Does anyone know who inserted the link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anything_is_possible_when_it_means_everything&action=edit&redlink=1 at the bottom of the See Also section, since there was no page for that subject (Anything is possible when it means everything)? ----
|Hope has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Religion||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
|This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Shenandoah University supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.|
Hansika says Hope does not implie despair. It is evidence of the true spirt of humanity. It is an understand that "the world as it is, is not what it must be." Think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- 1 Proposed Revisions to Hope as a Psychological Construct
- 2 Dictionary intro
- 3 Cleanup
- 4 Hope, Spiritual and not purely emotional
- 5 Hope bashing, Derrick Jensen
- 6 On Irony
- 7 Specific philosophers
- 8 Bad Internal Link
- 9 On hope, affect and utopia
- 10 Who put Obama in here?
- 11 Hope and Ideology
- 12 Despair
- 13 TYPO?
- 14 "In Leadership"
- 15 Rewrite request
Proposed Revisions to Hope as a Psychological Construct
Bibliography to be used for proposed revisions to Hope as a Psychological Construct
Themes to be discussed: History of Hope in Psychology Types of hope Measuring hope Hope vs. positive psychology Hope Theory Trait hope
Cited works to use:
“Psychology of Hope: You Can Get Here from There” Charles R. Snyder, 1994.
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., et al. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570 –585.
Snyder, C. R., Rand, K. L., & Sigmon, D. R. (2002). Hope Theory: A member of the positive psychology family. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 257–276). New York: Oxford University Press
Why the hell does despair link to hope? They couldn't be more different. The top part seems too much like a dictionary definition. --IYY 02:48, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
- A short dictionary definition can be a good way to start an article.
- The Christian theology seems unnecessary. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Not at all, the Christian idea of hope has been a component of our civilization for almost two thousand years now, the Christian idea of hope is a very large part of a a very large religion, it has probably effected our conceptions and ideas of "hope" in more ways than we shall ever know.
- The whole hope is an emotion while optimism is based on reason seems like an empty assertion. Hope can't be based in reason? Optimism is? I personally think of them as the reverse. Regardless, I'd suggest just cutting it -- or, drop the part that compares it to optimism, and simply suggest different types of hope. (1) Hope based in reason (ex: Even though it looks like we're going to lose the battle, I have hope for victory because we have a gifted general who has won countless battles in the past, against all odds), (2) Hope based in emotion (ex: Even though it looks like we're going to lose the battle, I have hope for victory -- I know it's against all odds, I just feel so strongly about it), etc.
- I have no problem with including the significance of hope in Christian ideology, but I believe you should do a little bit more research into the subject before taking on the task of writing a wiki page on it. Don't you think the concept of hope is important in most of the world's religions? I'd suggest including a much broader statement about hope in religion without mentioning any one in particular or at the very least you should include references to religions other than Christianity. This will ensure that the article does not read as biased towards any particular religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
This page has unclosed parentheses and spelling errors. Also consider rewording "believing that something is possible," as the sentence technically restricts hope to 'believing in an impossibility.' The list of examples is a bit odd.
- I fixed the spelling and parentheses. Still needs rewording. —ERcheck @ 23:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me.....after removing the immortality. You see, as a Christian that is basically what a Christian hopes for.--Shark Fin 101 20:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hope, Spiritual and not purely emotional
In Christianity, particularly Catholicism, as mentioned above faith, hope, and charity are believed to be the three theological virtues. A virtue is inherently not an emotion, but something spiritual. I think all Christians would argue that faith and love are not emotions but spiritual graces given by God, which are accepted by each individual and hence choices also. I think would be argue for hope. If there are those that believe this view not to coincide with others' definitions than please resond. Otherwise, I believe the emotional definition be combined with a spiritual one, and also that the paragraph:
- "Hope is subordinate to faith, in that while hope is emotional, faith carries a divinely-inspired and informed form of positive belief. Hope is typically contrasted with despair, but despair may also refer to a crisis of faith, or otherwise an ignorance thereof. Hence, when used in religious context, hope carries a connotation being aware of spiritual truth. (In some religions, despair itself is considered to be a sin; see Hope (virtue))."
be changed, since it fails to describe the relation between hope and faith. I would argue that hope is not subordinate to faith, but that both are equal in that one without the other is lacking. Also, that hope is not emotional, but divinely-inspired.--Francis419jn655 23:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hope bashing, Derrick Jensen
In "Endgame, Vol. 1: The Problem of Civilization" (and also in several talks and interviews, some on the internet, Derrick Jensen describes hope as: "a longing for a future condition over which you have no agency". Now, what that means is that I don't hope I'm going to eat tomorrow. I'm going to do it. On the other hand when I'm on a plane, I don't hope it'll crash. I have no agency over that. Derrick Jensen also says that he doesn't hope that salmon doesn't go extinct, because he'll do whatever it takes to make sure salmon survive. What he means with all this is that we're too oven not taking action or taking responsability the way we should and can take. We hope too much for things we have the powers to change. Yet we're too lazy or whatever to take this responsability. I'm not sure if we should take it in to the main article or not or where. Anybody? termi 22:41, 14. Feb. 2007 (CEST)
- In Judaism the line between human agency and hope is not so clearly drawn. In Pirke Avot (Sayings of the Fathers) - a 2nd century Jewish work - Rabbi Tarfon is quoted as saying "You are not required to complete the task, yet you are not free to withdraw from it." (Pirke Avot 2:21). Hope is what motivates us to act even when we know we are not in complete control. This hope can take many forms: the hope that others will have the same vision and join in, the hope that good eventually wins, the hope that one will become a better person through doing even if the intended goal is never reached, the hope that one's small act fits into a larger whole, and yes, sometimes the hope of assistance from a transcendent being. However, this assistance is not one-sided. In Judaism, hope is often understood as a reciprocal relationship between G-d and human beings. In Marc Gellman's children's story "Partners" from Does G-d have a big toe?, G-d tells human beings they are G-d's partners. When the first humans ask what that means, G-d explains that 'A partner is someone you work with on a big thing that neither of you can do alone. If you have a partner, it means that you can never give up, because your partner is depending on you.'. Later when the angels ask if creation is done yet, G-d says "Go ask my partners". Egfrank 06:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've been doing a bit more research and I don't think Jensen's definition fits very well with the Christian understanding of hope either. One of the classic Christian definitions comes from Romans 8:25 "Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience." (RSV) Here hope is defined in terms of seen and unseen, not agency. On first reading, the word "wait" would seem to imply passivity and hence lack of agency. However, if we take the verse in context, we discover that the preceding verses describe the entire creation in travail, i.e. in the throughs (sp?) of labor. Labor is a very active and involved form of suffering and the unseen thing, a baby, will never come to light without some very active involvement of the mother. Once again, it appears that hope is understood as human involvement in the face of uncertainty.
- So I guess my question is, where is Derrick Jensen getting his definition of hope from? Egfrank 08:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure Derrick isn't getting his definition from Christianity. I think it's safe to say that he gets it from how people generally use it. "I hope I win the lottery.", and all the other examples given. To throw another aspect in, in Spanish, the verb for "to hope" is "esperar". This verb is also used for "to wish" and "to wait", both passive actions. Murderbike 20:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the section from the first bullet point as it is a rambling example which does nothing to define hope —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC) . Forgot to sign in - I did this edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkHewis (talk • contribs) 00:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the statement in the introductory bullet points "But hope and optimism are both based in unrealistic belief or fantasy," is biased and un called for. To suggest that hope and optimism are founded in the unreal is to suggest that only suffering and the negative are real - which is not true. In fact, hope is founded in what one believes to be true and real: that things will improve. For this reason I am deleting that phrase from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collinista (talk • contribs) 09:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
True Hope: A desired expectation viewed by the soul through the minds eye of a future event that SHALL find completion. (Cross)10.28.2010 Compare Hope and Wish: (a wish can yeild an out come opposite to the desired expectation) (Cross)10.28.2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't you arguing bastards think it's a little depressing to have the first thing in the "Hope" article be a dispute-box? 220.127.116.11 18:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and how exactly is this observation helpful? Wikipedia isn't the place to cure depression. Be Bold and do something about it. Oh, and I'd be nice if you signed your posts too. Richardpaez (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the relation between hope (a universal human condition, to my understanding) and the theoretical concept of Utopia being made in this article isn't a case of indirect original research. I'm also wondering if the Seligman reference, with the allusive reference to how he "strongly criticizes the role of churches", without any elaboration on how that affects the concept of hope as elaborated on in this article, isn't productive. Comments or thoughts? Richardpaez (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Bad Internal Link
"Perseverance" , cited on the artice, section 1, links to "endurance", an article in which no mention of perseverance is made - at least in the sence expected to be found when linking from a page like "hope". I don't know how to correct this, so I hope the people who can get to read this message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
On hope, affect and utopia
I think that we need to have clearly in mind that the notion of hope has at least two spheres of production of meanings and effects. 1) When it is oriented toward the future, more as an expectative, desire or projection in which there is more "passivity" if one can say it. For instance, the last entry suggesting that "in adverse situations, hope may be worse than hopelessness" is clearly putting hope in the future, as something that can be rationalized, expected, with "true" or "false expectations". 2) When it is not oriented towards the future, when it is rooted in the present, when it cannot be organized or based on reason, when hope is considered in this way it is more perceived as a possibility, as an opening, as an affect and less considered as a feeling. Brian Massumi says that affect-hope “is more like being right where you are — more intensely”. Because of all this I made the connection between hope and utopia, I think Bloch should be considered and his "Principle of hope" too. His project was to trace the roots of a socialist society, however, he showed the inter-connection of these utopian bits presented in everyday life with a hope rooted in the present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafuel (talk • contribs) 01:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Who put Obama in here?
Jerks. His chances are better than that. - And he did, now I hope he gets removed from office one way or another.
Hope and Ideology
I noticed that the meaning of hope will often change depending on a person's ideology. For instance, if you read Marxist or Globalist texts, the word hope will often be associated to Revolution or the creation of a New World Order. Whereas in Center or Right-minded people, the word tends to remain linked with religion, personal goals and general patriotism. ADM (talk) 09:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Having despair redirect to hope is purely biased based & lacking any objectivity. That's an odd place to find censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Yea, this is strange to have Despair redirect to this page. Someone needs to fix this. The idea of despair has a long history, and has special importance in the Catholic Church. It seems like someone has an agenda redirecting it here. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe her name is spelled Dr. Barbara Fredrickson not Dr. Barbara Frederickson.
This entire section appears to be a poorly-written advertisement for Mattox's book. I think the whole thing should go. Failing that, it needs to be moved somewhere far further down in the article befitting its non-significance, and needs to be re-written into coherence. --188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Page contains far too much original research to continue to make minor fixes. Article must be redone. Would typically ask for Deletion, but subject is too notable to exclude. Too much bias, too much made-up stuff, opinions, tone problems, plenty of dirty weaseling, questionable content, the list goes goes on. Even the redirects are bad.I want somebody to completely redo this article, because if the concept of 'Hope' were not so notable, there would be no hope for this article! Mr. Guye (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- You may be right that the article is doomed beyond repair. A couple more days of "slash and burn" may hopefully produce something that can serve as a new starting point however - hopefully! Jacobisq (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)