Full on Pessimism is an asethetic for folks in the first world

>sees aeon article

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd it goes right to the pay no mind list. I refuse to entertain VICE for philistines with the personality of a drying waiting room

I think pessimism is negativity to the point of holding someone back from trying.

That would include investigation, which I think is far more commonly a result of skepticism.

Personally, I think that contradicts with my definition of pessimism. Is pessimism not negativity to the point of not caring to try? To the point that it holds you back from facing that negativity?

I think "realistic optimism" is a better term for what you describe.

I guess there is a danger in optimism. You might lose your edge, relax too much if you dont have a fire under you

What is unserious is believing the fairytale that says any of our meager efforts toward conservation are making even the slightest dent in the problem as the rate of the destruction that got us here in the first place is not only not slowing down but is actually increasing.

Any efforts toward saving the environment are essentially a capitalistic dog and pony show at this point and has even reached the mainstream news outlets.

>So many words and yet you still have not developed any reason to think your claim is true in any possible world.

I don't have to. Your claim that natural objective purpose contradicts naturalism is still false, that's all I wanted to show.

You know what's not possible in actuality? People walking on water or rising from the dead after a couple of days. At least not according to our current understanding of actuality. But then I'm still not as dumb, or obstinate, or hopelessly grasping for straws or dishonest to claim that theism precludes the resurrection, or require proof of it happening or have it explained to me how it happened before acknowledging that theism doesn't preclude the resurrection or supernatural miracle claims. It's part of what makes theism theism, and it's pretty much in the definition, just as nature doing stuff is in the definition of naturalism. As long as it's natural it does not preclude nature doing stuff. duh... Can't think of a better example of an argument from ignorance fallacy.

The rest is just drivel again and not worth responding to. Have a good one.

And that criticism is a result of viewing the world for what it is - bleak. Those that represented God - even the Pope himself - were taking advantage of the common man. The Church, in its stark irony, made it harder for people to go to Heaven. That’s a pessimistic, yet grounded, perspective. It’s not sugar coated.

The author of the article does not divorce optimism and pessimism. Nor do they marry pessimism with fatalism - quite the opposite. They describe hopeful pessimism, which faces the negativity of the world head on while acknowledging things might get worse. I think Martins Luthers actions fit that description.

Clarifying the generalized use of the term "we"? Seriously?

My reference to counter examples is to your claims that:

1. 'no one is doing anything' to which I only need to offer a single counter example to prove false, which I have already done in referencing the growth in solar planel investment and renweable energy dependence. But I can provide many examples - such as drone based forrest planting, where thousands of seedlings can be planted efficiently. Or the organisation Ocean Cleanup that is developing and using plastic trapping technology.

2. your claim that people will not tolerate minor inconvenience- which I have already proved false by pointing out that there are whole cultures wearing face masks. But for which there are many examples- such as the proliferation of constructing wheelchair accessible ramps to buildings, the organisations that survive off donations, and the organisations that survive off people volunteering their time and energy - being examples of inclusivity, generosity and patience.

>You know we are linked to that chain and biodiversity loss

Yes, I know.

>irreversibly polluting the world

Your strong claim here is suspect, given that I have proved false many of your other claims and that you clearly exhibit fatalism. The burden of proof is upon you to show how you know it is literally impossible to succeed - not for me to show what the solutions are.

[removed]

Agreed.

[deleted]

[deleted]

I'd like to post here a meditation I've been doing.

I participate on a study circle online for about 8 years, and it always bothered me how there are people there who know the circle and study with it for about 20 years and , yet, they seem like didn't understand what is the main point here and how the other points relate to the main. This difference actually became the study topic that I got more interested about. I tried many hypothesis, about lack of knowledge, lack of culture, about luckiness, love, about amount of free time, accumulated hate, or envy, or boringness, about vocation, even castes (this idea really bothers me, though, something like predestination on the capacity of understanding).

Then today it appeared to me one that I'm posting here because it showed me something about philosophy itself.

My memory is pretty bad, so since I don't trust it, and I'm damn curious, I save data on my computer or phone. I photograph things, and I got really full of files, then I have to organize it in folders so that I may recall it when I need in the future. Well, that's a primary form of categorizational thought (like, in the most developed way, Aristotle's work and Plato's technique).

Then I realized that this may be it. I mean, since I collect a lot of data and try to categorize them, eventually I have a map of how things are conected together. Like on the study circle I'm into. There are a lot of groups, I look for all of them, and then I got a sense of the story of the place, how the pieces fit together, who is who, who is smarter, at what point, how his/her point relates to the work of the teacher we follow, and so on. That gives consciouscness of "whole", of "unity", plus the parts I have documented, even though I did it without really planning to get this result.

I also do it about college and so on. In my country the best colleges are public, so "free" (you know, "free enough"). So I actually frequented undergraduate classes from different courses, got acquaintance with researchers, and once again, documented all of that, just because my memory was pretty shitty. As a result, and that's the point I wanna get as for a contribution to the community, this gives a sense of "whole" also on the production of knowledge.

Of course I don't have more knowledge than any of the researchers, but at the same time this gives me the skill to have a sense of unity of how the knowledge is produced and spread on society. That is something by itself, and I'm starting to think that this is actually what could be called philosophy in the classical sense.

I mean, philosophy nowadays is also an academic practice, so this means the subjects studied are based on a curriculum. But this curriculum itself, let alone the rest of the curriculum or the relation of these knowledges to society, isn't the topic! So it creates a difference between philosophy as a college grade and philosophy in the classical sense.

I don't know how to develop this thought further. Just found it interesting and decided to share. If someone would like to share views about it, I'd be glad to read.

In addition, its very clear that the economy will continue going to shit, causing further social distress and the war in Ukraine will only continue to escalate, potentially threatening the world with a global conflict using weapons of mass destruction. People have practically zero advocacy in these issues.

Could you elaborate for me.

I know that's what you think it looks like, but no, all of those things are happening right now, simultaneously, while people sit here whining about being more optimistic. Our optimism fuels the fire without even thinking about it, but anyone saying stop or slow down, look at the results, gets labeled a pessimist. The idea that you change people's minds by giving them hope for a better future doesn't work. It would have already if that were the case. It's not. Optimism is profitable and easy to feed the masses.

[deleted]

Gish gallop is a criticism of your conversation technique, not your pessimism point.

Maybe fuck all of that

If someone said to you, in conversation, "Arguments about human behavior should take into account what we know about history", would you ask them who "we" refers to?

That certainly doesn't fit my caricature of it. I guess we really will have to consider the difference between pessimism and skepticism/criticism more closely!

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Lol that you think it's a gishgallop when those are the direct challenges to your sunshine and rainbows cancer cure happy time.