Optimism, Fate & Politics - Dr. Pangloss, I Presume?
69The Best of all Possible Worlds?
"All's for the best in the best of all possible worlds". (orig: Tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles). This was the maxim of Dr. Pangloss in Voltaire's political satire, Candide. Whatever misfortune befell, Dr. Pangloss would console himself with these words of undefeated optimism. To this day, excessive and unjustifed optimism is referred to as the Panglossian View.
Pangloss and the Law of Attraction
The Panglossian view is not wholly without merit when correctly understood. Pangloss is not saying everything is going to turn out well. In particular, he is not saying everything is going to turn out well for me. He's not a fool. In fact, his position is more a version of God moves in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform. Pangloss accepts, as articles of faith, that the world is imperfect, that it must be so, and that God has everything under control. His philosophy is more one of ours not to reason why. Personally, I think it is a wrong-headed, confused and dangerous philosophy, not least because it clears the stage for malevolent human forces, yet it has elements of inherent goodness that can be respected. The same cannot be said of -
The Law of Attraction. This piece of latter-day mumbo-jumbo is nothing more than a hotchpotch of new age mysticism, pseudo-science and marketing. It appeals to naiveness, desperation, escapism and greed. It's high priests are cynical manipulators at worst, fast-buck salesmen at best. Having said that, there's nothing wrong with maintaining a positive attitude, but espousing charlatans as gurus is never the way forward.
Pangloss and Fatalism. One problem with Panglossian optimism is its similarity to fatalism - if everything is for the best, then attempts to improve matters are futile, almost presumptuous, as interference with God's purpose. All that's then left is acceptance. This is not true optimism. In fact it's more akin to denial and, in truth, not far removed from pessimism. True optimism should be motivational and based on a belief that the individual or group can make a difference.
Pessimism is self-fulfilling - Optimism less so.
This asymmetry is unfortunate but inescapable. The explanation is simple enough. Pessimism leads to depression, depression to inaction, inaction to loss of control, loss of control to failure. And this is as true of whole populations as of the individuals within them. Optimism, on the other hand, does not inevitably lead to success. Why not? Simply because the odds might be stacked against you. Stronger forces might desire your failure. Optimism leads to endeavour, but some endeavours fail. Asymmetry - tough! Or to put it another way - you don't have to fight your way to the bottom.
Courage, Friends - the Devil is Dead!
Denys of Burgundy - a very different optimist from Dr Pangloss - a warrior, a simple man of huge strength, courage and loyalty. His rallying cry, courage friends - the devil is dead!, never far from his lips. But his weapon is the crossbow and warfare has moved on. He sees his fate coming, but fights it at every turn. Just as his creator, Charles Reade, must have known that his great book, The Cloister & The Hearth, would prove an inadequate weapon against its target, the tradition of celibacy in the Catholic Priesthood. But Reade, like Denys, was a campaigner. These great optimists, Reade and Denys, one real, one fictional, but equally inspirational, are our true models of courageous optimism, campaigning optimism. Not the accepting, uncritical, 'soma-optimism' of Dr Pangloss.
What devil shall we kill today?
That is a very hard question to answer. Whereas our friend Pangloss is wrong in believing everything is for the best, he's right in acknowledging that the world is too complex to fully understand. Maybe this is why people are so drawn to single issue politics. Let's save the whales - OK, good, no harm will come from that. Let's ban hunting with hounds - that will save some foxes and only upset a few rich farmers. Let's abolish slave labour* in the Gulf States - no worries, that will only add another 50% or so to the current price of crude. What, you don't like that idea?
The fact is, there is no single devil. Even here in Hubpages in the past few weeks we've seen attempted demonisation of Americans, of Muslims, of Capitalists, of Homosexuals, of Republicans, of Christians, of China, of Immigrants, of Jews, of Atheists. No doubt of many other groups too.
It's time to grow up, time to reject the soundbite culture that actively encourages stupidity and bigotry, from whatever persuasion it comes. There is a need for optimistic campaigning, even against formidable opposition, for tilting at windmills if you like, but let it be informed by rationality and humanity. Or let it stay home.
Denys of Burgundy
Courage, friends, the devil is dead
and now is the time to make amends
for tears we drew and the fear that bled
courage, friends.
Welcome the joy that sunlight sends,
showing as ghosts the words we said,
ghosts of the night that never ends
but need not hold us, ghosts that fed
ravenous on the lie that lends
truth to the cry the warrior led -
Courage, friends.
...................................................................
*Slave labour in the Gulf States - immigrant work forces, imported from the Subcontinent, working outdoors in temperatures up to 50C (122F), no representation, no exit visa, no rights of assembly, no privacy, multiple occupancy, no wives or families, subsistence food, payment around $200 per month, often withheld for the first few months to secure 'loyalty'.
Note to Voltaireans - if I have misrepresented Dr Pangloss, perhaps made of him a straw man to tear down, I apologise.
Share it! — Rate it: up down [flag this hub]
Comments
Hey - that was quick! Thanks Robie :)
Great hub, Paraglider. We, the people, indeed are tempted and often inclined to view the world, life in digestable chunks. Thinking that if we digest those, we actually solve our problems. Step by step, rather than trying to establish an integrated, whole view. Which we can't. But being unable to doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Optimism is not equal to passively accepting. Optimism is trying, hoping for success but in the knowledge that there's a chance for failure and disappointment.
The more we live, the less we know. I've decided over the years I don't have to figure it out....just live in it peacefully -- which is no easy feat.
I loved this, though, as I realize the different beliefs since time. I tend to believe Someone in the Great Beyond has got IT all figured out. I'll wait until they're ready to explain. Sooner, rather than later, I hope. Things appear in a mess; so surely there's a Plan?
Thanks Ananta & Marisue. My feeling is that while we can never know the whole picture, we can still act positively for change. A simple example is reducing our own consumption of energy and materials. Another is in voting and encouraging others to vote. Another is in speaking out against obvious injustices. Another is life-long study. Because, though we can't know everything, the better informed we are, the better our judgment should be. Denys of Burgundy should have taken stock and studied musketry!
Very well written and succinct. It really cuts to the heart of things at the end. Presumably this means that if we all lead by example and do what is “right” then everything will be fine. I couldn’t agree more! You are absolutely correct.
Unfortunately we just can’t all seem to agree on what’s “right”, or even what’s “wrong”. And since we disagree, the only solution is a fight to the death. While we’re at it, you get everyone who believes as you do and I’ll get all my supporters and we’ll ALL kill each other until only one side survives. And if there is more than one survivor on the “winning” side, sooner or later, they will find things to disagree about and eventually those disagreements will escalate to violent confrontations.
Seems like a vicious cycle to me. I’ve spent almost my entire life trying to figure out how to break it.
“It's time to grow up…” We need to survive past our childhood for this to happen.
“…there is no single devil.” Perhaps it is us.
Not really, CWB. For one thing, I will never say 'everything will be fine' because I don't think we can know the outcomes of our actions in advance. I do go along with the idea that we should be attached to our actions but not to their outcomes. In modern management-speak that means focussng more on process than result.
But this one - ((And since we disagree, the only solution is a fight to the death.)) sorry, no - it's a complete non-sequitur. Even now, I'm disagreeing with you, but I see no fight on the horizon. It seems naive to me to believe that one 'way' has to win out and suppress every other 'way'. Why? Most of our present problems are due to this particular corruption - the acquiescence of society to the 'way' of greed. But we'll be no better off if we usurp greed and instate green. It's just too simplistic. Revolutions never work. You need healthy confusion, complication and balance. You need an engaged, interested and bewildered public.
That's how you 'break it' - by denying the existence of 'it' and instating 'them'.
Because there is no one solution.
You take me too literally Paraglider. The disagreement, fighting and killing scenario is merely another metaphorical reference to the cycle we humans have repeated since the beginning. Sorry if I was unclear.
Of course disagreement need not end in conflict. That’s my whole point. We simply agree to disagree. There is generally much less a problem on the individual level since others, with cooler heads, can mediate. However, the more people take sides in a dispute the more likely it will escalate to violent confrontation and the more tragic the results will be. Nationalism, which I personally believe to be a mass pathological psychosis, exacerbated by psychopathic “leaders”, is an entirely different matter. We don’t have to keep reprising the same tragedy. If we don’t stop pretending our petty differences are matters worth killing for then we will fail as a species. I think we could start by burning every national flag on the face of Earth.
If there is no ONE solution, then I fear there is NO solution. Even if everyone agrees to exist under completely different “belief systems” and be completely autonomous, as long as they live in peace, that is still one solution. Disagreement and solution are not mutually exclusive. Because everyone has not agreed as to what is the “right” way to live does not preclude peaceful coexistence, which could be seen as a solution. The world envisioned by those currently in dominance is a single solution model, a world of slaves and masters where dissent is not tolerated. There may be no permanent solution but permanence is a problematic concept anyway.
I personally don’t buy the axiom that good cannot exist without evil or that what is good for one may be evil for another. At the most fundamental level of human awareness these assumptions do not stand. This is what makes us human. It is as wrong to kill a monster like Saddam Hussein as were the atrocities he committed. If I have food and you are starving, it is wrong for me not to share. So, to some extent, all of us do wrong every day. What injustice we cannot address individually we MUST address collectively. Ultimately we are ONE race, ONE species and ONE family. For our family to survive we must resolve our differences, find a solution. If we do not, nature will find one for us. It’s called extinction and that would certainly be ONE solution. Perhaps we are not part of the solution but rather the problem.
Thanks for that further explanation. I think our positions are pretty similar. We need government because some things (transport, health, education etc) need to be centralised. We need replaceable government because history has shown that dictatorships, dynasties, monarchies inevitably go bad. I think the closest we're likely to achieve is along the lines of the old style Social Democracy. We need International Courts with teeth, but these two need to be answerable.
We desperately need to reverse the trend of anti-intellectualism that is rampant. This reversal may just be led by the East, and India in particular, where educated people are proud of their education and there is a long culture of respect for 'sages'.
But (though I am no Marxist) it might be necessary for the present global capitalism to crash, since it shows no signs at all of moderating its excess.
Thank you for opportunity to discuss these things.
I don’t agree there, Coldwaterbaby. There are a few values that almost all societies have in common. Basically coming down to the ten commandments. So there is common ground. If we leave it to that and stick with it, there’s hardly any need to fight to the death.
The only way to break it is to walk away from it, if you ask me.
And indeed, agree to disagree on the details.
Regarding old style Democracy… I agree. In the old days, democracy would mean that the community voted and agreed on issues. In today’s societies, the people don’t vote on issues, they vote on party programs and – worse – puppets. While the one issue parties show that people do want to be heard about those issues.
Paraglider, we are much of the same mind. Anti-intellectualism, anti-science and anti-reality seem to be the favored modes of the “leaders” of our world. Social democracy would certainly be a good place to start, especially if were applied on a global scale.
As far as "capitalism" is concerned, and I have never even READ Marx, it is a system that rewards dishonesty, ruthlessness, deceit, arrogance, intimidation and betrayal. In short, it ennobles evil. I think the crash you mention has already happened. The “capitalist express” has been driven off the cliff. It just hasn’t quite hit the ground yet.
Years ago, I had a conversation with a remarkable woman during a lightening storm as we met at the borders of our backyards, pulling in clothing from off the line and cranking umbrellas down, hurrying to get things to the inside from the outside.
I made the comment, "Well, I guess fate has it that our clothes won't dry today."
She said, "Let's just take these clothes into our clothes dryers and let the dryers do the rest."
This conversation sounds mundane on the surface, but it had an enormous impact on me.
Fate dealt the storm, but I had control over the drying.
Later in the week, she and I met again, and conversed about our beliefs. She was a nun at one time, I, a fallen Catholic. We talked about fate and about free will and how we lived in a balance between the two.
To make a long story short, there are things we can control (drying the clothes), and things we can't (the lightening storm). But always, the responsibility that a human must step up to is to make a decision based on the circumstances that are given. That's free will, and that's also the root of optimism.
Thanks for a very thought-provoking Hub.
Sally
Ananta65.
Firstly, it’s ColdWarBaby. I would never be so inconsiderate of you. Most people here address me as CWB. Please feel free to do so yourself.
Secondly, I’m not really sure what point you’re attempting to make. I don’t know if you actually read my previous response to Paraglider. I clearly state that there are moral values which ALL HUMAN BEINGS have in common. They are the most basic and GOOD values that exist. That it is wrong to kill and wrong to deny help to those in need are just two I mention.
Thirdly, please don’t interject christian fundamentalism into this. I have no use for ANY organized religion and will not enter into any debate on the subject. Such discussions are invariably fruitless. Churches and worship are nothing more than a variation of nationalism; my country right or wrong, my god is the only true god. Both are pathological psychoses. There is only one commandment that is relevant and that is “thou shalt not kill”. If the human race were sufficiently evolved to actually obey that one, there would be no need for any others and religion would be filed away in the mythology section were it belongs. Furthermore, humans are naturally imbued with the same moral imperatives the world over. The fact that they speak of them in a different language does not reduce their validity.
It is primarily those who seek power and dominance, such as theocrats, high priests,politicians and heads of industry, who seem devoid of the basic decency allotted to the vast majority of the species. These supremacists, believing themselves superior to all others, take great pains to keep alive conflicts based upon meaningless religious and ethnic “differences”. This tactic helps to keep the common, inferior masses at each others throats rather than those of their masters.
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping the common people quiet." -- Napoleon Bonaparte
As far as voting is concerned, today it is almost pointless. The last two presidential elections where blatantly rigged. Whoever occupies the white house will be anointed by the fascist corporatocracy, not elected by the people.
“Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything."--Joseph Stalin
Sally - thanks for that. Linking Free Will to Optimism is incisive. I like it.
CWB - I'd never encourage the idea that voting is pointless. Vote rigging is very much easier if the votes cast are at least similar in number. It's much harder to bury a landslide. And a landslide does send a message.
No message, however powerful, has any impact if no one is allowed to hear it. As the wheel turns round again the sad time will come when the votes, in order to be counted, will have to be cast in blood. This is the source of my constant anguish, the utter needlessness of it, the endless repitition of the same mindless cycle. Is extinction the only thing that will stop it?
CWB - I understand where you're coming from, but beware of prophesy! Trends can be overtaken by unforeseen developments. Chaos Theory explains pretty well why we can't forecast even the weather for more than a few days. We can watch, and warn.
My apologies, Coldwarbaby. I suspect Microsoft’s spelling checker, but even then. I didn’t mean to be inconsiderate.
I was primarily responding on your statement that “And since we disagree, the only solution is a fight to the death.” Please don’t confuse my reference to the commandments with christian fundamentalism. In the first place, I’m not a christian and second I’m not a fundamentalist. Having said that and looking at the majority of today’s societies I think it’s safe to say that the basic rules of engagement roughly correspond to those commandments. As far as I’m concerned these commandments are more an example of common sense than some religious law. Look beyond your aversion of religion to the essence of these rules of engagement. In ANY society (whether it’s based on christianity or not) you will find that people have agreed that you’re not allowed to steal, not allowed to kill, and told to show respect for others. The latter may be limited more varying from one society to the next, but there are – like you also say yourself – basic moral values all humans have in common. That’s all I wanted to point out.
No apology required Ananta65.
Your response brings us very much in line with each other.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the content of the commandments. They are, after all, the instinctive values we all share. My main concern is the fact that people have been convinced that they do not naturally posess these attributes and that they must worship and grovel before some priesthood in order to attain them.
working
robie2 says:
3 months ago
All is well in this best of all possible hubs, Paraglider:-) Well Done!