To me, adaptive pragmatism demands evaluating what you should and shouldn’t be pessimistic or optimistic about. I can be optimistic about my ability to act to make better a pessimistic view of the future. As opposed to being irrationally optimistic about the future despite all the evidence of why you shouldn’t be optimistic about it. Our outlooks aren’t always uniform for every single thing. — Mark Dennis

I think this is the key. What we are really talking about here is optimism vs. pessimism in the case of serious and complex situations with lots of unknowns. In that context, to me, optimism takes the form of believing that "we can make a difference" not just that "the best result will ensue" (a la Leibniz). Pessimism that "there is nothing we can do".

I don't think anyone alive made the rule "don't kill." We just follow it when it suits us. Sometimes we value life, sometimes we don't

Uhm, okay? Thou shalt not kill obviously doesn’t mean what it says then.

I don’t know about that, biology does a good job of making us value air, food, water etc. Maybe I’m faking it though, maybe I don’t really need food or water or air?
— Mark Dennis

You separate yourself from your biology? That's a neat trick.

Literally the complete opposite of what I’m doing.

Truly becoming nihilistic isn't something everybody is going to do. It's not a way of thinking I'd recommend (or warn against for that matter.) It just comes.

Nihilism is for people in their early twenties. Been there, done that. The perspective still has its uses in certain times and areas but not as a fixed ideology.

I think this is the key. What we are really talking about here is optimism vs. pessimism in the case of serious and complex situations with lots of unknowns. In that context, to me, optimism takes the form of believing that "we can make a difference" not just that "the best result will ensue" (a la Leibniz). Pessimism that "there is nothing we can do".

Yes, exactly so. Have you seen @Pfhorrest comment on here about the terms Narrow and Broad being applied to Optimism and Pessimism?

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.

It seems to me that some people are arguing against narrow pessimism and so in favor of broad optimism (but not necessarily in favor of narrow optimism), while other people are arguing against narrow optimism and so in favor of broad pessimism (but not necessarily in favor of narrow pessimism). Those two arguments are compatible with each other, and if both are right (as I agree) then [the right attitude is to assume that] a solution is what I like to call merely possible: possible but contingent.

What did you think of this?

Yes, I assumed that the significant case falls into the modal categories described. The only case for "broad pessimism" I can think of is this: There is a strong chance that it will rain tonight, but the pessimist waters his garden anyway. Kind of silly, but the only kind of case that I can construct where pessimism leads to action.

Broad Pessimism in my eyes would probably be best applied by soldiers on the battlefield. “I might die, so I should act” which is much better than “I am going to die and action is pointless” however that does not discount the narrow pessimist from acting either. You know what they say about someone with nothing to lose or someone who’s back is against the wall.

I could even say “I am narrowly pessimistic that an asteroid is going to hit the earth” but my knowledge that I don’t know when this is going to happen or even if it is in my lifetime makes me act.

However I’ll probably act differently than most as I try and live by “If you can act, you do not need to worry, if you can’t act then worrying will get you nowhere.”

If you can act, you do not need to worry, if you can’t act then worrying will get you nowhere.” — Mark Dennis

I agree with that entirely (and just wish I could make my pointlessly anxious brain be okay with it too). There's a lot of different formulations of that in different places, from the famous prayer that asks for "the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can" (and "the wisdom to know the difference", which I normally find the hard part; besides my pointless anxiety this year, I've always found it easy to find the serenity to accept things I know I can't change, and the courage to change the things I know I can, and it's only when I'm not sure which applies to the present situation that I felt uneasy); to the cognitive-behavioral therapy method called Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, which is all about accepting things beyond one's own control and just committing to acting in accordance with one's principles and values.

My difficulty is that just knowing that that's the way I rationally ought to feel doesn't make me actually feel that way.

Yeah unfortunately our feelings tend to have a habit of defying rationality. Fortunately though, rationality can be used to study the logical human root of our anxiety.

For example; when I was younger my anger and anxiety management skills were awful. Looking for a rational reason to explain why we are this way tends to end up just leading us down paths of blame for the external world. “If only the world wouldn’t be so terrible, then I could let go of my anger and my anxiety”.

However, a lot of us don’t realise that when we have episodic and regular bouts of anxiety or anger they are actually remnants of strong powerful emotions felt during early childhood and what is causing the bulk of your anxiety and anger (generalised you, I know you have anxiety issues but not sure about anger) is actually due to your internal world.

I’ll message directly from here as I’ll share some personal history with you that I don’t really need to share here.

Oops

I have had anger problems my whole life, that I've always traced back to echoes of things from my childhood. I've never had anything resembling the anxiety I've felt this year though. I used to think that fear and anger were two sides of the same coin, "fight or flight", and that anxiety was basically a form of fear. About a decade ago, after being in a living situation where I had to be constantly aggressive to protect myself and never show any fear, I developed a weird conflation of fear with anger, such that if I watched a horror movie and there was a jump scare or something, I wouldn't feel anything I'd call fear but rather wanted to smash something. (I think that that has slowly faded over time, I can't remember the last time I reacted like that). I thought I had anxiety for most of the time since then too, having been diagnosed with it, and feeling frequent emotions that I thought were the referent of that term. But starting last winter, I started feeling physical symptoms that my doctor identified as those of anxiety, even though I had nothing to be anxious about and they were unlike any of the feelings I had ever had before. I now think that what I had before was merely stress, and that's why I related it to anger, if what I'm suffering now is actual anxiety, which feels nothing even on the same spectrum as anger.

I think perhaps you meant to send this privately, not post it to this thread? Nothing you've asked is anything I'm afraid to answer publicly, but you said you were sharing personal history you didn't want public.

While I take @unenlightened's point, it seems to me that pessimism is more likely to result in action than our present lethargic optimism.

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.

It seems to me that some people are arguing against narrow pessimism and so in favor of broad optimism (but not necessarily in favor of narrow optimism), while other people are arguing against narrow optimism and so in favor of broad pessimism (but not necessarily in favor of narrow pessimism). Those two arguments are compatible with each other, and if both are right (as I agree) then [the right attitude is to assume that] a solution is what I like to call merely possible: possible but contingent.

@Pfhorrest

Some posited terms to use.

Neat analysis.

To fight unhappiness one must first expose it, which means that one must dispel the mystifications behind which it is hidden so that people do not have to think about it. It is because I reject lies and running away that I am accused of pessimism; but this rejection implies hope — the hope that truth may be of use. And this is a more optimistic attitude than the choice of indifference, ignorance or sham. — Simone De Beauvoir

:up:

"You house proud town mouse ... What do you get for pretending the danger's not real"

:yikes:

I drew a little diagram of the broad/narrow optimism/pessimism thing for my book last night: