Without knowing what you've been through, I can only speculate that you also have a strong sense of perseverance.

I think perseverance overlaps with hope, with hope focusing on achieving a desired outcome, and perseverance focusing on avoiding an unwanted outcome.

They aren't mutually exclusive, they just allow you to view your challenges from different perspectives.

Either way, blessing and/or curse, hope itself doesn't deliver the victory or the final blow. It only affects us and how we see our plight, the circumstances we face aren't directly modified by our hope.

e.g. The mountain doesn't say to itself "These climbers are genuinely hopeful. I'll hold off on the next storm, so they can summit."

Really, the important concept is that a person's triumphs over adversity is a valid way to measure their success.

What problems they faced, and the ways they overcame them, are all wrapped up together. There are too many variables to claim that a single quality is always the most important one.

Sometimes is the key, regarding this.

There's healthy hope and unhealthy hope.

Precisely why I prefer Stoicism.

'Abandon hope and learn to cope'.

Yeah, this is what came to my mind, too. "Grace" is a good word for that proactive adjacent to hope.

"Being hopeful" is definitely more passive than "being graceful". Having hope is like a prerequisite for taking the next steps (in grace).

Acting to change your current situation, in my opinion, implies someone has hope—hope that a more favorable circumstance could happen, if they dare to act.

Hope alone is definitely not enough to see it to fruition.

Well, yeah. Suffering is a prerequisite to hope.

Sometimes, yeah. It can stem from that denial. Similarly, it can also be used to avoid taking action toward a goal. "Hoping" is a verb but not a particularly active one.

Hope is a blessing and a curse. It's saved my life, and in the same respect it's kept me alive and therefore suffering.

It's done a ton for humanity, and has also blinded us in times where we probably should have called it quits.

Like during instances of "summit fever," both literally and figuratively, which in the literal sense is where mountain climbers near their goal and begin making more rash and risky choices in the rest of their ascent, and sometimes doing so becomes their demise.

I've cursed hope and hated that I still am hopeful, but mostly I'm in awe of it. Even the tiniest bit is incredibly powerful, at least for one's individual circumstances.

Hope is faith in the belief that things will get better.

Then I shall suffer to save us.

I always feel hope implies a lack of faith.

Fuck negativity! Wait…

You have transcended transcendence by identifying pills. Surely.

You fuck her, dat bitch crazay!

Reason is the precondition for knowledge. The real question is, how do you get knowledge without reason? It's not possible.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

> Faith is blindly believing in something without necessarily being thoroughly convinced by it.

A hard definition. Faith could also imply trust in a promise, in which case is life not pervaded by it, and not in an evil way?

[removed]

"And if you feel that you can't go on

And your will's sinkin' low

Just believe, and you can't go wrong

In the light you will find the road

You will find the road"-Robert Plant's Philosophy of Hope, from "In The Light"

I applaud your bravery to criticism. Perhaps to be more conversational, I would recommend more questions.

>>In short, the definition of “scientism” that I would endorse is the following: there are no other ways of knowing apart from those used by the sciences (broadly construed, including history and the humanities). All valid modes of knowing are continuous to each other and rely on pretty much the same methods and modes of inference. If, on the other hand, someone presents us with a method that is completely detached from the ones used in science, like personal intuition or revelation or reading tea leaves, we can be confident that it’s rubbish.

I know I’m a few days late to this post, but I have to take issue here.

First, I think this “broad construal” of science to include history and the humanities makes “science” a meaningless term and is not really defensible. The end of the article names “personal intuition” as a “rubbish” way of knowing that is clearly detached from the methodological continuity of science. But what makes Hegelian dialectical idealism a methodologically continuous part of science that is not present in personal intuition (or, say, astrology)? You could say that it has to do with the lack of comparing notes with others and thinking rigorously, but people talk about and revise their personal intuitions based on empirical information all the time. It’s called gossiping. Is gossiping a science?

Second, I flatly disagree that something like personal intuition is an invalid way of knowing. If I’m a woman on a date and I’m noticing what could be red flags, getting bad vibes, etc, am I to reject that as an invalid type of knowledge, unfit to inform action?

Finally, I think by advocating for or spurring the adoption of this frame, you are legitimating and entrenching colonial epistemological frames. “The humanities” get to count as methodologically continuous with science and therefore valid ways of knowing, but I’ll bet you indigenous traditions don’t. Philosopher Gabriela Veronelli argues that colonialism operates along linguistic lines by separating true, sufficiently sophisticated languages from lower, brutish, pseudo-languages. Colonial subjects are facially excluded from the category of possible interlocutors because their linguistic milieu is thought to be fundamentally unconnected with the type of rationality necessary for “civilized” discourse. This view of what gets to count as a legitimate way of knowing, to me, seems to do much the same: if a person doesn’t have access to traditions that are methodologically continuous with science—or if they find particularly pertinent meaning or knowledge from a tradition that is not methodologically continuous with science—they are told this is an invalid form of knowing and whatever insight should be thrown out on the face of it, without consideration. Meanwhile, ideas emerging from methodological continuity with science like dialectical materialism are worthy of rigorous consideration.

What a mind-blowing question. "Is it better to have faith in something or to be convinced of it?" Please, you write an essay.

[deleted]

[deleted]