Abstract Intuitively, it seems that having hope and being resilient are related. But how? This chapter views hope as a general disposition that either entails or produces mental states that can be described, at their most basic, as belief-desire complexes consisting of the desire that a certain outcome or state of affairs obtain, and the belief that it is possible. Most theories of hope go beyond the belief-desire model to include other elements, and the chapter follows suit. Vices contrasting with the virtue of hope include despair, fear, cynicism, and presumption. Thus, hope can be seen as an intermediate state between such states as despair, fear, and cynicism, on the one hand, and presumption, on the other. The chapter views resilience as an emergent property that supervenes on internal and external factors and enables its possessor to cope with or overcome adversity. Moller (2007) identifies two mental states that he calls “sub-resilient”—not being resilient enough or lacking in resilience, and “super-resilient”—being too resilient or having too much resilience. Similarly to hope, resilience can be situated as an intermediate between sub- and super-resilience. This chapter compares the mental state of hope and its associated nonhope mental states with resilience and nonresilient mental states, fleshing out all of these states in the process. This exercise in comparative moral psychology will show that the same vices attend hope and resilience. However, though hope can contribute to resilience and vice versa, a more precise relation between the two remains elusive.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 16 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.