Response: Inverted Viewpoints

In response to Corey Sloane's post "Where Are You From?" (March 22, 2012):

The idea that people in situations of poverty or other unpleasantness sometimes have more optimistic views on humanity is, I think, quite accurate.  Furthermore, I think that the opposite can often be true of rich or otherwise prosperous people.  Perhaps this is because people in bad situations tend to either maintain an optimistic attitude, or give in to their circumstances and either numb their emotions with alcohol, drugs, or other addictions, or kill themselves.  The number of people in bad situations who have a pessimistic outlook, yet persevere in spite of it, seems likely to be relatively small.  In contrast, people who are well-off do not need such faith in their fellow humans.  Of course, prosperous people can still take pessimism to the point where they give up, and perhaps that is why a surprising number of rich people are alcoholic or addicted to drugs.

Schopenhauer and Melville, as literary and philosophical men from relatively prosperous families, fell closer to the latter type of person.  While of course being rich or prosperous is hardly a foolproof indicator of pessimism, it seems possible that Schopenhauer's and Melville's backgrounds could have contributed to their rather negative views of humanity.

Only the Negative

That a great deal of human (and non-human; but for the purposes of this post I will focus on humanity alone) suffering exists is, I think, undeniable.  However, this does not by any means lead to the conclusion that suffering is the default state of humanity.  While it is true that if one looks, one will detect many negative aspects of the human condition, one can also find many positive aspects - but only if one looks for these as well.

Even the claim that the sun will eventually explode and kill all humans does not invalidate this.  Firstly, if people do not automatically accept this statement, there is a possibility that we will be able to develop technology enabling us to move to other solar systems when this even finally occurs, or to create other solutions which mean that the sun's destruction does not necessarily result in the destruction of humanity.  Secondly, even if the sun does eventually explode and kill everyone, that does not mean that everyone is ultimately suffering; according to virtually all belief systems, death does not necessarily (or even probably) equate to suffering.  If one believes in an afterlife, death may even lead to eternal reward; if one does not believe in an afterlife, then death is a neutral state in which no one either suffers or is happy.  Thirdly, even in the exceedingly rare circumstance that one believes death leads to an afterlife of eternal suffering, this does not invalidate the happiness one (hopefully) experienced prior to dying.  Ends are not inherently more significant than beginnings or middles.

Lack vs. Absence - Unmet Expectations

During Monday's class, we touched briefly on the subject of expectations and their effects on world-views.  Primarily, we referred to positive expectations and the reaction of disappointment when those expectations remained unmet.  For example, if someone grew up believing that they were going to learn to fly when they turned eighteen, they would be gravely disappointed when they reached the aforementioned age and yet remained firmly earthbound.  However, if that person grew up in the knowledge that turning eighteen does not automatically enable one to fly, they would not be disappointed when they did not gain the ability of flight at that age.

This, I think, may have had a large effect on both Melville's and Schopenhauer's world-views.  They lived in a society which seems to have encouraged optimistic views of nature, humanity, and religion.  Upon reflection, they likely discovered that these views were largely unfounded, and were as a result highly disappointed, and able to focus only on the unexpected, negative aspects of these various areas.  If they had not held such high expectations in the first place, they might never have felt this way at all.

Lastly, this idea of reality failing to meet expectations continues to affect many people today.  Disillusionment regarding one's religion, a friend, a role model, or even oneself can cause people to become bitter or to feel badly about whatever it is which appears to have let them down.  The key to avoiding this, I think, is to ensure that one's expectations are at least relatively well-founded to begin with.  It is unreasonable to expect oneself to, for example, become a master in a martial arts style in a few weeks; thus, one should not hold this expectation, or else one will, almost without exception, be disappointed.

Response: Intelligence and Isolation

In response to Stacy Fisher's post "Sociability and Intelligence" (March 18, 2012):

I agree that the degree of sociability one exhibits is not by any means an accurate indication of one's intelligence.  However, the stereotype of the antisocial genius does have some basis in reality.  If this is not (as I believe it is not) due to the connection of sociability and intellect or lack thereof, then what does cause it?

I think that the most likely cause is the relative rarity of genius, at least genius on the scale of Melville's and Schopenhauer's.  On a whole, intelligence distribution seems to follow a bell-curve shape; as such, those at the far right end of the curve are few and far between.  It is the far-between-ness, I think, that is most relevant here; people with the intellectual abilities of Melville or Schopenhauer might go their entire lives without meeting anyone else of comparable intelligence or educational level.  Such people might feel surrounded by individuals who are simply incapable of or unwilling to comprehend the thoughts that they themselves entertain on a daily basis.  As a result, they might feel isolated even when in company, and so choose to avoid socialisation as a rule, because it fails to bring them any sort of happiness and only annoys them.  This might also help explain why so many people of high intellect tend to suffer from depression; out of all the people acknowledged today as geniuses, a fairly large percentage were very unhappy throughout much of their lives.  This could be because humans are naturally social beings, and so in general when a human is (through their own actions or through circumstances beyond their control) deprived of socialisation, they tend to become unhappy.