YEAH WELL The Nobel Committee agreed with me and not with all the cynics. So maybe there is hope after all.

well that is dissappointing. I am not an American, although this is still very much the American age, and I have been very inspired by Obama, he has been such an enormous change for the better in my view. Instead of the cynical dour war-mongerers who preceded him, here we have a man who is trying to 'be the change you want to see in the world'. I find him really inspiring. I wonder what the appeal is with cynicism? Is it a matter of protecting yourself against dissappointment in the event that things don't work out, or is it just easier to believe that nothing is worth hoping for? I don't really get it. Anyway, I don't want to start a political debate, especially because it concerns a country where I don't even vote, but from this citizen of the world, I say Obama is just great.

Yes, apparently so did the people who voted for him. But, change is not good in itself. Change may be good, or bad. It depends. So far, I am not pleased with either his domestic or foreign policies. But then, I voted for Bush, and for McCain. I am conservative, but not a conservative. Just one reason why. About a month ago, he told us that Afganistan was a "war of necessity", and not a "war of choice". And now, he appears to be thinking of bugging out. Not very reassuring. And it makes one cynical.

I appreciate your comment that you are conservative, but not a conservative. It suggests that you advocate thinking for yourself as opposed to following some group like a football fan. Conservatism is an essential part of human life. I see it as holding to ideas from the past that have been demonstrated to be life-giving, as opposed to freely indulging in the liberal desire to abandon forms from the past that have shaped the world we live in now. But the difference between conservatives and liberals brings us back to the first point in this thread: confidence. The meaning of Liberalism isn't stupidity. It represents confidence in trying new forms for life. It comes in handy when the old forms aren't working anymore, or aren't applicable due to new circumstances. If human life was purely conservative, then human life would be threatened by new circumstances. I think we need both parts of us to navigate through each generation. What they have in common, I think, is their overall goal: to preserve the health and happiness of the species. In other words: a vision of the ideal.

"Cynicism (Greek: Kυνισμός) originally comprised the various philosophies of a group of ancient Greeks called the Cynics, founded by Antisthenes in about the 4th century BC. The Cynics rejected all conventions, whether of religion, manners, housing, dress, or decency, advocating the pursuit of virtue in a simple and unmaterialistic lifestyle.
By the 19th century, emphasis on the negative aspects of Cynic philosophy led to a new and very different understanding of cynicism to mean an attitude of jaded negativity, and a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of other people. Modern cynicism, as a product of mass society, is a distrust toward professed ethical and social values, especially when there are high expectations concerning society, institutions and authorities which are unfulfilled. Cynicism can manifest itself as a result of frustration, disillusionment, and distrust perceived as due to organizations, authorities and other aspects of society, and thus is roughly equivalent to a substantive form of the English word "jaded"." -- Wikipedia

The part I bolded points to the secret of cynicsm: it is hope... just hope disappointed.

The great cynic was Diogenes, pathetically carrying a lighted lamp, at high noon under a bright Sun, looking for one honest man. I have a feeling that Diogenes did not think he would find him. Conservatives are, I think, a little like Diogenes, conducting their search in a population of Liberals. Of course, as Aristotle argued, a person is often dishonest not because he is malicious, because he isn't smart enough to be honest.

But then, the US culture isn't known for its intelligence. Somehow Americans fall backwards into luck, over and over.

Luck, it is said, is the residue of design. We do not, by far, have the greatest number of Nobelists (for our population) by luck, as much as some people might lke to think. Maybe, in the words of America, "God shed his grace on [us]". And, as Madeline Albright (by no means a Conservative) said, "The United States is the indispensable nation".

Yea, I started a thread once called: how we think about probability... examining the background meaning of luck. That thread altered my thinking about it. I had suggested that probability is founded on a model of reality which sees choice as the origin of any actuality. But then I realized that no one-sided perspective can make sense. Probability is just a way of organizing the opposition between free will and determinism... it doesn't pick between them.

there is a great story about Diogenes. His fame was such that one day Alexander the Great sought him out. They conversed about the treachery of power and other such topics. At the end of the dialog, Alexander says something like "I am the supreme ruler on earth, master of all I survey, tell me what favour I can bestow upon you, Philosopher".

Diogenes says, without missing a beat, "Just stand to the left a little if you please, you are blocking the sun...."