Why Optimism Makes Us Sad | Are We Better Off Being Pessimists?

Philosopher Michel de Montaigne once heard a story about a Roman fleeing his tyrannical rulers. He managed to escape his pursuers (which were many) a thousand times but lived in constant fear. The Roman had two choices: to keep living his miserable life of continual flight or to surrender himself to the cruelty of his enemies. To rid them and himself of further trouble, he chose the latter. And as a consequence of his choice, a possibly horrific fate awaited him.

But how should a person prepare for such a hopeless, dark future? Should he pray for salvation? Should he wish no harm befalls him, even though there’s a very high chance it will? Or, in short, should he be optimistic in his situation? In concluding the paragraph of his essay, Michel de Montaigne stated, and I quote: (...) since all the precautions that a man can take are full of uneasiness and uncertainty, it is better to prepare with fine assurance for the worst that can happen, and derive some consolation from the fact that we are not sure that it will happen. End quote.

Generally, people praise the optimistic mindset, and research suggests that optimism helps us reduce stress and depressive symptoms. Hence, optimism seems to be a healthy coping mechanism for dealing with the future when looking at the scientifically proven benefits. But does optimism also have downsides? Can some forms of optimism even be dangerous? And could it be that, in some cases, we’re better off being pessimistic?

This video explores why optimism may not always be the wisest choice and why being a pessimist may be the best move. There are different definitions of optimism. The Cambridge Dictionary, for example, describes optimism as: “The quality of being full of hope and emphasizing the good parts of a situation, or a belief that something good will happen.” The Collins Dictionary defines optimism as: “(...) the feeling of being hopeful about the future or about the success of something in particular.”

And Oxford Languages provides the following definition: “Hopefulness and confidence about the future or the success of something.” In the context of this video, optimism doesn’t mean “emphasizing the good parts of a situation” (or “seeing the silver lining”). In this essay, optimism refers to hopefulness and confidence about the future and the belief that something good will happen.

In the latter case, we expect a desirable, positive outcome. We say things like “Everything will be okay” or “Things will work out fine.” Even when we’re in dire straits, and the future is grim, we often maintain an optimistic mindset. Optimistic future predictions can make us feel good in the present, but that doesn’t mean they’re trustworthy or helpful in dealing with future events. There’s always a chance that everything will not be okay, and things will not work out fine.

And if that happens, chances are we’re not just disappointed but also unprepared. Moreover, there’s no reason to be optimistic in some situations. But if we nonetheless insist, optimism quickly turns into denialism and toxic positivity. Now, let’s explore some reasons not to be optimistic.

(1) We won’t be shocked when bad things happen. Someone who believes that an optimistic attitude makes them unsusceptible to misfortune or somehow influences how external circumstances play out lives in denial. No one escapes the hands of Fate, and, as many have already experienced, Fate is unpredictable. Yet, countless people believe that through ‘hopefulness,’ no great adversity will fall upon them, and their futures will be bright.

For example, take the many tragedies happening in the world right now. We see extreme poverty, armed confrontations, natural disasters, and illness on television and in our social media feeds. Many people living in the “safer” places on earth can hardly imagine these calamities happening to themselves. However, lately, we’ve been witnessing that what we’ve assumed to be the safe places on Earth can easily and quickly become targets of catastrophe.

For example, war used to be reserved for the poor people of the Middle East and Africa for the last two decades. But things have changed. Or, actually, they haven’t. The risk has always been there. Many people just don’t want to see it. There are different attitudes we can take towards the current state of the world. We can be full of empty optimism, confident that the tragedies that news agencies continually bring into our living rooms are destined for the other but not for us.

And we can think that catastrophic events similar to those in history books will never occur anymore, as they’re ghosts from the past, impossible to repeat themselves in modern times. Indeed, this might be the case. But there’s also a possibility that it’s not. Suppose we’re optimistic about the future in a way that denies the possibility of significant adversity (especially when things are looking grim). In that case, we’ll be shocked, dumbfounded, and overwhelmed when Fate surprises us by presenting what we deem impossible.

This logic applies to all forms of misfortune. A company’s best employee can still lose her job. The richest man in the world can still lose all of his wealth, the most stable and happy marriage can still fall apart, and someone with the healthiest lifestyle imaginable can still die from a heart attack anytime. Impermanence is the only constant, always at work, creating and destroying and making things we deem impossible possible.

And when those things occur, many people are devastated, which they probably wouldn’t have been if they were open to the possibility of the worst happening. Instead, they would have prepared themselves. And so, a degree of reasonable pessimism is probably our best bet, as opposed to sticking our heads in the sand like ostriches ‘optimistically’ pretending that everything will be fine.

(2) We can use the situation advantageously. The philosopher and psychiatrist Viktor Frankl believed that we can find meaning in the most terrible circumstances. Frankl was a captive in several Nazi concentration camps, subjected to ongoing violence and the risk of getting exterminated. Despite the unthinkable horrors he and his fellow prisoners went through, Frankl succeeded in finding meaning.

Being optimistic about the future could help us push through the less fortunate periods in our lives. But suppose we’re optimistic in the sense that we spend our time mainly hoping and praying for a better outlook, and thus rejecting the present circumstances, feeling wronged and entitled to something better. In that case, we’ll have difficulty surviving, according to Frankl.

His book ‘Man’s search for meaning’ tells about one of the camp’s inmates who claimed to know the date of their liberation. In a dream, a voice said to him that all their suffering would end on March thirtieth. And so, he was full of hope that the voice was right and that he’d be a free man on that date. But when the date of his prophecy came nearer, the chance of liberation appeared very slim.

On the twenty-ninth of March, the prisoner suddenly became ill, and on the thirty-first, one day after he expected to be liberated, he died of typhus. Frankl wrote about this: The ultimate cause of my friend’s death was that the expected liberation did not come and he was severely disappointed. This suddenly lowered his body’s resistance against the latent typhus infection. His faith in the future and his will to live had become paralyzed and his body fell victim to illness—and thus the voice of his dream was right after all. End quote.

We could call it ‘denialism’ or ‘baseless optimism’ that caused the prisoner’s body to give up. After putting all his money on false hope, he lost his will to live when that hope was shattered. Frankl called “incorrigible optimists” the most “irritating companions.” He realized that empty optimism, often based on rumors, wasn’t the correct answer to the terrible circumstances of the concentration camps.

The yearning for liberation, disappointments about the future, and unwillingness to work with the present proved fatal for some. Frankl offers a different idea, which he called ‘tragic optimism.’ In brief, ‘tragic optimism means that one remains optimistic despite what he called the “tragic triad:” pain, guilt, and death. This form of optimism doesn’t rely on positive outcomes in the future but encourages one to work with the situation at hand.

I quote: How is it possible to say yes to life in spite of all that? How, to pose the question differently, can life retain its potential meaning in spite of its tragic aspects? After all, “saying yes to life in spite of everything,” to use the phrase in which the title of a German book of mine is couched, presupposes that life is potentially meaningful under any conditions, even those which are most miserable. End quote.

Regardless of how unfortunate, accepting our current situation grants us the opportunity to find meaning in those circumstances. And so, we’re able to use the situation to our advantage, for example, as a means of growing personally or strengthening our resilience. We could also use our circumstances to benefit other people, for instance, by helping those struck by a similar tragic fate.

(3) We’ll appreciate a positive outcome more. Imagine a Roman citizen getting ready to visit the bathhouse, expecting a relaxing, joyful experience. Instead, he encounters rude people, people splashing the water, and his belongings get stolen. Unsurprisingly, the Roman returns home pretty disappointed. He isn’t relaxed nor joyful but agitated and angry.

Now, let’s explore a couple of alternative scenarios. Suppose the Roman left his house with the same optimistic mindset. But as opposed to the previous scenario, his visit to the bathhouse plays out more or less how he expected: the people are predominantly friendly, and no one splashes the water or steals his belongings. Consequently, he isn’t particularly appreciative of the outcome; he simply got what he expected, nothing more, nothing less.

But what if the Roman left his house with a different mindset, for example, the mindset that Stoic philosopher Epictetus suggested? I quote: When you are going about any action, remind yourself what nature the action is. If you are going to bathe, picture to yourself the things which usually happen in the bath: some people splash the water, some push, some use abusive language, and others steal. Thus you will more safely go about this action if you say to yourself, “I will now go bathe, and keep my own mind in a state conformable to nature.” And in the same manner with regard to every other action. End quote.

Thus, Epictetus proposed not just a realistic expectation of what people visiting the bathhouse can expect. He also shows a way of coping with the situation entirely in one’s control, namely, keeping one’s mind in a state conformable to nature (or, put simply, to keep one’s mind undisturbed). Nevertheless, if the Roman goes bathing with a realistic mindset, then misfortune will not be an unpleasant surprise as it’s expected.

If he doesn’t desire a particular outcome but instead embraces whatever comes, no result will disappoint him. Moreover, if the Roman has a joyful experience, something better than he hoped for happens to him, resulting in higher levels of appreciation. After all, the Roman didn’t expect to get a positive experience, but he gets it nonetheless: the reality exceeds his expectations.

So, while optimism may be pleasurable in the short-term, pessimism could secure an overall better experience in the future, as negative but reasonable expectations may prepare us better for any fate. Also, baseless optimism can be pretty dangerous, generating false hopes for the future and grave (even deadly) disappointment. Thank you for watching.