into a miserable depression.

[~Sophia~]

Sometimes I feel foolish for being so optimistic, but I have to keep looking for the good and believe that it's out there, otherwise, I'll spiral into a miserable depression.

I don't think it is foolish at all, Kelly. Reality is neither good or bad. There is nothing out there that is trying to get us: we are at the top of the food chain; our technoligical accomplishments sheltered us from the elements and given reasonable decisions (not going rock climbing in a blizzard) there is no reason to fear nature.

When it comes to man made - it is the pursuit of values which is the essence of human existance. Life is conditional and so every alive person is acting according to reality to some degree while actively pursuing values. However, most people want more out of life than just to stay alive. Most people do achieve some level of happiness for themselves. Also, most people on the planet care for their children and measure progress by how much better their children's life is than theirs. Overall there is no reason to expect bad from most others and similarly bad from nature. *Such attitude is driven by emotion, overgeneralizations about the nature of reality based on some personal bad experiences, and/or feelings of insecurity (feeling inadequate to deal with whatever reality may bring).

Even today, given the far from ideal political atmosphere, it is possible to achieve a good life given enough effort. It is true that in an objectivist society the amount of effort would have been less to achieve the same level of success but such never really existed. It does not make me upset that it requires more; I rarely even think about it. I accept reality for what it is today and act accordingly without allowing the not ideal to disturb too much of my inner peace (if it happens it is momentary - because I make it momentary).

My point is - optimism is the rational.

* for atheists - I can think of few more sources of pessimism for mystics.

Edited January 2, 2009 by ~Sophia~

[brian0918]

Hitchens once debated against Harry Binswanger and John Ridpath

Do you have any info on this debate? I'd really like to know more. All I can find is that it occurred sometime in the 80s, and that Hitchens may have been a left-winger at the time.

Edit: didn't realize the post was 4 years old...

Edited January 2, 2009 by brian0918

[~Sophia~]

It is important to distinguish between arbitrary optimism and objective optimism.

Arbitrary optimism is when a person keeps saying that "everything will be all right," but cannot tell why. It is a form of evasion, which leads one to pursue impossible goals, take unreasonable risks, and forgo the real opportunities in life.

But this is not the kind of optimism that a truly optimistic person has. A promise of a bright future doesn't really cheer you up if you know it's unfounded. A true optimist has positive ideas that are true. He is confident he can achieve his goals, because he has chosen goals that he knows are achievable. He has confidence in his ability to create wealth, because he is committed to the means by which man creates wealth: reason. He is confident that, if he should have any failings, he will be able to correct them, because he knows he has a free will that enables him to control his actions. He trusts that he will find rational men with whom he can trade value for value, because he knows that rationality is possible and trade can be mutually beneficial. He isn't afraid of being independent and acting in his self-interest, because he knows he doesn't need to sacrifice others for his survival, nor do others need sacrifices from him for theirs. He recognizes that evil exists, but he is confident that he and other good men can overcome evil--because, as Bearster so brilliantly put it, "in the long run, the truth has to win because it has the advantage of being true."

I recognize that this is a very old post but - Very well said. Thanks!

[dadmonson]

My point is - optimism is the rational.

Isn't the rational person the one who expects the most likely outcome?