Rational Optimism.

Matthew F Wilson, Tyler J VanderWeele
Author Information
  1. Matthew F Wilson: Philosophy, John Brown University, 2000 West University Street, Siloam Springs, AR 72761 USA. ORCID
  2. Tyler J VanderWeele: Human Flourishing Program, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA. ORCID

Abstract

Optimistic beliefs have been criticized by philosophers as being irrational or epistemically deficient. This paper argues for the possibility of a rational optimism. We propose a novel four-fold taxonomy of optimistic beliefs and argue that people may hold optimistic beliefs rationally for at least two of the four types (resourced optimism and agentive optimism). These forms of rational optimism are grounded in facts about one's resources and agency and may be epistemically justified under certain conditions. We argue that the fourth type of optimism in our taxonomy (perspectival optimism) is not subject to epistemic scrutiny in the same way. It is better evaluated on practical and moral grounds. This paper advances the discussion of optimism within both the philosophical and psychological literatures by providing a compelling and philosophically rich taxonomy of optimism that clarifies the sometimes-competing forms of optimism identified by psychologists. This advances the field by putting forward cases of epistemically justified optimism, in contrast with unrealistic optimism, that is sometimes justified for its instrumental or adaptive characteristics, and also by highlighting a form of optimism, perspectival optimism, that is not being considered in the mainstream optimism literature in psychology. The paper concludes by suggesting several avenues for future empirical and philosophical research.

Keywords

References

  1. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007 Jun;92(6):972-89 [PMID: 17547483]
  2. Psychol Bull. 2020 Feb;146(2):118-149 [PMID: 31789535]
  3. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994 Dec;67(6):1063-78 [PMID: 7815302]
  4. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014 Jun;18(6):293-9 [PMID: 24630971]
  5. Curr Biol. 2011 Dec 6;21(23):R941-5 [PMID: 22153158]
  6. J Pers. 2006 Aug;74(4):1111-26 [PMID: 16787430]
  7. Conscious Cogn. 2017 Apr;50:3-11 [PMID: 27815016]
  8. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Sep 4;2(9):e1912200 [PMID: 31560385]
  9. Behav Brain Sci. 2009 Dec;32(6):493-510; discussion 510-61 [PMID: 20105353]
  10. Clin Psychol Rev. 2010 Nov;30(7):879-89 [PMID: 20170998]
  11. Nature. 2009 Aug 6;460(7256):684 [PMID: 19661895]
  12. Nat Neurosci. 2011 Oct 09;14(11):1475-9 [PMID: 21983684]
  13. Psychol Bull. 1988 Mar;103(2):193-210 [PMID: 3283814]
  14. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013 Jul;8(4):395-411 [PMID: 26045714]
  15. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2003 Nov;29(11):1343-56 [PMID: 15189574]
  16. Front Psychol. 2016 Mar 02;7:295 [PMID: 26973582]
  17. Psychol Rev. 2008 Apr;115(2):502-17 [PMID: 18426301]
  18. Science. 1989 Dec 8;246(4935):1232-3 [PMID: 2686031]
  19. Psychol Rev. 2011 Jan;118(1):135-54 [PMID: 21058872]
  20. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2012 Feb;38(2):209-19 [PMID: 22205623]
  21. J Pers. 1987 Jun;55(2):169-210 [PMID: 3497256]
  22. Psychol Bull. 1994 Jul;116(1):21-7; discussion 28 [PMID: 8078971]
  23. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2015 Mar;28(2):194-8 [PMID: 25594418]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0optimismbeliefsepistemicallypapertaxonomyjustifiedrationaloptimisticarguemayformsperspectivaladvancesphilosophicalOptimismOptimisticcriticizedphilosophersirrationaldeficientarguespossibilityproposenovelfour-foldpeopleholdrationallyleasttwofourtypesresourcedagentivegroundedfactsone'sresourcesagencycertainconditionsfourthtypesubjectepistemicscrutinywaybetterevaluatedpracticalmoralgroundsdiscussionwithinpsychologicalliteraturesprovidingcompellingphilosophicallyrichclarifiessometimes-competingidentifiedpsychologistsfieldputtingforwardcasescontrastunrealisticsometimesinstrumentaladaptivecharacteristicsalsohighlightingformconsideredmainstreamliteraturepsychologyconcludessuggestingseveralavenuesfutureempiricalresearchRationalComparativeDispositionalEpistemicrationalityUnrealistic

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.