Compos Mentis

Note

There is a certain division that certain persons make between differing personalities in this world. These are called, on the one hand, optimists, and on the other hand, pessimists. The power inherent in these terms is the manner in which they sway opinion or our view of the world; this power is treacherous, for even if I were to give a definition of one the reader could easily verify on which side of the breach we lie. For example, if I were to say that pessimism was looking at the world in a negative sense, the implication is that I am an optimist, because to be negative is to be in the wrong, and we can never truly admit that we are in the wrong- we all believe to have right thought. But were we to say that pessimism is the art of revealing bravely all of the wrongs in the world, then we would be seen as a pessimist, for there it is the world that is in the wrong rather than we. Whatsoever way it is taken, those are the accepted definitions of the art or philosophy of pessimism, and whatsoever view one takes the opposite will be the meaning of optimism.
There is a certain sense, or air, of the Romantic about the pessimist, as he sees himself. As we said, the pessimist sees bravely (in himself- his self description) the wrongs in the world, it's lack of order. Such a man is driven by himself, and himself alone, because it is quite clear that if there is an evil world there is nothing that he can be sure of being good but himself.
The optimist is driven instead by hope. He has a sense, not of the Romantic, but of connection to the universe. If he is good, and the universe is good, then there is a commonality between the two, and even if those who adhere to solipsism are right, the optimistic ones are not alone in their minds.
The nature of the world is here at stake- we must be inquiring on its wholesomeness or its corruptness. But a question arises first: can we talk about the world in itself? That is, can we talk about the world objectively? Or, is it that we can only see the world through ourselves? Is there a truth in the absolute sense, that we can know?
Such an argument has been consistent since the ancients. But whether or not there is a truth, is it not so that we cannot escape ourselves to see it? We only see what we see, whether it is absolute truth or not. And the nature of the universe as subjective (that is, as we see it) is phenomena in context. How do I mean?
There is a certain lady of our acquaintance whom dislikes the nature, the commonplace, physical nature, of the Catholic Church of which she is a member of the parish. She complains of the heat, of the strong scent of the scenser, and other such maladies. But these entities or phenomena, which may certainly be unpleasant to the body, when taken in a certain context, cannot help but be edifying. These are the symbols of the Divine! Of what use are they but to be a stimulus to be thoughtful about the Greatness of the universe? In other matters this is also true. It is not the phenomena which is good or bad, but the context; and that is but a matter of the reason of the mind. Those who are optimists, choose to be optimists, not because the world is actually better, but because we like it better that way.

Sincerely,
The Optimist

posted by Emmett @ 15:24