Helen Keller, the writer who was both deaf and blind (as the result of an illness which struck when she was 19 months old), made her case for optimism in an early essay first published in 1903:
'One who believes that the pain in the world outweighs the joy, and expresses that unhappy conviction, only adds to the pain. Schopenhauer is an enemy to the race. Even if he earnestly believed that this is the most wretched of possible worlds, he should not promulgate a doctrine which robs men of the incentive to fight with circumstance.' (p.148 of The World I Live In
which includes the text of Optimism)
Hers is an amazing story of overcoming difficulties of communication to achieve a career as a great communicator whose life story has inspired many thousands of people. She seems to be saying that honest pessimism just increases suffering, so on consequentialist grounds (cost-benefit analysis in terms of happiness, say) it is morally wrong to be a pessimist and publish your views. That will just make other people lose hope too. This is a seductive view. Self help books encourage it - keep optimistic and better things will happen (and perhaps this is really true for some people).
But what of the cost of published optimistic views? As readers build up their hope that they will win friends and influence people, achieve all their wildest dreams, become beautiful both inside and out, lose every ounce of excess weight, make a million, or completely dejunk their lives, these hopes at some stage will very likely be dashed by reality. Doesn't it hurt more to be dropped from a height? And what of the devastating realization of having lived a life based on lies?
Isn't it better to try and steer a middle course, in Aristotelean style, between over-optimistic daydreaming and dark paralysing pessmism?
November 18, 2006
ALWAYS LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE OF LIFE
Okay what were Helen Keller’s options? There weren’t a lot of vacancies at the Job Centre for blind, deaf and dumb women in 1903… the employment market was so incredibly sexist. So Miss Keller could have sat in the dark and silence, opened a vein or waited for James Blunt to be born for his songs to depress her further. Or she could have made the Herculean efforts that she did and lead a long, fulfilled life contributing to society and philosophical blogs even to this day. Way to go, Helen!
Didn’t Descartes write, “Except our own thoughts, there is nothing absolutely in our power.” Well, that’ll do for a start. As anyone who suffers severe chronic pain will know; optimism, positive thinking and the odd Marx Brothers film will increase natural endorphin and serotonin levels, lessening the pain and making life bearable. Without optimistic views, countries would not be discovered, cures found or babies born. That’s what hope does for you. And if people become happier along the way, what’s the problem? I wouldn’t say these lives are based on lies, but personal perception.
By all means, pessimists can publish their views all they want, but they mustn’t expect to be invited to many parties. And one can steer a middle course as suggested, but how dull it sounds. The late, great comic Ernie Kovak always advised (indeed it was put on his gravestone after he died prematurely in a car crash) “Nothing in moderation.”
Optimism is also what makes my 92 year old uncle go to the gym everyday, even if he’s forgotten why.
Now excuse me while I win friends, lose weight, make millions and declutter my life, sure in the knowledge that tomorrow will be even better.
Posted by: Gail Renard | November 18, 2006 at 08:45 PM