• What is GoMovies? 20+ GoMovies Alternatives to Try! (Free/Paid)

    GoMovies is a well-known internet streaming service that lets customers view a wide selection of films and TV series for nothing. GoMovies provides everything from romance to action to comedy to thrillers. Check best GoMovies alternatives - Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Disney+, Apple TV+, Paramount+, JW Player and more... Read more: https://whitelabelfox.com/top-gomovies-alternatives/

    #gomovies #gomoviesalternative #gomoviesapp #siteslikegomovies
    What is GoMovies? 20+ GoMovies Alternatives to Try! (Free/Paid) GoMovies is a well-known internet streaming service that lets customers view a wide selection of films and TV series for nothing. GoMovies provides everything from romance to action to comedy to thrillers. Check best GoMovies alternatives - Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Disney+, Apple TV+, Paramount+, JW Player and more... Read more: https://whitelabelfox.com/top-gomovies-alternatives/ #gomovies #gomoviesalternative #gomoviesapp #siteslikegomovies
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1K Views 0 Reviews
  • Netflix Customer Care Number +61 38 5942 240 is essential for resolving any issues you might encounter while using the service. Whether through phone, chat, or email, Netflix provides multiple ways to get help. By following the tips and information provided in this article, you can enhance your Netflix experience and get the support you need when you need it. Netflix offers 24/7 customer care support to assist with any issues at any time.
    https://www.helpdesk-australia.com/blog/netflix-support-number-australia.html
    Netflix Customer Care Number +61 38 5942 240 is essential for resolving any issues you might encounter while using the service. Whether through phone, chat, or email, Netflix provides multiple ways to get help. By following the tips and information provided in this article, you can enhance your Netflix experience and get the support you need when you need it. Netflix offers 24/7 customer care support to assist with any issues at any time. https://www.helpdesk-australia.com/blog/netflix-support-number-australia.html
    Get help with Netflix Phone Number Australia
    Netflix is the world’s most leading and trusted internet entertainment services which have over 148 millions of paid members in over 190 different countries enjoying feature films, documentaries, and TV series across a wide variety of different genres and languages. Netflix contains high quality of display which can save your time in today’s busy world.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 600 Views 0 Reviews
  • Netflix has become a household name around the world, and Australia is no exception. As one of the leading streaming services, Netflix offers a wide range of movies, TV shows, and original content. But like any service, it comes with its own set of challenges. That's where customer support comes in handy.For all your streaming needs, inquiries, and technical support, reach out to Netflix Australia’s dedicated customer support team. Whether you’re experiencing issues with your account, billing, or need help with troubleshooting, the official support number is your go-to for quick and reliable assistance. Contact Netflix support number australia now to ensure a seamless viewing experience.
    https://www.helpdesk-australia.com/blog/netflix-support-number-australia.html
    Netflix has become a household name around the world, and Australia is no exception. As one of the leading streaming services, Netflix offers a wide range of movies, TV shows, and original content. But like any service, it comes with its own set of challenges. That's where customer support comes in handy.For all your streaming needs, inquiries, and technical support, reach out to Netflix Australia’s dedicated customer support team. Whether you’re experiencing issues with your account, billing, or need help with troubleshooting, the official support number is your go-to for quick and reliable assistance. Contact Netflix support number australia now to ensure a seamless viewing experience. https://www.helpdesk-australia.com/blog/netflix-support-number-australia.html
    Get help with Netflix Phone Number Australia
    Netflix is the world’s most leading and trusted internet entertainment services which have over 148 millions of paid members in over 190 different countries enjoying feature films, documentaries, and TV series across a wide variety of different genres and languages. Netflix contains high quality of display which can save your time in today’s busy world.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 897 Views 0 Reviews
  • The Netflix phone number for Netflix Phone Number Australia
    +61 38 5942 240. This toll-free number is available 24/7 to help you with any issues or questions you might have.If you experience streaming problems, connectivity issues, or app glitches, the support team can help troubleshoot and resolve these problems.Explain your issue clearly and concisely. This helps the support representative understand your problem quickly and offer the best solution.
    https://www.helpdesk-australia.com/netflix-phone-number.html
    The Netflix phone number for Netflix Phone Number Australia +61 38 5942 240. This toll-free number is available 24/7 to help you with any issues or questions you might have.If you experience streaming problems, connectivity issues, or app glitches, the support team can help troubleshoot and resolve these problems.Explain your issue clearly and concisely. This helps the support representative understand your problem quickly and offer the best solution. https://www.helpdesk-australia.com/netflix-phone-number.html
    Netflix Phone Number Australia(+61 (38) 5942240) | Call Now
    Contact Netflix Phone Number Australia (+61 (38) 5942240),If Netflix isn't working, you may be experiencing a network connectivity issue, or issue with your device.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 668 Views 0 Reviews
  • In the era of streaming dominance, Netflix stands tall as the go-to platform for millions of users worldwide. However, even the most seamless technology encounters glitches from time to time, leaving users in need of swift assistance. This is where the Netflix Technical Support Number: +61-1800-123-430 in Australia. We are a third-party service provider. It becomes a lifeline, connecting users with expert help to resolve issues and get back to uninterrupted streaming.
    https://pchelpreviews.com/netflix/
    In the era of streaming dominance, Netflix stands tall as the go-to platform for millions of users worldwide. However, even the most seamless technology encounters glitches from time to time, leaving users in need of swift assistance. This is where the Netflix Technical Support Number: +61-1800-123-430 in Australia. We are a third-party service provider. It becomes a lifeline, connecting users with expert help to resolve issues and get back to uninterrupted streaming. https://pchelpreviews.com/netflix/
    0 Comments 0 Shares 815 Views 0 Reviews
  • Netflix provides the latest streaming services. Due to more users, some problems may occur at streaming time. In that situation, Netflix technical support number +61-1800-595-174 in Australia will resolve your problems. We are a third-party service provider.
    https://pchelpreviews.com/netflix/
    Netflix provides the latest streaming services. Due to more users, some problems may occur at streaming time. In that situation, Netflix technical support number +61-1800-595-174 in Australia will resolve your problems. We are a third-party service provider. https://pchelpreviews.com/netflix/
    0 Comments 0 Shares 898 Views 0 Reviews
  • ANGER-
    Smiling to Death: The Hidden Dangers of Being ‘Nice’
    We can learn to bring more awareness to our own emotions and needs.
    Reviewed by Michelle Quirk

    KEY POINTS-
    Pushing down anger, prioritizing duty, and trying not to disappoint others are leading causes of chronic illness.
    Ignoring or suppressing how we feel and what we need revs up our stress response, pushing our body toward inflammation.
    Our need to maintain membership in our groups leads us to suppress our emotions in a tug-of-war between attachment and authenticity.
    Being nice and pleasing others—while socially applauded and generally acknowledged as positive traits—actually can harm our health, says Gabor Maté.

    Decades of research point to the same conclusion: Pushing down our anger, prioritizing duty and the needs of others before our own, and trying not to disappoint others are leading causes of chronic illness, says the author of the New York Times bestseller, The Myth of Normal: Trauma, Illness and Healing in a Toxic Culture.

    “Our physiology is inseparable from our social existence,” argues the Vancouver physician. Ignoring or suppressing how we feel and what we need—whether done consciously or unconsciously—revs up our stress response, pushing our body toward inflammation, at the cost of our immune system, he says.

    “If we work our fingers to the bone, if we’re up all night serving our clients, if we’re always available, never taking time for ourselves, we’re rewarded financially and we’re rewarded with a lot of respect and admiration,” says Maté, “and we’re killing ourselves in the process.”

    Personality Features of People With Chronic Illness
    When Maté reviewed the research on the chronic illnesses he’d treated for more than 30 years, he discovered a pattern of personality features that most frequently present in people with chronic illness:

    Automatic and compulsive concern for the emotional needs of others, while ignoring one’s own needs;
    Rigid identification with social role, duty, and responsibility;
    Overdriven, externally focused hyperresponsibility, based on the conviction that one must justify one’s existence by doing and giving;
    Repression of healthy, self-protective anger; and
    Harbouring and compulsively acting out two beliefs: I am responsible for how other people feel, and I must never disappoint anyone.
    “Why these features and their striking prevalence in the personalities of chronically ill people are so often overlooked—or missed entirely,” is because they are among the “most normalized ways of being in this culture…largely by being regarded as admirable strengths rather than potential liabilities,” says Maté.

    These characteristics have nothing to do with will or conscious choice, says Maté.
    Coping Patterns
    “No one wakes up in the morning and decides, ‘Today, I’ll put the needs of the whole world foremost, disregarding my own,’ or ‘I can’t wait to stuff down my anger and frustration and put on a happy face instead.’” Nor are we born with these traits—instead, they are coping patterns, adaptations to preserve our connection to others, sometimes at the expense of our very lives, he warns.

    We develop these traits to be accepted, in what Maté describes as the tug-of-war between our competing needs for attachment and authenticity. We need attachment to survive, as we are a tribal species, wired for connection, conforming to the needs and rules of others to secure our membership in groups.

    But we also need authenticity to keep us healthy. We’re designed to feel and act on emotions, especially the “negative” ones. It’s our alarm system to survive danger. Psychiatrist Randolph Nesse, founding director of the Centre for Evolution and Medicine at Arizona State University, explains that we’ve evolved to survive, not to be happy or calm.

    Low mood, anger, shame, anxiety, guilt, grief—these are all helpful responses to help us meet the challenges of our specific environments. Having loud, sensitive protective functions like emotions that sound alarms when we’re threatened isn’t a design flaw. It’s a design success.

    Our emotions act as smoke alarms to match the perceived threats around us, says Nesse. This seems most obvious with emotions, like fear, that scream out warnings of danger. But even more subtle emotional experiences help us navigate threats and rewards for survival. The discomfort of a low mood is signaling that there aren’t enough rewards in our environment to outweigh the risks of being there, motivating us to seek out circumstances that are more rewarding or conserve our energy in a safe place—like in bed bingeing Netflix—until the rewards return.

    Anger, too, is a necessary response to fight inequities, violations, and having our needs blocked. It’s our most effective tool to mobilize action against injustice. The biggest obstacle to social justice is not heated opposition, but apathy. And, yet, society has socialized many of us to suppress anger. Even the vilified emotion of anger’s more subtle form, resentment, is helpful. When our body and brain pick up subtle cues that our boundaries are not being respected, the resentment alarm shouts out loud and clear to assert these boundaries before we even have time to reflect on the situation.

    Suppressing Vital Emotions
    Yet, the need to maintain membership in our groups has led us to suppress these vital emotional signals, disarming our ability to protect ourselves, says Maté. Even more problematic, says Maté, is that conscious suppression of emotions has been shown to heighten our stress response and lead to poor health outcomes. “We know that chronic stress, whatever its source, puts the nervous system on edge, distorts the hormonal apparatus, impairs immunity, promotes inflammation, and undermines physical and mental well-being,” says Maté. And numerous studies show that a body stuck in a chronic stress response stays in an inflamed state, Maté continues, the precursor of many chronic illnesses, such as heart disease, cancer, autoimmune diseases, Alzheimer’s, depression, and many others.

    Maté is careful not to use this research to blame people for their own illnesses. “No person is their disease, and no one did it to themselves—not in any conscious, deliberate or culpable sense,” he says. “Disease is an outcome of generations of suffering, of social conditions, of cultural conditioning, of childhood trauma, of physiology bearing the brunt of peoples stresses and emotional histories, all interacting with the physical and psychological environment. It is often manifestations of ingrained personality traits, yes—but that personality is not who we are any more than are the illnesses to which it may predispose us.”

    Our personality and coping styles reflect the needs of the larger social group in which we develop, says Maté. “The roles we are assigned or denied, how we fit into society or are excluded from it, and what the culture induces us to believe about ourselves, determine much about the health we enjoy or the diseases that plague us.” Illness and health are manifestations of our social macrocosm, he argues.

    It’s no surprise, then, that the inequities of society deeply affect our health, with those more politically disempowered or economically disenfranchised being forced to shape and suppress their emotions and needs most gravely to survive, says Maté. This means systemic change to fight inequities and focus on social justice is the foundation of improving our health, a common thread in The Myth of Normal.

    At the same time, we can work to unlearn these behaviour patterns by bringing more awareness to our own emotions, signals in our bodies, and our needs, rather than automatically ignoring them in the service of others.

    “The personality is an adaptation,” says Maté. “What we call the personality is often a jumble of genuine traits and conditioned coping styles, including some that do not reflect our true self at all but rather the loss of it.”

    Maté describes true healing as opening ourselves to the truths of our lives, past and present. “After enough noticing, actual opportunities for choice begin to appear before we betray our true wants and needs,” he says. “We might now find ourselves able to pause in the moment and say, ‘Hmm, I can tell I’m about to stuff down this feeling or thought—is that what I want to do? Is there another option?’

    “The emergence of new choices in place of old, preprogrammed dynamics is a sure sign of our authentic selves coming back online.”
    ANGER- Smiling to Death: The Hidden Dangers of Being ‘Nice’ We can learn to bring more awareness to our own emotions and needs. Reviewed by Michelle Quirk KEY POINTS- Pushing down anger, prioritizing duty, and trying not to disappoint others are leading causes of chronic illness. Ignoring or suppressing how we feel and what we need revs up our stress response, pushing our body toward inflammation. Our need to maintain membership in our groups leads us to suppress our emotions in a tug-of-war between attachment and authenticity. Being nice and pleasing others—while socially applauded and generally acknowledged as positive traits—actually can harm our health, says Gabor Maté. Decades of research point to the same conclusion: Pushing down our anger, prioritizing duty and the needs of others before our own, and trying not to disappoint others are leading causes of chronic illness, says the author of the New York Times bestseller, The Myth of Normal: Trauma, Illness and Healing in a Toxic Culture. “Our physiology is inseparable from our social existence,” argues the Vancouver physician. Ignoring or suppressing how we feel and what we need—whether done consciously or unconsciously—revs up our stress response, pushing our body toward inflammation, at the cost of our immune system, he says. “If we work our fingers to the bone, if we’re up all night serving our clients, if we’re always available, never taking time for ourselves, we’re rewarded financially and we’re rewarded with a lot of respect and admiration,” says Maté, “and we’re killing ourselves in the process.” Personality Features of People With Chronic Illness When Maté reviewed the research on the chronic illnesses he’d treated for more than 30 years, he discovered a pattern of personality features that most frequently present in people with chronic illness: Automatic and compulsive concern for the emotional needs of others, while ignoring one’s own needs; Rigid identification with social role, duty, and responsibility; Overdriven, externally focused hyperresponsibility, based on the conviction that one must justify one’s existence by doing and giving; Repression of healthy, self-protective anger; and Harbouring and compulsively acting out two beliefs: I am responsible for how other people feel, and I must never disappoint anyone. “Why these features and their striking prevalence in the personalities of chronically ill people are so often overlooked—or missed entirely,” is because they are among the “most normalized ways of being in this culture…largely by being regarded as admirable strengths rather than potential liabilities,” says Maté. These characteristics have nothing to do with will or conscious choice, says Maté. Coping Patterns “No one wakes up in the morning and decides, ‘Today, I’ll put the needs of the whole world foremost, disregarding my own,’ or ‘I can’t wait to stuff down my anger and frustration and put on a happy face instead.’” Nor are we born with these traits—instead, they are coping patterns, adaptations to preserve our connection to others, sometimes at the expense of our very lives, he warns. We develop these traits to be accepted, in what Maté describes as the tug-of-war between our competing needs for attachment and authenticity. We need attachment to survive, as we are a tribal species, wired for connection, conforming to the needs and rules of others to secure our membership in groups. But we also need authenticity to keep us healthy. We’re designed to feel and act on emotions, especially the “negative” ones. It’s our alarm system to survive danger. Psychiatrist Randolph Nesse, founding director of the Centre for Evolution and Medicine at Arizona State University, explains that we’ve evolved to survive, not to be happy or calm. Low mood, anger, shame, anxiety, guilt, grief—these are all helpful responses to help us meet the challenges of our specific environments. Having loud, sensitive protective functions like emotions that sound alarms when we’re threatened isn’t a design flaw. It’s a design success. Our emotions act as smoke alarms to match the perceived threats around us, says Nesse. This seems most obvious with emotions, like fear, that scream out warnings of danger. But even more subtle emotional experiences help us navigate threats and rewards for survival. The discomfort of a low mood is signaling that there aren’t enough rewards in our environment to outweigh the risks of being there, motivating us to seek out circumstances that are more rewarding or conserve our energy in a safe place—like in bed bingeing Netflix—until the rewards return. Anger, too, is a necessary response to fight inequities, violations, and having our needs blocked. It’s our most effective tool to mobilize action against injustice. The biggest obstacle to social justice is not heated opposition, but apathy. And, yet, society has socialized many of us to suppress anger. Even the vilified emotion of anger’s more subtle form, resentment, is helpful. When our body and brain pick up subtle cues that our boundaries are not being respected, the resentment alarm shouts out loud and clear to assert these boundaries before we even have time to reflect on the situation. Suppressing Vital Emotions Yet, the need to maintain membership in our groups has led us to suppress these vital emotional signals, disarming our ability to protect ourselves, says Maté. Even more problematic, says Maté, is that conscious suppression of emotions has been shown to heighten our stress response and lead to poor health outcomes. “We know that chronic stress, whatever its source, puts the nervous system on edge, distorts the hormonal apparatus, impairs immunity, promotes inflammation, and undermines physical and mental well-being,” says Maté. And numerous studies show that a body stuck in a chronic stress response stays in an inflamed state, Maté continues, the precursor of many chronic illnesses, such as heart disease, cancer, autoimmune diseases, Alzheimer’s, depression, and many others. Maté is careful not to use this research to blame people for their own illnesses. “No person is their disease, and no one did it to themselves—not in any conscious, deliberate or culpable sense,” he says. “Disease is an outcome of generations of suffering, of social conditions, of cultural conditioning, of childhood trauma, of physiology bearing the brunt of peoples stresses and emotional histories, all interacting with the physical and psychological environment. It is often manifestations of ingrained personality traits, yes—but that personality is not who we are any more than are the illnesses to which it may predispose us.” Our personality and coping styles reflect the needs of the larger social group in which we develop, says Maté. “The roles we are assigned or denied, how we fit into society or are excluded from it, and what the culture induces us to believe about ourselves, determine much about the health we enjoy or the diseases that plague us.” Illness and health are manifestations of our social macrocosm, he argues. It’s no surprise, then, that the inequities of society deeply affect our health, with those more politically disempowered or economically disenfranchised being forced to shape and suppress their emotions and needs most gravely to survive, says Maté. This means systemic change to fight inequities and focus on social justice is the foundation of improving our health, a common thread in The Myth of Normal. At the same time, we can work to unlearn these behaviour patterns by bringing more awareness to our own emotions, signals in our bodies, and our needs, rather than automatically ignoring them in the service of others. “The personality is an adaptation,” says Maté. “What we call the personality is often a jumble of genuine traits and conditioned coping styles, including some that do not reflect our true self at all but rather the loss of it.” Maté describes true healing as opening ourselves to the truths of our lives, past and present. “After enough noticing, actual opportunities for choice begin to appear before we betray our true wants and needs,” he says. “We might now find ourselves able to pause in the moment and say, ‘Hmm, I can tell I’m about to stuff down this feeling or thought—is that what I want to do? Is there another option?’ “The emergence of new choices in place of old, preprogrammed dynamics is a sure sign of our authentic selves coming back online.”
    0 Comments 0 Shares 558 Views 0 Reviews
  • What Should We Hope For?
    The equation of hope can help us realize our dreams, and their limits.
    Reviewed by Lybi Ma

    KEY POINTS-
    Hope is a cornerstone of emotional intelligence, but eminent thinkers of human nature often noted it only in passing.
    Hope is not optimism, its equation is more complex: Hope = Aspiration + Good + Uncertainty + Efficacy.
    Hope requires partnership. In human affairs, “I am hope” is never enough; “we are hope” is the only path of realizable dreams.
    Looking at a painting or a photograph, where the sun meets the horizon, it’s not always easy to tell if it’s dusk or dawn. Sometimes, it’s hard to tell in real life as well. In such uncertain moments, rather than looking at sunset or sunrise to establish directions, we look for our compass to offer guidance – to catch the sun, and earth’s intentions.

    This is Passover, a time to celebrate emancipation from slavery – and to calibrate our compass, emotional and moral, to rediscover hope. I write this in Israel, where the light of liberties flickers in limbo, the country’s fragile democracy lingering between death and rebirth.

    Entering a slightly dreamy mood, I recalled a recent moment when popular culture hit home, and a Netflix show I thought was fun to watch became, with a single scene, personal, perhaps too personal.

    But even for Sandman, that weaver of dreams, are there certain dreams that are too much to dare? What should we hope for, how much, and when should we stop hoping? When should we give up on causes, on people, on our people? What is it that kills hope? What is it that keeps it alive?

    Hope is not optimism, a belief that things will somehow turn right. The equation of hope is more complex: Hope = Aspiration + Good + Uncertainty + Efficacy. We hope when we aspire for an uncertain good, which we (believe we) can aid. But we rarely consider all these before we utter “hope.” The word is often just one offhanded comment away. “I hope to do well in the exam.” Well, duh! We rarely hope to fail, unless we deem failure as good.

    Hope then is a bit banal sentiment, so pervasive to be almost transparent. That much is plain in philosophy and psychology, and politics. Eminent thinkers made hope a cornerstone of human life but only noted this in passing. Thomas Hobbes, for example, rarely discusses hope in his political psychology, but when he does, it’s the “equality of hope” in the state of nature that should make people seek the protection of the mighty Leviathan. Spinoza too pays hope just scant attention but argues that together with fear, it’s the basis of political power, and the reason people follow the social contract.

    Immanuel Kant took hope more seriously. In his Critique of Pure Reason, “What can I know?” and “What should I do?” are Kant’s two well-known questions, the “is” and “ought” pillars of philosophy. But then, alongside this famous twin, Kant surprises us with a third fundamental conundrum: “What may I hope?”

    And here it gets interesting, since—atypical of Kant—emotions kick in, and so does God. For Kant, a prime good to hope for is personal happiness. But a precursor to The Good Place’s Chidi, always seeking the ethical good (though perhaps not amidst sunset), Kant doesn’t just want to be happy, he wants to be happy because he’s good! But who can ever assure us that good people would be happy, and, presumably, bad ones miserable? Not a single person, Kant realizes, as he summons the “highest reason,” namely God, to help us hope for moral progress, personal and universal, which would lead to happiness.

    Kant failed. While asking, “What may I hope?” Kant actually answered to, “What can’t I hope without?” Still, God is, at best, a necessary, but never a sufficient, condition for humans’ hope for happiness and for the good. After all, even under God, good people often get the short end of the stick, awaiting their carrot in heaven.

    Perhaps Kant failed because he didn’t hope enough. Unlike Kant, Søren Kierkegaard didn’t resort to Reason to give God center stage in his theatre of hope. For the Danish existentialist, earthly, natural hopes are bound to disappoint us. But they serve a superior purpose by paving a path for eternal hope, which “is against hope, because according to that purely natural hope there [is] no more hope; consequently this hope is against hope.”

    How far can one "hope against hope," against all possible odds? Kierkegaard wanted to go as far as possible, to a father sacrificing his beloved son, believing that somehow his beloved God will save the day. He knighted the faithful Abraham for this remarkable “leap of faith.” But in the process, without realizing it, Kierkegaard tried to redeem God Himself – from His own cruel words and actions.

    Kierkegaard’s hope was in fact the reverse of what he sought. He didn't cast divine hope overcoming human hope, but earthly hope, his own, absolving the divine. But then, if humans are so powerful as to absolve God, why do they need that demiurge in the first place? They might just as well do away, and without, Him. What’s left?

    A realization: “Hope against hope” is a dead end. What is it that kills hope? Well, hope itself, or rather a barren hope. Hope “can survive the anti-life, the dark at the end of everything,” only when it’s not lonely. Otherwise, hope is nothing but a wishful feeling, an unmet desire, an inch away from despair, or worse, destruction.

    In human affairs, “I am hope” is never enough; “we are hope” is the only path to realizable dreams. Hope requires partnership, and à la Franz Kafka, there is indeed, “no hope for us” without it. With it, helping each other hope, often for different things, everything’s possible, and “the dark at the end” can be a bright beginning. What may we hope for? Anything.
    What Should We Hope For? The equation of hope can help us realize our dreams, and their limits. Reviewed by Lybi Ma KEY POINTS- Hope is a cornerstone of emotional intelligence, but eminent thinkers of human nature often noted it only in passing. Hope is not optimism, its equation is more complex: Hope = Aspiration + Good + Uncertainty + Efficacy. Hope requires partnership. In human affairs, “I am hope” is never enough; “we are hope” is the only path of realizable dreams. Looking at a painting or a photograph, where the sun meets the horizon, it’s not always easy to tell if it’s dusk or dawn. Sometimes, it’s hard to tell in real life as well. In such uncertain moments, rather than looking at sunset or sunrise to establish directions, we look for our compass to offer guidance – to catch the sun, and earth’s intentions. This is Passover, a time to celebrate emancipation from slavery – and to calibrate our compass, emotional and moral, to rediscover hope. I write this in Israel, where the light of liberties flickers in limbo, the country’s fragile democracy lingering between death and rebirth. Entering a slightly dreamy mood, I recalled a recent moment when popular culture hit home, and a Netflix show I thought was fun to watch became, with a single scene, personal, perhaps too personal. But even for Sandman, that weaver of dreams, are there certain dreams that are too much to dare? What should we hope for, how much, and when should we stop hoping? When should we give up on causes, on people, on our people? What is it that kills hope? What is it that keeps it alive? Hope is not optimism, a belief that things will somehow turn right. The equation of hope is more complex: Hope = Aspiration + Good + Uncertainty + Efficacy. We hope when we aspire for an uncertain good, which we (believe we) can aid. But we rarely consider all these before we utter “hope.” The word is often just one offhanded comment away. “I hope to do well in the exam.” Well, duh! We rarely hope to fail, unless we deem failure as good. Hope then is a bit banal sentiment, so pervasive to be almost transparent. That much is plain in philosophy and psychology, and politics. Eminent thinkers made hope a cornerstone of human life but only noted this in passing. Thomas Hobbes, for example, rarely discusses hope in his political psychology, but when he does, it’s the “equality of hope” in the state of nature that should make people seek the protection of the mighty Leviathan. Spinoza too pays hope just scant attention but argues that together with fear, it’s the basis of political power, and the reason people follow the social contract. Immanuel Kant took hope more seriously. In his Critique of Pure Reason, “What can I know?” and “What should I do?” are Kant’s two well-known questions, the “is” and “ought” pillars of philosophy. But then, alongside this famous twin, Kant surprises us with a third fundamental conundrum: “What may I hope?” And here it gets interesting, since—atypical of Kant—emotions kick in, and so does God. For Kant, a prime good to hope for is personal happiness. But a precursor to The Good Place’s Chidi, always seeking the ethical good (though perhaps not amidst sunset), Kant doesn’t just want to be happy, he wants to be happy because he’s good! But who can ever assure us that good people would be happy, and, presumably, bad ones miserable? Not a single person, Kant realizes, as he summons the “highest reason,” namely God, to help us hope for moral progress, personal and universal, which would lead to happiness. Kant failed. While asking, “What may I hope?” Kant actually answered to, “What can’t I hope without?” Still, God is, at best, a necessary, but never a sufficient, condition for humans’ hope for happiness and for the good. After all, even under God, good people often get the short end of the stick, awaiting their carrot in heaven. Perhaps Kant failed because he didn’t hope enough. Unlike Kant, Søren Kierkegaard didn’t resort to Reason to give God center stage in his theatre of hope. For the Danish existentialist, earthly, natural hopes are bound to disappoint us. But they serve a superior purpose by paving a path for eternal hope, which “is against hope, because according to that purely natural hope there [is] no more hope; consequently this hope is against hope.” How far can one "hope against hope," against all possible odds? Kierkegaard wanted to go as far as possible, to a father sacrificing his beloved son, believing that somehow his beloved God will save the day. He knighted the faithful Abraham for this remarkable “leap of faith.” But in the process, without realizing it, Kierkegaard tried to redeem God Himself – from His own cruel words and actions. Kierkegaard’s hope was in fact the reverse of what he sought. He didn't cast divine hope overcoming human hope, but earthly hope, his own, absolving the divine. But then, if humans are so powerful as to absolve God, why do they need that demiurge in the first place? They might just as well do away, and without, Him. What’s left? A realization: “Hope against hope” is a dead end. What is it that kills hope? Well, hope itself, or rather a barren hope. Hope “can survive the anti-life, the dark at the end of everything,” only when it’s not lonely. Otherwise, hope is nothing but a wishful feeling, an unmet desire, an inch away from despair, or worse, destruction. In human affairs, “I am hope” is never enough; “we are hope” is the only path to realizable dreams. Hope requires partnership, and à la Franz Kafka, there is indeed, “no hope for us” without it. With it, helping each other hope, often for different things, everything’s possible, and “the dark at the end” can be a bright beginning. What may we hope for? Anything.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1K Views 0 Reviews