Not sure why this popped into my head. It just appeared in my head as I was going on a walk, and it seemed like it could generate interesting discussion. So, which do you think is better: false hope, or no hope at all?
Poll: Which is better: false hope, or no hope at all?
- Thread starter BreakfastMan
- Start date
Recommended Videos
For the sake of motivation, false hope can go a long way. Just hope you have something to redirect someone's attention when they find out the hope's false.
Personally, I'd rather go without hope. If it's something that bad, I've already decided I'll see it through to the end anyways.
Personally, I'd rather go without hope. If it's something that bad, I've already decided I'll see it through to the end anyways.
I think we need to define false hope. I, for one, don't believe there is such a thing. The very nature of hope is that it is an expectation and trust in something that has not yet come to fruition. We may, in hindsight, say that a particular hope was unfulfilled. We may with either hindsight or foresight argue that a particular hope is foolish. But to declare a hope in what may be false, before it has the chance to be fulfilled or unfulfilled, is both sad and nonsensical. But even if a hope is foolish, and ultimately unfulfilled, it is better than nothing. As the Bard wrote: "The miserable have no other medicine, but only hope."
Though if it is truly false hope, then wouldn't you rather have the truth? I mean, think of FFX. The final aeon is a false hope for summoners because Sin always comes back. If everyone knew that the final aeon wouldn't stop Sin (and if we alter the situation so that it doesn't provide any 'Calm') then people wouldn't go giving their lives for a fruitless cause, and instead may try and find alternatives.Caramel Frappe said:Truly false hope. Why? Cause if you have no hope, you'll be unwilling to drive onward while false hope least keeps you going. Here is a good example that may explain what I am exactly talking about, so please follow my lead:BreakfastMan said:
A woman is in a nuclear factory and the place is going to blow up in 5 minutes. If she has no hope, she'll await her death since she's in the middle of it. At least with false hope, she'll try to get out and while doing so may actually save lives while in the process.
A true story was related to this. A man knew the factory was going to explode, but instead of giving up he warned everyone through the speaker in case any could make it out alive. Turns out many did, while he allowed himself to die. So false hope is much better then no hope, because with false hope you make a chance for others to be strong. Why go down without heroism as your last stand?
I think the difference is that while I would want hope that would appear false, I would never want false hope. That nuclear thing you were talking about. If there is even the slightest chance that other people could get out in time then it isn't false hope, regardles of whether I know it or not. This kind of hope is good, because it actually does something, but true false hope, where you think "People might get out" even though there isn't even the tiniest chance of that happening is useless. My perspective in the situation would be the same, because I can't know whether or not they can get out, but whether the hope I have actually is false or not isn't affected by my ignorance.
If I could have one without the other ('false' hope vs true false hope) I would, but now on to the actual question, which I assume is in regards to a situation where non-false hope isn't possible (so you can either not have hope, or have false hope, you cannot have hope with any truth to it) I'd rather not be reliant on hope. I don't care if there isn't any hope, my actions shouldn't be determined by hope, they should be determined by reason and practicality, reasoning that I am not omniscient and therefore probably cannot know that there is no hope and knowing that practically, not doing anything guarantees death either way, so the most practical course of action is to try and save people regardless of if I have hope or not, because it provides the only one of the four possibilities that can save lives.
I assume the question is implying that either way you're fucked. If this is the case, I'd prefer to know outright that there was no hope so I can plan accordingly.
If the situation were say some sort of battle, and you COULD not win, false hope would leave to a worse despair at the end.
No hope would allow you to tap into spite and fight more viciously. You still wouldn't win, but you'd feel better going down.
If the situation were say some sort of battle, and you COULD not win, false hope would leave to a worse despair at the end.
No hope would allow you to tap into spite and fight more viciously. You still wouldn't win, but you'd feel better going down.
Honesty is the best policy for me.
If I'm in a hopeless situation, I'd like to know. I'd also likely know, unless something was being hidden from me.
I'm a big fan of knowing all I need to in order to assess situations.
If I'm in a hopeless situation, I'd like to know. I'd also likely know, unless something was being hidden from me.
I'm a big fan of knowing all I need to in order to assess situations.
False hope means that your hopes can (and will) be crushed. No hope at all means there is no chance of having your hopes crushed.
In the case of "Truly False Hope", in which things are going to go badly, and there is no other outcome. I think i'd rather go out making a good effort (despite inevitable failure), than lighting a cigarette, tying a blindfold on my head and waiting for the end.
I suppose I would incline it to say, being in the army.
Your position is surrounded, no evac, no reinforcements. You, your squad, everyone is going down. I think I'd rather go out with a bang, and one final hurrah. Clinging to the idea that maybe, just maybe, the cavalry will come charging in from the horizon.
I suppose I would incline it to say, being in the army.
Your position is surrounded, no evac, no reinforcements. You, your squad, everyone is going down. I think I'd rather go out with a bang, and one final hurrah. Clinging to the idea that maybe, just maybe, the cavalry will come charging in from the horizon.
I'd prefer no hope. However, I would probably offer false hope to someone else if I was sure that they would die before discovering the truth. For example, there is no point to telling children that they are going to die horrible, painful deaths and get them frightened beforehand.
Hope is always an abstract notion; even in the most grim circumstances, fortune or preparation can turn the tide. Choosing to recognize the existence of such a possibility is all that hope really implies. False hope generally applies to situations where the odds of salvation are incredibly slim and even then people need to believe they can overcome an obstacle. Why else would they get out of bed in the morning?