• Pantagruel
    3.2k
    Just digging into Talcott Parsons analysis of some seminal sociological economists. Very impressed by Alfred Marshall's social philosophy. Assuming a harmony of interests and the tendency towards higher purposes in life seems very sensible to me. As against the views of Pareto, of the Hobbesian struggle of nature school.

    The pessimistic view is that life is a struggle for survival governed by our worst tendencies, selfishness and greed. The optimistic view is that life is an opportunity for growth and the creation of something wonderful, through the agency of our best tendencies, generosity and cooperation. Undoubtedly, both these views are empirically true. Now the optimist surely believes not only that things have been made better and can be made better, but that they ought to be made better. But I wonder, does the pessimist believe not only that things are governed by our most selfish traits, but also that they ought to be? Surely not.

    The moral ought becomes meaningless unless it is aligned with a best outcome. Psychological egoism means that people act egoistically because they are only capable of so doing. In which case the idea of morality itself becomes meaningless, since one can only ever act insofar as one is capable. Ethical egoism however says people ought to act egoistically, because to do so results in what must be, in some sense, a best outcome. The mere fact that both the pessimistic and the optimistic perspective are amply supported by historical and day to day evidence establishes that people can be both selfish and generous. So the question really becomes, ought one to be pessimistic or optimistic, both being equally possible?

    Is life a struggle? Yes. And if you believe that is all that it can be, then that is all that it will be for you. But we do rise above this level. The entire edifice of civilization rises above this level. So there is no justification for preferring pessimism to optimism, both being equally possible.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Whatever happened to being realistic? Prepare for the worst but hope for the best. :lol:
  • Pantagruel
    3.2k
    Do you think realism constitutes a normative position? I guess pragmatism might fit?
  • Anaxagoras
    433
    Where does Optimism fit when one is terminally ill? I find it a non-pragmatic way of observing life.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Do you think realism constitutes a normative position? I guess pragmatism might fit?Pantagruel

    I think realism means something specific in philosophy, something that isn't related to pessimism/optimism.

    I don't know about pragmatism. I feel like a woman scouring the city for clothes that fit me and this behavior seems to be something people who say "theory should fit facts" don't recommend.
  • Pantagruel
    3.2k
    The gist was, if you are making a normative choice, it seems more reasonable to opt for an optimistic versus a pessimistic norm. That the notion of a norm is inherently melioristic, in other words.....
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    The gist was, if you are making a normative choice, it seems more reasonable to opt for an optimistic versus a pessimistic norm. That the notion of a norm is inherently melioristic, in other words.....Pantagruel

    How about if we look at this from the point of view of induction. First, according to the inductive principle of the uniformity of nature, people should continue to behave as they usually do. People have behaved badly in the past - history informs us so - but, isn't it amazingly in violation of the principle of the uniformity of nature that people now behave better? In other words, it appears that the principle of the uniformity of nature doesn't apply to humans as it does so to the inanimate world. (Free will?)

    Since, the pessimist bases his attitude on the uniformity of human behavior (people were/are bad and so they will be bad) and the optimist's attitude turns on humans being capable of breaking their habit (people were/are bad but they can be different) and since humans have clearly demonstrated they're capable of change when they so desire, it seems to be that the optimist has realized something important about us viz. that we're capable of changing our nature or, at the very least, fighting it.
  • Pantagruel
    3.2k
    Since, the pessimist bases his attitude on the uniformity of human behavior (people were/are bad and so they will be bad) and the optimist's attitude turns on humans being capable of breaking their habit (people were/are bad but they can be different) and since humans have clearly demonstrated they're capable of change when they so desire, it seems to be that the optimist has realized something important about us viz. that we're capable of changing our nature or, at the very least, fighting it.TheMadFool

    I agree. :up:
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    I agreePantagruel

    You should not unless you''re a bot.
    To disagree is to be free.

    :chin:
  • Pantagruel
    3.2k
    You should not unless you''re a bot.
    To disagree is to be free.

    :chin:
    TheMadFool

    But not free to agree....
  • 180 Proof
    14k
    We will be safe. (optimist)

    We will not be safe. (pessimist)

    We are safe - until we are not. (realist absurdist)

    if you are making a normative choice, it seems more reasonable to opt for an optimistic versus a pessimistic norm. That the notion of a norm is inherently melioristic, in other words.....Pantagruel
    Okay; not a fan of "optimists" (i.e. precautionary principle-deniers, black swan-suckers, panglossian status quo-comformists):

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/346349

    :death: :flower:
  • Ciceronianus
    2.9k
    It's been a long time, but Hobbes if I recall correctly didn't maintain things ought to be governed by our selfish traits as it is being put, but merely that we are selfish and, therefore, government authority should be granted or structured accordingly. (I also recall more clearly the story that a particular student claimed that man himself in the state of nature was nasty, brutish and short--not that his life was).

    So Hobbes as pessimist need not believe that we should be selfish, nor do I think a pessimist is bound to believe we should be selfish. It's quite possible for a pessimist to think we should be unselfish, but yet are not.

    It happens that the Founding Fathers of our Great Republic were seeking to create a form of government in which citizens would be able to be as selfish as they please without restriction by government. That's why the Bill of Rights prohibits the government from exercising its power to prevent citizens from freely doing, thinking, and owning what they wished, except in certain circumstances. Were they optimists or pessimists in doing so? I'm uncertain, but they seemed concerned to assure that they be allowed to pursue their own self-interest.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    But not free to agree....Pantagruel

    Speaking from the standopint of the principle of uniformity of nature - the foundation of laws/rules that restrict, confine, limit, coerce, shackle, chain our freedom. Too much freedom is also not good though.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    We will be safe. (optimist)

    We will not be safe. (pessimist)

    We are safe - until we are not. (realist)
    180 Proof

    :up: :clap:
  • Pantagruel
    3.2k
    Speaking from the standopint of the principle of uniformity of nature - the foundation of laws/rules that restrict, confine, limit, coerce, shackle, chain our freedom. Too much freedom is also not good though.TheMadFool

    Actually we limit our own freedom in order to do anything.

    "The limitation of possibilities is the necessary condition for the liberation of possibilities."
    ~Sydney Hook, The Metaphysics of Pragmatism
  • Pantagruel
    3.2k
    So Hobbes as pessimist need not believe that we should be selfish, nor do I think a pessimist is bound to believe we should be selfish. It's quite possible for a pessimist to think we should be unselfish, but yet are not.Ciceronianus the White

    It is possible, but my point was, if you do move from psychological egoism to a standpoint of ethical egoism, you have given normative force to a pessimistic interpretation, which to me seems self-contradictory.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment