Pieper has two subsections that are respectively headed “The present’s sense of the future,” and “The inadequacy of the concepts optimism and pessimism.” In the first of these, he contrasts the disparate views of prominent thinkers on how good or bad the future looks. One’s subjective outlook - whether the glass is half-full or half-empty - is really of secondary import.
Is this reality a good thing or an evil thing? Is that good or evil a physical or a moral one? What are the consequences of this good or evil development? How might a good be occasioned by this evil? The answers to these questions, some of which may not be entirely knowable, are important in assessing the reality before us. What is of greater importance than this subjective measure is the reality that we actually face. As a result, the optimism/pessimism or glass half-full/empty dialectic is more a measure of the mood of the observer than it is of reality being observed. The same person might, owing to his own personal vicissitudes, swing like a pendulum from being optimistic to being pessimistic. Some people, perhaps owing to temperament, perhaps to their physical health, their emotional state, or a combination of all these, are inclined to take an “upbeat” outlook others are the opposite. The figure of speech aside, these categories are, generally speaking, labels that describe our subjective responses to the realities we perceive around us. It begs several questions: What is the fluid? Is it excellent scotch, water, or sulfuric acid? Is it a therapeutic concoction that would be salubrious if taken in the quantity of just under half a glass, but deadly if taken in the amount just over half a glass? Are we in the process of draining the glass, in which calling it “half-empty” makes sense from a procedural point of view, or are we in the process of filling it, in which calling it “half-full” would equally make sense? When I hear this comparison made, I think that there is an awful lot we simply do not know about that glass and what is actually in it!
However, I find this one in particular need of crutches. First, I do realize that the “glass half-full” figure of speech is metaphorical, and that even the best metaphors limp in making their point adequately. Josef Pieper’s brief but intense book, The End of Time, I have been forced to think through the issue more, and can say that I am now of the same opinion, but with deeper convictions on the matter.įurther down, I will quote the learned philosopher, including references he takes from other authors, but, before that, permit me some general comments. This is something I have long thought rather superficially (even mentioning it in writing at times see The Bad News and Christian Hope in Contrast), but, to be totally transparent, I had not previously given the issue any deep consideration. glass half-empty - are categories that I believe we should reject as essentially inadequate. In brief, I will argue here that the categories of optimism vs.
What merit to these categories have? Is this worldly wisdom something that we Catholics can “baptize” and incorporate into our interior lives and our world view? At times, the accusation precipitates an argument on the merits of optimism over pessimism and the advantages of being a “glass half-full” kind of person. “You’re so ‘glass half-empty’!” Have you ever heard that one? It usually comes up in a conversation after one party has made a particularly “negative” comment.
0 kommentar(er)
