by wisconsin_cur » Mon 25 Feb 2008, 05:09:15
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'E')ven if hope isn't quantifiable, we'll either have it or not, so looking at it seems kind of trivial, don'tcha think? If we have it, great. If we don't, and lay down and die, then regardless of whether or no we can transition to something different, it won't matter because we won't do it. So, if we want to keep things up, we can just keep going, until we can't.
Hope is a lot more complex than that. I can loose hope in society's ability to cope, this does not mean that I have lost hope in my ability to keep me and mine alive. I can be disillusioned in my hope for world peace, it does not mean that I have lost hope for a second piece of peach cobbler. I may loose hope that my kids will turn out just like I planned, this does not mean that I cannot hope they will turn out to be good people.
Hope in our ability to navigate the future as a nation or culture is vital and any plan (as if we had one) would need to include a way to foster it. Hope got Britain through the Blitz. Hope brings cancer patients through chemo. Hope does a lot of things and it can be fostered through propaganda, a shared sense of sacrifice and success.
If we loose hope to chance, then all the math in the theoretical answers in the world will not fix the problems that we face. We need to keep people on the team or else they will vote against the wind turbines or start robbing the repair man or undertake any number of counter-productive behaviors.
In the theoretical world Hillary should have the Democratic nomination sewed up (actually in a theoretical world Chris Dodd should have the nomination sewed up) but instead we have a first term senator by the name of Barak Obama leading the pack. If we don't want our culture to go the way of the Dodd or the Clinton campaigns we better account for hope... because it really does seem to effect the math.