It is better to be an Optimist than a Pessimist

Much apologies for my previous absences, thanks to Pro for this debate and without further ado, my opening case. To meet the burdens of the debate, I will address the benefits of pessimism and the vices of optimism in three regions of life where these mindsets are most vitally used that being: Psychology, Ethics and Social Vice Pysch “You have power over your mind - not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.” R13; Marcus Aurelius [1] 19th Century psychologist William James writes of an equation that Happiness= Expectations/Reality. To James, there are two approaches to increasing overall wellbeing. By either Changing one’s reality to meet or exceed expectations, or lowering one’s expectations to accommodate with reality [2]. Optimism is inseparably linked to heightened expectations of one’s reality, what defines optimism is “seeing the glass half full”, thusly, one cannot adequately adhere to such a mindset without whole-heartedly accepting the former approach set out by William James, that being to seek changing reality to fit one’s expectations. To Stoic Philosopher Marcus Aurelius, such a proposition would have disastrous implications. Firstly, before addressing the science of the issue, Aurelius writes that by carrying high expectations or by trying to maintain a “positive outlook” one is, in turn, investing their own wellbeing into outside event, things that are beyond one’s own control. Inevitably, when well being is placed on such spontaneous factors, overall inner peace becomes just as unstable as one’s looks or finances. By looking towards such a mentality, one neglects the ability of the human mind to forge it’s own path to tranquility, because as Aurelius states, one has control over their mind, but not outside events. Optimism by its very nature forces an unhealthy mentality where the mind is neglected and personal pursuits become a measure of well being. This philosophical deduction concludes what modern psychology has now come to verify. In fact, Aurelius’ meditations have come to influence the modern psychological coping mechanism of “defensive pessimism” [4], Illustrated below by psychologist professor Julie Norem [6]: “When people are being defensively pessimistic, they set low expectations, but then they take the next step which is to think through in concrete and vivid ways what exactly might go wrong. What we’ve seen in the research is if they do this in a specific, vivid way, it helps them plan to avoid the disaster. They end up performing better than if they didn’t use the strategy. It helps them direct their anxiety toward productive activity.” [5] In short, pessimism helps in overcoming anxiety and facing inevitable life challenges while managing secure tranquility and one’s well being, in such a matter that optimism simply cannot fully emulate. Sources: 1. Aurelius, Marcus. Meditations. Comp. Gregory Hays. NYC: Modern Library, 2002. Print. 2. http://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org... 3. 4. http://www.wsj.com... 5. http://www.theatlantic.com... 6. http://www.wellesley.edu... Ethics Religions, for centuries before the modern era had been known for preaching dark messages on human nature. The Buddha told his followers that life and pursuit desire was the root of human suffering [2].Augustine of Hippo wrote in length on the fallen state of humanity and the futility of human imperfection [3]. It would seem strange then to the optimist, how religion, despite having its reputation as a comfort mechanism, would peddle such bleak messages. It is, from the surface, that pessimism would necessitate an unbearable bleakness. However, it is in pessimism, not optimism, that religious figures and philosophers over the past millennia looked towards as a source for comfort. It is often in the darkest thinkers, who paradoxically, are most effective at lifting one’s mood. As Augustine writes, in a parable of two cities, the City of Men and the City of God. The latter being a heavenly utopia where all ideals are fully realized and full meritocracy is born, but as Augustine argues, men are wholly incapable of producing such a city. Instead, humanity is doomed to the City of Men, where the wicked prevail, injustice is rampant and nice guys do finish last. [3] This mindset which gives birth to Augustinian Pessimism is in part defined by an ethical system of charity and an excessive empathy towards others. Augustine writes of this parable in refutation of the long held optimism that held together the Roman empire. It is in realization of the failure in humanity’s attempt at creating the meritocratic city of God on earth that one develops an empathy for the weak and downtrodden, as it’s not a vice that one is born into poverty neither is it a virtue to be rich. But rather, it is simply a result of being born into a world where people by their very nature are incapable of true justice or completely living up to their values [4]. The ethical implication of accepting optimism or believing in meritocracy comes in assuming that those who fail in the presumably ideal society do so by their own incompetence. It assumes thusly that being wealthy is indicative of one’s value as a person and that suffering in life is due to a person’s failure in “not giving up”. Optimism breeds a correlation with belief in meritocracy, thusly, the moral problems of an assumed meritocracy can be easily attributed to one’s personal optimism. Sources: 1. http://www.patheos.com... 2. 3. https://www.britannica.com... 4. Social vice In the famous novel Brave New World, author Huxley writes of a dystopian world in which society is divided into castes, engineered from birth to indulge in erotic activities and distaste any intellectual pursuit in an attempt to create a society maximally happy society [1]. Huxley manages to demonstrate the ultimate vices that come when a society tries to champion optimism as a dominant philosophy. However, when taking a step away from the fictitious world of Huxley and into the modern day, one will find similar lesser iterations of this dystopian world covered by the insidious intentions of large, transnational institutions. Concepts that on the surface seem to be questions of subjective assessment, happiness for example, have been now spoken of routinely by psychologists, doctors and self help gurus as natural, physical or objective matter of fact. To the point that the rhetoric of psychology is being increasingly conflated with the language of the natural sciences and human biology, similar to Huxley’s world in which personal well being is measured in part by pursuit of bodily pleasure. [2] This benefits large governments and transnational corporations as a means of subduing workers and consumers into a domesticated state of “happiness” in which all other emotions and their merits are shoved aside for blinding optimism. According to psychologists like prof Dacher Keltner, the brain uses various emotions to “organize” one’s thoughts thusly [3], for example with emotions like anger, one is more sharply acute to surrounding injustices, compelling one to act. Disgust and fear deter from actions that pose potential harm and danger. Thus, with happiness being forced as a dominant overall emotions. It blinds one’s thinking to be overtly obedient to one’s condition, failing to provoke any response or call to action. With one’s work conditions, it doesn’t matter if a decreasing pay and increasing hours are having a negative impact on one’s own well being, if they are compelled to put a “smile on their face”, then issues of increasing concern are quickly thrown under the rug. As writer William Davies argues: “The relentless fascination with quantities of subjective feeling can only possibly divert critical attention away from broader political and economic problems, with ‘happiness science’ becoming a critique turned inward” [4] Sources: 1. http://www.sparknotes.com... 2. 3. http://psychology.berkeley.edu... 4. https://www.versobooks.com... In conclusion As studies from various psychologists from Dalcher Keltner to Julie Norem, optimism fails in practical spheres of life in comforting one’s personal anxiety. It creates a warped perception of reality shaped by one’s increased expectations. When one inevitably fails, optimism not only betrays the trust that high expectations had brought forward but also forsakes the individual with the greater depression of disappointment. It builds one up just to break them down again. By putting one’s trust in their expectations and investing inner peace for factors that rest beyond their control, they sacrifice sovereignty of the mind. It is in pessimism that truly identifies and evaluates the reality as a whole, when high expectations are no longer capable of betraying the trust of one’s own well being, it in pessimism that one is protected from the tensions of expectations, shielded from the anxiety of defeat and truly empathetic towards the downtrodden. In short, Pessimism is not only a practical means of tackling anxiety and reducing the tensions of expectations, but it is also ethically sound as a moral lens from which empathy is born. Therefore, it is fare better for one to be a Pessimist than an optimist. That concludes my opening case, on to you Con ;)