.jpg)
Today I learned the word “paraprosdokian”. According to Wikipedia, the word means “contrary to expectation” or “unexpectedly”. It’s a figure of speech in which the latter part of a sentence is surprising in a way that causes the reader or listener to reframe or reinterpret the beginning of the sentence.
Ok. I guess I can follow that, but I didn’t find it particularly clear.
Then came the etymology. That part I could follow – literally, “παρα” = “against” and “προσδοκία” = “expectation”. According to Wikipedia, however, “the word is now in wide circulation”.
Um, what? I think I have a reasonably large vocabulary, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard the word before. At the very least, I don’t remember it.
Then, after some explanation (which really did not help), finally, came the examples. At last, I got it. My favourite was from Steven Wright: “On the other hand, you have different fingers.”
But where would I have encountered a word like paraprosdokian?
Well, I was thinking about how people compare words or concepts, and remembered the classic Emo Philips bit about the Easter Bunny, in which he describes a psychologist giving him an Easter bunny:
I asked, "Is this a test?" And he said, "Yes." "And what does it mean?" He said, "Had you eaten the ears first you would have been normal. Had you eaten the feet first you would have had an inferiority complex. Had you eaten the tail first you would have had latent homosexual tendencies and had you eaten the breasts first you would have had a latent oedipal complex." "Well...go on, what does it mean when you bite out the eyes and scream 'stop staring at me?'" He said, "It means you have a tendency towards self destruction." I said, "Well, what do you recommend?" He said, "Go for it."
Emo Philips and the Easter Bunny 1983, via YouTube
This, of course, led me to Wikipedia, in which Emo Philips is described as:
“an American stand-up comedian and actor. His stand-up comedy persona makes use of paraprosdokians spoken in a wandering falsetto tone of voice.”
Now that I’ve finally got it, what was I comparing, to get me here?
I was thinking about optimism and pessimism. The most common description of the difference is probably the old “glass half full” expression, but I’ve never really liked that one. My preference has always been the version that I discovered came from The Silver Stallion, by James Branch Cabell:
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true. So I elect for neither label. …"
There are many definitions for these two words. While the conventional meaning is along the lines of an attitude in which a desirable/undesirable outcome is anticipated from a given situation, there appear to be endless flavours of what that might mean. Do you mean psychological optimism? Or philosophical? Or maybe political? Or technological? And, of course, the words are frequently used in technical ways, depending on the context.
I think that part of the reason so many meanings are ascribed to these words is that they are being used to cover too wide a variety of ideas, and ultimately fail to provide value.
Most people address this issue by trying to “balance” optimism and pessimism, generally by choosing their own definitions, and finding a way to make them “fit”. For a long time, my “hack” was to say that I try to “hope for the best, but prepare for the worst”. It worked reasonably well, but never really satisfied me.
Recently, however, I discovered the phrase “pragmatic optimism”, which I think fills the need.
The “optimism” describes a focus on the positive, while the “pragmatism” establishes a grounding in reality. The idea is to focus on trying to accurately assess the current state of affairs, and then identify the course of action with the best chance of a positive outcome.
More and more, I see people who are discouraged by everything that is wrong in the world, and who essentially throw up their hands in exasperation (or despair) and decide (or at least say) that there’s no point in doing anything.
I reject that attitude out of hand, for two main reasons.
First, it accomplishes nothing, and is essentially learned helplessness.
Second, discouragement and exhaustion is a key goal of many of the groups trying to change things for the worse. If people can be convinced that nothing they do matters, they will do nothing to stop people trying to change things. This is the goal of those currently attacking “the woke agenda” and who focus on reducing the rights of, well, pretty much anyone who is not white, male, cis-het, christian, and rich. If people think that they can accomplish nothing, and then do nothing, these groups will act unopposed.
Think of it this way. Every day, for every situation, there are a number of actions available. Some will make the situation better, and others will make the situation worse. Don’t harp on the actions which could have been taken yesterday, don’t worry about missed opportunities, and don’t worry about whether the action will fully “solve” a problem. Just focus on how you, personally, can make the world a bit better.
Then, tomorrow, do the same.
US examples are often the clearest, so I’ll use one.
It’s important to understand that almost nothing is as simple as people want it to be. Racism in the US, for example, was not “solved” simply by passing the Civil Rights Act, but that act was a step in the right direction, and something which could be built on. There is always a next step.
Vote. If you think one candidate is better, vote for them. If you think one candidate is less bad, vote for them. If you think “they’re both the same”, try again, because you are almost certainly wrong. Don’t throw away your vote.
In 2016, say you voted for Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton, but Clinton won. Can you do anything about it? Yes. Participate more, volunteer, blog, talk to people.... but for now, move on to the next question.
Clinton vs Trump, but both are the same. Wrong! Both are not the same. Try again.
I’m going to vote “third party”... Wrong! In the US, currently, this is just wasting your vote. Try again.
I’m going to cast a “protest vote”... Wrong! “Protest votes” usually just benefit the other side. Try again.
Then I won’t vote... Wrong! Not voting is exactly what the other side wants. Try again.
Fine. I’ll vote for Clinton. That is the best available answer, under the circumstances.
Once you’ve done this, you can think about next steps in solving the real problems.
Educate yourself. Think about the underlying issues and what can be done about them. Vote in EVERY election. Learn about local issues. Write to your representatives. Work towards electoral reform. Work toward proportional voting. Whatever.
Try to do that for everything you do. It’s not easy, but it gets easier if you practice. Educate yourself, learn critical thinking, and apply it as often as you can. Encourage critical thinking in others.
It matters, and it makes a difference. Think of it as planting a seed, or dropping a pebble at the top of a mountain, or whatever you like. It doesn’t matter whether you think YOU can fix a problem – just know that WE can.
Pragmatic optimism. I like the sound of that!
Cheers!
Comentários