Arguing with myself. Optimism vs Cynicism

As a college student taking philosophy as a course, I've found it's not uncommon for people in my field of study to...argue with themselves. In science, when writing papers, the equivalent concept is to predict objections to what one is writing and preemptively tackle those objections. In attempting to find out where my epistemic grounds should be...where I should focus my beliefs, my values, how I should postulate myself as a person...I have to argue with myself. What does it truly mean when I make a value claim? Am I being honest with myself in that value claim? What if the value really isn't all that valued, and I'm over extending myself? Over estimating my capacities for empathy?

To expand on this, to help me improve myself more than just my own personal subjective metaphysic, I will from now on be writing the arguments I have with myself down, and opening them up for public critique. Do you agree with either side of my seemingly schizophrenic diatribe? Why? Do you not? Why not? I understand this is going to seem...schizophrenic, but I would like to assure everyone I have been to therapists and psychologists before...I'm perfectly mentally healthy. At least...according to them.

For the purposes of how I'm making this, all text made by my optimist side will be labeled "Opt" And the cynic side will be labeled "Cyn"

Opt: There has to be an agreement as to what is the best way to feel about one's fellow man. You(Cyn) are saying that people are naturally bad, and contemptuous, I personally like having people around. Sure I cherish my alone time but I like company too. Some people are certainly better to have around then others. Clearly this indicates there are some good and bad aspects of humanity, not a wholly bad personality.

Cyn: We are complacently complaining. We hate ourselves. We hate each other, we hate the world. And the only times we don't is when any of the things we hate admits that it's worthy of being hated. We want people to be virtuous because we don't think that they are. And if someone comes along and tries to be virtuous we scoff, spit, and chide at them. Because nobody's virtuous, and since nobody's virtuous and we will never accept that anyone is better than us in any way, the only time someone MIGHT be virtuous is when they admit that they're NOT virtuous. That's basically admitting that they're not better than us. The only way we come to like people is when they admit they suck! That's why authority is so hated, because they HAVE to, because of their job, posture as if they're better than the people they have authority over. People in america acknowledge that the system is shit, but refuse to acknowledge that any positive change to this system would force them to give up most of what they have. People outside america love to hate us, all the while living off our economy and silently idolizing the way that we live. And those that don't look at us as inferior anyway, with a misplaced sense of nationalism in a place the rest of the world KNOWS is shit by comparison. Everybody thinks the world should change but nobody wants to change it.

Opt: But what about the people that DO try to change the world, and the ones that succeed?

Cyn: The people that try to change the world are seen as extreme or unrealistic...because they ARE extreme and unrealistic. Whatever changes they bring to the world will never be enough. It will never amount to the perfect world utopia that everyone wants but rarely acknowledge without persuasion is impossible without an undesirable amount of self sacrifice. And this utopia would suck for most people, because it would create a pace where people can't complain. And that would be the most grievous problem of all for human beings. Why do you think Vlogging and Blogging and Youtubing are so popular? Because people can complain without interruption! Their gossip is driven by complaints, their governments are driven by complaints their RELIGIONS are driven by complaints. Fuck, the best comedians are the ones that complain about the most out of the way yet still relate able concepts the best.

Everyone thinks they're a part of some sort of minority. Everyone thinks they're being oppressed. So they join little groups where they complain together. Human beings are shit.

Opt: I think you just like to bitch. The self defeating nature of this argument is that in order to get anywhere as a society we have to complain about the pathetic nature of complaining. Complaining is a good thing, as you say, it drives government, religion, culture in general. Whatever 'pathetic' characteristic you choose to place onto it is only a result of your personal subjective interpretation of the nature of complaints. This isn't in any way an objective fact that complaints are 'bad' especially when they lead to progress.

Cyn: But they also lead to stagnation, and they STIFLE progress. As I said before, the people who do manage to progress only get labeled unrealistic radicals, and they ARE. Besides, you saying that complaining is a good thing is just as subjectively interpreted as my saying it's a bad thing. If I can't say it's bad without criticism, neither can you ascribe it to be good without criticism.

Opt: Whatever. I'm going to go to a party and enjoy people.

Cyn: And bitch all the next day about the ones that were there that you don't like.

Hm. Optimism at ones forefront is key to ontology but cynicism is inherently a societal survival methodology so go figure. Perhaps you should take a panglossianistic stance whereas you hold the belief that the status quo is the best possible universe it can be at the very turn of the moment retaining the standing figurehead of optimism and yet retain the ability to realize one's situation analytically with elements of cynicism without the disadvantages of lack of adequate knowledge of physical reality and relativity and the self-defeatism and lack of self imperative of cynicism.

I am not the most eloquent speaker but I enjoy reading debates such as this and would like to have my say. I understand what it is like to debate with oneself regarding cynicism and optimism. This is due to the fact that I have a rapid cycling bipolar disorder, which isn't schizophrenia but at times it certainly feels like I have it. And so I have experienced my entire emotional outlook radically changing on one subject in a matter of a minute or two. As to not change the way I live all the time I cannot base how I live on the extreme feeling I may have at that time. If I take an extreme optimistic stance I tend to not care about my problems until later they come back to cause unfortunate consequences. If I take the extreme cynic stance nothing significant gets done because I usually find doing anything pointless because I think "what I do doesn't matter in the end anyways, so why should I inconvenience myself and go out of my way to do something." Instead of either extreme I try to stay towards an optimistic stance except that I cynically analyze any person or situation that I come in contact with until I determine if it is truly someone or something I should be cynical of. If that doesn't make sense I am sorry, like I said I am not a great writer. And I realize my views may be a little odd because optimism is tied to one side of my mood swings (my manic episodes) and cynicism to the other (my depressed states). Thus I tie those emotions with my worldviews which may skew my views on these subjects.

Sounds like schizophrenia. Luckily for you though you don't have the paranoid type, and yours should go away after being done with your philosophy class.

And wait does no one else argue with themselves internally like this?

Dude. I think you're... a bit deranged. Mentally.

I consider myself quite literate, so it angers me that I have no idea what is being said here.

Philosophy is not easy. Also, it might have helped if Darkhilt used periods and commas and the like. :P IF you want to learn more in depth about panglossianism I suggest reading Voltaire's "Candide".

@ Darkhilt:

The problem between optimism and cynicism being direct problems with each other, yet both having their own unique utility is certainly one of the problems keeping me on the fence. As far as panglossianism, I presume you mean pessimistic panglossianism, and to be honest, I have low opinions of it. It takes a fatalistic attitude that I already think is self defeating in the first place. The idea that things right now are as good as they're going to be means that any and all change necessarily will be a decrease in the overall optimal capacity of the universe, always causing deficiency. I went over this particular point in my first post. The fact that some people DO set out to change thew world, and sometimes even succeed, directly goes against(in my opinion) the paradigm presented in panglossianism. I'm not convinced the self defeatism of cynicism is overcome by panglossianistic philosophy.

Neither optimism, nor cynicism have the monopoly over utility in any one concept. But both certainly have their usage, and one cannot maintain both. I am also convinced any attempt to 'bridge the gap' between them is...well..a fool's errand. It's like any sort of rhetoric concerning modern day ideas of shadow governments and our relationship with them(I.E. Peace is war, slavery is freedom, blah dee blah). Oxymoronic concepts don't go together, and any attempt to make them go together seems more pretentious than...deep.

You're not insane, just thorough. Personally, I think it's healthy to consistently think outside an established format. Give things much more thought than making a snap decision. Whether it's a decision to take an action, or a decision to change perspective.

I personally am optimistic externally, cynical internally. I know what darkness the world and its people are capable of. Horrors and wonders. Incredible good, and unspeakable bad. I also know that our world is becoming more densely populated with cynicism. The futility of it all weighs heavy on our shoulders as a collective sentient race. Our finite environment has become stifling. We're losing hope.

I cling to it as tightly as I can in the hopes that the more compassion I spread, the more people will in turn, spread it outwards. I know this makes me sound very naive, and very childish, but there is a purpose. It is crucial for balance. If everyone is cynical, and nobody ever truly believes in the value of at least trying to make things better, then that horrible black horizon we all fear will come to pass.

But this idea that all is lost, that is what will be our folly. Fear will divide us, and we as a species will fall.

Personally, Lundi... I think you should stay on the fence. Being undecided may feel uncomfortable but it keeps you from adopting one straight form of thinking. Which in turn, forces you to consider everything. I think ultimately, being able to see both sides of the coin is more beneficial than one dedicated perspective. You can do more good this way.

I have these sorts of mental struggles all the times, and on this particular matter loathe the absence of the [both] option. Even though everything written here under cynism (especially regarding people and society as a whole) is true to some extent, I find your arguments on the opt side to be somewhat weak. While the cyn point of view values the idea that humans periodically look down on others and hate those who do the same onto themselves, the opt side should argue the opposite to be true in the very existance of ideals as a concept, or even that of idols. Even though having idols mean you accept that you are of lower status than the object you idolize, you can still look up to it. Awe as a whole. That no matter how bad things are, most people will aspire to a better tomorrow. etc. etc.

I engage in internal debate all the time.

I don't think you're insane, but that doesn't say much.

Also, I'd that as in almost everything, a balance needs to be struck; try not to view any side of the argument with a single viewpoint, but all of them at once; only then can full understanding be reached, however difficult it may be to do so.