Hope deferred…well, in my estimation, hope deferred is better than hope abandoned. Or is it? There are some who would say that hope is vital to life – and there seems to be evidence enough to support. But is this really true? Is it not possible that this very hope that we think we need can bind us to the point of obsession over something we logically know we can never have? So you say, “balance my friend, balance.” But what is the point in hoping if the hope is not actually worth hoping? It is better to hope against hope itself, then to allow hope to hope for itself. For hope will always be disappointed, especially when hoping upon others.
And so we are left with three options, not all equal. The first of which is to take hope by the mantle and shake it into the submission of the will. In this domineering act one can control what he hopes in or hopes for; and in the end his hope lies within himself. This can be a lonely path to choose, but the pain inflicted upon oneself is ones own – and for some this can be most easily and readily accepted, even inflicted. One’s failure is ones own, and so ones fallen hopes are self contained.
The second option is take hope and cast it off of the cliff of reason. Reason says that hope is nothing more than the temporal whims of an emotionally unstable individual. Here hope is not in anything at all, for if it was then it would not be hope. It would be a trust or a faith of some sort in something, not an eager but unknowing disposition to a given circumstance. And so perhaps giving up on hope in favor of those things which are more concrete is the answer. Instead of waiting in hope, why not act in confidence. This also places the final outcome on the individual; however without hope the number of variables out of control is limited.
And finally we come to the last solution – to hope, but in deference. If this is to be done then there must be someone or something to hope in. But if our hope is to be at all founded then that which we hope in must be trustworthy, or at least consistent. But is there anything that can be trustworthy or consistent? And it is here that we must insert a god, or something that is not bound by mortal law, something that will remain immutable despite all other change, and something that will look after our best interest. Then and only then can we hope; and even then it is not hope, because we are freely giving our hope to this god in full confidence that he will not disappoint. It is interesting to note here though, that hope in this case cannot be disappointed even if the desired ends are not met; for the god has acted according to his good will and purpose. But is there such a being? And if there is, how is humanity to blindly place its greatest hopes and dreams in the palms of something that has not proven itself beyond a shadow of a doubt to act in our absolute welfare, much less act at all.
Which of these is the greatest folly? To withdraw to oneself in an attempt at isolationism? To abandon hope altogether and proceed only on the knowledge of the certain? Or to defer hope to something else and hope that that is right? O the cruel irony, the bitter blade of fate will bite again, regardless of the hope that is kept or forsaken. So hope with me against all hope that there is one who can rest hope from me and soothe an aching psyche at the brink of hopeful depression obsession.
No comments:
Post a Comment