The
word 'hypothesis' comes from the Ancient Greek word 'hupothesis.' 'Hupo' means
'under' and 'thesis' means - variously - "to place, to propose, to put
down." 'Hypothesis' suggests moving something forward for examination.
"I am putting this entity under your scrutiny." That is why I like
this word. I like anything put forward as an idea, a suggestion, a provocation
of thought.
I
like the idea that something can be floated. The idea that an idea doesn’t need
to be a commitment. We can put forth explanations for phenomena that can be
worked out on a blackboard or on a sheet of paper or conversation and while our
conjecture may be mocked or capsized by empirical data nobody gets hurt. No
astronauts are lost on their way to Mars because of faulty calculations. No
bridges collapse because of bad concrete and/or an overly optimistic faith in
hypothetical technological innovations.
An
idea isn’t brick. An idea is air. Brain waves. The spirit afloat in
speculation. The sensation of wonder, of wondering, of wandering, of roaming in
the unlimited zone of reverie. The brain may not be the only site of thought
and this is a hypothesis. It's an idea. Thinking may require all the body's
nerves and sensations, all the proprioceptive awarenesses and apprehensions
that don’t stop at the body but that implicate our being in the general
universe of folds and curves and doors and thumps and thunder. The skin is not
a terminus.
Hope
is a form of hypothesizing. It has two components: a cognitive and a conative
aspect. The cognitive component is rooted in knowledge and understanding. Hope
isn’t just a vague, optimistic emotion; it’s based on facts relating to the
possibility and likelihood of future events. This gives hope a respectable
amount of empirical ground. It’s not completely a conceptualization of pending
events leavened by fantasy. It’s framed within the sober mahogany of the real. It
corresponds to external phenomena.
The
conative aspect is the propellent. It’s what drives us to take action. This is
a peculiar feature of hope, and what makes it such an interesting emotion. It’s
an act of will. It’s also a paradox: the reason we’re hoping for an outcome at
all is because there is no clear action to take, and because there’s
fundamentally no control whatever to guarantee a favorable development. There may be some things we can do, or there
may be nothing at all that we can do. But hope gives us the motivation to do
something, however small and seemingly inconsequential. Hope deludes us into
believing our actions are powerful catalysts when, in fact, they’re most likely futile.
Hope
is a creature born of desire and magnification. It disposes us toward action
and persuades us that our tiny efforts will have herculean results. Emily
Dickinson called it “a thing with feathers.”
Hope
is the thing with feathers
That
perches in the soul,
And
sings the tune without the words,
And
never stops at all,
And
sweetest in the gale is heard;
And
sore must be the storm
That
could abash the little bird
That
kept so many warm.
I’ve
heard it in the chillest land,
And
on the strangest sea;
Yet,
never, in extremity,
It
asked a crumb of me.
It’s pertinent that Dickinson refers to hope as a
‘thing.’ The image she suggests is that of a fledgling, a young bird too
immature to be identifiable. It’s an amorphous ball of feathers with a craning
neck and an open beak. But even that is going too far. It could also imply
something more monstrous, a mutation or abnormality. The word ‘thing’ resists
definition and leaves us with a squiggly, amorphous thinginess to ponder. She’s
not quite sure at the outset that hope is a good thing, and implies that it’s a
bit freakish and perhaps not to be trusted, but doesn’t extend her metaphor in
a morbid direction; she develops her conception in a more optimistic vein. Hope
warms the spirit and comforts us in trying circumstances. This is the
interpretation most people would choose to go with. It’s the usual assumption,
the most natural assumption anyone could make. Hope is what you do when there
is little else you can do. How can this hurt? Even in extremity, hope asks for
nothing, not even a crumb.
But look more closely. That thing with feathers that
asks nothing of us, that perches in our soul chirping away like a maniacal
canary, is deceptive. It has a dark side.
I’m not a fan. I don’t like hope. I don’t like hoping.
I see hope as a monster. So did Hesiod. In Hesiod’s poem Works and Days, Zeus – in his anger over Prometheus stealing fire
and giving it to humankind – presents Prometheus’s brother Epithemeus with a woman
named Pandora, who arrives carrying a beautiful jar. Unbeknownst to her, the
jar is crammed with all the evils of the world. She has been told to never open
the jar. But Pandora, unable to resist her curiosity, opens the jar and all the
evils fly into the world. She rushes to close the lid, but manages to trap only
the one remaining evil: hope. “Only Hope remained there in an unbreakable home
within under the rim of the great jar, and did not fly out at the door.”
So hope is included among the evils of the world, but
is left trapped in the jar where it (ostensibly) can do no harm. Why then, if
hope is trapped in the jar, does it continue to plague people?
Perhaps Hesiod is suggesting that – unlike all the
other evils on the loose – hope is still under our control. We can choose
whether to indulge it or not. It may serve us well in a time of need, or it may
delude us into thinking we have agency over phenomena that a more rational
perspective would dismiss as futile. Hope is embedded in ambiguity. It’s
clearly not a panacea. Not even close. It might be closer to heroin. It might have
a dulling effect on our sharper faculties, soothing us with illusions while
robbing us of judgment.
Hope appeals to human weakness and - like most
medicine - has some pretty troublesome side effects. But evil? Evil is a strong
word. Is hope evil?
Nietzsche went as far as too say hope is the ultimate evil: “Hope in reality is the
worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man.”
The worst of evils? Isn’t that a bit over the top?
I don’t think so. I agree with Nietzsche. Hope
prolongs our torment. It encourages denial at the same time it deludes people
into thinking they can do something to alter a menacing situation simply by a mechanism
of piety and wishful thinking. It doesn’t empower, it enfeebles. It nourishes a
condition of impotence and insufficiency. Hope, like prayer, is a call on the
supernatural. If the supernatural fails us, we have been twice betrayed;
betrayed by a universe we assumed to be benign, betrayed by ourselves for our
speciousness and evasion.
It’s an easy seduction. It takes more than courage to
face a truly harsh reality. Hope is a convenient tool. There’s not much to it;
it’s essentially just a feeling. Feelings don’t do much. They motivate action.
They don’t insure action.
What makes hope so potent is its deceptively rational
aspect. This is what makes it so compelling, so quietly inimical. Hope can
undermine action as much as it can motivate action. If persuades people that if
they get into the habit of recycling their garbage and driving less and going vegan,
they can save the world. These are good things. I won’t say this kind of
behavior won’t have any good effect. It will. It just won’t save the planet
from its current demise.
Hope is like buying an inflatable pool and hoping to
blow it up into a cruise ship.
Hope is devious. Hope is sly. Hope is hoping to rid
the air of greenhouse pollutants by using biofuel. But biofuel is taking food
away from people to preserve a status quo of happy motoring and Amazon
deliveries. Not to mention that in order to produce enough corn or sugarcane or
elephant grass to fuel millions of cars and trucks, an industrialized
agriculture on that scale is going to produce a lot more methane and carbon
dioxide than simply growing corn to be eaten as corn, or switchgrass dedicated
to the false promises of biogas. Add to that the humungous quantity of water
required to grow energy crops, the inability to contain harmful microbes, heavy
pesticide use, soil erosion, flooding due to compaction and surface water
run-off, and the scenario grows even more destructive. Biofuel is for biofools.
Nor are extraterrestrials going to save us. Or – who
knows – maybe they will. I’m not omniscient. Far from it. Maybe a fleet of
starships from another galaxy will arrive at the 11th hour and save
us from our own self-induced doom. We will learn a valuable lesson and change
our ways and look happily into a future of renewable resources and a greatly
dilated sense of interrelationship with the rest of the universe. Maybe that
will happen. But I’m not holding my breath.
The opposite of hope is despair. The inscription above
the entrance to the inferno in Dante’s Divine
Comedy stated “abandon hope all ye who enter here.” Despair, a state of
utter hopelessness, pretty much sucks. It’s not a happy answer to the false
remedies of hope.
There’s another side to despair, however: acceptance.
Acceptance offers automatic relief. All that is required of you is to accept
the inevitability of a situation and adapt to it as best as you can.
“Acceptance and tolerance and forgiveness, those are life-altering lessons,”
observes Jessica Lange. If hope is a bottle of snake oil, a thing with feathers
stuck in a jar, acceptance is wine. Acceptance is a liberating libation. A
thing with heat.