Optimism vs. Pessimism

[AwakeAndFree]

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.

What are your thoughts on the subject? Is this merely a sense of life issue, or a complex historical evaluation in which different people get different results?

[source]

I heard a few clicks in my head when I read your post. Then I tried to post a reply and as I was writing it, I was on the right path to state two contradictory things and try to show that both were valid. This could only mean that there was still one thing wrong about my approach to this matter. It got me thinking and here's what I concluded:

There is no time to waste it on brooding over things that are bad, because if one does, then there is no denying that bad things really DO affect his ability to enjoy his life.

However, I am still left with one question - if something good has happened and suddenly something that supports it has gone bad to such extent that it becomes impossible to enjoy that good, what should one do? Suppose that without that thing that's gone bad, the good thing can no longer exist. Should one cling to the good thing despite the bad, or should one abandon everything, and start fresh, give himself a new place to stand in order to remake that which was good, no matter what is lost by abandoning it? Is there another option?

If the above makes any sense to you (I'm not sure if I've expressed myself clearly enough), I'd like your oppinions.

As for optimism or pessimism, Ayn Rand said that both concepts are flawed because they are not trying to deal with reality as it is, but rather try to distort reality. In case of optimism it's distorting it in such a way as to think that somehow everything you do will turn out all right, even if what you're doing is total nonsense, and in case of pessimism it's to think that everything is always turned against you, that what you do can never work out no matter how hard you try.

As for your questions, erandror, I guess my clicks have to settle down completely before I use them in my further reasoning. For now I can only say that the objectivists you've met probably think the same way I did before I read your post. They see the bad things happening in the world and because they look at the wrong direction they fail to see all the good stuff that's hapenning in their own lives, which are probably their own accomplishments. Soon enough they'll probably start believing that all this objectivism is pointless and that it will show no good results - and if it does, then they won't see it because by then they will be too blinded by all the bad stuff.

So I guess I should as well thank you for this post.

[Bearster]

By "optimism" do you mean the bevelonet universe premise? By "pessisism" do you mean an assessment of the culture and where things look to be heading at present?

I think that in the long run, the truth has to win because it has the advantage of being true. I also think that the long run may not be in the next 50 years--particularly if the US+Israel doesn't decide to stop the terrorists real soon.

[Betsy]

What are your thoughts on the subject?

I agree 100% on every substantive and personal point you made.

Is this merely a sense of life issue, or a complex historical evaluation in which different people get different results?

I think it's both combined with an issue of of self-esteem.

One of the reasons people get different results when they engage in complex historical evaluation is that their personal sense of life -- especially their view of man's efficacy -- guides their selection of the historical facts they deem relevant and essential to the evaluation.

Also, rational people tend to be efficacious winners in life and optimism follows naturally from that. People who are successful today -- and know they deserve it -- have good reason to expect success tomorrow.

[AwakeAndFree]

By "optimism" do you mean the bevelonet universe premise?  By "pessisism" do you mean an assessment of the culture and where things look to be heading at present?

No.

By optimism I mean the general belief that things would turn out well.

By pessimism the general belief that things would deteriorate to the ruin of all.

But I think beyond the conscious belief - there is the emotional approach. Some people may agree that everything would turn out well, but they still focus solely on the bad in their daily lives.

[pvtmorriscsa]

I am not sure if I would be catagorized as an optimist, or a pessimest. My overall all view of the universe and it's effects upon my life are pretty basic. It can be summed up this way:

Sh*t happens. Learn from it and drive on.

[Capitalism Forever]

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."

As far as the subject matter is this-worldly, objective optimism is the only kind of optimism that is sustainable. One may temporarily entertain some false hopes, but as soon as reality pronounces its verdict on them, the unfounded optimism is bound to vanish. What replaces it is up to the person in question: He may either

• recognize his error and adjust his ideas to reflect reality, in due course becoming an objective optimist;
  
• resign his confidence and become a pessimist ; or
  
• develop an embittered, perverse "confidence" in things not going well, and become a cynic.
  

The first of the above three is the choice of moral men: the choice to think and seek virtue. The second is the choice of mediocre people, who are immoral at times but not especially evil: the choice to "park" one's mind and passively accept one's fate. The third choice, cynicism, is pessimism run amuck: the choice to actively nurture false ideas, destroy values, and then point at the destruction and say, "See?? I told you!!!"

[Edit: corrected "can value for value" to "can trade for value for value"]

Edited July 1, 2004 by Capitalism Forever

[AwakeAndFree]

I agree with Capitalism Forever. BTW - That's a relatively optimistic nick!

[MisterSwig]

Philosophically, I think this is a false dichotomy. These views do not take into consideration the reality of free will. I believe these views were originated to make evading reality easier.

On one hand, a pessimist says that nothing you do will change the fact that ultimately evil will triumph. Therefore, a pessimist routinely dismisses the efforts of the good. On the other hand, an optimist says that nothing you do will change the fact that ultimately good will triumph. Therefore, an optimist is little concerned by the acts of evil.

I don't accept either view, nor any watered-down version. I look at reality and evaluate it for what it is--good or bad. Then I deal with it and act accordingly.

[AwakeAndFree]

Well,

If you really do say that nothing you do will change the future, for better or worse, then of course this is not legitimate.

But someone can have an estimate of the future based on probability, and this estimate can be positive or negative. This is what I was refering to as optimism and pessimism. My dictionary define optimisn as:

n. state of seeing the good in life, state of hoping for the best.

And Pessimism as:

n. act of seeing only the bad side of situations, tendency to expect the worst.

This may not be the philosophical sense of these words (i.e. - the best of all possible worlds vs. the worst of all possible worlds), but I think it is the common usage. Even when looking at people who are not determinists, you see that some of them are optimistic most of the time, and some pessimistic. I believe this is due to their psychology, their subconscious assumptions, and not their explicit philosophy.

I'll give you a simple example from my life: I am looking for a job, currently I don't find anything suitable. I'd say the chances for me to find a job by the time I need it, is about 50%. Now - a pessimist may agree on the probability, but will conclude that "I am in a lingering state of doubt, an impossible situation", and then will go on to whine about it to everyone in sight.

An optimist will always ask the question: "what is the worst that can happen?" and after deciding he can handle it, goes on to ask "what can I do to prevent it?" And at the end will conclude that everything will probably turn out well.

As this kind of Optimist, I even asked "What is the worst that can happen if western civilization falls and Islam takes over during my lifetime?". I decided what to do in such a case, decided I can handle it, and then turned to look at the positive: how we can prevent it, and how unlikely it is to ever happen.

Edited June 29, 2004 by erandror

[Capitalism Forever]

These views do not take into consideration the reality of free will.

[...]

On the other hand, an optimist says that nothing you do will change the fact that ultimately good will triumph.

Oh, it is true that nothing you do will change the fact that the good will triumph. But whether you are good or evil is up to you!

[Capitalism Forever]

BTW - That's a relatively optimistic nick!

Um humm ... moderately optimistic.

[AwakeAndFree]

Fine, have it your way!

[iouswuoibev]

Out of all the ObjectivismOnline forum categories, I avoid this one the most. It seems current affairs in politics are *always* looking bad, and I can't help but feel a pang of despair at the state of the world and the way things are heading. Does anything ever positive happen in the world today? Do you feel as I do about it, or do you manage to keep a positive outlook? Just the phrase "Micheal Moore" or "John Kerry" gets my blood boiling! I can't look at mainstream news at all; its too painful.

[DPW]

Out of all the ObjectivismOnline forum categories, I avoid this one the most.

Me too, for various reasons, not simply because of the state of the world, but also because I feel as if I'm banging my head against a brick wall.

See what I mean? No matter how many people I convince, government will still be rotten. I'll add that I'm happy others don't feel the same way.

[MisterSwig]

Oh, it is true that nothing you do will change the fact that the good will triumph.

Tell that to the Founding Fathers! Or anyone fighting against evil.

Evil left alone is evil left to conquer.

[MisterSwig]

But someone can have an estimate of the future based on probability, and this estimate can be positive or negative. This is what I was refering to as optimism and pessimism.

I don't think probability is a valid criteria for estimating the future. If you were in ancient Greece, would probability tell you that the Dark Ages were coming? If you were in the Dark Ages, would probability tell you that the Renaissance was coming?

Again, people have free will. Men determine their own futures, individually and as societies. Men do not follow the laws of probability.

I want good to prevail, therefore I promote the good and combat the evil, as best I can. And in this way I am filled with a sense of pride in myself and, in today's climate, a nervous hope for civilization. And that's it.

[AwakeAndFree]

Why be nervous?

Anyway - I did not mean that one used mathematical probability to predict the future, but that one used what he knows and sees to give a probable outcome of current trends, that will be based on the best of his knowledge, including what people seem to be doing right now with their free will.

And yes, I believe that if you were at the right place at the right time in the middle ages, and knew what to look for, you could see some positive change occuring during the 13th century, and predict that it will continue.

As for Ancient Greece and the middle ages - those are too far apart. But the Greeks should have paid more attention to Rome!

[ian]

It seems a lot of people are getting fed up with main-stream media:

http://www.capmag.com/shownews.asp#1101

[y_feldblum]

The majority of important events in an age dominated by anti-realism, anti-reason, and anti-egoism do seem do reflect the dominant philosophy.

Why does tragedy sell? Perhaps because "tragedy sells" is the dominant metaphysical value-judgment (component of sense of life) in our culture.

[AwakeAndFree]

Attention! - I merged two topics.

[Capitalism Forever]

Tell that to the Founding Fathers! Or anyone fighting against evil.

Evil left alone is evil left to conquer.

You missed the point. The point was that the people fighting against evil will triumph.

evil + evil = triump for evil

neutral + evil = triumph for evil

good + evil = triumph for good

I can choose to be evil, "neutral" (= just lazy), or good (= actively virtuous). I know that there are people who choose to be evil, and they will destroy me if I choose to be evil myself, or if I just loaf around doing nothing. But I also know that if I choose to be good and fight evil, I have the best chances for winning.

A person who has chosen to be on the side of the truth has a good reason to be optimistic, because the truth is on his side.

[MisterSwig]

You missed the point. The point was that the people fighting against evil will triumph.

evil + evil = triump for evil

neutral + evil = triumph for evil

good + evil = triumph for good

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

Human force is a factor which needs to be taken into consideration here. Evil men don't sit around and let good men flourish. They try to conquer and kill you.

You can have all the truth in the world, but if you don't have the manpower, evil will snuff you out of existence.

[Betsy]

Just the phrase "Micheal Moore" or "John Kerry" gets my blood boiling!

Just contemplating those two clowns, I can't help but smile. If that's the best the opposition has to offer, we've already won.

[Tom Rexton]

Just contemplating those two clowns, I can't help but smile.  If that's the best the opposition has to offer, we've already won.

lol, Betsy. Those two clowns wouldn't be such a threat if it were not for a considerable portion of the American people who actually take them seriously.

But I do see victory in the long run...