Deep Dive
Why is hope considered ambivalent in the history of philosophy?
Hope has been seen as both a positive and negative force. In Greek mythology, hope was placed with evils in Pandora's box, leading to debates about whether it's a consolation or a delusion. Some ancient philosophers, like Stoics, viewed hope negatively, while Christian theologians saw it as a central virtue tied to faith and moral action.
What is the orthodox definition of hope according to early modern philosophy?
The orthodox definition, as outlined by philosophers like Hobbes and Hume, defines hope as a combination of the desire for an outcome and the belief that the outcome is possible but not certain.
How does Adrienne Martin expand the orthodox definition of hope?
Martin adds two elements to the orthodox definition: the hopeful person must see the possibility of the outcome as licensing hopeful activities (planning, thinking, feeling), and treat their desire as a reason to engage in these activities. This is called the incorporation thesis.
Why does John Lysaker critique the idea of hope licensing actions?
Lysaker argues that hope doesn't necessarily provide a justificatory rationale for actions. For example, saying 'I hope we'll be happy together' doesn't imply permission to start making plans without consulting the other person.
How does Spinoza view hope and its rationality?
Spinoza argues that hope is rooted in a misunderstanding of necessity. He believes that everything happens as it must, so hoping for something is as irrational as hoping the apple will fall when dropped. Hope, according to him, leads to superstitious thinking.
What does Kant consider rational to hope for?
Kant identifies two rational hopes: happiness proportional to virtue and perpetual peace. He argues that hoping for these outcomes is rational because they align with the moral and social progress that reason suggests is possible.
Why does Bloch distinguish between the 'new' and the 'novum' in his account of hope?
Bloch differentiates between the 'new,' which is just a repetition of the same, and the 'novum,' which is a truly radical and transformative new. The novum is the basis for meaningful hope, envisioning a world without the fetters of alienation and grounded in engaged, revolutionary action.
How does Bloch view the relationship between hope and religion?
Bloch sees hope as fundamentally atheistic but compatible with religion. He argues that religious language and eschatology can express genuine hope for radical change, even if it is presented in religious garb. This view contrasts with Marx's and Feuerbach's dismissive attitudes towards religion.
What is radical hope according to Jonathan Lear?
Radical hope involves hoping for something that is currently unimaginable. Lear illustrates this with Chief Plenty Coup, who, facing the destruction of the Crow way of life, hoped for a new, yet undefined, way of life that would allow the Crow people to continue their identity and community despite unimaginable changes.
Why is the temporality of hope important in Steinbock's phenomenological account?
Steinbock emphasizes that hope is an awaiting and enduring in its temporal relation to the future. It involves patience, as hope is not just about immediate outcomes but about maintaining a forward-looking orientation even when the future is uncertain or distant.
- Contrast between left-leaning and right-leaning use of "hope" in political rhetoric.
- Analysis of the "Make America Great Again" slogan.
- Discussion of the 2024 election and the role of hope in political discourse.
Shownotes Transcript