Dale and Krzysztof welcome Sam Mowe, a writer and producer at Tricyle Magazine: The Buddhist Review, to discuss a timely and timeless topic: the balance between optimism and pessimism when facing an uncertain future.

Prompted by Sam’s questions about his own anxieties, especially given current environmental and political challenges, the conversation explores how pessimism and optimism shape our perspectives and actions.

Krzysztof introduces the idea of “negative capability,” inspired by the Romantic poet John Keats, suggesting the importance of staying with discomfort rather than rushing to resolve it. This idea resonates with Buddhist philosophy, where facing life’s difficulties head-on is viewed as integral to growth.

Dale expands on this idea by distinguishing between personal and global optimism or pessimism, noting how our inherited negativity bias—stemming from human evolution—often drives us to focus on challenges. The conversation then turns to the potential of “learned optimism,” a psychological technique for reshaping our mindset, which, as Dale explains, can help align our perceptions more accurately with reality.

The discussion also weaves perspectives from literature, philosophy, and evolutionary psychology. Krzysztof and Sam share how practices like jiu-jitsu and long-distance running provide a tangible way to embrace discomfort, pushing past limitations to foster resilience. This approach reflects Nietzsche’s idea of strength through adversity, a recurring theme in the conversation.

Politically, the upcoming election looms large, sparking dialogue on how deeply-held values can lead to fears about the future. While Krzysztof, Dale and Sam acknowledges the need for hope, they emphasize that optimism must be rooted in clear-eyed realism. Krzysztof reminds listeners that transformative societal shifts often occur unexpectedly, reinforcing the notion that history’s trajectory remains open.

In closing, the hosts agree to revisit these reflections post-election, allowing time to assess how the results shape their perspectives on optimism, pessimism, and the way forward. This episode is a profound look at how to relate to an uncertain future—embracing both hope and grounded awareness.

Know anybody else who is tangled up in election day blues? Consider sending them this conversation should you see any value in it.

Esteemed Fire Philosophers,

You’ve now received all the versions of Dale’s Nietzsche vs. Nagarjuna tale and we promise to not overwhelm you with more. Instead, here’s one more trick (or treat) in which we discuss Dale’s approach to writing this, his first work of fiction.

In the conversation, I (Krzysztof) mention the origins of Nietzsche’s choice to use Zoroaster, the ancient Persian prophet as the model for his Zarathustra.

According to Nietzsche, from Ecce Homo “Why I am a Destiny” section 3:

“Zarathustra was the first to see in the fight between good and evil the essential wheel in the working of things: the transposition of morality into metaphysics as force, cause, end in itself, is his work. But the very question itself of the value of existence had to be reached by a morality of denial; that is to say, the instinct of decadence had to be developed to the point of becoming the will to nothingness (the notion of ‘truth’ as a denial of everything false, as a negative judgment regarding the real). Zarathustra created this most fateful of errors, morality: consequently, he must also be the first to recognize it.”

Below are two choice quotations from our conversation above:

Dale Wright: It's clear to me, and not always to my readers, that I'm not just a Buddhist scholar or a Zen scholar. Because, probably, half or even more than half of my learning and reading has been in Western philosophy, and Buddhism and Asian traditions like Taoism and others are the other side. And these are always in juxtaposition, and each one is showing me something about the other.

So when I have Nagarjuna be able to see things in Nietzsche's Zarathustra that he might not be able to see, that Nietzsche himself might not be able to see, and push him a little bit and give a little bit of a criticism. The same goes the other way.

It's easy for me to see, as an avid reader of Nietzsche all these years, Nietzsche and other Western thinkers have certain perspectives on Buddhism that Buddhists don't have and can add to and extend. And so it's been my position all along that cross cultural thinking is the most lucrative place to position oneself in the world today.

I mean, just think about it. For the first time in world history now, starting only at half a century ago, 50 years ago, we have access to traditions of the entire world. Nobody before us did. Nietzsche didn't. They had the faintest glimmer of what Buddhism might be about. Now we have access to really well translated texts from everywhere. And so why should we confine ourselves to some tradition we just happen to be born into?

Dale: Nietzsche's other critique, and which is a good critique of Buddhism, is that historical consciousness needs to be added to the repertoire.

That Buddhists are great about impermanence, everything's changing, everything depends on other things. I mean, that's what history means. But the historical turn that happened in Western philosophy is only now happening in Buddhism and under the influence of Western thought, even though they have the tools.

And so Nietzsche says, well, you know, there are times when x is what you need and there are times when y is what you need. And if you're always doing x and y in balance, you're missing the time. So timing is essential, historical timing.

As we continue to deepen into our explorations of How to Live, and our community of Fire Philosophers continues to expand and settle in, please consider sending us feedback on previous offerings and questions/ideas/real-world-conundrums you’d like us to wrestle with in upcoming conversations and explorations. 🙏

Esteemed Fire Philosophers,

We recently published Dale’s fictional essay about an encounter between Nietzsche and the Buddhist logician Nagarjuna.

And while we all love Zarathustra’s dense and archaic language, I thought the essay could be made more relatable — less imposingly and potentially overwhelmingly prophetic — with a few aides to help visualize the encounter. I garner much of this intuition based on what my own students tell me, they of the youtube generation who have learned to think and read with multiple modalities and find “mere” text daunting. So in some ways, this is a purely rhetorical problem I’m sensitive to. Dale, meanwhile, is summoning all his Grace and forbearance by allowing me to share the video enhanced version of his essay; he’s skeptical as to whether the visuals will aide or distract from the serious issues the three characters discuss. Therefore please consider the video above as an experiment in form. This is my — Krzysztof’s — first effort at making a video-essay like this, so please also forgive all the stupendously clunky mistakes you will see and hear — I promise I’ll get better in future video-essay iterations (should there be any demand for them). Therefore feedback from you would be immensely valuable — both on the narrative itself and the new accompanying visuals. Was this experiment a failure or should I continue to try to develop my video-essay chops? Among the three versions — text only, audio, audio-visual — which of the three was most accessible and clear to you?

And who among the three characters makes the best argument? With whom do you most relate? That’s what we most want to hear about!

Thank you for your continued support as we continue to probe the question How to Live from inside the belly of the beast.