Nietzsche is to Nihilism as Who is to Optimism?
December 12, 2009 5:58 PM Subscribe
I'm looking for philosophers, both classical and modern, who have constructed arguments for optimism.
Now, by that, I don't mean I'm looking for positive psychologists – I know about Seligman's Learned Optimism and Burns' Feeling Good, the two biggies in that field.
What I'm looking for is more a support of the actual philosophical construct of optimism. In other words, what Nietzsche did for nihilism, these philosophers whose names I'm soliciting would have done this for optimism, or for philosophical models of thought that directly support optimism.
The most I was able to do was that Candide was modeled off of Gottfried Leibniz's belief that we live in the best of all possible worlds; I tried reading the English copy of Leibniz's Théodicée on Project Gutenberg, but found it a little too thick to follow.
Ideally, the people you would refer me to would either be able to be semicomprehensible to a motivated layman, or would have a good book in which someone else basically explains the philosopher's system, precepts, theses or what have you in layman's terms.
A backup option would be theological proponents of optimism, or of theological models of thought that could be considered optimistic – but of the two, I'd prefer to read materials philosophical, not theological, in nature.
Now, by that, I don't mean I'm looking for positive psychologists – I know about Seligman's Learned Optimism and Burns' Feeling Good, the two biggies in that field.
What I'm looking for is more a support of the actual philosophical construct of optimism. In other words, what Nietzsche did for nihilism, these philosophers whose names I'm soliciting would have done this for optimism, or for philosophical models of thought that directly support optimism.
The most I was able to do was that Candide was modeled off of Gottfried Leibniz's belief that we live in the best of all possible worlds; I tried reading the English copy of Leibniz's Théodicée on Project Gutenberg, but found it a little too thick to follow.
Ideally, the people you would refer me to would either be able to be semicomprehensible to a motivated layman, or would have a good book in which someone else basically explains the philosopher's system, precepts, theses or what have you in layman's terms.
A backup option would be theological proponents of optimism, or of theological models of thought that could be considered optimistic – but of the two, I'd prefer to read materials philosophical, not theological, in nature.
I'm not aware of anyone who writes on optimism... you might have better luck searching for a philosopher who writes on hope, which is a more common topic and does not seem too far removed from optimism.
posted by painquale at 6:19 PM on December 12, 2009
posted by painquale at 6:19 PM on December 12, 2009
You should check out "The Sovereignty of the Good" by Iris Murdoch. I can't recall if she explicitly references the term "optimism" , but she certainly constructs a world-view in which she specifically disavows the negativity of several modern philosophers and explores the role of positive thinking in promoting what she deems the Good life.
It's a very short read and a very beautiful book. Probably my favorite from all my philosophy classes in college.
posted by HabeasCorpus at 6:23 PM on December 12, 2009
It's a very short read and a very beautiful book. Probably my favorite from all my philosophy classes in college.
posted by HabeasCorpus at 6:23 PM on December 12, 2009
One related philosophical view is meliorism, which posits that progress is real, and the world is improving over time.
I've found Alfred North Whitehead's Adventures of Ideas to contain an interesting conception of how meliorism is the result of persuasive (not coercive) divine influence upon the cosmos. His interpretation of historical events is a bit dated, but the underlying metaphysics of meliorism is still worth a read, imho.
You might also try William James, a famously optimistic philosopher and psychologist... most start with "The Will to Believe."
posted by reverend cuttle at 6:29 PM on December 12, 2009
I've found Alfred North Whitehead's Adventures of Ideas to contain an interesting conception of how meliorism is the result of persuasive (not coercive) divine influence upon the cosmos. His interpretation of historical events is a bit dated, but the underlying metaphysics of meliorism is still worth a read, imho.
You might also try William James, a famously optimistic philosopher and psychologist... most start with "The Will to Believe."
posted by reverend cuttle at 6:29 PM on December 12, 2009
Seconding a search for "hope" rather than "optimism." One of my favorite philosophers, John Stuart Mill, writes in exactly this way about religion. Unlike many philosophers, Mill is a pleasure to read.
posted by smorange at 6:40 PM on December 12, 2009
posted by smorange at 6:40 PM on December 12, 2009
Response by poster: Yes, I'd certainly be interested in anyone's recommendations for philosophers whose musings are on hope as well – or any other subjects that are tangential but tightly related to optimism.
posted by MikeHarris at 7:13 PM on December 12, 2009
posted by MikeHarris at 7:13 PM on December 12, 2009
Viktor Frankl's book Man's Search for Meaning.
And I do NOT mean that ironically.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:23 PM on December 12, 2009
And I do NOT mean that ironically.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:23 PM on December 12, 2009
Nietzsche actually wasn't a nihilist; he was rather optimistic — many moral convictions.
(I had to say it; I just wrote a paper all about it.)
posted by lhude sing cuccu at 7:56 PM on December 12, 2009
(I had to say it; I just wrote a paper all about it.)
posted by lhude sing cuccu at 7:56 PM on December 12, 2009
It seems to me that Pascal's Wager could be recast as an argument in favor of optimism.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:29 PM on December 12, 2009
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:29 PM on December 12, 2009
Response by poster: lhude sing cuccu: Nietzsche actually wasn't a nihilist; he was rather optimistic — many moral convictions. (I had to say it; I just wrote a paper all about it.)
I'd be interested in hearing more about this.
posted by MikeHarris at 8:30 PM on December 12, 2009
I'd be interested in hearing more about this.
posted by MikeHarris at 8:30 PM on December 12, 2009
Schopenhauer was the ultimate pessimist, believing that the world (and man it it) was animated by Will (or desire, or striving, or whathaveyou) which could (necessarily) not be fulfilled. Frustrated infinite striving was the ground of being. Man, likewise, could never satisfy even a fraction of his endless desires and could hope only to reduce (but not eliminate) them through asceticism.
Nietschze admired Schopenhauer a lot. But his whole project eventually turned against the aforementioned ideas - they were cowardly, did not affirm life, and left no room for the ass-kicking Nietzsche was so obsessed with.
So in opposing the most emo of all philosophers, I think Nietzsche is your man. See: Eternal Return. Or, for a french existentialist take, The Myth of Sisyphus.
posted by phrontist at 8:34 PM on December 12, 2009
Nietschze admired Schopenhauer a lot. But his whole project eventually turned against the aforementioned ideas - they were cowardly, did not affirm life, and left no room for the ass-kicking Nietzsche was so obsessed with.
So in opposing the most emo of all philosophers, I think Nietzsche is your man. See: Eternal Return. Or, for a french existentialist take, The Myth of Sisyphus.
posted by phrontist at 8:34 PM on December 12, 2009
Response by poster: Thanks, everybody, this is great stuff so far – lovin' it, keep it up!
posted by MikeHarris at 8:45 PM on December 12, 2009
posted by MikeHarris at 8:45 PM on December 12, 2009
MikeHarris: Nihilism means lack of any moral value, or lack of belief that we could ever hold moral values. Nietzsche rejected traditional (Christian) moral values, sure, but he wanted to replace them with more personal values which endeavor toward a more lofty goal of total improvement of man. I personally think where most of the misinterpretation comes from is of his "will-to-power"; I don't take it to mean an anarchic overthrow of value but an inherent will to become better than who we are as humans—he obviously lifted this from Schopenhauer (and switched it around somewhat), whose original Will wasn't about "overcoming", but about being "overcome". So don't think "total destruction"; think "overhaul to make room for a more constructive moral base".
Also of value: his idea of "eternal recurrence"...and anything Robert Solomon and Kathleen Higgins have to say about the matter.
posted by lhude sing cuccu at 8:47 PM on December 12, 2009
Also of value: his idea of "eternal recurrence"...and anything Robert Solomon and Kathleen Higgins have to say about the matter.
posted by lhude sing cuccu at 8:47 PM on December 12, 2009
Hmm... I assumed you meant hope in the first place.
Proponents of optimism defined as "a doctrine that this world is the best possible world" or "an inclination to put the most favorable construction upon actions and events or to anticipate the best possible outcome" outside theism will be hard to find in modern atheistic/existential philosophy, as value is typically seen as something that does not exist outside agents making valuations.
Taoism and other eastern religious traditions might be of interest. They generally believe that man's instincts are essentially good - in contrast to Confucians who felt that social order had to be maintained by explicit rules and hierarchical relationships. This is my preferred translation of the Tao Te Ching, and that site has many others.
posted by phrontist at 8:47 PM on December 12, 2009
Proponents of optimism defined as "a doctrine that this world is the best possible world" or "an inclination to put the most favorable construction upon actions and events or to anticipate the best possible outcome" outside theism will be hard to find in modern atheistic/existential philosophy, as value is typically seen as something that does not exist outside agents making valuations.
Taoism and other eastern religious traditions might be of interest. They generally believe that man's instincts are essentially good - in contrast to Confucians who felt that social order had to be maintained by explicit rules and hierarchical relationships. This is my preferred translation of the Tao Te Ching, and that site has many others.
posted by phrontist at 8:47 PM on December 12, 2009
PS: I honestly didn't even know you were the OP until just now.
posted by lhude sing cuccu at 8:48 PM on December 12, 2009
posted by lhude sing cuccu at 8:48 PM on December 12, 2009
PPS: Phrontist really beat me to it, there.
posted by lhude sing cuccu at 8:49 PM on December 12, 2009
posted by lhude sing cuccu at 8:49 PM on December 12, 2009
Taoism and other eastern religious traditions might be of interest. They generally believe that man's instincts are essentially good - in contrast to Confucians who felt that social order had to be maintained by explicit rules and hierarchical relationships. This is my preferred translation of the Tao Te Ching, and that site has many others.
Was going to make a suggestion concerning Chinese philosophy too, but put off by the OP's request for an argument constructed in favour of optimism. Anyway, if a broader sense is acceptable, I've seen discussions of the optimism of Confucianism. Even where you get the explicit debate between Mencius and Xunzi as to whether human nature is good or bad, they share the shame conclusion that in either case it is possible to construct a useful social morality through behaviour and so have been considered optimists - i.e. in the sense that human agency can create a positive outcome.
posted by Abiezer at 9:11 PM on December 12, 2009
Was going to make a suggestion concerning Chinese philosophy too, but put off by the OP's request for an argument constructed in favour of optimism. Anyway, if a broader sense is acceptable, I've seen discussions of the optimism of Confucianism. Even where you get the explicit debate between Mencius and Xunzi as to whether human nature is good or bad, they share the shame conclusion that in either case it is possible to construct a useful social morality through behaviour and so have been considered optimists - i.e. in the sense that human agency can create a positive outcome.
posted by Abiezer at 9:11 PM on December 12, 2009
Whoops - 'same conclusion' obviously, not 'shame conclusion'. I am not Sean Connery. And to clarify my original sentence in that above garble, I meant that despite being pretty familiar with the major classical Confucians, I'm not aware of them making an explicit argument about optimism, just that it has been later argued that it is an aspect of their philosophy.
posted by Abiezer at 9:16 PM on December 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Abiezer at 9:16 PM on December 12, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure that you're looking for philosophy, but I admit I'm a bit unclear on what you're looking for, as far as what kind of optimism you're after.
Anything I can find or think of relating optimism to philosophy relates more to optimism towards philosophy as a field of study. I don't get the feeling that that is what you're after, though. If you're looking for something life-affirming, then you might not want philosophy proper. Certainly, one might consider it optimistic to find something that is belief-affirming, but that, then, depends on an individual's beliefs, and could thus be anything. I'm of the view that anything like that would also tend to be theology.
In the end (and I certainly don't mean for this to sound harsh) if you're at all willing to accept theology as proxy for philosophy, you might be looking for theology after all.
posted by The Potate at 9:26 PM on December 12, 2009
Anything I can find or think of relating optimism to philosophy relates more to optimism towards philosophy as a field of study. I don't get the feeling that that is what you're after, though. If you're looking for something life-affirming, then you might not want philosophy proper. Certainly, one might consider it optimistic to find something that is belief-affirming, but that, then, depends on an individual's beliefs, and could thus be anything. I'm of the view that anything like that would also tend to be theology.
In the end (and I certainly don't mean for this to sound harsh) if you're at all willing to accept theology as proxy for philosophy, you might be looking for theology after all.
posted by The Potate at 9:26 PM on December 12, 2009
I don't think there could be such a thing as a philosophical optimism. I mean I really don't believe that could exist. (Leibniz, for one, isn't an optimist; he might have said that he thought this was the best of all possible worlds, but that was more an extension of his monadology and furthermore a statement about the way he thought the world is, not an outlook with which to approach the future. And the mockery he's subject to in Candide is biting because Leibniz wouldn't have admitted to being so sunny about it.) I say this because optimism, in the general case at least, has no rational basis whatsoever; no more than does pessimism.
"Optimism" is one of those things which is interesting and permits of some abstraction if you're considering it in a specific case, but which sort of ceases having a meaningful significance if you try to consider it generally like I think you're doing. My own sense of "optimism" is that it's something like a kind of castrated hope, a hope that doesn't have an object or anything it looks to but merely a sunny view of the future. "Hope" is something that the religious have, but they have hope in some thing, namely a force which they hope will bring the things which they and the rest of humanity need; and it should be noted above all that this hope is precisely what divides them from the philosophers, since it has no apparently rational basis. And yet again, as I said above, that hope does not seem to be the same as what people generally call "optimism," since "optimism" isn't really so much a hope in some thing as it is a cheerful, positive belief that the future will be good and not bad.
And I think it's sufficiently unrealistic and in fact reductive to believe that the future will be simply good and not bad that there haven't been many philosophers to claim that. It's like saying the future will be more blue than green; how could we know, and even if we could, isn't reality sufficiently complex that we'd have to really understand what those things mean first? Philosophy has often concerned itself with trying to figure out what "good" means, but it has rarely made a blanket assumption that "good things will happen." This may just be me, but I associate the philosophical mindset more with a cold, detached consideration of questions central to human life; that coldness, I think, doesn't really admit of optimism, pessimism, or any other blanket, irrational assumption about how the future will be.
But, of course, I guess I have an answer. I remember Kierkegaard saying something in Fear and Trembling about how the knight of faith is a person who can live a life of endless sorrow and disappointment and still believe wholly that nothing but good will happen in the future. Of course, he also says that Abraham and the virgin Mary are the only two knights of faith in history. This is really a cop-out on my part, since, although I read Kierkegaard more carefully than I read most books, to this day I have no idea what he was talking about or trying to say. You may have more luck.
posted by koeselitz at 9:35 PM on December 12, 2009 [3 favorites]
"Optimism" is one of those things which is interesting and permits of some abstraction if you're considering it in a specific case, but which sort of ceases having a meaningful significance if you try to consider it generally like I think you're doing. My own sense of "optimism" is that it's something like a kind of castrated hope, a hope that doesn't have an object or anything it looks to but merely a sunny view of the future. "Hope" is something that the religious have, but they have hope in some thing, namely a force which they hope will bring the things which they and the rest of humanity need; and it should be noted above all that this hope is precisely what divides them from the philosophers, since it has no apparently rational basis. And yet again, as I said above, that hope does not seem to be the same as what people generally call "optimism," since "optimism" isn't really so much a hope in some thing as it is a cheerful, positive belief that the future will be good and not bad.
And I think it's sufficiently unrealistic and in fact reductive to believe that the future will be simply good and not bad that there haven't been many philosophers to claim that. It's like saying the future will be more blue than green; how could we know, and even if we could, isn't reality sufficiently complex that we'd have to really understand what those things mean first? Philosophy has often concerned itself with trying to figure out what "good" means, but it has rarely made a blanket assumption that "good things will happen." This may just be me, but I associate the philosophical mindset more with a cold, detached consideration of questions central to human life; that coldness, I think, doesn't really admit of optimism, pessimism, or any other blanket, irrational assumption about how the future will be.
But, of course, I guess I have an answer. I remember Kierkegaard saying something in Fear and Trembling about how the knight of faith is a person who can live a life of endless sorrow and disappointment and still believe wholly that nothing but good will happen in the future. Of course, he also says that Abraham and the virgin Mary are the only two knights of faith in history. This is really a cop-out on my part, since, although I read Kierkegaard more carefully than I read most books, to this day I have no idea what he was talking about or trying to say. You may have more luck.
posted by koeselitz at 9:35 PM on December 12, 2009 [3 favorites]
I just realized I ignored Liebniz, but I think others have covered his stuff pretty well.
posted by The Potate at 9:39 PM on December 12, 2009
posted by The Potate at 9:39 PM on December 12, 2009
lhude sing cuccu: “Nietzsche actually wasn't a nihilist; he was rather optimistic — many moral convictions. (I had to say it; I just wrote a paper all about it.)”
MikeHarris: “I'd be interested in hearing more about this.”
Seriously, what on earth could possibly lead anyone to believe that Nietzsche was a nihilist? I don't know any readers and interpreters of Nietzsche in any school of thought who believe that about him.
posted by koeselitz at 9:40 PM on December 12, 2009
MikeHarris: “I'd be interested in hearing more about this.”
Seriously, what on earth could possibly lead anyone to believe that Nietzsche was a nihilist? I don't know any readers and interpreters of Nietzsche in any school of thought who believe that about him.
posted by koeselitz at 9:40 PM on December 12, 2009
"The Conquest of Happiness" by Bertrand Russell. Somewhat dated, but a very interesting book. I read it when I was 17 and parts of the text have sticked with me all these years.
posted by Guywood Threepbrush at 2:42 AM on December 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Guywood Threepbrush at 2:42 AM on December 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
You might be interested in Dan Haybron's The Pursuit of Unhappiness (2008), of which one reviewer wrote: 'It is safe to say that, after this book, happiness will never be the same again.' It's a serious work of philosophy that nonetheless meets your criterion of being 'semicomprehensible to a motivated layman'. It also has a lot to say about the history of philosophy, which you might find useful. Haybron's academic website contains a brief summary of his argument and some helpful links. I realise that happiness is not the same as optimism (you can be happy without being optimistic, and you can probably be optimistic without being happy; cf. Romain Rolland's 'pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will'), but Haybron's book is a good starting-point for thinking about questions like 'what does it mean to be happy? what does it mean to be optimistic?' and the philosophical problems they pose.
posted by verstegan at 4:42 AM on December 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by verstegan at 4:42 AM on December 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
Seriously, what on earth could possibly lead anyone to believe that Nietzsche was a nihilist? I don't know any readers and interpreters of Nietzsche in any school of thought who believe that about him.The two big popular perceptions of Nietzsche are:
1) he was obsessed with strength and producing a genetically perfect "superman". This comes from his anti-semitic sister and his ideas being co-opted by Hitler.
2) he was a crazy nihilist who thought life was fundamentally meaningless and that nothing mattered. This comes more from the fact that he believed that traditional, existing moralities would inevitably be destroyed, and that the consequence of this would be nihilism unless we replace them with something better. People who just skim his writing generally get the idea that he thought that traditional morality was bad and that we should destroy it to make room for nihilism.
People who actually read Nietzsche, or even just a summary or brief description, are usually quickly disabused of these misconceptions.
posted by vogon_poet at 9:38 AM on December 13, 2009
Nobody has said Boethius. So I will. Boethius. Consolations of Philosophy. Not quite as exciting as Nietzsche, mind.
posted by tommorris at 7:13 PM on December 13, 2009
posted by tommorris at 7:13 PM on December 13, 2009
Wow, don't confused nihilism with pessimism, for one! I think Nietzsche offers optimism in the concept of the Superman..that's wildly optimistic!
Toni Negri and Michael Hardt, in works like Empire offer up what might be a politico-philosophical construct for optimism, but it refers to a very specific geo-political context.
FWIW, Delueze and Guattari offer up a certain kind of philosophical construct of optimism, but again..it's a strain of optimism that details such concepts as micropolitics and the rhizome. killer stuff, really opens up your eyes to new ideas.
posted by dvjtj at 10:13 PM on December 13, 2009
Toni Negri and Michael Hardt, in works like Empire offer up what might be a politico-philosophical construct for optimism, but it refers to a very specific geo-political context.
FWIW, Delueze and Guattari offer up a certain kind of philosophical construct of optimism, but again..it's a strain of optimism that details such concepts as micropolitics and the rhizome. killer stuff, really opens up your eyes to new ideas.
posted by dvjtj at 10:13 PM on December 13, 2009
What about Whitman's Leaves of Grass? Also Rumi has some really amazing things to say. You could check out a documentary called One Giant Leap it is contemporary but they do reference some of the classics. I would suggest doing a search for optimism quotes, then find quotes you like and research that person, in the event you haven't already done so. Ken Wilber is also really optimistic and if you are looking for someone who is absolutely over the top out there you could do a search on a current optimist, Rob Brezny he writes about something called pronoia...Good luck.
posted by gypseefire at 3:24 AM on December 14, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by gypseefire at 3:24 AM on December 14, 2009 [1 favorite]
In the philosophical sense, I would say that optimism is best viewed as an attitude towards the philosophical project in general, that of trying to understand the world, and the kind of methodological assumptions a philosopher must have when he or she is engaged in philosophy. So I think it would be legitimate to describe Leibniz as an optimist because his grounding principle- that there's a reason for everything (the principle of sufficient reason)- reveals a profound faith that the universe is meaningful (note that it does not look like the principle can be justified in a non-circular fashion, and experience cannot prove it to be sound). It is from the principle of sufficient reason that the claim about the actual world being the best possible world follows ('best' being 'maximally varying' not really morally best- except from God's perspective maybe).
What makes Schopenhauer's world view so pessimistic is that the universal will- in all its manifestations- is engaged in this ever lasting striving and struggle for basically no reason at all. Still, even Schopenhauer isn't nihilist since he thinks everything is basically connected.
I think a case could be made for describing Kant as an optimist as well, for his conviction that reason is invulnerable, free and all overcoming.
posted by leibniz at 11:56 AM on January 7, 2010
What makes Schopenhauer's world view so pessimistic is that the universal will- in all its manifestations- is engaged in this ever lasting striving and struggle for basically no reason at all. Still, even Schopenhauer isn't nihilist since he thinks everything is basically connected.
I think a case could be made for describing Kant as an optimist as well, for his conviction that reason is invulnerable, free and all overcoming.
posted by leibniz at 11:56 AM on January 7, 2010
I agree with vogan_poet having read a bunch of Nietzsche and wouldn't call him a nihilist. I agree he is the ultimate optimist. He thought people might get past their addiction to being right about everything (the root excuse for almost every atrocity) and attain something higher.
That is pretty optimistic!
posted by empty vessel at 5:53 PM on January 7, 2010
That is pretty optimistic!
posted by empty vessel at 5:53 PM on January 7, 2010
Nietzsche made some important contributions to the modern conception of nihilism but he passed through and beyond it. I would not call him an optimist but would use words that he himself used to describe himself and that others have used in this thread: life-affirmer, yes-sayer, etc. Here's a quote from his preface to Twilight of the Idols, and I can think of a few other prefaces (not to mention entire sections of work) where he talks of his cheerfulness and his mocking attitude toward overly-serious and/or "holy" philosophers:
"Maintaining cheerfulness in the midst of a gloomy task, fraught with immeasurable responsibility, is no small feat; and yet what is needed more than cheerfulness?"
I can't think of anyone who specifically discourses on Optimism, but a life-affirming and cheerful philosopher that comes to mind is Ralph Waldo Emerson. He is a very refreshing read.
posted by ReWayne at 10:35 AM on April 23, 2010
"Maintaining cheerfulness in the midst of a gloomy task, fraught with immeasurable responsibility, is no small feat; and yet what is needed more than cheerfulness?"
I can't think of anyone who specifically discourses on Optimism, but a life-affirming and cheerful philosopher that comes to mind is Ralph Waldo Emerson. He is a very refreshing read.
posted by ReWayne at 10:35 AM on April 23, 2010
Also, if you're interested in reading something that rubbishes all the misconceptions of Nietzsche that have been mentioned in this thread, check out Alexander Nehamas' LIFE AS LITERATURE.
posted by ReWayne at 10:38 AM on April 23, 2010
posted by ReWayne at 10:38 AM on April 23, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
-Are there any moral truths?
-Can we humans know anything for sure?
-Is there a God?
(etc)
(And what do you count as an optimistic answer?)
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Leibniz is one good starting point for him. It's a bit dense, and it's not clear that Leibniz will be what you're after.
Here's the entry on Neitzsche which might be useful as well. (There are a lot of misconceptions about Neitzsche out there.)
posted by LobsterMitten at 6:18 PM on December 12, 2009