Understanding surprise in advance may itself defuse the shock

Evidence

Opening the question of the future always comes back to the risk we must assume, the risk of immediately closing it. This would only be the case because the question is, properly speaking, not a wholly new question. Its philosophical antiquity, its tradition, its history, don’t they threaten to cancel out its meaning? The ambiguity of ‘to see (what is) coming’: trying to grasp in advance, to understand surprise, isn’t this purely and simply to cushion the shock? — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 1263

Categorization

Category: Contrarian or Surprising Claims

Related

• The future is neither fully visible nor invisible but frustrates anticipation by surprise (similarity 0.83)
• Anticipation and radical surprise coexist within a single act of awaiting the future. (similarity 0.82)
• The future’s anticipatory structure holds teleological necessity and surprise together (similarity 0.81)
• The future is what the For-itself has yet to become, its determining possible being. (similarity 0.80)
• The future is neither wholly invisible nor foreseeable but surprises by precipitation (similarity 0.80)
• A philosophy’s future depends on locating the unforeseen question within it. (similarity 0.79)
• The future requires both anticipation and absolute surprise working together (similarity 0.79)
• One expression can hold certainty and ignorance of the future together. (similarity 0.79)
• The stance of seeing what is coming resists victory and retrospective conquest (similarity 0.78)