Uncouth PerspectivesNot on the rug, man.

Those who have followed my ramblings over the years know that I am not a fan of either/or, black/white type of thinking. I believe that one of the great things about life is the shades of grey which makes up the bulk of the human experience. It seems to be a natural process for the human mind to attempt to categorize things to make them better understandable–I will not attempt to deny that–but I think this can be overdone. My normal psychological punching bag on this topic is stereotypes. Honestly, do not get me started on stereotypes.

Yet, another area where I find general fault with the slice of humanity I interact with (whether in person, in writing, or in observation) is the ideas of optimism and pessimism. I like to think of myself as a realist–I try my best to think of things as not the best or worst case scenarios. I, like anyone, cannot be perfect in this (but, perfection is just another black/white extreme, in my opinion). However, I am amazingly confronted by people who will label an action or a thought of mine as “optimistic” or “pessimistic” because it does not fit with a particular outcome or the personal view of the other person.

For example, if someone has a better expectation for the outcome of a situation and I take a moment to think about alternative outcomes, I have been told that I should not be pessimistic. Often, I get really taken back because I do not feel like I am being pessimistic, I am just trying to make sure I have a realistic expectation. When I sit down to think more about, I can generally think of ways that I could be truly pessimistic. This happens the other way too (“Oh, you’re just an optimist”). If I were to believe what people say in these situations, I would have to assume I am either manic-depressive or absolutely insane. I do not believe I am either of those things, so I assume there are other answers.

Let’s take a closer look at the ideas of optimism and pessimism. As technical terms, these words have some very specific meanings which in the usage in common vernacular seems to have oversimplified. In the study of religion, a religion or group which is identified as pessimistic does not believe that life is kind of crappy and people are pretty mean. It means that the religion identifies the world as a truly evil place, where the hearts of men are black by nature, and only by the intervention of a divine being–perhaps even the physical destruction of the world and people–can redemption can be had. You can assume something as similarly opposite for optimism.

Psychologically, this term also has a technical meaning–a pessimist is a person who truly believes in the worst. When one meets a true pessimist, one knows. These people are truly draining and truly unable to deal with the world–and truly rare. But I guess it is easier to say that someone who is depressed or generally surly is a “pessimist.”

What I am trying to figure out is if these are appropriate in relation to specific situations? Can someone be pessimistic about, say, their relationship but be optimistic, say, about their job? It seems like an easy thing to do right? Someone does not see something in the brightest of lights and so you say “Hey, don’t be such an pessimist!” Here is my problem, though. I think at some level, pessimism (or optimism) does have a meaning to people and it can influence how one interprets actions or situations. I think there is a difference between being “negative” and being a “pessimist.”

Moreover, I think there is a difference between those and beings realistic. “This might not work” (realism) is different than “this won’t work” (negative) is different than “this can never work” (pessimism). I worry that when “this might not work” is heard as “this can never work” because the listener equates anything which can be interpreted as negative with pessimism.

…just be good?

Even though I’ve studied it quite a bit, I have never understood why people argue that morals cannot be exclusive from a god / religion / whatever. The same-old “atheists have no morals” rhetoric.

Perhaps it is because those who express these feelings cannot control themselves?

I have to admit that the idea of people who cannot control themselves or urges being a part of something that gives enough structure to control those urges has great appeal to me… because hopefully those urges will be controlled. But I really feel that it needs to be something: a) substantative and b) not as bad or worse than the “urge.”

Also, one of the biggest problems is that the people who DO successful commit to something which makes their lives better or “beats the urge,” then often they try to push this on other people and/or when faces with an argument against the belief, they react poorly or violently. This is because the belief is more important in it’s ability to defeat the urge than in and of itself.

Take, for example, religion as the belief in this role. I’ve had great conversations with people who do not share the same religious beliefs as myself. Take, as another example, my doctor. My doctor is a very devout Christian and we have had very good discussions about religion. I don’t trust my life any less to him (…i hope) and we can have a very rational, friendly dialogue. But this is not always the case.

It is my theory that one of the greatest things in the way of pluralistic dialogue is the fact that many individuals belief is not based on the belief, in and of itself, but other factors, such as the belief acting as an agent against an urge or that “this is what the family believes so it’s what I believe.” The biggest problem with this is that when faced with challenges to the belief, even in casual dialogue, it’s hard for an individual to face disparate arguments.

It’s important to understand this. There are some people who you can be frank and open with, some you need to be more careful in how things are worded, and some who conversation may simply not be possible