The Pessimism Principle

[9Darksoul6]

This is a personal 'theory' and I'd like to know your opinion about it:

"If an hypothesis would, if true, bring any kind pleasure/enjoyment to the subject who conceived it (the hypothesis), then it's certainly* not true."
*note: I am using 'certainty' as 'strong belief' here.

1) 'pleasure/enjoyment' is strict to a point equivalent as saying (taking any subject) of all things logically conceivable, there is less things that would bring pleasure/enjoyment to the subject, than things that wouldn't bring pleasure/enjoyment to the subject.

2) considering all things logically conveivable, this strictness must be very high, to a point equivalent as saying the probablity of things that bring pleasure/enjoyment is almost infinitesimal.

3) In addition, if the hypotesis was conceived by a subject, and it would bring him/her pleasure/enjoyment, his/her egoism could misdirect his/her intellectual process; there's no possible human factor (aside from intellectuality itself) that would balance this.




What do you think of it?

 

[Kaytastrophe]

um... what? You completely lost me.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Philosophical pessimism is the similar but not identical idea that life has a negative value, or that this world is as bad as it could possibly be.

It's not 'your' theory, its an old one argued by many.

And, in most cases, displayed in much simpler, and more understandable terms.

 

[similar.squirrel]

I think you need to try stating this more clearly. Are you trying to say that intellectual satisfaction equates to a positive bias, which invalidates any theory? Isn't this what peer-reviewing is for?

 

[Ironic Pirate]

You should write terms of service agreements.

 

[SwimmingRock]

1) 'pleasure/enjoyment' is strict to a point equivalent as saying (taking any subject) of all things logically conceivable, there is less things that would bring pleasure/enjoyment to the subject, than things that wouldn't bring pleasure/enjoyment to the subject.

Life: you're doing it wrong. Most people put in effort to experience more of the pleasant things in life and minimize negative situations/experiences.

2) considering all things logically conveivable, this strictness must be very high, to a point equivalent as saying the probablity of things that bring pleasure/enjoyment is almost infinitesimal.

You're confusing theoretics with practical application. Most people don't come up with a hypothesis on random shit. They have a hypothesis that relates to their life. See point 1.

3) In addition, if the hypotesis was conceived by a subject, and it would bring him/her pleasure/enjoyment, his/her egoism could misdirect his/her intellectual process; there's no possible human factor (aside from intellectuality itself) that would balance this.

"his/her egosim could misdirect his/her intellectual process". In the words of Bill Hicks:"You've forgotten to ask yourself 4 very important questions. Yeah? And? So? What?" If the person is misdirected and derives pleasure from their faulty hypothesis, then let them be happy. If somebody else points out the flaw, they become aware of it and can fix it. The solution doesn't need to be internal.

Also, for future reference, explain your theories a little more. They were rather confusingly written.

 

[manythings]

I think you need to try stating this more clearly. Are you trying to say that intellectual satisfaction equates to a positive bias, which invalidates any theory? Isn't this what peer-reviewing is for?

I think he's saying that any theory you could both come up with and believe is probably incorrect because you want to think you're right.

 

[Idiotastic]

I came here because the title sounded like a Sherlock Holmes adventure...

I am disappointed now.

 

[Jordi]

This is a very common mistake among the teenage and emotionally larval.

Pessimism is not the same as realism. Realism is unflinchingly accepting what is; regardless of how you feel. Pessimism is always expecting the worst on the basis that you might be pelasantly surprised.

Pessimism might be always expecting the worst (or at least something bad), but I disagree that it is on the basis that you might be pleasantly surprised, because that suggests that looking at something as an optimist or pessimist is a conscious choice. Maybe it is for some, but it definitely isn't for others.

Also, the pessimism/realism confusion is not in the least exclusive to the teenage and emotionally larval. A lot of people think that seeing problems that are really there, but that they can't see is the same as pessimism.

 

[TheAmazingHobo]

Well, seeing how you would most likely derive pleasure from your theory being correct, I think it´s most definitly nonsense. Unless of course it is correct. In which case it isn´t. Because it is.

Serious point:
You might want to try and articulate your ideas in a way that is as easy as possible. Usually helps the reader.

 

[9Darksoul6]

To all of you: I am sorry if it seems a little complicated to understand/ badly explained.

Philosophical pessimism is the similar but not identical idea that life has a negative value, or that this world is as bad as it could possibly be.

It's not 'your' theory, its an old one argued by many.
And, in most cases, displayed in much simpler, and more understandable terms.

While the title says 'pessimism' I never used the therm in my text.
Anti-optimism =/= pessimism.
I don't believe the statement "this world is as bad as it could possibly be" is true. What I wrote is more towards "this world can't be as good as it could possibly be".
(Maybe I should change the title?)

Pessimism is not the same as realism. Realism is unflinchingly accepting what is; regardless of how you feel. Pessimism is always expecting the worst on the basis that you might be pelasantly surprised.

Exactly what this guy is saying. (although, he's strangely trying to counter what I wrote; it seems nobody even tried to understand it... :|)

Life: you're doing it wrong. Most people put in effort to experience more of the pleasant things in life and minimize negative situations/experiences.

1) I don't think you're getting the idea. As a simple example: Of all the combinations of sounds someone can make in (let's say) 2 minutes, only a small part of those fit in the 'coherent speech' category; only a small part of this 'coerent speech' as meaning; only a small part of 'coherent speech with meaning' has any effect on you; only a small part of the previous category is something that will please you.

2) What you described is completely a posteriori to this process.

Note: I don't think you know enough about me to make such statements about my life. Less trolling please.

I think he's saying that any theory you could both come up with and believe is probably incorrect because you want to think you're right.

That was point 3), not the general idea.

If the person is misdirected and derives pleasure from their faulty hypothesis, then let them be happy. If somebody else points out the flaw, they become aware of it and can fix it. The solution doesn't need to be internal.

A supposition is pleasing when it is right, right when it is pleasing. It's the old dichotomy of beauty and truth, in order to be pleasing to someone an idea has to be more than a possibility. Let's apply this to love, love makes you happy yes? Well would an idea of love you didn't believe in make you happy? Does wanting someone to love you make it so, then does that reinforce your happiness?

I have no ideia where any of you is going with this...

 

[Jordi]

Pessimism might be always expecting the worst (or at least something bad), but I disagree that it is on the basis that you might be pleasantly surprised, because that suggests that looking at something as an optimist or pessimist is a conscious choice. Maybe it is for some, but it definitely isn't for others.

yeah, I was using it in a planning sense, an optimistic completion date, a pessimistic one and a realistic one.

Also, the pessimism/realism confusion is not in the least exclusive to the teenage and emotionally larval. A lot of people think that seeing problems that are really there, but that they can't see is the same as pessimism.

The greatest defence of pessimism I see on this forum is "I'm just being realistic" when normally they're being anything but. It seems to be a Gen. Y thing that cynicism is a virtue and can't be overused. Always seeing the worst regardless of probability and past evidence is anything but realistic, seeing a legitimate problem others can't or planning a contingency in case of unforeseen problems isn't the same as seeing a problem because you think there always has to be a problem.

it just irks me that people think realism is expecting the worst, realism is factoring in as many variables as possible to allow you to see the most likely scenario. Pessimism is just as unbalanced as optimism but for some reason the pessimists I've seen on here seem to all have massive confirmation bias. Being optimistic is seen as being foolish and being realistic is seen the same way.

I pretty much agree. A pessimist saying he's a realist is wrong. But someone calling a realist a pessimist is too. And I personally get a lot of that. Now, I am definitely not an optimist. But it irks me when people say "you're such a pessimist" when I point out the problems in something. Problems that are very much there, but that they didn't see for whatever reason. And I have to say that it seems to me that in general pessimist are much better at spotting problems that optimists (but yeah, I'm biased, just like everyone else).

This "ability" to spot problems can often save me (and the "optimists" with me) a lot of trouble. On the other hand, it can be a curse because seeing a lot of problems with something can sometimes prevent me from actually doing it in the first place. And sometimes, I guess it would be better to be oblivious to all the possible problems at first so that you will actually do something, and then deal with the problems as they come.

 

[9Darksoul6]

Well, seeing how you would most likely derive pleasure from your theory being correct, I think it´s most definitly nonsense. Unless of course it is correct. In which case it isn´t. Because it is.

Amusing.
Also: the axiom's wrong.

Serious point:
You might want to try and articulate your ideas in a way that is as easy as possible. Usually helps the reader.

Sorry for that. I generally think 'what' I'm writing is more important than 'how' I'm writting it; not that 'how' is not important as well.

 

[Jordi]

While the title says 'pessimism' I never used the therm in my text.
Anti-optimism =/= pessimism.
I don't believe the statement "this world is as bad as it could possibly be" is true. What I wrote is more towards "this world can't be as good as it could possibly be".

So what you were trying to say is "The world could be better"? I still feel like you haven't really clarified a lot, even though you observed that basically nobody here understood what you were trying to say. Also, while you're at it, could you explain why you feel that whatever your principle is, is true?

 

[Lawbringer]

You should write terms of service agreements.

Well played! You should write a book of witty, but scathing retorts.

 

[jawakiller]

You should write terms of service agreements.

I now love you.

Hahaha, I was totally thinking the same thing when I read this.