Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ok-Reporter8066 t1_jck9wtd wrote

It’s funny because as much as I agree with Schopenhauer, I still side with Hegel. Simply due to the fact that being optimistic and positive just feels better than being a negative downer. I think the inherent problem with thinking pessimistic is that it just makes you into an unlikable person.

10

AnAppariti0n t1_jckklc9 wrote

Reading Schopenhauer isn’t negative or a downer to me, it just feels more grounded than Hegel. If it brought me down, I wouldn’t read it. There’s something deeply therapeutic about Schopenhauer’s pessimistic philosophy that I don’t get from Hegel.

I hate how people just go with “Why would I want to read Schopenhauer when he’s a pessimist…yadayada”…it’s because the way he’s talked about not the way his philosophy actually is.

62

PralineWorried4830 t1_jckpgmq wrote

I actually find him delightful and humorous to read. Reading Hegel is like having to drink cough syrup while having a migraine and insomnia in comparison, at least The Phenomenology of Spirit.

22

Domovnik_ t1_jcljvq2 wrote

It's not as hard if you can make yourself forget everything you possess of logic, common sense and critical thinking. That's all hindrance. And get one of the two modern Cambridge translations. Pinkard or Inwood, or both.

8

WaveCore t1_jckrmk3 wrote

I think a healthy way of being pessimistic is just to have more tempered expectations of things. Someone more optimistic is more prone to disappointment and upset because they have a higher bar in what they expect.

16

genuinely_insincere t1_jcl8sc1 wrote

I think you might be in denial a little bit. Optimism is about overcoming those negative feelings. Pessimism is about falling to those negative feelings. And perpetuating them. An optimist has those negative feelings and addresses them in a healthy way. A pessimist refuses to let go of them.

But I don't mean to be disrespectful or to disregard what you said. Because I think it's an interesting perspective

2

WaveCore t1_jclbgfd wrote

I'd always considered the definition of optimism and pessimism to see things either more positively or more negatively. I don't think how you feel about things is part of the definition. I'd also argue that the more negative take is almost always closer to reality than the positive take.

I find that having a lower expectation approach to life has been better for my happiness. Less disappointed when things don't go ideally, more pleased when they actually do. Meanwhile most people I know who are more optimistic and expect more, ironically end up being more disappointed.

10

Tuorom t1_jclkraz wrote

> I'd also argue that the more negative take is almost always closer to reality than the positive take.

People tend to overly lean on negativity. It's why you can be sure a negative opinion will reach further and persist despite any evidence to the contrary. People don't want to be hurt.

Being optimistic is not about expectations either, it's about seeing the potential in people or things. It's not "he is the best person and will never let me down" but "he has good qualities and I would like to see him cultivate them". It's akin to Existentialism and there being no inherent meaning but infinite space for you to fill with meaning.

5

WaveCore t1_jclqcw5 wrote

>People tend to overly lean on negativity. It's why you can be sure a negative opinion will reach further and persist despite any evidence to the contrary. People don't want to be hurt.

My take is that because people generally prefer to accept more positive thoughts, the neutral reality seems negative in comparison. It doesn't have to be that way though, it's always possible to change how you feel about things.

>Being optimistic is not about expectations either, it's about seeing the potential in people or things.

The very definition of expect is to believe something more likely to happen. Which in the case of optimism, is to believe that a favorable outcome is more likely to happen.

>"he has good qualities and I would like to see him cultivate them"

This is not an optimistic statement, it's neutral. It doesn't suggest any outcome, it's just commentary.

An optimistic statement would be "I believe he'll cultivate his qualities and grow". If you don't truly believe in or expect the outcome, by definition you're not actually being optimistic about it.

Just to elaborate on what I mean:

  • Optimistic: things will get better

  • Neutral: things could get better

  • Pessimistic: things won't get better

I'm a firm believer of neutral in most cases when things are uncertain. I do like to be cautiously optimistic sometimes though.

8

Tuorom t1_jcpjti6 wrote

I will spew my train of thought here, maybe redefine some terms hehe. Not that I disagree with what you said.

I never looked at optimism or pessimism as needing specificity in an outcome. It is more as an attitude toward the future and of possibilities, and not knowing. That's what I think of expectation, in that it expresses a specific outcome that I don't think necessarily applies to an attitude.

But then I don't view this as a strict dichotomy but a spectrum of feeling. There's a scale of perceived freedom. In the existential sense of starting with nothing, the optimist sees ways to engage with possibility while the pessimist still sees nothing, within the context of each choice. The pessimist negates what is inherent to them while the optimist perceives various levels of possibility that is subjective to them.

So I see pessimism as seeing no meaningful choice and no freedom, the bottom where we all start, and optimism is any level above that where we actively engage, positivity, as it relates to existentialism. People with more optimism can feel like more is possible, that more choices can be made. Like that Bernard Shaw quote "There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?”

1

genuinely_insincere t1_jd1ogsy wrote

I recently saw a TED talk about that! And it really changed how I deal with negative people. Or difficult people. Like Trump types who refused to see logic. Because, apparently humans tend to have a hard time letting go of negative facts. So, you might think that curly hair looks good on somebody. So you like Curly hair. But then you meet somebody who has curly hair who treats you like shit. Now you don't like people with curly hair. And then it takes a lot more for you to let go of that negative idea. Whereas it just took one negative instance to get rid of the positive idea.

So I'll get really frustrated when I talk to negative people because they refuse to let go even when I'm showing them facts, and even when I open up to them emotionally and heal their emotional wounds with them. They'll still refuse to let go of the negative point.

So it's become really frustrating for me. But I guess if it's true that people have a hard time letting go of negativity, it kind of makes it easier for me to just let go of them. And let them work through things in their own time.

1

genuinely_insincere t1_jd1o4m6 wrote

It's just so unsettling to see someone say that negativity is more real than positivity.

So, let's say Your mother hates you and despises you. What do you think that would do to you? You would probably have a very tough time with life. You would encounter a lot of problems simply from that one thing.

But then let's say Your mother loves you and adores you. Now you're going to be healthier and stronger. You're going to have an easier time in life. You're going to feel better.

Negativity is not more real than positivity.

I know that wasn't your main point, but I kind of picked up on that even before you stated that. Like I could tell that you were thinking along those lines.

1

WaveCore t1_jd3fu5s wrote

So that’s my bad actually for framing my stance inaccurately, but what I’m really trying to say is not that I prefer negativity over positivity, it’s that I prefer honesty over positivity. But because being honest is often viewed as negative, the two concepts are often conflated. And the reason why is simple, there is usually much more reason to hide negativity than there is to hide positivity.

So back to your example, I would much rather my mother just authentically treat me the way she feels like it. Especially if I can tell if she’s showing false positivity. I don’t need things sugar coated, I’m very comfortable with the truth and reality.

1

onelittleworld t1_jckm0t6 wrote

Both are correct, of course, but at different levels of conception and understanding.

One can easily look at history and see that much of it is chaotic, subject to human whims and illusions, and rife with repetition of the same tragedies and folly, recurring endlessly. But, at the same time, if one considers all of human culture over the fullness of time, you can ascertain that the arc of history (to paraphrase MLK) is long, and it bends toward justice.

Within anyone's given lifetime, it's impossible to perceive that arc... just as it's difficult to see the curvature of the world when sitting in an open field. But the world is spherical, nonetheless.

8

lucky_ducker t1_jckt336 wrote

There's no doubt that over time, the human condition has been and is improving.

Humans, on the other hand, are just as awful as they have ever been.

3

NihiloZero t1_jcmwef0 wrote

> There's no doubt that over time, the human condition has been and is improving.

This is a completely arbitrary assessment. People belonging to societies wiped out might disagree. The billion or so undernourished people currently alive might disagree. The two billion without ready access to clean water might disagree. And even the people who drive to work and work to drive might disagree.

> Humans, on the other hand, are just as awful as they have ever been.

That might be harder to measure. But I'd tend to bet that people are worse now than they were during most of human existence.

2

abnotwhmoanny t1_jco73xv wrote

It's fine to point out that children die of starvation and preventable disease in truly horrific numbers, but it is dishonest to not acknowledge that the rate at which that is occurring is dropping and has been for decades.

It's fair to point out that the gap between the low class and the high class is widening, but dishonest to ignore that the percentage of people in the lowest margins of wealth has plummeted.

1

NihiloZero t1_jcqkyj1 wrote

> but it is dishonest to not acknowledge that the rate at which that is occurring is dropping and has been for decades.

Were we talking about just decades? I mean sure, in the decades since the invasion of Vietnam and Iraq the population there is doing better... but I don't think that's the best metric for overall improvement.

And not every place is improving. Much of Africa is undoubtedly much worse that it was hundreds of years ago before European colonization. One in eight people starving isn't an improvement brought about techno-industrial civilization, it's a CONSEQUENCE of techno-industrial civilization. It's the same with potable water. Most of the springs, streams, rivers weren't flooded with sewage and agricultural runoff 1000 or 100,000 years ago.

> dishonest to ignore that the percentage of people in the lowest margins of wealth has plummeted.

This just isn't true. Both in total numbers AND in relative degree of poverty, more people are poorer now than in the distant past. In fact, if you go back far enough, most people living in tribal societies had no discernible differentiation of wealth. And, again, most tribes weren't starving or unable to find clean water.

1

abnotwhmoanny t1_jcsovfy wrote

First, I only mention the change over decades because change over centuries or millennia are blurrier. But they HAVE improved since then. You think one in eight is bad? The best records we have suggest that more than half of people died before the age of 20 in our ancient past.

And of course tons of it was death in childbirth, because our horrible techno-industrial civilization that freed countless people to work on science and medicine didn't exist to show people how that worked.

I also think it's unreasonable to say that people were at equal wealth when everyone had nothing. Did they have access to food and water? Sure. As long as the weather was good. Or the winter didn't last too long. Or a rival group of people didn't wander by and decide they liked the place you lived. I notice some people yearn for the past, but so few of them are willing to just wander off into the mountains or the jungles.

There are plenty of places untainted by man out there. But very few people live out there. Surviving off the land just like people did thousands of years ago. People DO do it. Just very rarely. You could go do it right now. A family holding you back? People had family back then. Bring 'em. Do they not wanna go? Couldn't imagine why.

It wasn't better. It was much much worse. If you disagree so much, go prove it.

1

NihiloZero t1_jcsrsm5 wrote

When Columbus landed in what is today Haiti... the tribes there were not warring or violent. They were not starving. In many ways, depending upon which metrics you want to use, they were very well off. They were surrounded by friends, family, nature, and had a very healthy lifestyle. Of course, that's not gold or combustion engines or life support machines that can technically keep you alive and increase your life expectancy while you vegetate... but they were still arguably wealthy.

But, today, I can't go live off the land in the forests of Haiti. Even if the forests there still existed I couldn't. The same holds true for much of the world. Any relatively idyllic place is either already owned or regulated to the extent that no one is allowed to live there. And you certainly couldn't plant a coconut tree and enjoy its fruits for generations.

So it's really just an empty challenge suggesting that I go wander off and live in the woods to prove how nice it would be. I'd love to that. I'd love to. But the techno-industrial civilization in place simply does not allow for any random person to have that freedom.

1

abnotwhmoanny t1_jcspcsj wrote

You know what? That whole thing had a bit too much edge to it. I'm leaving what I said, but know that I'm just tired. Should have gone to sleep hours ago. I value and respect your views even if I disagree with them.

1

genuinely_insincere t1_jcl8n8l wrote

Both don't have to be correct though. It seems like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

−1

onelittleworld t1_jclop9m wrote

Both are correct in different ways, and wrong in different ways. Thesis, antithesis... synthesis. Cake got nuthin' ta do with it, bro.

3

genuinely_insincere t1_jd1kq29 wrote

Well, it just makes no sense otherwise. You start off saying that they're both correct. But did somebody say that neither were correct? It seems like you put that forward unprovoked. So, it seems like you're trying to get two opposing sides to agree by simply saying that they're both right.

1

thaliaaa0 t1_jcm3y4s wrote

As a pessimist myself, naturally I find it highly attractive in others. It’s more unusual to come across though because everyone else is trying to adopt more positive frameworks, but that doesn’t necessarily work for everyone. Somehow we view it as a moral failing so it makes sense you would try to escape it, but I find a sort of comfort, refreshing honesty, and even humour in pessimistic philosophy... beautiful and uplifting on the contrary.

2

genuinely_insincere t1_jcl8gqd wrote

Yep, unlikable even to yourself. A lot of people were raised wrong or misguided and don't realize that they are able to like themselves. Or they feel blocked from admitting that point. So they refuse to get help when people offer it. Like, for instance, someone with depression is told that they have to snap out of it. And then you'll see people saying that it's terrible advice and it's not helpful. But that's the only solution. Snap out of it.

−7

SchmuckyDeKlaun t1_jclmk7z wrote

I believe they call that a “tautology”. The only solution is to solve it.

6

genuinely_insincere t1_jd1l1s4 wrote

Interesting concept! Yeah that does kind of sound similar or like it might be that.

Yeah actually, I think that does fit that term. It's sort of like the opposite of a paradox.

1