Stoicism at it's core is about overcoming destructive emotions.
The negative methodology in this article seems to explicitly renounce the concept of emotions being destructive.
I tend to agree with the second view/philosophy more. Negative emotions like anger and grief are not destructive on their own. However, an individual's response to negative emotions can easily become destructive and foster harmful habits.
Stoicism aims to free one from anger, envy and jealousy, thus averting the negative responses which is an absolutely valid approach. The negative methodology in the article is about experiencing the emotion to its fullest and building resilience, which in turn reduces destructive responses.
I find the dichotomy of pessimism/optimism and positive/negative not very useful in daily life, I prefer to think of defeatism and naivety. To me realism or (practical) optimism lies between those two.
You can't go through life either distrusting everyone and everything, nor can you do the opposite and live a good life. People don't like negativity because it ruins their mood, but you sometimes have to be critical. People also don't like positivity because they feel it sets too high of a standard, but to do anything you need a little hubris.
I've found that it's possible to very cleanly separate pessimism and optimism while still experiencing both. When I'm with my family or ideating on a new project, optimism is a much better mindset as it allows the mind to wander, create and relax.
When I am in the depths of a project where I have a lot of things that I need to fail at to understand, a negative mindset is more useful.
Maintaining a positive mindset in the face of a multitude of assured failures is possible, but draining. However, a negative mindset, is more engine-like and muddles along, unsurprised by the failures.
Again, this is a purely personal anecdote and I would not recommend adopting a negative mindset to other people.
A variation: (my) self-awareness is defined more by (my) failures than by successes (with the exception of having children). Failure is painful and, in general, rational people seek to avoid pain. But fear/pain - and the absolute certainty that we will experience both - shapes our attitude and behavior. Is it pessimism to expect fear/pain? Is it optimism to seek sex/wealth (greed)? Methinks both are the human condition, and both make life worth living.
It really depends on how the negativity is expressed, and about what. Being negative about something that you can change is defeatism. being negative about something that will happen and can do nothing about is at best unhelpful for anyone.
Being negative about how you reacted to something, how you did something, or how something was done (without pointing fingers) is extremely helpful for me, it push me to improve or change where needed.
"You can't go through life either distrusting everyone and everything, nor can you do the opposite and live a good life."
I distrust everything and can make a convincing case for it.
Where is the trust to be found? In societal structures? In people who have been indoctrinated into a society and think its perfectly normal to spend time in an office looking at screens and in their downtime look at screens too?
And what is a good life? Is it having the money and the goodies, or is it having the truth? This is a decision for everyone to make, whether they realise it or not!
If you want to be productive in life and cooperate with people you need at least some level of trust. For example if you are meeting up with someone, do you distrust that they will not show up and not go at all or do you demand they send their GPS location every minute of their way to know that you are not wasting an hour of your time going to the meeting?
This is just one minor example. There's several other things that you have to trust that work. In any exchange or trade you are providing some level of trust. If you didn't trust at all you wouldn't do the trade. You trust that whoever you are meeting up with won't kill you.
So you can't really say that you "distrust everything". That's a meaningless statement. Even you who says that they distrust everything has some level of trust in some items.
If you are in a relationship do you go there with complete distrust, once again demanding to see their messages and location at all times because otherwise you distrust them not to cheat on you?
If you are living in a house you trust that whoever built the house built it well enough for it to not collapse on you randomly.
I'm happy to co-operate. I don't have to trust them for that. I extend my hand to others first. I can trade. I go in with the possibility that I can be ripped off - I'm happy to do so.
I don't think most people are nefarious. Most are incredibly ignorant though. Despite apparent intellectual abilities, most people are unable to think for themselves - they have been programmed. They have received their values and behaviours, etc and believe them to be their own, even though they have never considered them deeply for themselves. They believe its perfectly normal to spend their whole lives working at screens for money. Unbelievable! This is 'normal'. Wearing masks is now normal too, and no travel, ever greater government management of one's life is also normal. Etc.
So yes, there is the day-to-day trust - but what I'm thinking is that trust requires that 2 agents have freewill and a similar reasoned understanding. But we don't. I live in different universes to most, I think.
When I'm talking about trust, there is a relation to truth. Most people accept the truth they are provided without question. There is no debate - the TV doesn't lie, the government has your best interests, corporations aim to make profit but in a 'ethical' way, the law is independent, etc, etc. In dealing with people who accept all that uncritically, we cannot have trust. We do not have individuals interacting according to a common understanding. We have a herd that acts in a predetermined way. It looks like its made up of individuals, but its not. In fact the only thinking that's occurring is small, and relates to personal preferences (I prefer the taste of chocolate, I like watching sport, I will work hard for money to get the house, etc). The behaviour is hardwired, there is no element of free will there. No more trust to be had there, that you could have with a door or wall.
Your cynicism is so dysfunctional that it prevents you from acknowledging basic scientific facts. Why should any person adopt a worldview which demonstrably allows its adherents to renounce something as basic as 1800s germ theory? Because they think they’re smarter and more independent than everyone else? No, your cynicism borders on mental illness.
This is exactly what independent thinkers will be diagnosed with. If you don't go along with what consensus calls true, you are mentally ill - its obvious! That person doesn't believe x or y - despite being taught it at school. He or she wants to know and understand for themselves! My, my - that's definitely a crime.
Mental illness is when one ignores basic facts which have been independently validated by scientists around the world, all for the sake of his own narcissism. I have no time or respect for people too intellectually lazy to do basic reading while praising themselves for their own ignorance. The very people who rationalize their ignorance with self-indulgence inevitably end up revealing themselves to be the greatest slaves to their own cognitive dissonance. Their minds are simply too weak and their egos too frail to admit flaws in their worldview.
The thing is, you believe your basic facts. Believe, not know. But you call it 'knowing'.
Knowing is when you verify facts for yourself. By not checking information, but just accepting whatever is handed to you, you are applying no filter to your reality. You filter only what has been deemed acceptable for you to filter - did Trump say that, did google do that, etc. The basic 'facts' are accepted without contention. Or any verified evidence. All that's needed is for someone to make a claim or show it on TV and that's basically right, right?
Have you ever looked at the replication crisis - where 70% of science studies cannot be reproduced? Or the nature of science funding - its corporations, the government and the military. If we are living in a fascist dictatorship, as I believe is evident, then that is a closed loop. Only what is deemed valuable to those stakeholders is investigated and presented as true.
>By not checking information but just accepting whatever is handed to you...
>The basic 'facts' are accepted without contention. Or any verified evidence.
>All that's needed is for someone to make a claim or show it on TV and that's basically right, right?
Who exactly are you speaking about here? What gives you the right to presume -- without any evidence -- that others don't verify and critically examine what they read and hear? Do you actually believe that you're the only person who does this?
Your attitude is blatantly condescending and supercilious.
Where exactly do you get the conclusion that it alloes for renouncing germ theory? What are the facts not acknowledged?
Exact proof of something simple as 2+2 is laborious and hilariously disproportionate but one can work with approximations well enough and handle the vast majority of cases in the same way friction and time dillation are often omitted from equations.
feralimal implies that people wearing masks aren't thinking for themselves, when the reality is that masks are in everyone's collective self-interest and the vast majority of people understand this. Widespread mask-wearing is highly correlated with reduced spread of airborne contagion, coronavirus included.
Pragmatic optimism is the best. You don't delude yourself that everything is okay when it's clearly not, but you know that you can handle most challenges thrown at you and you use the best methods suitable for handling any problems. You are only negative if it's worth being negative about. And this is about the things that are changeable and you are negative so you would know what you have to change or improve. You give benefit of the doubt to people as much as is reasonable.
On the subject matter, all of the thinking around this stuff is very all-or-nothing. I know it’s popular to say that you need to be balanced in your considerations too but I find the idea of balance to suggest a stillness and inaction, set and forget.
I think you need to hold the different conflicting ideas in your head, at the same time and push them into conflict with each other to find a pragmatic mix of them.
Pessimism/optimism are mostly to signal social support for things. If you act with irrational optimism towards someone's ideas you are showing that you support the person. Similarly if you don't act with irrational optimism many will take it as evidence that you don't support them, which can cause them to become hostile against you.
This means that acting with irrational optimism is often the rational choice when you consider social factors, and that is what managers are looking for when the job ad says it wants an optimistic person.
However that kind of irrational social based optimism isn't what entrepreneurs means when they talk about optimism. Their kind of optimism is that you need to see yourself as better than others so you wont conclude that since most others fail you too will fail, which is kind of the opposite kind of optimism managers are looking for in their reports.
The social aspect is huge in some organizations and I am glad you described it so well. I continue to see terrible ideas supported by rational people because of social position or social signaling. If they stand to gain from expressing support, yet would suffer no material penalty if the idea fails then why not support the person/idea? On the other hand it makes me feel like I am the crazy one - as in “am I the only one who sees how dumb this is?” “Should I speak up?” In many cases the rational answer is no. Better to support it in the slim chance it succeeds, and ignore or distance yourself if/when it fails. The organization specifically rejects/weeds out what it calls “Eeyores” - Winnie the Pooh reference.
There's a third (and possibly many more) variation(s). People don't like positivity because it often triggers a prejudgement of naivety, which in turn leads to defeatism (since you can't connect with someone; you feel disconnected from them due to their positivity and your inability to empathise with their perspective).
That's a trickier one to overcome with pure hubris, and imo a much more common one than some may think.
Ok for "toxic positivity", but why not speak also about "toxic negativity", if people turned to "excessive" positivity, that is telling us that negativity can be armfull as well. Like everyting, we always need balance and the "Art of Negativity" is the same as the 3art of Positivity": using the right posture at the right moment. If you already interest in Yin/Yang you already know that ;)
It's a Polish Intellectual magazine site, so an Eastern European perspective on Capitalism. If you can't read such global opinions, you're gonna be a one-sided citizen. You need to grasp the wants and desires of others to find middle ground peacefully.
I disagree. I read the full article and enjoyed it a lot. But the attempts to pull in “late capitalism” and gender / queer issues were just poor writing. It’s like mixing all the paint colors and just getting an ugly gray. There was no convincing connection to “structural inequality” in this at all, nor any sense of significant radical opposition to entrenched powers that be. Piling that stuff on just made the essay bloated. It felt more like having an unsupported agenda of radical left issues forced upon me with no serious intellectual basis or connection, with lots of language thrown in to make sure you know that the author feels those radical aspects are 100% correct (without justification) and must be taken as truth and as an assumed shared starting point for the reader. It significantly detracts from the article, lowering both the basic writing efficacy and the intellectual merit, and watering the whole thing down as an assertive (but unsupported) criticism of capitalism instead of the rather interesting discussion of negativity that it used as a bait and switch.
It feels a little bit like the author combined two different articles. Both are good (I don't mind anti-capitalist rhetoric), but the tone change and continuity break is hard to miss.
Really it feels like they had a vocabulary list of anticapitalist terms and names to include in a separate assignment.
Just dropping all of the communist bits and stating /how/ and /why/ capitalism pushes optimism would give it some intergration. It would at least fit in as a "novel or less commonly listed flaw of capitalism" instead of just including the list of top down beliefs as articles of faith.
The voice in the article is an ordinary every-day frame of reference for Eastern Europeans; you're simply reacting to the lack of an American Capitalist frame of reference and the every-day American talking points.
In Eastern Europe everyone interjects assertions that don’t follow from any part of the discussion? Because that is the article’s approach to connecting topics of late capitalism and gender/queer issues and structural inequality. They are disjointedly introduced in an unmotivated, ungrounded way that violates basic, universal conventions of successful writing and communication in all nationalities.
I really doubt what you are saying here. Eastern Europeans are just as capable of logical trains of thought supported by compelling writing and evidence as anyone else in the world - which is very different from this article.
I have found that the people who keep pushing optimism are those who are already successful. It is not that being optimistic leads to success but that successful people are more inclined to feel optimistic.
I know a couple of optimists who seem very interested in the notion that all the work they’ve done so far has created a good outcome instead of one where people have to work very hard to do basic things.
“Everything is awesome,” in this context, is alienating, or if you prefer, gaslighting.
And self damaging. Nobody wants to talk to them about real problems because there is no safe space for candor. So people talk to the pessimists, creating a rift. “I haven’t heard anything about this,” has been uttered more than a couple times. No shit Sherlock. Who would talk to you about problems like this?
There is certainly a correlation between the two. But I think our general sense of optimism towards life is set at a very early age. Take Elon Musk who, as a kid, was always described as an optimist despite his unsuccessful childhood.
I have seen the opposite personally - people who push optimism as less successful but cheerfully repeatedly making terrible foolish mistakes. From "I totally won't wind up homeless in LA if I move there to make it as a star with no acting education or experience." To "If I stay loyal to this horrible person who abuses me they will get better."
Pessimists I have seen generally as more secure from planning for the worst perhaps to overkill extents but less happy.
The snarky summary is "An optimist is a million dollars in debt, losing money every day and thinks it will get better. A pessimist will eventually have a million dollars, feel precariously worried about pending disaster while their true greatest risk is their urge to commit suicide."
Optimism is socially useful. guarded pessimism is unavoidable from evolution. Humans psychologically want reinforcement of their own security i.e. group positivity. Evolution in groups means our unconscious does this without awareness. Negativity undermines the feeling of group security.
Good comment self, alsoHard to be an engineer without practicing 'worst case' thinking for design. Maybe this is why switching from design to sales is so hard. Long and critical thought versus short and optimistic.
Groups tend to be pessimist to change and outside influence though so aren't inherently biased to optimism. Groups just value optimism when it is optimism towards the groups current values and goals, but it sees optimism towards stuff the group doesn't do as a negative.
For example, if you join a company and tell the manager in the first meeting "If we reorganized the working groups like this it will greatly increase productivity due to reasons, it will be great!", he wont see you as an optimist, even though you have plenty of optimism, what he wants is optimism towards his ideas and not your own optimistic ideas.
I've become a fan of what little one gets from Polish culture from Netflix shows such as "1983" and "Rojst". (I was aware of Chopin, Kieslowski and even Gorecki, but somehow everything until 1983 registed as "European" and not specifically Polish to me). I've even been doing Duolingo exercises almost nightly for over a year now. It's great to find out about this!
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but, being Polish, I have to say I was quite disappointed with "1983".
I could tell that the screenwriter wasn't Polish before I looked it up.
The core premise - that the society would flock to back the communist party in the view of the terrorist attacks, post-9/11 style - is by itself American to the bone, and totally out of sync with Polish political reality of that era.
And ironically despite all of the terms betrays a fundamental willful lack of understanding and their prejudice. It homogenizes capitalism in the same way a bigot might say "cartel mexicans", "police mexicans", and "farmer mexicans" and reduces them as adjectives to slap onto interchangeables.
Late capitalist as a bonus is essentially equivalent to a doomsday prophecy of the downfall of infidels. Complete with ignoring all of the past times it was predicted and never came to pass.
57 comments
[ 1.3 ms ] story [ 96.8 ms ] threadThe negative methodology in this article seems to explicitly renounce the concept of emotions being destructive.
I tend to agree with the second view/philosophy more. Negative emotions like anger and grief are not destructive on their own. However, an individual's response to negative emotions can easily become destructive and foster harmful habits.
Stoicism aims to free one from anger, envy and jealousy, thus averting the negative responses which is an absolutely valid approach. The negative methodology in the article is about experiencing the emotion to its fullest and building resilience, which in turn reduces destructive responses.
You can't go through life either distrusting everyone and everything, nor can you do the opposite and live a good life. People don't like negativity because it ruins their mood, but you sometimes have to be critical. People also don't like positivity because they feel it sets too high of a standard, but to do anything you need a little hubris.
When I am in the depths of a project where I have a lot of things that I need to fail at to understand, a negative mindset is more useful.
Maintaining a positive mindset in the face of a multitude of assured failures is possible, but draining. However, a negative mindset, is more engine-like and muddles along, unsurprised by the failures.
Again, this is a purely personal anecdote and I would not recommend adopting a negative mindset to other people.
Being negative about how you reacted to something, how you did something, or how something was done (without pointing fingers) is extremely helpful for me, it push me to improve or change where needed.
I disagree strongly with the first paragraph and agree vehemently with the second.
I distrust everything and can make a convincing case for it.
Where is the trust to be found? In societal structures? In people who have been indoctrinated into a society and think its perfectly normal to spend time in an office looking at screens and in their downtime look at screens too?
And what is a good life? Is it having the money and the goodies, or is it having the truth? This is a decision for everyone to make, whether they realise it or not!
This is just one minor example. There's several other things that you have to trust that work. In any exchange or trade you are providing some level of trust. If you didn't trust at all you wouldn't do the trade. You trust that whoever you are meeting up with won't kill you.
So you can't really say that you "distrust everything". That's a meaningless statement. Even you who says that they distrust everything has some level of trust in some items.
If you are in a relationship do you go there with complete distrust, once again demanding to see their messages and location at all times because otherwise you distrust them not to cheat on you?
If you are living in a house you trust that whoever built the house built it well enough for it to not collapse on you randomly.
I don't think most people are nefarious. Most are incredibly ignorant though. Despite apparent intellectual abilities, most people are unable to think for themselves - they have been programmed. They have received their values and behaviours, etc and believe them to be their own, even though they have never considered them deeply for themselves. They believe its perfectly normal to spend their whole lives working at screens for money. Unbelievable! This is 'normal'. Wearing masks is now normal too, and no travel, ever greater government management of one's life is also normal. Etc.
So yes, there is the day-to-day trust - but what I'm thinking is that trust requires that 2 agents have freewill and a similar reasoned understanding. But we don't. I live in different universes to most, I think.
When I'm talking about trust, there is a relation to truth. Most people accept the truth they are provided without question. There is no debate - the TV doesn't lie, the government has your best interests, corporations aim to make profit but in a 'ethical' way, the law is independent, etc, etc. In dealing with people who accept all that uncritically, we cannot have trust. We do not have individuals interacting according to a common understanding. We have a herd that acts in a predetermined way. It looks like its made up of individuals, but its not. In fact the only thinking that's occurring is small, and relates to personal preferences (I prefer the taste of chocolate, I like watching sport, I will work hard for money to get the house, etc). The behaviour is hardwired, there is no element of free will there. No more trust to be had there, that you could have with a door or wall.
This is exactly what independent thinkers will be diagnosed with. If you don't go along with what consensus calls true, you are mentally ill - its obvious! That person doesn't believe x or y - despite being taught it at school. He or she wants to know and understand for themselves! My, my - that's definitely a crime.
Knowing is when you verify facts for yourself. By not checking information, but just accepting whatever is handed to you, you are applying no filter to your reality. You filter only what has been deemed acceptable for you to filter - did Trump say that, did google do that, etc. The basic 'facts' are accepted without contention. Or any verified evidence. All that's needed is for someone to make a claim or show it on TV and that's basically right, right?
Have you ever looked at the replication crisis - where 70% of science studies cannot be reproduced? Or the nature of science funding - its corporations, the government and the military. If we are living in a fascist dictatorship, as I believe is evident, then that is a closed loop. Only what is deemed valuable to those stakeholders is investigated and presented as true.
>The basic 'facts' are accepted without contention. Or any verified evidence.
>All that's needed is for someone to make a claim or show it on TV and that's basically right, right?
Who exactly are you speaking about here? What gives you the right to presume -- without any evidence -- that others don't verify and critically examine what they read and hear? Do you actually believe that you're the only person who does this?
Your attitude is blatantly condescending and supercilious.
Exact proof of something simple as 2+2 is laborious and hilariously disproportionate but one can work with approximations well enough and handle the vast majority of cases in the same way friction and time dillation are often omitted from equations.
This is a great little line, thanks.
On the subject matter, all of the thinking around this stuff is very all-or-nothing. I know it’s popular to say that you need to be balanced in your considerations too but I find the idea of balance to suggest a stillness and inaction, set and forget.
I think you need to hold the different conflicting ideas in your head, at the same time and push them into conflict with each other to find a pragmatic mix of them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_in_God_and_keep_your_pow...
This means that acting with irrational optimism is often the rational choice when you consider social factors, and that is what managers are looking for when the job ad says it wants an optimistic person.
However that kind of irrational social based optimism isn't what entrepreneurs means when they talk about optimism. Their kind of optimism is that you need to see yourself as better than others so you wont conclude that since most others fail you too will fail, which is kind of the opposite kind of optimism managers are looking for in their reports.
There's a third (and possibly many more) variation(s). People don't like positivity because it often triggers a prejudgement of naivety, which in turn leads to defeatism (since you can't connect with someone; you feel disconnected from them due to their positivity and your inability to empathise with their perspective).
That's a trickier one to overcome with pure hubris, and imo a much more common one than some may think.
Just dropping all of the communist bits and stating /how/ and /why/ capitalism pushes optimism would give it some intergration. It would at least fit in as a "novel or less commonly listed flaw of capitalism" instead of just including the list of top down beliefs as articles of faith.
I really doubt what you are saying here. Eastern Europeans are just as capable of logical trains of thought supported by compelling writing and evidence as anyone else in the world - which is very different from this article.
How do you know the casual relationship?
I can imagine if all you have is positive feed back loop, you will see everything will just keep improving endlessly.
Which is why these perspectives are what they are perspectives. They are not real world models you should live your life by.
In real life you must deal with the situations as they are.
“Everything is awesome,” in this context, is alienating, or if you prefer, gaslighting.
And self damaging. Nobody wants to talk to them about real problems because there is no safe space for candor. So people talk to the pessimists, creating a rift. “I haven’t heard anything about this,” has been uttered more than a couple times. No shit Sherlock. Who would talk to you about problems like this?
Pessimists I have seen generally as more secure from planning for the worst perhaps to overkill extents but less happy.
The snarky summary is "An optimist is a million dollars in debt, losing money every day and thinks it will get better. A pessimist will eventually have a million dollars, feel precariously worried about pending disaster while their true greatest risk is their urge to commit suicide."
For example, if you join a company and tell the manager in the first meeting "If we reorganized the working groups like this it will greatly increase productivity due to reasons, it will be great!", he wont see you as an optimist, even though you have plenty of optimism, what he wants is optimism towards his ideas and not your own optimistic ideas.
Started in 1945, it's to the Polish culture what New Yorker is to the American one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przekr%C3%B3j
-- Michael Leuning
https://cruciality.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/stone-age.jpg
For me, it is about stoic/Zen acceptance of things we cannot change.
Contrast it with "American optimism", which is for me close to gaslighting, or at best - a "flight" reaction from suffering.
securely a pinko
ocular pinkeyes
sneakily recoup
epicurean yolks
cakey repulsion
late capitalism
21st century capitalism
wellness capitalism
white patriarchal capitalism
Late capitalist as a bonus is essentially equivalent to a doomsday prophecy of the downfall of infidels. Complete with ignoring all of the past times it was predicted and never came to pass.