Comments on “Hope”
Comments are for the page: Hope
Hope and planning
Glad you are enjoying the book-in-progress! Sorry it’s taken rather a long time to get you a reply.
I’ll give two answers. Both share the observation that planning is—in theory at least—a dispassionate rational exercise, that need not involve hope or fear. Certainly one has preferences (one would rather have enough money to buy a house), but that’s different from “hope” as a constellation of emotions about possible futures.
Wearing my Buddhist hat (which I usually reserve for other web sites) I’d say that hope is never actually useful. Whatever is going to happen in the future isn’t affected by the emotions you have about it (only by what you do). Hope just creates stress, because hope and fear are basically the same thing. Many Buddhist practices aim at reducing the hope/fear cycle. Again, that doesn’t imply changing your preferences, or decreasing productive effort, or ignoring the future to enjoy the present.
In terms of Meaningness (as opposed to Buddhism), “hope” is reserved for matters of “meaningfulness” rather than practical outcomes such as finances. “Hope” is the hope specifically that eternalism can somehow be made to work, so that meanings behave themselves, instead of being all squishy and nebulous. So the critique of hope here is much narrower than the Buddhist one.
Hope and stages of adult development
Relating hope to Kegan’s orders of mind, perhaps at the 3rd order (called Communal in Meaningness), hope (holding and expressing strong feelings about the future) is an important way of planning the future. There’s the expectation that others see your feelings expressed, and so will be persuaded to act in your support.
Hope at stage 3
Oh, that’s an interesting thought! Yes, makes sense.
Wearing my Buddhist hat
Wearing my Buddhist hat (which I usually reserve for other web sites) I’d say that hope is never actually useful.
I think this reveals the fundamental pessimism of Buddhism.
Hope & fear: twin demons
Perhaps… it may be more subtle than you realize, though. If you read “Charnel ground” and “Pure Land” together, in that order, they may reveal something.
Why does hope seem to be called out as especially bad?
Hi David,
Given that I am planning to position the philosophy I’m developing as a philosophy of hope, I’m trying to square the harsh criticism that hope comes in for with the relatively benign acceptance of all other emotions.
Hope:
‘Hope causes emotional stunting and childishness. It is inimical to emotional growth.’
‘I’d say that hope is never actually useful. Whatever is going to happen in the future isn’t affected by the emotions you have about it (only by what you do). Hope just creates stress, because hope and fear are basically the same thing.’
Ouch!
Other emotions (see https://vividness.live/your-self-is-not-a-spiritual-obstacle ):
‘Desire, anger, and ignorance—the Buddhist kleshas—are just fine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with them. They can be unpleasant to experience—but they can also be fun. Life’s mixed like that; it doesn’t make emotions evil.
…
To make the point that no emotion is wrong, tantra has greedy Buddhas, angry Buddhas, horny Buddhas, paranoid Buddhas, and idiotic Buddhas. (These are the “Five Buddha Families.”)’
If there can be angry and greedy Buddhas, why can’t there be hopeful Buddhas, since hope seems more benign and positive than anger and greed? Why can’t hope be fun? IME hope can reduce stress and can inspire noble acts. I agree that hope doesn’t affect the future, but it arguably affects someone’s motivation to pursue a particular future. I find it difficult to believe that hope is more useless than anger, greed, fear, or hatred. If “no emotion is wrong” (and “absolutely nothing [is] wrong with them”), how can hope, which is apparently just the the flip side of the emotion of fear, apparently be so deeply wrong and bad (“inimical to emotional growth”)?
I’ve noticed that even though Buddhism seems down on hope, IMO it seems to hide hope under other labels, especially “aspiration” and “resolution”. It seems a bit hair splitting to valorize the latter two while demonizing the former. For example, what’s the difference between resolute hope and resolution?
I’m not advocating for hope in the eternal, I’m again that as well. But I do think “highest hopes” whose goals are long term (but within this lifetime) and transformative can be inspiring and motivating. So I’m trying to understand where this very negative characterization of (the emotion of ) hope is coming from.
An eternalist ploy, not an emotion
Hope, in the sense of this unwritten page, is not an emotion. It is an eternalist ploy. Since it is unwritten, nuances are missing.
That's what I was hoping ;)
Glad to hear that you’re only condemning eternalist hope. I wasn’t sure whether your condemnation of hope was as broad as Pema Chodron’s: https://thedewdrop.org/2019/08/26/letting-go-of-hope-pema-chodron/
However, contextualizing hope on this page as not being an emotion still seems somewhat in conflict with the contextualization that ‘hope and fear are basically the same thing’, since fear is arguably a paradigm the concept of emotion. But since the page is only a placeholder, it may not be worth revising to clarify.
Cases when hope isn't harmful
You mentioned: “Hope is harmful in devaluing the present and shifting attention to imaginary futures that may never exist.” and I’m not sure I agree completely. I’m thinking of the value of hope in financial planning–where I may choose to drive a cheap car now (yes, it’s a devaluation of the present) in the hope I will be able to purchase a home later. Or I live on 50% of my income now in the hope I can retire at age 30 (see the Mr. Money Mustache blog) and be free to live outside of the rat-race. I’ve seen people that lack hope make foolish financial decisions (splurge on things today that prevent them from achieving better things in the future).
Can you comment more on that? (By the way, I’m thoroughly enjoying your book–thanks for creating it!)