...that a view is pessimistic should, in itself, neither count in its favor nor against it. (The same, of course, is true of an optimistic view.) Things are the way they are, and the best arguments support some evaluations rather than others. Insofar as things are good, they should be seen as such, and to the extent that they are bad, we should recognize them to be so. Pessimism is misguided when we have good reason to be optimistic, and optimism is misguided when we have good reason to be pessimistic. For example, a young person in good health and not in any special danger would usually be misguided in being pessimistic about his prospects for surviving to his next birthday. It is possible but unlikely that he will die before then. By contrast, the same young person would be rightly pessimistic about becoming a centenarian. It is possible but not likely that he will reach that age.
Thus, there can be no generalized defense of either optimism or pessimism. We should be optimistic about some matters and pessimistic about others. The human condition, I have argued, calls for a heavy dose of pessimism, although there is some limited scope for optimism. For example, although cosmic meaning is unattainable, it does not follow that nothing matters from any perspective. Some things matter even though they do not matter sub specie aeternitatis. One should not desist from loving one’s family, caring for the sick, educating the young, bringing criminals to justice, or cleaning the kitchen merely because these undertakings do not matter from the perspective of the universe. They matter to particular people now. Without such undertakings, lives now and in the near future will be much worse than they would otherwise be.
We should have some optimism about the possibility of our lives having meaning from some limited terrestrial perspective, but that does not mean we should be optimistic about the bigger picture. We should not assume that our lives can have more meaning than they actually can have. Nor should we lull ourselves into the comforting thought that because more expansive meaning is unattainable, it would not be good to have such meaning. Most people resist pessimistic views even when such views are appropriate. This is especially true with reference to a primarily pessimistic view about the human condition. The truth is simply too much for many people to bear. Thus, we find various attempts to bolster optimism and undercut pessimism, some subtle and
some explicit.
First, few people like a grouch, which is why we have aphorisms such as “laugh and the world laughs with you, cry and you cry alone.” There is plenty of social pressure, often implicit, to put on a brave face and be cheerful. Of course, not all pessimists appear to be grouchy, but the fact that pessimistic views are so often hidden from view only further reduces other people’s exposure to them and makes those views seem more abnormal.
Second, pessimism is thought to be excessively negative and frequently even pathological. Sometimes, it is indeed either or both of these things, but not always. Sometimes, it is the optimistic view that is inaccurate, and the pessimistic one that is more accurate. That is exactly what I have argued with respect to the human condition. Moreover, optimism can also reach pathological proportions. Of course, there is some debate about what constitutes psychopathology, but if delusional states (no matter how widely they are shared) and maladaptive behavior are among the grounds for diagnosis, then “manic” optimistic states can sometimes fit the bill.
Third, pessimism has sometimes been dismissed as a “macho” attitude. The idea is that the pessimist is saying, “I am tough enough to see the facts,” but “you optimists are weaklings.” This charge is tendentious. Calling an attitude macho is pejorative because it implies bravado, rather than courage or mere intellectual honesty. Thus, the question is whether pessimism can plausibly be described as displaying bravado. I do not think it can. After all, pessimism bemoans the terrible human predicament and is sensitive to the vast amounts of suffering in the world. Using the word “macho” to describe the view of sensitive lamenters sounds like a clear misapplication of the word. The word seems much more suitably applied to a view that pretends everything is just fine (when it is not), and a fortiori when it is applied to those who think that pessimists should stop whining. This does not mean that there are not pessimists with swagger. However, there are also optimists who have at least as much bravado as the most macho pessimists. Consider, for example, the following dedication in an edited collection on optimism and pessimism: “To my parents, who always have believed in me and who taught me that anything was possible as long as I worked hard enough.” The implication of this is that failure means that one did not work hard enough. The possibility that circumstances could conspire against one (and that there may be situations in which no matter how hard one works, one cannot achieve one’s goals) is ignored by this sort of optimism, which some might take to be bluster...
...it might be argued that there are excellent pragmatic reasons for accepting optimism even if the claims it makes are false. After all, optimism makes life so much easier. It helps one confront all the horror of the human predicament. It thus mitigates or palliates the predicament. If the more objective features of the human predicament are unavoidable, at least we should be sheltered from those subjective features—including the perception of the objective features—that are avoidable.
We need to think carefully about what this pragmatic argument involves. It is most effective when offered in defense of others’ optimistic beliefs, because the beneficial effect is most marked if one truly believes the optimistic view, but anybody who advances the argument cannot entirely believe it because they know that the optimism is a kind of placebo. It might thus be thought to form the basis of an argument for rearing children in an optimistic worldview or for indulging those who already have such a worldview. However, as I noted in chapter 1, optimism is not an innocent anodyne. While it soothes the optimist, it can also have noxious effects on others.
These may be mitigated, but not entirely avoided, if the pragmatic argument is employed in defense of a kind of compartmentalized optimism. The optimist might say: “I recognize the human predicament. It is horrible, but I want to adopt an optimistic view to help me cope. I shall continue, at the back of my mind, to be aware of the predicament, but I can compartmentalize those thoughts—or at least try to.”
This is a less unreasonable position because it seeks to face reality by recognizing the predicament while also seeking some relief. We might call this response “pragmatic optimism.” The main concern with it is whether the compartmentalization can be effectively maintained. There are twin dangers. The one is that the recognition of the predicament will become so eclipsed by the optimism that the optimism will be unchecked and become more dangerous. If, for example, one loses sight of the human predicament, one might create more people. The contrasting danger is that if the pessimism is kept sufficiently in mind to avoid
the risks of unchecked optimism, it will negate the positive effects of optimism.
Some may be able to steer the path between these perils. However, for capable navigators, there is another, preferable option. Instead of steering between optimism and pessimism, one can embrace the pessimistic view, but navigate its currents in one’s life. It is possible to be an unequivocal pessimist but not dwell on these thoughts all the time. They may surface regularly, but it is possible to busy oneself with projects that create terrestrial meaning, enhance the quality of life (for oneself, other humans, and other animals), and “save” lives (but not create them!). This strategy, which I call pragmatic pessimism, also enables one to cope. Like pragmatic optimism, it also attempts to mitigate rather than exacerbate the human predicament. However, it is preferable to pragmatic optimism because it retains an unequivocal recognition of the predicament by not compartmentalizing it to coexist along with optimism. It allows for distractions from reality, but not denials of it. It makes one’s life less bad than it would be if one allowed the predicament to overwhelm one to the point where one was perpetually gloomy and dysfunctional, although it is also compatible with moments or periods of despair, protest, or rage about being forced to accept the unacceptable.
...izrovim ja svega samoj sebi...zavisi koliko sam voljna, željna i kako da usmjerim kameru...
