Both the conservative Scruton and the Marxist Zizek describe themselves as being pessimists in some sense. Reflecting on their pessimisms (they are not pessimistic in the same sense), is pessimism a necessary component of political wisdom?
Some degree of pessimism is definitely vital for politics. As Scruton defined it, pessimism can also be seen as protection from unrealizable goals that may cause damaging failures, with his example of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. This concept is applicable to any situation; from what I have experienced humans are encouraged to believe nothing is impossible to achieve rather than encouraging of realism. This idea of total equality leads to false use of resources on the level of the state and the individual citizen. On the level of the individual, right of freedom and happiness should exist by nature; but seeking unrealizable goals should not necessarily be encouraged by freedom. People waste other talents/potentials which could be fulfilled and at the same time fail to achieve the unattainable. Likewise at the level of the state resources are used up for unnecessary & unattainable goals (for that generation) instead of using those resources for smaller steps that would benefit current generation and lead closer to larger achievements that are currently impossible. An analogy can be found in any field; ex: it is not necessary to spend $200 on an advanced biochemistry book if you don’t currently understand the basics of chemical reactions within the body, it would just be a waste (you would not understand what the book is explaining) when you could instead focus on the basics first. Therefore although Zizek and Scruton differ slightly in their explanations they are both attempting to prove the unencessity of excessive creativity and encouraging more simplicity, and this degree of pessimism is necessary for political situations for the above explained reasons.
I believe that a certain degree of pessimism is a necessary component of political wisdom. As Scruton says he prefers to think of himself as a realist rather than a pessimist but I think that his pessimism allows him to view the world in such a way that he does not get caught up in what he refers to as the fallacies of optimism. However after watching both Zizek and Scruton explain their points of view I get the sense that both in their pessimism are opposed to the consumer mindset that pervades our society. I find that in the political sense pessimism allows us to achieve our realizable goals instead of forever chasing the unattainable goals set forth by government. In the same way I think it is better to have the pessimism introduces by Scruton rather than Zizek because from my point of view Scruton has a better understanding of what types of issues one might face in a political scenario. Although Zizek makes interesting points concerning the way man responds to catastrophes I do not believe that it in any way brings a new level of understanding to political wisdom.
There must be a balance that includes pessimism to achieve political wisdom. Although it may appear to be admirable for politicians to set lofty goals, there must be a sense of realism that we keep in mind when setting these goals. Why waste important resources on things that will never be achieved? It is more practical to set smaller, more realistic goals that can be accomplished. Zizek and Scruton both noted that failing to reach goals could be damaging to individuals and society as a whole. By completing tasks, there is a sense of pride about the job. With the satisfaction of completion, there is a motivation to set and perform more. There is also less risk to waste resources that can be used for successful projects.
I believe when there is more optimism, there is more hope, the more hope there is the more goals will be reached, the more goals that are reached then the more results you have. I feel with everything there is a cycle. However; it is more beneficial to ‘prepare for the worst’ and be ready for any situation that may come verses just ‘hoping’ nothing happens to hinder any plans. In terms of Scruton and Zizek, their pessimism differed from today’s modern sense of pessimism. When it comes to government aspect, they both thoughts goals needed to be achieved and if not it could be damaging to society, which is more a realistic point of view.
I believe that pessimism is a necessary component of political wisdom. Zizek in his video describes pessimism being important as well, but he approaches it in a different way than Scruton. Zizek states that pessimism is important, but one must look at the positives in life and the love. He says that when there is pessimism everywhere he looks at the love of nature and the good things in life instead of the pessimism everywhere. Scruton discusses pessimism necessary as well. He does not think that people should be given false hope. He states that pessimism is important because people should know the inevitable and optimism should not be apart of these politics if the ending result will not relate. He gives multiple examples of situations where people were given false hope which is given to protect the people, but the end result was not what the people were told. In a political sense, people sometimes have to look at the pessimistic view so that they are not let down. Instead of giving false hope to many of the people it would be more helpful to explore the inevitable worst possibility as Scuton explained.
I do believe that a certain degree of pessimism is an important part in political wisdom. Zizek and Scruton both give food ideas as to why this statement is true. Scruton talks about how it is important that unreasonable goals. If government does this this the people will start losing hope, because they will feel that nothing they do will work. I personally believe that one should have some goal that seem unreasonable, because sometimes this is how great things happen. With this being said I do feel that when people do set these kind of goals they should prepare for the worst so that they can be ready to reevaluate.
While I believe pessimism has its place and we can get lost in false hopes and ideals but I agree with Sarah that optimism has had a much more positive impact on the world and we see social, philosophical, political and economic are goals achieved much more efficiently when we look at the situation with optimism. As mentioned, pessimism has its place but I do not believe it is a necessary component of political wisdom. Many philosophers and politicians have carried extremely optimistic viewpoints and accomplished much.
I believe the pessimism plays an important role in political wisdom. As Scruton talked about it is very important to realize that there are some goals that are just not within reach. There is no sense in wasting time, money, and resources chasing these goals that you can never reach as a politician that is strictly optimistic would. Zizek also preaches on the importance of pessimism in the society. He talks about how when the problem is out of site we believe it is gone. However, with pessimistic outlook just because the problem isn't right in front of you, you can still realize it is there and deal with it before it becomes worse
I believe that both Zizek and Scruton indicated that pessimism does in fact play a crucial role in political wisdom. In terms of Zizek, his pessimism takes the view that something has to go horribly wrong before it can start to get better. Zizek speaks a lot about catastrophes in the world and basically lays out the fact that these catastrophes are inevitable. He continues to indicate that the great wealths of the nation arise out of the ruin of these catastrophes. In terms of Scruton, his pessimism comes through calling optimism a fallacy. In this he is basically say what everybody hopes for to be right in the world never comes to be. Also with in the Scruton talk, he indicates that he prefers to refer to himself as a realist rather than a pessimist. I believe that it is his pessimistic view that allows this. I believe that the ideals set forth by both Zizek and Scruton show that pessimism is important in political wisdom in order to see the world for that reality that is present within.
I believe that pessimism does play a role in political wisdom, but there also has to be optimism as well. There needs to be a happy medium. Scruton discusses the importance of goals and how there are some goals that are far fetched and being optimistic about these is not the way to go. One can think that they could eventually reach it and think the best is going to happen but they shouldnt put all their time, money, and effort into it. However they should not be pessimistic either thinking that the worst could happen. Politicians set these goals but often waste money because they are too optimistic so therefore some sort of pessimism mush come into play to gain political wisdom. Zizek also talks about pessimism within the society. However he talks about big catastrophes are unavoidable and that we must take away the things that arent destroyed from them or that come out of them and not waste the resources that we have. Overall rather than getting our hopes up, one should deal with what they are given and make the best out of it.
I believe pessimism plays a role in political wisdom. If everything was optimistic, we would only be disappointed in our government rather than looking at any of the good sides of things. There needs to be a common ground of pessimism and optimism to have a healthy government. Rather than having a pessimistic mindset, people need to be realists about what our Government can and cannot do for the better good of the people. With the importance of goals that Scruton expresses, he describes that there needs to be that balance and should set too high of standards that cannot be reached, which I definitely do agree with because that will only set things up for failure rather than success. Zizek explains pessimism in a societal aspect and explains that we have no power over certain things and that we need to conserve the necessities that we have because we cannot control bad things to potentially happen to us and basically we just have to accept that.
Pessimism does play a role in political wisdom in my opinion. Scruton says that optimism is a fallacy and that he is a realist, not a pessimist. He believes that being optimist leads to unattainable goals. Zizek pessimism focuses more on the idea that one must suffer to improve. He believes that for government to get better that something has to go wrong within and they have to make corrections to do better. I believe that this pessimism is necessary because without fault than people don't want change. When things begin to go wrong with a government that is when people revolt or stand up for their beliefs and try to change to fit what they feel suit. If we believe that things will just get better instead of actually trying to fix it themselves then more than likely it wont ever actually improve but stay the same.
I agree that pessimism is needed in regards to political wisdom. It is all well and good to expect the best of people, and I personally try to do that, but it is important to plan for the worst. If one does not plan for the worst then catastrophe can happen. For example, Scruton points to President Jimmy Carter who's intent was to help poor people realize the American dream and own homes but he did not plan for the worst and ended up contributing to the eventual economic boom and bust in home sales that we saw recently. However, I wouldn't go as far to agree with Zizek who basically says that these catastrophes are unavoidable no matter what one does. In short, I believe we need to look for the best in people while also being prepared in case the worst does happen so that if it does we are prepared to help those affected.
I believe that pessimism and optimism is a necessary part of political wisdom Zizek and Scruton both give idea on why this is true. Zizek thinks everyone should look at the positive in life instead of the pessimism. Scruton doesn't think people should be given false hope but instead knows it is inevitable. Being pessimistic allows a person to not be let down but also being optimistic is good because more goals can be reached with an open mind. Both of these are important when it comes to dealing with the government because positive things happen with optimism and then being pessimistic doesn't let the government disappoint you.
I do believe that pessimism does play a role as a component of public wisdom. Scruton stresses the idea the some things just aren't achievable and it is not good to be optimistic. I would have to disagree with him somewhat because I think it is always good to be optimistic, no matter what the circumstances. There is always a chance in my eyes. In regards to political wisdom, you should walk a thin line between line with the level of optimism you have.
I believe that there has to be a happy medium between overly optimistic and pessimistic. Scruton considers himself a realist but in all honesty he is a pessimist. But with that mindset you are able to think in the real world rationally. However to a certain extent thinking like this cannot be positive, being a realist is one thing but constantly thinking that something can never be accomplished seems very negative. Both Zizek and Scruton think that setting goals that can never be achieved could cause a negative effect on someone or a group. Yes people will be discouraged but they tried and learned from their mistakes. If the government acted pessimistic then people will start feeling like nothing works because that's what the government thinks. There should always be goals that are sought to be achieved, yes some may fail but great things can come from actions sometimes if you take the chance.
Some degree of pessimism is definitely vital for politics. As Scruton defined it, pessimism can also be seen as protection from unrealizable goals that may cause damaging failures, with his example of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. This concept is applicable to any situation; from what I have experienced humans are encouraged to believe nothing is impossible to achieve rather than encouraging of realism. This idea of total equality leads to false use of resources on the level of the state and the individual citizen. On the level of the individual, right of freedom and happiness should exist by nature; but seeking unrealizable goals should not necessarily be encouraged by freedom. People waste other talents/potentials which could be fulfilled and at the same time fail to achieve the unattainable. Likewise at the level of the state resources are used up for unnecessary & unattainable goals (for that generation) instead of using those resources for smaller steps that would benefit current generation and lead closer to larger achievements that are currently impossible. An analogy can be found in any field; ex: it is not necessary to spend $200 on an advanced biochemistry book if you don’t currently understand the basics of chemical reactions within the body, it would just be a waste (you would not understand what the book is explaining) when you could instead focus on the basics first. Therefore although Zizek and Scruton differ slightly in their explanations they are both attempting to prove the unencessity of excessive creativity and encouraging more simplicity, and this degree of pessimism is necessary for political situations for the above explained reasons.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a certain degree of pessimism is a necessary component of political wisdom. As Scruton says he prefers to think of himself as a realist rather than a pessimist but I think that his pessimism allows him to view the world in such a way that he does not get caught up in what he refers to as the fallacies of optimism. However after watching both Zizek and Scruton explain their points of view I get the sense that both in their pessimism are opposed to the consumer mindset that pervades our society. I find that in the political sense pessimism allows us to achieve our realizable goals instead of forever chasing the unattainable goals set forth by government. In the same way I think it is better to have the pessimism introduces by Scruton rather than Zizek because from my point of view Scruton has a better understanding of what types of issues one might face in a political scenario. Although Zizek makes interesting points concerning the way man responds to catastrophes I do not believe that it in any way brings a new level of understanding to political wisdom.
ReplyDeleteThere must be a balance that includes pessimism to achieve political wisdom. Although it may appear to be admirable for politicians to set lofty goals, there must be a sense of realism that we keep in mind when setting these goals. Why waste important resources on things that will never be achieved? It is more practical to set smaller, more realistic goals that can be accomplished. Zizek and Scruton both noted that failing to reach goals could be damaging to individuals and society as a whole. By completing tasks, there is a sense of pride about the job. With the satisfaction of completion, there is a motivation to set and perform more. There is also less risk to waste resources that can be used for successful projects.
ReplyDeleteI believe when there is more optimism, there is more hope, the more hope there is the more goals will be reached, the more goals that are reached then the more results you have. I feel with everything there is a cycle. However; it is more beneficial to ‘prepare for the worst’ and be ready for any situation that may come verses just ‘hoping’ nothing happens to hinder any plans. In terms of Scruton and Zizek, their pessimism differed from today’s modern sense of pessimism. When it comes to government aspect, they both thoughts goals needed to be achieved and if not it could be damaging to society, which is more a realistic point of view.
ReplyDeleteI believe that pessimism is a necessary component of political wisdom. Zizek in his
ReplyDeletevideo describes pessimism being important as well, but he approaches it in a
different way than Scruton. Zizek states that pessimism is important, but one must
look at the positives in life and the love. He says that when there is pessimism
everywhere he looks at the love of nature and the good things in life instead of the
pessimism everywhere. Scruton discusses pessimism necessary as well. He does not
think that people should be given false hope. He states that pessimism is important
because people should know the inevitable and optimism should not be apart of
these politics if the ending result will not relate. He gives multiple examples of situations
where people were given false hope which is given to protect the people, but the end
result was not what the people were told. In a political sense, people sometimes have
to look at the pessimistic view so that they are not let down. Instead of giving false hope
to many of the people it would be more helpful to explore the inevitable worst
possibility as Scuton explained.
I do believe that a certain degree of pessimism is an important part in political wisdom. Zizek and Scruton both give food ideas as to why this statement is true. Scruton talks about how it is important that unreasonable goals. If government does this this the people will start losing hope, because they will feel that nothing they do will work. I personally believe that one should have some goal that seem unreasonable, because sometimes this is how great things happen. With this being said I do feel that when people do set these kind of goals they should prepare for the worst so that they can be ready to reevaluate.
ReplyDeleteWhile I believe pessimism has its place and we can get lost in false hopes and ideals but I agree with Sarah that optimism has had a much more positive impact on the world and we see social, philosophical, political and economic are goals achieved much more efficiently when we look at the situation with optimism. As mentioned, pessimism has its place but I do not believe it is a necessary component of political wisdom. Many philosophers and politicians have carried extremely optimistic viewpoints and accomplished much.
ReplyDeleteI believe the pessimism plays an important role in political wisdom. As Scruton talked about it is very important to realize that there are some goals that are just not within reach. There is no sense in wasting time, money, and resources chasing these goals that you can never reach as a politician that is strictly optimistic would. Zizek also preaches on the importance of pessimism in the society. He talks about how when the problem is out of site we believe it is gone. However, with pessimistic outlook just because the problem isn't right in front of you, you can still realize it is there and deal with it before it becomes worse
ReplyDeleteI believe that both Zizek and Scruton indicated that pessimism does in fact play a crucial role in political wisdom. In terms of Zizek, his pessimism takes the view that something has to go horribly wrong before it can start to get better. Zizek speaks a lot about catastrophes in the world and basically lays out the fact that these catastrophes are inevitable. He continues to indicate that the great wealths of the nation arise out of the ruin of these catastrophes. In terms of Scruton, his pessimism comes through calling optimism a fallacy. In this he is basically say what everybody hopes for to be right in the world never comes to be. Also with in the Scruton talk, he indicates that he prefers to refer to himself as a realist rather than a pessimist. I believe that it is his pessimistic view that allows this. I believe that the ideals set forth by both Zizek and Scruton show that pessimism is important in political wisdom in order to see the world for that reality that is present within.
ReplyDeleteI believe that pessimism does play a role in political wisdom, but there also has to be optimism as well. There needs to be a happy medium. Scruton discusses the importance of goals and how there are some goals that are far fetched and being optimistic about these is not the way to go. One can think that they could eventually reach it and think the best is going to happen but they shouldnt put all their time, money, and effort into it. However they should not be pessimistic either thinking that the worst could happen. Politicians set these goals but often waste money because they are too optimistic so therefore some sort of pessimism mush come into play to gain political wisdom. Zizek also talks about pessimism within the society. However he talks about big catastrophes are unavoidable and that we must take away the things that arent destroyed from them or that come out of them and not waste the resources that we have. Overall rather than getting our hopes up, one should deal with what they are given and make the best out of it.
ReplyDeleteI believe pessimism plays a role in political wisdom. If everything was optimistic, we would only be disappointed in our government rather than looking at any of the good sides of things. There needs to be a common ground of pessimism and optimism to have a healthy government. Rather than having a pessimistic mindset, people need to be realists about what our Government can and cannot do for the better good of the people. With the importance of goals that Scruton expresses, he describes that there needs to be that balance and should set too high of standards that cannot be reached, which I definitely do agree with because that will only set things up for failure rather than success. Zizek explains pessimism in a societal aspect and explains that we have no power over certain things and that we need to conserve the necessities that we have because we cannot control bad things to potentially happen to us and basically we just have to accept that.
ReplyDeletePessimism does play a role in political wisdom in my opinion. Scruton says that optimism is a fallacy and that he is a realist, not a pessimist. He believes that being optimist leads to unattainable goals. Zizek pessimism focuses more on the idea that one must suffer to improve. He believes that for government to get better that something has to go wrong within and they have to make corrections to do better. I believe that this pessimism is necessary because without fault than people don't want change. When things begin to go wrong with a government that is when people revolt or stand up for their beliefs and try to change to fit what they feel suit. If we believe that things will just get better instead of actually trying to fix it themselves then more than likely it wont ever actually improve but stay the same.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that pessimism is needed in regards to political wisdom. It is all well and good to expect the best of people, and I personally try to do that, but it is important to plan for the worst. If one does not plan for the worst then catastrophe can happen. For example, Scruton points to President Jimmy Carter who's intent was to help poor people realize the American dream and own homes but he did not plan for the worst and ended up contributing to the eventual economic boom and bust in home sales that we saw recently. However, I wouldn't go as far to agree with Zizek who basically says that these catastrophes are unavoidable no matter what one does. In short, I believe we need to look for the best in people while also being prepared in case the worst does happen so that if it does we are prepared to help those affected.
ReplyDeleteI believe that pessimism and optimism is a necessary part of political wisdom Zizek and Scruton both give idea on why this is true. Zizek thinks everyone should look at the positive in life instead of the pessimism. Scruton doesn't think people should be given false hope but instead knows it is inevitable. Being pessimistic allows a person to not be let down but also being optimistic is good because more goals can be reached with an open mind. Both of these are important when it comes to dealing with the government because positive things happen with optimism and then being pessimistic doesn't let the government disappoint you.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that pessimism does play a role as a component of public wisdom. Scruton stresses the idea the some things just aren't achievable and it is not good to be optimistic. I would have to disagree with him somewhat because I think it is always good to be optimistic, no matter what the circumstances. There is always a chance in my eyes. In regards to political wisdom, you should walk a thin line between line with the level of optimism you have.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there has to be a happy medium between overly optimistic and pessimistic. Scruton considers himself a realist but in all honesty he is a pessimist. But with that mindset you are able to think in the real world rationally. However to a certain extent thinking like this cannot be positive, being a realist is one thing but constantly thinking that something can never be accomplished seems very negative. Both Zizek and Scruton think that setting goals that can never be achieved could cause a negative effect on someone or a group. Yes people will be discouraged but they tried and learned from their mistakes. If the government acted pessimistic then people will start feeling like nothing works because that's what the government thinks. There should always be goals that are sought to be achieved, yes some may fail but great things can come from actions sometimes if you take the chance.
ReplyDelete