It is better to be an Optimist than a Pessimist

Re: PsychCon presents Marcus Aurelius' contentions:- It would be problematic to invest one's well-being into things that one could not control; the instability prevents tranquility- "Optimism by its very nature forces an unhealthy mentality where the mind is neglected and personal pursuits become a measure of well being"- Pessimism helps people avoid disaster; pessimism helps in overcoming anxiety and facing inevitable life challengesFirst, there are innumerable things in our lives, communities, countries, continents, world, atmosphere and solar system that we cannot control. The entire universe is unstable, yet that does not prevent our tranquility. In fact, most of us know there is constant havoc and destruction going on in the world 24/7, yet our brain compartmentalizes information so that we focus on our immediate lives and well-being, followed by the well-being of those we associate with. We can accept there will not be a perfect life or utopia and yet still be content and strive for the best (optimism) or be miserable because utopia/perfection can't exist, and not do anything to do or be better (pessimism). Con's second statement is unsupported. It's a nonsensical bare assertion that I won't have the opportunity to refute per Con's explanation. Why would optimism force the neglect of the mind? It's safe to assume that many intellects are optimists, particularly scientists and inventors who seek to understand the world and improve it. That is fueled by optimism. Pessimism does not inspire the pursuit of anything worthwhile; instead it not only accepts the negative but harps on it instead of making it better. Pessimism might help people avoid disaster, but it also forces people to avoid reward. Optimism does not make people anxious. Furthermore, optimism does not disrupt tranquility; it supports it. As I've explained in previous arguments, optimism helps people cope with failure. It helps people manage their anxiety and depression. I've mentioned this in the "Mental Health" section from my R2 but will expand later. Re: Ethics- It is in pessimism, not optimism, that religious figures and philosophers over the past millennia looked towards as a source for comfort, eg. Buddha and Saint Augustine While Buddha taught that desire was the root of all suffering, Buddha also taught that one could become enlightened by overcoming desire. This is not pessimistic; this is optimistic. It would be pessimistic to assume that one's desire was inevitable and they were doomed to failure for eternity. Yet Buddha taught that Nirvana was possible. Similarly, while St. Augustine (and other Christians) believe in the inevitable sin of mankind, they also firmly believe in salvation. "Augustine’s view of salvation flows logically from his understanding of the fallen human will: because the will cannot incline toward God of its own accord, God must initiate salvation... For Augustine, Adam’s sin was decisive for all humanity, damaging human nature such that it tends toward sin and is unable to embrace God. In light of this anthropology, Augustine views salvation as a process initiated and completed by Christ" [1]. Alas, there is hope and opportunity for people to achieve salvation according to St. Augustine. This is not a pessimistic view. Assuming that you are damned is pessimistic and does not compel success; it necessitates failure through lack of initiative. Lack of confidence promotes complacency. It allows anger, sadness and resentment to fester. Hope is optimistic and empowering. In fact, contrary to Con's proposition that religion centers around negativity and pessimism, HOPE is one of the three theological virtues in Christian tradition [2].- Optimism breeds a correlation with belief in meritocracy; essentially society will believe that failure = lack of trying and that success is deserved ... "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 does not promote the ideal that one must achieve some particular marker or standard in order to be successful. On the contrary, optimism allows one to feel successful even if they have, for all intents and purposes, failed. For example if one attempted to run a marathon, but only finished 3/4 before having to stop, a pessimist would focus on their failure. They would use that as a future indicator of their predictable failure, and not celebrate their effort. They would also be deterred from trying to improve. The optimist recognizes the utility and benefits of their accomplishment. They would either celebrate this victory and try to run again, or shrug it off by saying "That's okay, I'm good at other things." Therefore Con's assertion is completely false; optimism does not mandate mediocrity. However, pessimism breeds depression and contempt. Instead of focusing on one's talents or possibilities and future opportunities, pessimists believe their failure is an indicator of their worth and/or abilities. - Optimism blinds one’s thinking to be overtly obedient to one’s condition, failing to provoke any response or call to action This describes pessimism. Optimism inspires change and growth. Pessimism fails to provoke any meaningful advancements. Re: Social ViceHere my opponent describes the Huxley novel Brave New World, in which the characters are excessively optimistic to their own detriment. This analogy is fallacious in that any trait taken to the extreme or outside levels of moderation can be problematic. Literally anything. Healthy food is nutritious, but too much can make you sick. Too much exercise can be problematic. Excessive kindness can get you taken advantage of and too much trust makes you vulnerable. In other words, Con is focusing on excessive optimism whereas criticizing excessive pessimism is too easy. Pessimism can lead to nihilism and/or apathy: the belief that there is no right and wrong and nothing (including one's life) or actions matter. That can not only fuel depression, but why not suicide or murder? I've explained how pessimism can negatively impact mental health (especially depression and frustration) which is far more likely to result in self-harm or violent outbursts. The father of philosophical pessimism is Arthur Schopenhauer. "The ascetic attempts to deliberately break the will by refusing the agreeable things of life, by seeking the disagreeable things of life, and by constantly debasing the will through penance and self-chastisement" [3]. There is nothing satisfying, inspiring or fulfilling about the pessimistic worldview. Con must explain why rejecting things that are agreeable and specifically looking for that which is disagreeable is a beneficial way to live. ConclusionThroughout this debate, Con has repeatedly insisted that pessimism quells anxiety. However I've explained that optimists fare better in situations where persistence and not giving up are required. Optimism helps people manage their anxiety which is a fact supported by science. "A fascinating new study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has identified that healthy adults who have a larger orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) tend to have less anxiety and are more optimistic" which fuels positive performance [4]. Researchers at Concordia University's Department of Psychology have found that “the stress hormone” cortisol tends to be more stable in people with a positive outlook. "Pessimists generally had trouble regulating their sympathetic nervous system when they go through stressful experiences. The inability to look on the bright side causes cortisol to stay constantly elevated" [5]. What's the problem with this? In his article Cortisol: Why “The Stress Hormone” Is Public Enemy No. 1, Christopher Bergland describes how chronic stress and elevated cortisol levels also increase risk for depression, mental illness, and lower life expectancy [6]. What is the point of life and freedom if one is miserable? Arthur Schopenhauer advocated becoming a recluse and to avoid or deny one's will, that is, anything that would make them happy [3]. Why is this a favorable way to live? Schopenhauer like other pessimists cannot appreciate the positive in life. Indeed he regarded lovers as the traitors who perpetuate the wretchedness of life, because they produce new individuals to be thrown into this world of suffering, despair and death [3]. Meanwhile most people celebrate birth and the creation of new life; the opportunity for prosperity and goodness. In his section on Psych, Con writes abour William James. This particular philosopher said, “We don’t laugh because we are happy, we are happy because we laugh.” Since then, research has been done proving that laughter is, in fact, a useful medicine and that happiness is directly linked to a positive attitude and optimism. Being outgoing, optimistic, and laughter-filled can keep you healthier according to various studies [7]. Remember that optimistic people have better relationships, higher social status and reduced loss of well-being following adversity. Furthermore, health preserving behaviors are associated with optimism while health-damaging behaviors are associated with pessimism [8]. Not only has optimmism been measurably demonstrated with one's health and emotional well-being, but philosophical optimism prevails as well. Pessimism leads to depression and low productivity. "Optimalism allows for failure in pursuit of a goal, and expects that while the trend of activity will tend towards the positive... it is not necessary to always succeed while striving to attain goals... Optimalists accept failures and also learn from them, which encourages further pursuit of achievement" [8]. Thus, overall it is better for one's mental, physical and emotional well-being to be an optimist than a pessimist. It is not only better for the individual, but the collective society (comprised of individuals) as a whole. Thank you for this debate. SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com...