pessimistic thoughts can give rise to a sense of hopelessness. — Jack Cummins

Yes, and many of the people I have met who claim to be pessimists are just dignifying hopelessness with a more classy term. I think hopelessness is often a faith based position - in as much as there are folk who believe that human destiny is one of inevitable doom, as opposed to the more obvious point that we are all destined to die.

Let's assume we begin from a neutral standpoint. What advantage is there in being pessimistic versus optimistic? Pessimism is inherently restrictive, optimism is inherently open-ended. Pessimism assumes that something bad is going to happen and can't be avoided. Optimism assumes that something good could happen. — Pantagruel

This answer assumes that neither optimism or pessimism is the proper starting point, but that neutrality is. You then use the neutral perspective to determine that optimism is better than pessimism, but you fail to explain why neutrality is best.

Pessimism, yes – Assume the worst, plan and proceed accordingly; and whether or not the worst happens, roll with those anticipated punches when they fall and keep moving forward, or as Winston Churchill purportedly quipped, "When you're going through hell keep going." The pessimistic stance, which Does Not Entail 'miserabilism' 'cynicism' or 'futilism', cultivates courage – sing the blues and dance! – at the expense of hope (to wit: “There is an infinite amount of hope in the universe ... but not for us.” ~Franz Kafka); only optimism repeatedly disappointed, or under duress & traumatized, loses hope and 'falls' into despair. — 180 Proof

This presumes that optimistic thoughts don't dictate positive outcomes and that pessimistic ones don't dictate negative ones.

There is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy, and, of course, let us not forget that we have the mystical power to dictate outcomes from our thoughts. Tracht gut vet zein gut.

You MUST differentiate the difference between dispositional (commonplace) notions of pessimism and philosophical pessimism proper (e.g. Schopenhauer/Buddhism).

Good point.

I would imagine that it is not that there is a fundamental difference in the nature of the commonplace understanding of pessimism, but more about the depth of the idea. If anything, the history of pessimism and optimism is probably one which weaves its way through the whole of philosophy and other systems of thoughts. It also is behind the scenes of culture and politics. The most extreme version is probably nihilism. One form of it which is probably not the most obvious is in death metal music. You would probably be surprised to know that was the version of it that made me wonder about it.

My own understanding of it takes it as a position of viewing the future with a sense of doom and futility, and an overriding sense that there is no way of finding positive solutions.

Do you really think that Buddhism is a philosophy of pessimism?

This answer assumes that neither optimism or pessimism is the proper starting point, but that neutrality is. You then use the neutral perspective to determine that optimism is better than pessimism, but you fail to explain why neutrality is best. — Hanover

I didn't mean to imply that neutrality was best. When I suggested to begin from a neutral standpoint, this was another way of saying ceteris paribus, all other things being equal, there being no antecedent reasons not to be pessimistic, nor to be optimistic.

I would imagine that it is not that there is a fundamental difference in the nature of the commonplace understanding of pessimism, but more about the depth of the idea. If anything, the history of pessimism and optimism is probably one which weaves its way through the whole of philosophy and other systems of thoughts. It also is behind the scenes of culture and politics. The most extreme version is probably nihilism. One form of it which is probably not the most obvious is in death metal music. You would probably be surprised to know that was the version of it that made me wonder about it.

My own understanding of it takes it as a position of viewing the future with a sense of doom and futility, and an overriding sense that there is no way of finding positive solutions. — Jack Cummins

No, no, and no.

Common place pessimism is a disposition, a personality-trait perhaps, or even a mood. It is not the same as philosophical pessimism. The common place pessimism is one where they think the glass is "half empty", so only see the negatives of a situation or only predict negative outcomes. However, philosophical pessimism is generally a metaphysical and epistemological stance on the inherent suffering or negative quality of the world. So Schopenhauer is a philosophical pessimist in that his worldview is that life is a suffering inherently due to Will and its playing out in the phenomenal epistemic stage. The only way out is denying the Will so completely, as to have a sort of Will-less state (i.e. ascetic saint). Buddhism is pretty much the same thing. The world is inherently suffering and one's epistemic illusion is keeping one from escaping it, thus a path towards nirvana, etc.

So with that being said, one can be a "happy-go-lucky" Schopenhaurian philosophical pessimist. That is to say, one can have a generally happy disposition and attitude in everyday life (so not a common place pessimist), but still hold to the views of philosophical pessimism.

So with that being said, one can be a "happy-go-lucky" Schopenhaurian philosophical pessimist. — schopenhauer1

I don’t think so. Would be very interested in meeting one but the “thematic discrepancy” would be too much I think. I find that generally, one’s attitude towards life in general is a huge factor in their philosophy. You can’t be optimistic for long while thinking that life is inherently suffering.

Buddhism is pretty much the same thing. The world is inherently suffering — schopenhauer1

Is not Buddhist doctrine but this isn’t the thread for it.

I wonder if the way of embracing the absurd is one way of finding a pathway of acceptance of futility without becoming broken by it. — Jack Cummins

Only one way to find out. :wink:

It is interesting that you mention death because it may be that ideas of death are an underlying aspect of many forms of pessimistic philosophy. It could be that belief that we are going to die, or that humanity is going to become extinct are central aspects of pessimism. Or, perhaps it is the idea of having to live with suffering on such a level that it would be simply 'unbearable'.

So, what is the one way to find out? I am a bit puzzled.

I don’t think so. Would be very interested in meeting one but the “thematic discrepancy” would be too much I think. I find that generally, one’s attitude towards life in general is a huge factor in their philosophy. You can’t be optimistic for long while thinking that life is inherently suffering. — khaled

I didn't say it was common, I am saying there is a distinction though. You can't just lump it together in a philosophy forum and call it good.

Is not Buddhist doctrine but this isn’t the thread for it. — khaled

If you wanna give your reasonings why it isn't philosophical pessimism, or explain how its not Buddhist doctrine go ahead. Buddhism has many schools of thought and probably many interpretations, I am giving a general characteristic as far as I see it. Life is suffering.. due to desire, 8 fold path, nirvana are the main tenets. The desire and all that, very similar to Schopenhauer and Will., etc.. you know this though I think.

This answer assumes that neither optimism or pessimism is the proper starting point — Hanover

Well that was the matter in question. “Which is the best proper starting point”? When you ask that, you can’t assume your answer already. Pantagruel’s answer was, basically “due to lack of evidence to indicate that either is more proper than the other, I’ll pick the one I like more because it is less limiting”

Also, if I said, "You have a stoic look on your face today" and then said "See I know the philosophy of Stoicism".. I hope you would make the distinction of the common parlance of the word "stoic" as it is used in everyday speech and "Stoic" the person who follows Stoicism. And yes, like the Greek statues.. the two might overlap :D.

I don't see why Buddhism can't be considered in this thread because it is a valid perspective. I am interested in looking at the whole question of pessimism in the broadest way.

Funny thing about "positive outcomes" is all of the frozen corpses on the slopes of Mt. Everest were once optimists. :sweat:

Even Wikipedia makes the distinction here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessimism

I’ll pick the one I like more because it is less limiting — khaled

:up:

I do agree that one can have a philosophy of pessimism without necessarily being unhappy. I wonder if this is a set of ideas which is detached from the personal though. It may be possible to think of suffering on a philosophical level when one is enjoying the comforts of daily existence. What I wonder is what happens to the person who adopts the philosophy when he or she comes face to face with suffering on a personal level?

It may be possible to think of suffering on a philosophical level when one is enjoying the comforts of daily existence. — Jack Cummins

I think so. You can still say something like, "Oh look at me here.. I am desiring X, but yet another bubble of dissatisfaction being acted upon. If only I was to get out of this false illusion of attainment of the goal".. and then munch on your favorite potato chip, watching a movie you like, and laughing with a friend.

What I wonder is what happens to the person who adopts the philosophy when he or she comes face to face with suffering on a personal level? — Jack Cummins

Then one is already equipped haha.

Also, think of an ascetic monk-type. They may follow doctrines of philosophical pessimism (maybe they wouldn't even think to call it that), and have a "happy" everyday attitude.

Certainly, it is more common for a pessimist to follow philosophical pessimism like Schopenhauer.

Try Absurdism, which you alluded to. I recommend Peter Wessel Zapffe, Albert Camus, Clément Rosset, Albert Murray (re: blues aesthetic) ...

Why not Schopenhauer?

Old Schop is an arch-pessimist. E.M. Cioran, like Samuel Beckett, is much more of an absurdist. Nietzsche & Kafka too.

I have read some Camus, including, 'The Myth of Syphyus'. I do embrace despair to some extent, but I do find that if I focus on that philosophy too much I do start to become rather depressed.

Old Schop is an arch-pessimist. — 180 Proof

Very true.

E.M. Cioran, like Samuel Beckett, is much more of an absurdist. Nietzsche & Kafka too. — 180 Proof

Agreed.. but is @Jack Cummins looking for pessimist literature or absurdist? If pessimist-proper, go with Schopenhauer. Jack, have you ever actually read Schop's World as Will and Representation? Perhaps get some books on it, either secondary literature or the "thing-itself" haha.. I threw a Schopy terms in there :D.

I have got a few books by Schopenhauer on my Kindle. Which do you recommend, because he has written a lot? I also realise that he is your mentor in some ways, but do you have other authors who inspire you, although maybe 'inspire' you? Perhaps the word 'inspire' is the wrong one to use in talking about pessimism.

I am seeing your reply come up as I am writing. The books I have by Schopenhauer seem to be collections, but I will look out for 'World and Representation' when bookshops and libraries reopen.

I think a bit puzzled why you think that monks are pessimists, and not sure why asceticism comes into the picture necessarily.

I think a bit puzzled why you think that monks are pessimists, and not sure why asceticism comes into the picture necessarily. — Jack Cummins

Because asceticism is one of Schop's key ethical/metaphysical concepts as written about in WWR book 4.

See here for a preview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_as_Will_and_Representation#Ethics_(Book_IV)

Modern philosophy IMHO begins with despair (pace Aristotle) – depression may follow from remaining too long in her sickly sweat embalming "embrace", from remaining only ever at the beginning. I've found that daily doses of blues & jazz are tonic for my despair and long walks (or hiking) & tragicomedies are also spurs for reflecting 'out loud'. Zapffe & Murray will definitely not depress you unless your depression is clinical (in which case meds & professional counseling are better than anything said around here).