Pessimist or Optimist?
Which is better -- an optimist who is rarely justified by internally rewarded or a pessimist who knows that bad things will happen but is rewarded by seeing the correctness of his thinking?
In a recent radio show (see link) on NPR I listened to the debate and came away with a bit of a different thought. So what’s my opinion? Neither of them is better. It’s the best of both concepts that allows us to continue to act in the best manner possible. So, I’m “stuck in the middle” again. But, stay with me for a minute. I keep talking about balance and here’s a real example.
To be the pessimist you must accept the fact that regardless of what you do, things will go wrong. It is the second law of thermodynamics in real life. Enthalpy grows; order decreases whenever given the opportunity. Bad people exist; the other guy isn’t always looking out for you; and, the sun just might NOT come up tomorrow. A pessimist knows that there is always going to be a hiccup in the process; people will sink to their lowest level of depravity; and it is always darkest just before it gets worse. If it sounds depressing, it can be. Yet look at all the truths therein.
The optimist sees the other fact that there is always something you can do to make things better. It’s often just because we don’t try hard enough that we fall short. Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Mother Teresa accomplished what they did because they overlooked the naysayers and kept on going. Sure there’s bad in the world but good can overcome bad. And, as Annie says – there’s always tomorrow. An optimist will keep on going, looking for that path that will lead over the mountain to the other side. It’s hope in its purest state.
So are they both wrong? Or, could it be that they are both right?
Absolute pessimism leads to paralysis. All the overwhelming things that stack up against you can force you to abdicate control to the winds and surrender to the worst that exists. Absolute optimism leads to frenetic activity without effects – it’s the attitude that “if we just DO something . . . .” But doing without considering the costs is just motion without a notion. At both ends of the spectrum is nothingness.
It is in the middle where we gain insights from both sides and decide effectively how to manage the odds that seem stacked against us. We can act only when we look at the positives and the negatives and balance them against what is desired. So, be pessimistically optimistic or optimistically pessimistic – knowing that regardless of what we decide to think or do there will always be people who can do it better than us and people who can do it worse; people who care and people who care not; and, that we need to weigh all the options – good and bad – to determine whether we should step this way or that way. But, step we must. After all, we came to being from nothing – that’s optimism and we return to the dust of the earth leaving behind only that which will make a mark on the next generation. What mark will you leave?
In a recent radio show (see link) on NPR I listened to the debate and came away with a bit of a different thought. So what’s my opinion? Neither of them is better. It’s the best of both concepts that allows us to continue to act in the best manner possible. So, I’m “stuck in the middle” again. But, stay with me for a minute. I keep talking about balance and here’s a real example.
To be the pessimist you must accept the fact that regardless of what you do, things will go wrong. It is the second law of thermodynamics in real life. Enthalpy grows; order decreases whenever given the opportunity. Bad people exist; the other guy isn’t always looking out for you; and, the sun just might NOT come up tomorrow. A pessimist knows that there is always going to be a hiccup in the process; people will sink to their lowest level of depravity; and it is always darkest just before it gets worse. If it sounds depressing, it can be. Yet look at all the truths therein.
The optimist sees the other fact that there is always something you can do to make things better. It’s often just because we don’t try hard enough that we fall short. Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Mother Teresa accomplished what they did because they overlooked the naysayers and kept on going. Sure there’s bad in the world but good can overcome bad. And, as Annie says – there’s always tomorrow. An optimist will keep on going, looking for that path that will lead over the mountain to the other side. It’s hope in its purest state.
So are they both wrong? Or, could it be that they are both right?
Absolute pessimism leads to paralysis. All the overwhelming things that stack up against you can force you to abdicate control to the winds and surrender to the worst that exists. Absolute optimism leads to frenetic activity without effects – it’s the attitude that “if we just DO something . . . .” But doing without considering the costs is just motion without a notion. At both ends of the spectrum is nothingness.
It is in the middle where we gain insights from both sides and decide effectively how to manage the odds that seem stacked against us. We can act only when we look at the positives and the negatives and balance them against what is desired. So, be pessimistically optimistic or optimistically pessimistic – knowing that regardless of what we decide to think or do there will always be people who can do it better than us and people who can do it worse; people who care and people who care not; and, that we need to weigh all the options – good and bad – to determine whether we should step this way or that way. But, step we must. After all, we came to being from nothing – that’s optimism and we return to the dust of the earth leaving behind only that which will make a mark on the next generation. What mark will you leave?
posted by genebko at
12:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home