Philosophy of Hope
The philosophy of hope centers on two interlocking sets of questions. The first concerns the nature of hope. Specific questions here include how to analyze hope, how hope motivates us, and whether there is only one type of hope. The second set concerns th
- PDF / 305,440 Bytes
- 18 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 76 Downloads / 254 Views
Philosophy of Hope Michael Milona
Abstract The philosophy of hope centers on two interlocking sets of questions. The first concerns the nature of hope. Specific questions here include how to analyze hope, how hope motivates us, and whether there is only one type of hope. The second set concerns the value of hope. Key questions here include whether and when it is good to hope and whether there is a virtue of hope. Philosophers of hope tend to proceed from the first set of questions to the second. This is a natural approach, for one might expect that you must develop a basic understanding of what hope is before you can determine its value. The structure of this chapter thus follows this approach. But readers should not be misled: there is in fact a good deal of feedback between the two sets of questions. A theory of hope is more plausible to the extent that it fits well with plausible ideas about the value of hope. So the movement from hope’s nature to its value is one of emphasis rather than a strict, step-wise process.
6.1
Introduction
There are two interlocking sets of questions at the center of the philosophy of hope. First, philosophers are interested in the nature of hope. Key questions here include the following: Can hope be analyzed and, if so, how? Does hope have a special motivational power and, if so, how do we account for it? Might there be different kinds of hope that require different analyses? The second set of questions concerns the value of hope. Key questions here include the following: Is it ever good/rational to maintain hope in the face of low odds? What are the dangers of hoping? Is there a virtue of hope? The methodology of the philosophical literature on hope tends to proceed from the nature of hope to its value (Bovens 1999; Martin 2014; Milona 2019; inter alia). This is a natural approach, for one might expect that you must develop a basic understanding of what hope is before you can determine its value. The structure of the present chapter follows this methodology. But readers should not be misled: M. Milona (*) Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada © The Author(s) 2020 S. C. van den Heuvel (ed.), Historical and Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Hope, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46489-9_6
99
100
M. Milona
there is in fact a good deal of feedback between the two sets of questions. A theory of hope is more plausible to the extent that it fits well with plausible ideas about the value of hope. So the movement from hope’s nature to its value is one of emphasis rather than a strict, step-wise process.
6.2
The Standard Account
We can begin to zero in on hope by comparing it to similar as well as opposing phenomena (cf. Milona and Stockdale 2018, p. 204). On the one hand, people tend to group hope together with optimism. But they are distinct. Consider the expression “hoping against hope.” According to Adrienne Martin, we hope against hope when we highly value the object of our hope but do not expect it to happen; we may even believe that it likely won’t happen (2014, p. 5). But giv
Data Loading...
