Is Hope Evil and Pointless...

Viv · 07-08-2008, 06:32 PM

I had this quote in my sig for a little while at another forum, because it made me think about a couple of things.. and I want to share that with you and ask how you see this. Here is the quote:

Hope in reality is the worst of all evils, because it prolongs the torments of man. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Now to me, hope has always seemed a positive thing and necessary to remain optimistic. I do not know the context of Nietzsche's statement in this instance, but the quote can be applied to many situations.

Obvious one is religion. People cannot accept that we are all going to die. They cannot accept that life is completely random and they do not matter any more than that spider you flattened in the bathroom this morning. They want to believe there is something or someone controlling and caring and that there is some huge master plan and most of all they want to believe there is an escape route when they die.

All well and good, but this impacts on how they live...

I come from an Irish Catholic background on my mother's side and have listened to the elders for example dismiss an act of evil by saying the person does not require to be punished. Do nothing..."you will see your own on them and more than you want to see." Meaning that life will deal with that person and you do not have to.

When discussing government, globalisation, greed and profiteering, selfish capitalism (I do not accept that capitalism is wholly bad, but that is a different thread. Here I am referring to those capitalists who are completely self/profit-oriented and step on people to make their money) the philosophy of these religious people was to simply do nothing - on the premise that such people will have a horrible time in the next world.

To suggest that this is entirely a philosophy disseminated by the controlling, powerful classes simply to stop the lower classes from taking up arms and ousting them, was anathema. It almost gave my old gran a heart attack to realise she might have been duped this way all her life and she was pretty intelligent, but it seemed not to have occurred to her before. Or rather.. she could not accept that. In her life circumstances, her class had no power to alter the greed of the ruling class and it would have been dangerous for them to attempt that, so they preferred to push that knowledge down and hope. Hope that those who have been so selfish in this life will get some of what they are asking for in the next.

Now to me, this is outrageously wasteful. Hoping and doing nothing does not change the lot of the people on the bottom, or even in the middle. All it does is preserve the power of those on the top. And for this reason, as you know already, I am pretty anti-religion and anti-mind control.

The second situation which came to mind regarding the statement is Palestine/Israel:

Yasser Arafat led his people into a rebellion and guerilla war against that situation. He achieved virtually nothing in terms of regaining his country, but his actions ensured that the international community recognised "the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people" and Israel recognised the Palestinians as a people requiring representation, moving the status of the PLO from "terrorists" to "freedom fighters". Here is an excerpt from the speech he used to convince the United Nations that his cause was just:

The difference between the revolutionary and the terrorist lies in the reason for which each fights. Whoever stands by a just cause and fights for liberation from invaders and colonialists cannot be called terrorist. Those who wage war to occupy, colonize and oppress other people are the terrorists....The Palestinian people had to resort to armed struggle when they lost faith in the international community, which ignored their rights, and when it became clear that not one inch of Palestine could be regained through exclusively political means....

The PLO dreams and hopes for one democratic state where Christian, Jew and Muslim live in justice, equality, fraternity and progress. The chairman of the PLO and leader of the Palestinian revolution appeals to the General Assembly to accompany the Palestinian people in its struggle to attain its right of self-determination....I have come bearing an olive branch and a freedom fighter's gun. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand.

Very good, but had he not done this, those displaced people might have dispersed by now. They may have resettled, moved past this, made their way in the world and their suffering would be past.

Instead there is the ongoing bloody conflict in the Middle East, which spills into all kinds of other areas. We have seen that it is bigger than the sum of its parts, causing vicious hatred of the West by default and reciprocal distrust of the Middle East. Osama Bin Laden has taken to speaking about that Israel/Palestine issue and apportioning blame to the US (well, who can contradict him in that). There is no prospect of resolution of that situation and how much less bloodshed would have taken place and how much more peaceful would the world have been had "HOPE" not presented to the Palestinian people...

So I am asking is hope good, or is it evil? Should we hope for change, or live in the moment and in the situation without pushing or wishing for more?

Schrödinger's Cat · 07-08-2008, 08:59 PM

It's completely natural to hope, and I don't think we could change that even if we wanted to. That fact that we have an abstract understanding of time will mean that we will regret the past (wish it were better) and hope for the future. That being said, I think that people's hopes should be realistic and not fantasies or delusions. I'm a physicalist, so I would consider all views of afterlife to be delusional. Of course, not all people are dangerous with this hope, but some people are. If we viewed our life as our only one, no doubt we would appreciate it more and therefore be more likely to appreciate others' lives.

Rouger2 · 07-08-2008, 10:25 PM

Sure religions make for good workers to build a society, but we need society for protection and to make life easier. So is religion so terrible to give us hope. I think they have taken us from wild animals to the tamed animals most of us are today, and though I don't go to church I don't hate them, and I do believe in a god, and I certianly hope there is one.

Schrödinger's Cat · 07-08-2008, 10:39 PM

That is where I disagree with you. I am an anti-theist of sorts. I don't see the existence of a theistic god as a good thing. To me it seems like an unalterable dictatorship, where he knows all, sees all, and controls your life. He can convict you of thought crime and sentence you to eternal torment simply for not being a sheep and following blindly. This concept of a deity was invented by a primitive culture that had terrible views of human rights and individual liberty. It will be a good day when the view of this supernatural dictator dies forever. I hope there's no god like our view of a monotheistic one. That's not only because I'd be screwed, but because all of this would be for the glorification of a universal prick.

Rouger2 · 07-08-2008, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by Schrödinger's Cat

That is where I disagree with you. I am an anti-theist of sorts. I don't see the existence of a theistic god as a good thing. To me it seems like an unalterable dictatorship, where he knows all, sees all, and controls your life. He can convict you of thought crime and sentence you to eternal torment simply for not being a sheep and following blindly. This concept of a deity was invented by a primitive culture that had terrible views of human rights and individual liberty. It will be a good day when the view of this supernatural dictator dies forever. I hope there's no god like our view of a monotheistic one. That's not only because I'd be screwed, but because all of this would be for the glorification of a universal prick.

Like I said religion has taken us from wild animal to the tamed animal most of us are today. Religions try to keep the people in their religion from killing each other so a society can be born. They have had a big place in our western civilization. The idea is that we must live together for there to be a society and we are animals like all animals, killers, but have been socialized by our parents, teachers,Church, police, and law makers. We have one job and that is to carry on the human race. Is there hope in that I think so.

Schrödinger's Cat · 07-08-2008, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Like I said religion has taken us from wild animal to the tamed animal most of us are today. Religions try to keep the people in their religion from killing each other so a society can be born. They have had a big place in our western civilization. The idea is that we must live together for there to be a society and we are animals like all animals, killers, but have been socialized by our parents, teachers,Church, police, and law makers. We have one job and that is to carry on the human race. Is there hope in that I think so.

I don't accept your assumption. Religion wasn't a "tamer". We mold religion, religion didn't mold us. Society developed different morals overtime through a series of progressions. Religion, like culture and language, constantly evolved to the change with the zeitgeist. If these morals had not changed with our progress, then you would still see people stoned for breaking religious commandments (you still might in some primitive areas). Religion was the first shot of humanity at trying to explain our surroundings. They were largely false. Science has done a better job at providing answers than religion has ever done. If you are suggesting that there is a moral imperative to keep religion around, then I would again disagree with you. Morality didn't start with, nor does it end with, religion.

Viv · 07-09-2008, 04:01 PM

In any case, we no longer need a religion to stop people killing each other...law replaced that function and people have grasped the concept of peaceable society as much as they're ever going to.
Personally, not a fan of religion...it is too often a tool for the ruling class to manipulate the lower into being a biddable workforce. It is frequently exclusive and as mentioned, dictatorial and causes division and conflict.

joedoakes · 07-12-2008, 08:51 AM

The CREATOR hopes for the salvation of mankind,so hope is a good thing.For those who enjoy torment,reading Friedrich Nietzsche will get the job done.

Schrödinger's Cat · 07-12-2008, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by joedoakes

The CREATOR hopes for the salvation of mankind,so hope is a good thing.

That's a pretty silly thing to believe; it doesn't make much sense. Lets say this god exists; if he actually hoped for the salvation of mankind, then he can give it to us, for he is the one that is withholding it in the first place. I don't think that "hope" enters into it.

It is like me taking the keys to your car and forcing you to guess between 1-1000 before I give you the keys, but then berating you when you guess wrong, saying it is your fault (only I won't torture you forever). Of course, it would be my fault because I am the one that is initially withholding it from you. If he exists, he wouldn't hope anything from us. He'd be an egomaniac of epic proportions.

up|dn · 07-13-2008, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by joedoakes

The CREATOR hopes for the salvation of mankind,so hope is a good thing.For those who enjoy torment,reading Friedrich Nietzsche will get the job done.

I'm not sure if you're serious, but it gave me a good chuckle (since I consider Nietzsche to be my salvation).

Photon1001 · 09-21-2008, 09:54 PM

Of course, one could also take Sir Isaac Newton's view of that the universe being like a giant clock, that once set into motion be left to tick on its own by its creator.

My own personal view is that through technology, science, and the forces of Darwinian evolution, humanity will one day evolve to become God itself. Some even say we are now living in the generation that will eventually do this (probably some time after we become immortal, mind you), and God, I hope that is true.

Some food for thought:

The Singularity is Near

jimeigh · 09-21-2008, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by Photon1001

Some food for thought:

The Singularity is Near

that guy came to give a talk here at my school. i didnt go, though. i just thought it interesting that you brought it up. anyway, back to surfing the intrawebs for me.

Schrödinger's Cat · 09-22-2008, 03:36 AM

Originally Posted by Photon1001

My own personal view is that through technology, science, and the forces of Darwinian evolution, humanity will one day evolve to become God itself. Some even say we are now living in the generation that will eventually do this (probably some time after we become immortal, mind you), and God, I hope that is true.

That negates the actual meaning of a "god". Gods are supernatural and don't evolve through evolutionary processes. Why even call it God or a deity at that point? It's a redefinition just for the sake of it. It is like when people say, "My god is nature"... a completely worthless statement.

Photon1001 · 09-22-2008, 03:52 AM

Well, we'll be creating artificial humans in the cyberspace that will one day replace the world we live in now, after we cast our physical bodies aside, that is. They will mirror real humans in every way, they'll even think they are human, but could one really call them human, or even call us human, when we have been converted into essentially just a set of electric signals in a computer network? In all likeliness, we will one day evolve, either biologically, or technologically, or both, to become one interconnected network, one species in complete dominion with the entire universe. Obviously, this is still a long ways off, but at that point, when all time and space are within our utility as part of a singular quantum network, at that point, we as a species, now a single entity, will be indistinguishable from God. We won't actually be supernatural, but for all practical purposes, we might as well be.