The Joy of Pessimism
Wednesday August 30, 2006
Over at Eunomia, Daniel Larison has a series of blogs on the subject of pessimism that made cheerfully gloomy me, um, happy. Like this quote:Instead of blaming pessimism, perhaps we can learn from it. Rather than hiding from the ugliness...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Rod Dreher's New Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Who referred to pessimists as the "cosmic anti-patriots"?>
Some damn fool.>
After observing the continual crushing of the optimism of various friends, relatives, and acquaintances over the years, and their tendency to become bitter in consequence, I've concluded that I may be happier than they precisely because I'm a pessimist. Not for the usual reason that I'm less likely to be disappointed, but because all it takes to make me happy is the absence of disaster.>
Look at it this way, folks: if you're a pessimist, all your surprises will be pleasant ones.>
Maybe we need a term here for people (such as myself) who are pessimistic about society and world, but also believe in the sovereignty of a loving God, in the forgiveness of their sins on account of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and in the work of the Holy Spirit, Who brings sinners to faith in Christ and directs their attention to Him. They see, on the one hand, the tendency of all human institutions to betray their trust (so that organized education inculcates igorance and unreason, the arts feed that unwholesome itch in us for the ugly ["transgressive'], etc.). But they also see, usually in unobtrusive ways, that the Lord answers prayer.
So what's a word for such folks?>
Rod: "Some damn fool."
Ah yes, I remember. 'Sbeen awhile.>
once more with spirit. G.K. Chesterton = "some damn fool".>
While we are on the subject of pessimism, I happened to watch last night's 20/20 Special on ABC on 7 ways the world could end.
These included:
Being hit by a fatal burst of Gamma Rays from "Outer Space."
Being sucked into a roving Black Hole, of which there are at least some in our very own Milky Way.
A supervolcanic eruption, which would possibly destroy all life on Earth. (There is a supervolcano right under Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park.)
Hit by a giant Asteroid.
Supercomputers acquiring consciousness and wiping out humanity, very much in the manner of the movies, "The Terminator," and "2001." (This one seemed a bit farfetched to me.)
Global Thermonuclear War, launched, not by HAL, but in all likelihood by human error or misunderstanding.
A Pandemic Plague, or a Biological Attack launched by terrorists.
Climate Change, aka Global Warming. Considered the number one danger, which must be solved in the next few years.
(BTW, it was refreshing to see several great physicists, including Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking, interviewed on network television.)
Ok. So, I'm an optimist. Watching this special (I would have preferred "Lost" reruns, but what can you do?) led me to reflect on why it is that we care about whether the world comes to an end, when in all likelihood, we won't be around to see it.
My thought was, that, although we (might) realize that we, ourselves are mortal, it is humbling to consider that our planet is mortal as well.
Obviously, those of us who have progeny, or, in my case, nieces, worry about what kind of world we will leave them.
But what about our distant descendants, 500 years hence, for instance? Do we really care if the planet explodes in 200 or 500 years? I think we do care, but I am curious as to why that is... what do other people think?>
I regarded that special as yet another installment in the ongoing self-created mission of the media to Scare Everyone's Pants Off.
It was interesting to hear the scientific presentation of the various scenarios. However, after about ten minutes, I thought it was a big yawn, in emotional terms. I'm not too interested in getting worked up about disasters that I can't do anything about. (Though there is global warming ...).
I too thought it was great to see scientists such as Stephen Hawking getting some network air time for a change, instead of the usual self-obsessed celebrities.>
The fact that Stephen Hawking is alive after being afflicted with Lou Gehrig's Disease sometime back in the 1970's makes me optimistic and strengthens my faith.
To me, it is a testament to the fact that creative and fulfilled people who have something to do with their lives, even if it is only using their brains, live longer than people who allow their lives to be consumed by bitterness and resentment.
I think, actually, there is a big difference between being pessimistic and having a resentful or bitter orientation towards life. S. Hawking could have been resentful -- instead, he got to work...>
If you delve too deeply into pessimism, you're going to lose people. It's going to wind up being a soliloquy. Professional philosophy has steered itself into irrelevance by being to pessimistic.>
"They call me a cockeyed optimist...." Mary Martin in South Pacific
Some of us are simply born optimists. It's in our makeup. That would be moi. "I'm stuck like a dope with a thing called hope..." Oh yeah, and last time I heard, it was one of the three theological virtues. :)
Diane, another happy optimistic Catholic>
Diane, I don't think the virtue of hope and optimism are the same thing. I agree with Chesterton that, at least in the way he uses to word, optimism can be "defend[ing] the indefensible." But in the same way that optimism leads to presumption I think pessimism can lead to despair. You see this all the time in the media meta-narrative for news, i.e., disasters, e.g., Katrina. They are, as he points out, not very candid about their feelings in that they appear gleeful about the disaster.
I agree with Reddopto's point, it does seem like modern philosophy has become sort of a one-note-Johnny in reaction against the rational optimism of Leibnitz. I think that chapter 5 in GKC's Orthodoxy is worth a read if you want to break out of the false dichotomy between the two tendencies. His solution is to define an "irrational optimism" or what he calls "cosmic patriotism" which seems to involve the virtue of love even more than hope.>
Don't sweat the supercomputers developing consciousness and taking over. Intrinsically, not just technologically, impossible, barring divine intervention. Which is not to say we couldn't get into trouble by relying too much on technology, but that's a different matter.
Ditto to Pauli--hope is not the same thing as optimism. I often say I'm hopeful but not optimistic.>
Yeah, I'm much more worried about Supervolcanoes than Supercomputers.
Great discussion above. I'm an optimist, essentially, but in recent years have had to cope with quite a few losses, including several deaths of loved ones. And then 9/11, which had a huge impact on me.
The hardest thing for me was the death of my father. It is because I am an optimist that I was able to see a way beyond several very difficult years, and view this loss as an opportunity to rethink my life and start over again.
For me, that is the essence of optimism -- seeing that the most terrible things that happen to us can also be opportunities for growth.>
kathleen reilly and Pauli:
A single quote here takes Chesterton out of context. I love Chapter 5 of Orthodoxy, as Chesterton claims to be "fanatical pessimist and a fanatical optimist". He's both. As:
Christianity was accused, at one and the same time, of being too optimistic about the universe and of being too pessimistic about the world.
and
Can he hate it enough to change it, and yet love it enough to think it worth changing? Can he look up at its colossal good without once feeling acquiescence? Can he look up at its colossal evil without once feeling despair? Can he, in short, be at once not only a pessimist and an optimist, but a fanatical pessimist and a fanatical optimist?
This is exactly what Rod is saying.
And Crunchy Cons fit the mold exactly - the conervative side is the fanatical pessimist about the sin and lack of love of the world and their crunchy side is the fanatical optimist that sees joy all around in nature and life.
And it's why the run-of-the-mill American is so far theologically from the joyful Christianity Christ preached of loving the world enough to be willing to die to save it. Christ was the ultimate fanatical optimist and pessimist. He preached of the danger of hell and sin endlessly (Con) without ever losing sight of the joy of life and the glory of creation. (Crunchy).>
A single quote here takes Chesterton out of context.
That's why I linked to and recommended reading the entire thing.
Crunchy Cons fit the mold exactly.
If you say so; I couldn't find anything on optimistic bungalows, but I did find another good page for Christian Optimism. I still don't think Chesterton is a "damn fool" for suggesting a "cosmic patriotism". I think he points out that pessimism vs. optimism isn't the real issue in that chapter. I don't think we disagree on much having to do with substance; I just don't generally use terminology like "crunchy" or "run-of-the-mill American". If we make it to heaven we'll ask Our Lord if he was the Proto-Crunchy Conservative. Maybe I'll owe you $5.>
"And Crunchy Cons fit the mold exactly"
well of course it does. that's because "crunchy cons" is a cipher, therefore it's anything you want it to be. great taste and less filling!
unfortunately for you, you can't say the same for Chesterton.>
Good grief, Pauli, if you want to paint me as anti-Chestertonian, based on a tossed-off jibe, despite the deeply Chestertonian affinities of my book, then that says more about you than it does about me.
M_David and Maclin Horton get it right: I am hopeful, but not optimistic.>
Hey Rod, maybe you should just reconsider the wisdom of 'tossed-off jibes", instead of blaming pauli for one of your gaffes. even better, perhaps readers should re-evaluate how "deeply chestertonian" your book really is.>
kathleen reilly writes:
unfortunately for you, you can't say the same for Chesterton
I've read Orthodoxy dozens of times (it's one of my favorite books, I even have it on iPod right now), so I am curious as to your view.
What precisely is it that I cannot say is "the same for Chesterton"?
.>
M David, you can infer precisely what I mean, but I'll confirm it anyway: Chesterton has a firm point of view, he doesn't write books that are so flawed as to be inherently self-contradictory. his books are not ciphers. he is fully aware of the existence and ramifications of his inconsistencies.>
Thank you for clearing that up.
I could not infer what you meant because...how in the world does your dim view of Rod and his book make things "unfortunate" for me?>
because by calling yourself a "Crunchy con" you seem to have a fondness for ideas that are so malleable as to be nonexistent.
and I am fascinated that you claim to have read Orthodoxy "dozens" of times. dozens? at least 24, more like 36 or 48...? seems like you might be having trouble with something in that book.>
kathleen reilly:
and I am fascinated that you claim to have read Orthodoxy "dozens" of times. dozens? at least 24, more like 36 or 48...? seems like you might be having trouble with something in that book.
My, my, such anger.
Dozen(s) in the plural, yes. I have listened to it over so many times I have lost count, but if I were to estimate (since you obviously think me either a liar and/or an idiot)...
I would guess I've listened to several chapters (the good ones like Chapter 5) over 30 times, and others as little as 3. Not due to confusion as much as entertainment and as thought generator.
because by calling yourself a "Crunchy con" you seem to have a fondness for ideas that are so malleable as to be nonexistent.
If you think the CC philosophy is a fiction, and the folk here are living in a fantasy, why do you come here and comment to a bunch of random folk with no unifying ideas? Just to feel superior? To mock? I'm not making a point, I'm really curious.>
my, my, such curiosity.
why do i come here? Someone else pointed me to this particular exchange. but i don't come here all that much. I used to, but it got boring. sorry, not saying that in "anger" or "mockery" or "superiority", it's just a fact.>
PS: there's no reason to assume i think you are a liar or a idiot.>
Thank you for feeding my curiosity.>
Kathleen wrote: "why do i come here? Someone else pointed me to this particular exchange."
Yes, I confess it was me. I pointed Kathleen toward this "exchange" because I thought it was very funny. Still do.>
casino en.wikipedia.org gambling online online site casino en.wikipedia.org gambling online online site casino en.wikipedia.org gambling online online site. hotel in mayfair shanghai hotel in mayfair shanghai hotel in mayfair shanghai.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.