I have to underline some things in advance. One of the main criticisms of pessimism and hopelessness is that these feelings suffocate the action. It's true. As might be expected, pessimism and despair leave no room for action. In fact, on the contrary, it makes it pointless to act. They say, being pessimistic in the phases of the world going bad, making the action devoted to good and benevolence meaningless is not in a way treason?

Let's look at it from this angle. The fact that pessimism distracts people from the actions that involve them in their history is actually related to the expulsion of responsibility. As such, I think that pessimism has a soothing, comforting side, albeit strangely. Let's think of a sentence sequence that starts with "it's not happening" and continues with "it won't happen". What if the last link of this chain, then, was "there is no point in doing anything to make it happen"? . From this point on, it means that the end of the responsibility has been reached. (This is the difference between Sartre and Camus, who set off from similar points. For Camus, the responsibility for an absurd world is also absurd. The exit, if any, is elsewhere, not in the morality of responsibility that Sartre proposes.) That's what's temporarily comforting. Now there is only one way left to go. The only action of the feelings of pessimism and hopelessness is themselves. Pessimism breeds pessimism, despair breeds hopelessness. It is this whirlpool that is dangerous. Destructive results await those who enter this vortex. Disconnecting from life in general, getting away from social life in particular, a heavy loss of interest, states of meaninglessness, severe depressive swings, perhaps suicide as the last act… There are also those who have philosophicalized these feelings. Schopenhauer and Camus are names that immediately come to mind. Philosophy is not content with determination, it is a work of transcendence. Philosophers, who proceeded through hopelessness, after a point, were concerned about revealing the possibilities of overcoming it gradually. For example, even Schopenhauer, the chief philosopher of pessimism, does not fail to imply that some things can be overcome through art, morality and mysticism from time to time. Camus, on the other hand, after digging through the idea of suicide, which he sees as a single philosophical problem, and wandering through the galleries of pessimism, arrives at the idea that life is worth living after all.

Meanwhile, there is also holding on in the vortex and mastering this hold. After the comforting phase, in which responsibility is dismissed, comes the pleasure phase. (Don't take it as a pleasure.) There may also be those who enjoy such feelings individually. In fact, if it can be processed by its connoisseur and transformed into sadness and then into art, especially poetry and music, delicious things can emerge. Contrary to those who seek a cure for their problems, Fuzuli and his friend, who personally knows them as a cure, and Chopin, who told his friend about their pain and suffering, but still could not give up on them, are examples of this.

Honestly, I think that the author should be very careful in a field such as writing that has to bear a public responsibility. It must be the author's responsibility to convert pessimism into pessimism. Pessimism tames pessimism. I think that pessimism is the indispensable foundation of intellectual life. If there is something that shines in history, society, and people, it is noticed when it is reflected on this background. Pessimism, on the one hand, restrains and balances pessimism, on the other hand, it gives the opportunity to question the circles that think (?) with volatile emotions such as optimism. What about hope? Pessimism rejects the question of hope. Instead, it talks about possibilities, possibilities, and possibilities. It opens them to public consciousness and sensitivities. That's all..Schopenhauer wrote that this world is the worst possible world. The pessimist doesn't think like that. He tries to understand the roots of historical evils and their emergence processes. A better world is possible. But it is not destined or inevitable. A theist pessimist might place this in the contradiction between the calculations of man and those of the Creator. He thinks that the deterioration of history is actually going to the apocalypse. He does not shout like pessimists. He is silent and awaits his fate. If he is a deist or an atheist, he is not hopeful about history anyway. In his eyes, history has neither a worldly (human) nor a divine design. History has no purpose (telos). A better world may be possible if the conditions are favorable and if the greatest part of humanity can show their will and take the right direction. It may not be.. We should not be surprised.

Let's come to the conclusion. Probably both pessimists and pessimists are annoying. They are accused of adding water to cooked food, demoralizing, causing loss of self-confidence and confidence in general, and blunting people's motivation for action. Camus gives an eloquent response to his former party friends who accuse him of undermining the action. “Perhaps I am silent, as you say, in the face of the sufferings of the world. But at least I did not increase them like you did.” Elhak is correct. The sin of the pessimist is less than that of the optimist. Those who wish, "We will see good days, we will drive the engines to the blue", those who put the masses to struggle saying, "If you do not burn, if I do not burn, how will the darkness come to the light", exhibit strange behaviors in the face of disastrous defeats that have turned into dark days and that do not even leave a gear in the engines. They usually keep silent, some of them act as if they didn't happen. Some – perhaps they are the most brazen ones – reset their lives and appear before us with completely different identities. Especially after a while, they reduce the disasters they are responsible for to the level of nostalgic stories and tell their crunchy memories. Others run away and make themselves forgotten by establishing solitary lives. Of course, the most cruel ones are those who see the events as accidental and haunt the new generations with their "extensive experiences".