Searching for meaning in suffering
My interest is when we begin to believe that suffering inherently has meaning simply because it's suffering. This seems to be a failure of correlation and causation. It is true, for example, that going to the gym and lifting weights will cause a person to get buff and strong through suffering. In this scenario, it is suffering and the suffering alone that grants a person strong muscles. However, it is not true that being diagnosed with AIDS is a good thing simply because it causes suffering.
Yet to make sense of something like AIDS, to keep ourselves from falling into despair, we must rely on 'good faith' statements. You hear statements like this: surviving cancer gave me a new lease on life, surviving combat gave me the courage to do what is right, etc. We even convince ourselves that we don't mind the suffering at all, that we wouldn't take it back if we could, because of the meaning we gleaned from the suffering. Yet if you went back in time and met yourself at the crossroads of a cancer diagnosis, wouldn't that person rather not have cancer? Wouldn't that person rather not get AIDS?
I believe that the Nazis, for example, could partly convince the ordinary people of Germany that the atrocities they were committing were acceptable because of the fundamental relation that suffering has to reward. We expect that a sacrifice will lead to a reward, which is why we sacrificed each other for thousands of years as offerings of propitiation to what we perceived as vengeful gods. We could not make sense of a reality that did not have us in mind, a reality that seeks to destroy us. So we thought we could buy good fortune by means of sacrifice and it made sense that the more one was willing to sacrifice the more one would stand to gain and so why not sacrifice human beings, which is the most that we have to sacrifice?
I also believe that this relation between suffering and reward tricks working class people into believing that if they work hard they can one day be rich. While it may be true that some poor people work very hard and sacrifice a lot and then become rich, it is also very true that the rich stay rich and don't have to suffer to maintain their wealth. It is also true that often the poor suffer tremendously and work very hard only to die destitute. It is our expectation, which the media and advertisements take advantage of, that suffering leads to meaning that works against us as well as for us.
Yet to make sense of something like AIDS, to keep ourselves from falling into despair, we must rely on 'good faith' statements. You hear statements like this: surviving cancer gave me a new lease on life, surviving combat gave me the courage to do what is right, etc. We even convince ourselves that we don't mind the suffering at all, that we wouldn't take it back if we could, because of the meaning we gleaned from the suffering. Yet if you went back in time and met yourself at the crossroads of a cancer diagnosis, wouldn't that person rather not have cancer? Wouldn't that person rather not get AIDS?
I believe that the Nazis, for example, could partly convince the ordinary people of Germany that the atrocities they were committing were acceptable because of the fundamental relation that suffering has to reward. We expect that a sacrifice will lead to a reward, which is why we sacrificed each other for thousands of years as offerings of propitiation to what we perceived as vengeful gods. We could not make sense of a reality that did not have us in mind, a reality that seeks to destroy us. So we thought we could buy good fortune by means of sacrifice and it made sense that the more one was willing to sacrifice the more one would stand to gain and so why not sacrifice human beings, which is the most that we have to sacrifice?
I also believe that this relation between suffering and reward tricks working class people into believing that if they work hard they can one day be rich. While it may be true that some poor people work very hard and sacrifice a lot and then become rich, it is also very true that the rich stay rich and don't have to suffer to maintain their wealth. It is also true that often the poor suffer tremendously and work very hard only to die destitute. It is our expectation, which the media and advertisements take advantage of, that suffering leads to meaning that works against us as well as for us.
Comments (64)
It is possible that thinking that suffering has meaning may set up a wrong mindset, one leading to the expectation and acceptance of struggle. It was expressed in the Christian idea of picking up your cross and carrying it daily. Ideas of martyrdom also prevailed with the belief of being rewarded in an afterlife.
Nevertheless, even if one wishes to have joy and happiness life often comes with so many obstacles, such as sickness and death of others. So, many philosophers and thinkers, including the Buddha and Schopenhauer have begun their thinking from the problem of suffering, more so than Christianity which sees sin as the most basic problem. It is hard not to give up amidst suffering and it can bring about despair.
One important writer on meaning in suffering is Victor Frank, who wrote after spending time in a concentration camp. He argued that establishing goals amidst unbearable circumstances was a way of finding meaning amidst the most harsh and brutal life experiences.
This is not suffering. It is strain (severe and/or excessive demand on the strength, resources, or abilities of someone or something). Suffering has to do with pain, distress or hardship. Strain is physical. Suffering can be both physical and mental.
You cannot find a common meaning of the term "suffering" that covers all the cases this term can be applied. Suffering from intense pain is something totally different in kind from suffering from anxiety or grief (occurred because of loss).
(BTW, has your alias name evolved from "32bithuman"? ... Sorry. I couldn't help it ...)
Maybe meaning is suffering or suffering is just an alternative perspective for finding meaning. Generally in life I have found that suffering increases when meaning/understanding is avoided. The challenge of life should probably be met head-on as much as possible so as to find meaning and circumnavigate unnecessary suffering.
Note: suffering seems to be necessary for conscious and conscientious living creatures.
But in reframing strain as a form of non-suffering, you have illustrated my point -- that our personal definitions of suffering are indeed malleable, particularly because we do not consider suffering with a 'point' to actually be suffering.
So my further point is that this ability we have to reframe suffering with a point as non-suffering is both helpful and widely unrecognized as deeply problematic. It could even be potentially extended as an explanation of great tragedy; ie: we expect that suffering will grant us a reward or enlightenment to such an extent that we have historically sacrificed fellow human beings as propitiation to vengeful gods in the stone-age belief that such great suffering could somehow swing the tide of fortune in our favour. The only antidote to tragedy is meaning - as long as the outcome outweighs the means, we are capable of great evil.
In my own life, I have also found that my search for meaning in the face of an event of great suffering can also become a fruitless exercise. In other words, searching for meaning in the face of life's great cruelty is not always the antidote for suffering. By this I mean that the lesson of massive cruelty in life can be reasoned into hatred or depression or a venom of some kind. Sometimes it is better not to seek meaning where there is none and to resign one's self to the knowledge that life is cruel, and it may be a healthier option to shift focus back onto other, more positive things. Lack of meaning as meaning? Is that an ouroboros? I think maybe!
Also, a well-placed positive event can also provide a very deep sense of meaning. So I could not agree with the claim that all meaning derives from suffering.
Christianity is a key to this one.
Quoting 64bithuman
Of course - capitalism relies upon a series of stories to stay afloat. One is that if you work hard you will make it. Obviously bullshit, but I guess it has traction because most people appreciate the notion of 'no pain no gain.' And we know that hard work (saving, studying, training) can pay off.
Christianity relies upon a similar story - suffering will be rewarded in the next life.
Quoting 64bithuman
I don't think it does much today - modern Western culture is all about the avoidance of suffering in every possible way. However in many Christian cultures, suffering held central importance for centuries. Remember suffering came to a perfect world because god gave humans free will. We messed up creation and pay the price through our daily travails - child birth, labour, etc. Jesus, of course, sanctified suffering - his burden was to suffer greatly to redeem human beings. Suffering became central to the West's most enduring myth about transcendence.
Romans 5:3-4
More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope,
Philippians 1:29
For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake,
1 Peter 4:1
Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same way of thinking, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,
Rather, I see a still-broadly Christian culture that is also broadly obsessed with material wealth and the wealthy and equally obsessed with the means of how to acquire such wealth - and most of those highly publicized methods contain needless sufferings at their core and do not adress the tuth of the matter, which is that odds are if you weren't born into a lot of wealth you will not be able to become very wealthy.
Take the best-selling Amazon non-fiction book of the past couple years - Atomic Habits - which is entirely about discipline, overcoming lack of motivation, designing a personal environment that is spartan and inherently success-orientated. Rich people tell us that if we only suffered more, or found better, more elaborate ways of suffering, we could all be like them - rich!
Take the many fads of dieting that inflict needless suffering on a population obsessed with eternal good-looks. What suffering people will endure to 'look good'. The goals of Westerners may often be vain, but the means are all to do with suffering and the expectation of meaning being derived from it.
I also don't believe that we have shaken off our Christian heritage. It is as you say, Christ is the sacrificial lamb who endured suffering for us and to emulate Christ is to embark on a life of suffering. Yet, he is only an echo of the older times when we actually did sacrifice human beings to swing the tide of fortune in our favour. This is because we inherently believe that suffering and sacrifice can bring about good fortune - which is false.
Sure, we can work harder and make more money or find new opportunities, but that's not the end all be all. We often inflict suffering upon ourselves with the expectation of receiving the gift of good fortune, and then do not receive such a gift. It is also true that we sometimes just have good fortune and don't do anything to deserve it. This causes a lot of friction within us because we expect good fortune to always be accompanied by suffering...
I have a pet theory that this is why the very wealthy often become uniquely obsessed with personal health, trainers, nutrition, fasting, fad diets and the like - because the reverse is also true, that richest people must (possibly unconsciously) believe that they have suffered for their success and seek out forms of suffering to justify their wealth. I have found that rich people are very defensive about if they actually deserve the wealth that they have.
The ruling or wealthiest class must believe that wealth can be earned through suffering, or they face the moral crisis of holding tremendous amounts of wealth and having not actually earned it with suffering. This is why the wealthiest classes literally hire people to eradicate the shame of being as visibly wealthy as they are. I also believe that this is why the wealthiest often see themselves as exceptional, because there can be no other answer as to why they are so much more wealthy than ordinary people. In other words, the lie of suffering creating wealth and prosperity is pervasive in our society from both sides.
Since you have Sterling Hayden's picture on your profile, i guess that necessitates a response. What exactly are you wanting to discuss in OP? If you can water it down a bit for the intellectually challenged that will be great.
Fine to hold that view, but all of consumer capitalism goes against it. Most of consumerism - our current religion - is predicated on comfort and making life easier. We have heating, air conditioning, lighting, cars, so we never have to walk, products to keep us fit so we don't need to labor, elevators to avoid stairs, we have home delivery so we don't have to go out, dishwashers so we don't need to wash up, washing machines, dryers, massage in shopping malls...
You know where this is going. The entire history of technology is built around comfort and avoiding suffering and making life easier and pampering the human body. It's kind of our thing.
So I would say for your argument to hold, you need to refine it. Perhaps: human life in the West is torn between two cultures of suffering and hedonism. Many people belong to one camp and some drift in and out of both. In general I'd say suffering has a less prominent focus and is more likely to be a lens directed at some phenomena and not others.
However, we make mistakes about reality when we believe these things, since it's not true that suffering is the only way to create meaning in your life. For example, we can be benefactors of sheer good fortune without directly 'earning it' with suffering. Good fortune can also spark meaning.
It is also true that the very rich more often than not don't have to directly suffer to earn their wealth, just as it is true that a poor person can inflict tremendous amounts of suffering on themselves or their family in the search for wealth, or good fortune, and still die penniless. Thus, the expectation that just because we suffer we will achieve good fortune, or find a deeper meaning, is dangerous and sadly widely unrecognized.
Finally, I would trace these instincts back to our earliest days, when we believed so strongly in the idea of suffering causing good fortune that we would sacrifice fellow human beings in the hopes that tremendous suffering and literal sacrifice could swing things in this overtly hostile reality in our favour. I argue that we have not shed this mindset and that we still chase suffering as a means of enlightenment or good fortune, to the detriment of ourselves or our families. This does not only apply to wealth, it is just easier to understand when talking about wealth.
Ok, so you reworded your op.
Sounds like essentially you're saying mankind believes 'suffering can and will lead to good fortune'. And your objection is, that belief is incorrect, and that there are other ways to facilitate good fortune such as positive thinking. Is that it?
I would also say that consumer capitalism is all about status, about opulence, and about those who don't have status or opulence idolizing the people who've 'made it'. It is true that the more opulent a person is, the easier their expensive technology will make the chore-like aspects of their lives, but this is a vector that correlates to level of material wealth.
I would argue that the drive of consumer capitalism is not strictly to eliminate suffering, but rather to rise to opulence, so that all of your suffering can be directed to further increasing your wealth - then so you can hire people to suffer and increase your wealth for you and those people can hire people and so on. Poorer people often buy cheap products that shoddily reduce the chore-like aspects of their lives, but ultimately this is only historically in emulation of the rich.
As the living standard increases, so does the baseline for the underclass. Also as a sidebar to a sidebar, I don't think that technology has been developed predominantly to pamper the human body - what about missiles, medicine, etc.
I have had a few discussions on here where some describe suffering as being basically anything that requires effort.
Note: a positive event can only be called such in relation to a negative event.
Words are just words. The meaning (whatever that means!) is a referential tool for us to navigate around. For you perhaps the meaning is to stop looking for meaning kind of self contradictory but most language is so :D
Hmmm, I think perhaps you're focusing on a narrow and abstracted band of suffering, not suffering per say. Perhaps this OP is more about you wanting suffering to be a kind of Rosetta Stone of human behavior. Just a thought.
Quoting 64bithuman
I partly agree, but opulence is also about ostentatious comfort and this symbolizes the 'buying off' of suffering and enhanced access to pleasure - both aesthetic and embodied. A key point of opulence is that the wealthy do not need to suffer. The poor suffer. Having an opulent home is advertising to others that you don't have to deal with the same substandard tribulations as other mere morals.
Quoting 64bithuman
I meant 'consumer capitalism' expressed via technology. But note also that some military technology was also about minimizing the suffering of a nation's soldiers and preventing events like WW1's Western Front from happening again.
In the strongest example, I claim Hitler could convince the people of Germany that the war and the Third Reich were a necessary evil on the basis of this faulty correlation of sacrifice. If you look at Hitler's speeches, one of the most common themes is this notion of sacrifice and the promise of rewards to come.
If you've ever read Animal Farm, there's a character called Boxer who is a powerful cart-horse. His motto is "I will work harder". Boxer thinks that if he just works hard enough, the dream of the utopia of the Animal Farm will come true. As more and more animals perish on the Animal Farm in search of utopia, Boxer only works harder, partly because he is being indirectly implicated in the murder of innocent animals. So to make the entire utopian promise 'worth it', he must work harder and harder to make up for all the suffering. I claim that we can become swindled like boxer because of this correlation of suffering/sacrifice and good fortune.
The gist or crux is sometimes a short sentence.
In the fast few posts you have introduced a new word "sacrifice". It might be better if you stuck to the original word "suffering". So again, you're saying mankind believes 'suffering can and will lead to good fortune'. And your objection is, that belief is incorrect, and that there are other ways to facilitate good fortune such as positive thinking. Is that it?
At this stage i'm not asking you to clarify what is "right" or "wrong". I'm simply stating your position. Am i stating your position correctly? Unless you want to recant your beliefs...which is fine with me.
Yes I think we agree on the opulence thing. That's pretty much how I feel about it. The only distinction is that I would say that the opulent do not eliminate their suffering because they are opulent. That is just part of the dream. Also I would say that the opulent are some of the worst offenders in peddling this whole 'suffering = wealth' thing, because of the moral problem of being rich. Perhaps this is why so many wealthy people are conservative republicans who think that anybody could be as rich as them if they only worked hard enough.
You said, "The entire history of technology is built around comfort and avoiding suffering and making life easier and pampering the human body." So I was responding to that.
I leave semantics for the birds. Of course the entire construct of language can be reduced to nonsense shapes and vowels, but all in service of the communication of ideas, which is the main point.
BTW you don't have to be defensive...at least not with me. I'm not going to tear you apart unless it is indicated you want me to. So just be honest and state your position if you wish to have a dialogue. If not, that's great too.
That's what i thought.
Aside from your essayed obscuration there are really only 2 positions, one i have already mentioned, which is what you have been saying, or its opposite which will be a recant of what you have been saying. And that will be ,
"Mankind does not have said belief and i have no objection. I am simply playin' "
Cool. Thank you Mr. 64bithuman. That be all.
Sir, the question of any world view hasn't even arose. We are still dealing with honesty.
I prefer Joel to Derrida, but really of the Jewish philosophers, I prefer Marx (that's Groucho not Karl):
While money can't buy happiness, it certainly lets you choose your own form of misery.
Right, it seems "just a word" for you.
But now that we are getting into the nitty gritty of the questioner behind the op, my recommendation would be to resume your focus on your OP rather than your present pursuit. It may simply be a healthier choice, befitting the circumstances.
I do not really think searching for meaning in life is very meaningful I find the whole idea of searching for meaning to be meaningless maybe that is your point?
I do not see how being poor or rich has anything to do with meaning or suffering so some of your points in the OP are empty for me.
My point, as initially stated, is to talk about our natural inclination for finding meaning in this reality of suffering. In order to understand my point, you have to accept a few axioms. Which is why I have to take the time to explain them.
My terms would be:
Suffering: entails strain, pain, work, sacrifice,
Value: entails reward, enlightenment, good fortune, opportunity
Now keeping in mind my terms, my axioms would be:
1. All of reality is hostile to human life
2. To survive the suffering of reality, we assign value to suffering to make sense of suffering
3. In assigning value to suffering, we begin to make the correlation that suffering has inherent value
If you accept those axioms, then we get to the discussion I was hoping to have, which is that our relationship with value and suffering is dangerously flawed and can be taken advantage of, particularly when we begin to make the false assumption that suffering always entails value and fail to recognize that sometimes suffering is just suffering, full stop. This may seem obvious, but I would argue that it isn't and that we are extremely prone to falling for this false correlation.
The example I use is the swindling of the German people by the Nazis into accepting authoritarianism and then war and then genocide. Hitler used promises of good fortune, enlightenment, rewards and opportunities to make sense of the sacrifices and sufferings of plunging Germany into war. It is common to justify war as a sacrifice for the future good. I see this common theme repeated in many avenues of life and in history.
The most blatant historic example is when we literally sacrificed human beings in the mystical belief that we could sort of 'buy' good fortune from the gods. If you accept that we assign value to suffering, then it would seem to make sense to a more primitive mind that by increasing the sacrifice and suffering to the maximum, we would stand to gain the most amount of value. I hope you can see what I mean. This is a very extreme example of fundamentally failing to understand how reality works, but all of human history has been walking back this misunderstanding, from literal human sacrifice to the sacrifice of animals, to the much more palatable symbolic sacrifice of the perfect man Christ.
In this way, we misunderstand this reality we live in! Especially because Christian teachings tell us that suffering is a good thing, that bearing your cross and emulating the suffering of Christ is a good thing, we are prone to making fatal mistakes about life. One of these mistakes is assuming that just because we work really hard, sacrifice and suffer we can increase our value in society by making ourselves rich, or by making ourselves enlightened. It's true that we can work hard to get a better job, but it's also true that many people work hard at their jobs and don't make any money at them, even if their intention is to get a better job.
My point is not to suggest that nothing has value or that suffering can't have value - that would be absurd. It's to talk about the times when we get swindled by the promise of value, it is to talk about our instincts and our historical relationship to suffering and what has become an expectation of value. That is what I'm interested in. I fully recognize the pedestrian fact that suffering can lead to value.
Right. There is none.
A casual overview Op's posts demonstrate one of two things or possibly all two (possibly more if looked deeper).1- First, op could be genuinely mistaken his post is complicated and needs minute attention. While truth of the matter is it is nothing but a medley of flaky incoherent thoughts and so simple to understand that any backwoods caveman can get it. Or perhaps op is deluded with his self-importance, which s undersatandable, many are. 2- This is a bait post created by a bait account to get as many responses as possible to keep the thread/forum busy.In which case the obscuration and the attempts at evasion is deliberate. But let's get to the points:
If you read the latest installment of op's clarification, it is still the same points i was asking him to confirm earlier. These are:
1-Mankind erroneously believes 'suffering can and will lead to good fortune'. Note he isn't talking about a fringe demographics. In fact he is asserting it's a mainstream/majority phenomenon.
2- He is objecting to the above phenomenon by saying it is incorrect and that suffering has no value.
3- His proposed antidote to this alleged problem of mankind is to seek some form of value in positive thinking.
Am i the only person laughing here? I mean, his post is as simple as a nickel. There is no need to value it at $100. That would be an incorrect value.
Quoting I like sushi
Its all empty. There are no points. Points begin with facts, not essayed obscurations. For example one may start with, is suffering a fact? Is the search of meaning a fact? What is the nature of both? And so on.....
It seems an inquiry starts with facts and the usage of reason, not half baked reactive silly sentiments.
I think you've done a better job in articulating your ideas.
Not sure I can see this as much of a risk. I don't see a significant relationship with suffering playing out in such a dynamic away. You mention Hitler - I think this is a simplification of what he was offering, based on the books I have read on his rise to power. And that was 80 years ago. Churchill, in the fight against Nazism, actually made this argument in a much more direct way - 'I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat..' and he was probably right. Many would say justified.
That said, can you provide 2 examples from now where the pubic have specifically been swayed by this - apart from a generalized cultural version of the Protestant work ethic which you have already alluded to?
I can't make heads or tails out of most of the endless "old man yells at cloud" that you're saying, other than the below-the-belt insults and oddly misplaced (yet very intense) anger. That I can understand, unfortunately. You seem very upset by my post! Or perhaps are addicted to the rush of hate-posting. A known phenomenon that I would urge you to explore. ie: https://www.vice.com/en/article/a33yq8/trolling-addiction
You seem befuddled by my assertion that suffering both has meaning and has no meaning. It's not a binary, both are true. It's possible that sometimes, suffering produces meaning, and sometimes it does not. Only my point would be that we often seem to make the assumption that suffering has meaning more often than the assumption that it has no meaning. Which leads back into my points, which you seem to assert require facts. I dispute that points require facts! It is possible to have a point and not have a fact.
For example, you yourself once wrote in a quite long, complicated, and awfully essay-like post, "All our pursuits in life are essentially a pursuit for fulfillment, for happiness. In some extreme cases as in loonies, if they pursue unhappiness, naturally, it is still a pursuit of happiness." which is your first point, and yet I do not see any facts.
Rather you are stating your personal opinion, and rather ironically, your personal opinion is that all our pursuits in life are seeking fulfillment, which is mighty close to saying that mankind is searching for meaning. Yet if I assert something like that you see it as absurd. Seems pretty unfair to me.
It would seem that you don't follow the rules that you seek to enforce.
Which would be the hallmark of one suffering from a delusion of self-importance...
I propose no antidote to this so-called 'problem of mankind' (which I never frame as a problem of mankind, that would be an oversimplification) - I don't understand where you are pulling this 'positive thinking' thing from. I see no antidote for there is no antidote and we wouldn't want one if we had one. We have no choice but to create meaning from suffering like one makes shapes from clouds. It is our in-born nature. Only that we must guard this instinct and be wary of falling into traps of delusion in which we seek meaning where there is none. That is my point, good sir!
Now I would appreciate it if you respond you avoid the ad-hominem attack as they do nothing to prove your point and make you look like a fool.
A grieving Mother seeking value in her son's sacrifice would be reassured to know that the sacrifice did have a bigger value. This is why military culture is all about stressing that young men die for their countries. If you want a modern example, take Iraq. Why would so many young men sign up to fight in the divisive and arguably morally bankrupt war in Iraq? What are they told? What is the general public told by the government? What are their grieving Mothers told? That their sons died for their country. That their sacrifice was for the greater good. What is the greater good, in reality? That they died for an ideal?
Or that the war in Iraq was based on the lie that they had WMDs, that it was a political power move made by a government that had an interest in dethroning Saddam Hussein and furthering American interests in the middle east, including the establishment of large American oil and gas companies that stood to profit from the invasion, or the private military groups and arms being produced. Never mind the civilian casualties, Guantanamo bay, a lack of international consensus for war, and the failed responsibility of creating and fostering a new nation.
In essence, it was easier to just explain to everybody that they died for the greater good - and that made sense to a lot of people and was all they needed to hear - I claim in part because of our inborn nature to understand suffering as the creation of value.
I think the WMD argument was unconvincing to most people as millions of protests around the world would attest. They did it anyway, using a range of arguments.
Quoting 64bithuman
Which may well be true depending upon who you are and which war. Maybe not Iraq, but maybe yes Ukraine. But again, I don't think this is necessarily the suffering argument. This is the 'is war ever just' argument.
Quoting 64bithuman
I hear you but I am not sure this kind of argument is all that convincing to people (not since Vietnam anyway)
Anyway, food for thought. I'll mull it over some more.
Read again. Underneath is what was said.
Quoting skyblack
Quoting 64bithuman
No sir, In the highly unlikely event it may be be used, which is almost never, it will only be used against equals.. You aren't my equal. The question of victory and loss only comes to petty minds/hearts lacking backbone. The thought never crosses my mind, but clearly it does, in your case.
.Quoting 64bithuman
So far i asked you a simple question. That is to confirm "Am i stating your position correctly?". Which you evaded and yes, that says a lot about you.
Quoting 64bithuman
That distinction belongs to you. Your very first attempt was:
Quoting 64bithuman
Quoting 64bithuman
You are projecting. Grabing any straw in order to vilify.
Quoting 64bithuman
You're arguing a straw man. Addressing an irrelevant issue. An issue that hasn't even been discussed. We never went that far because you folded way prior to even reaching that point, by evading a clear and direct question.
Quoting 64bithuman
Couple of days in the forum and you have already read my year old posts? Indeed, it does tell a lot about your "new account".
Quoting 64bithuman
My post is not in question here, yours is. But if you wish to question it i'll be happy to oblige you, at my covininece.
Quoting 64bithuman
I am not an enforcer in this forum. That job is for the central committee. Get your facts straight. Don't just make up straws. It is pathetic.
.Quoting 64bithuman
Underneath is your own words wherein you have indicated your antidote
:Quoting 64bithuman
Quoting 64bithuman
That is rich coming from you, after your long winded series of ad-hominems.
But you know what establishes you as a fool ( And i am simply reiterating your words)? The fact that you felt the need to respond to a post that wasn't even directed at you, and your rather weak -pathetic attempts to paint a picture of me that isn't backed by evidence.
If you really want to continue with me then start by bracing your backbone and giving an honest answer to the question i had asked you.
I'm totally fine if you can't come up with that honesty. Let's call it a day.
Thus, "value" is manifested by habits (virtues) which reduce net suffering (disvalue).
:death: :flower:
:100: :clap:
Thanatos is your ally, it releases you from Algos.
[quote=Cypher]What a mind job![/quote]
Frenemy! :snicker:
On second thoughts, i may have pushed it a bit when i said "am i the only one laughing here", and for that i ask (ignoring all your ad-hominems) you pardon me. But the rest are clearly factual and i stand by them. Just as i stand by my response to your ad-.hominems.
I think you over reacted by reading it wrong. Like how you read 'simple" as "stupid". Maybe you were a bit mad and thus blind, eh. Its ok. Also, giving you the benefit of the doubt, since you mentioned a welcome, welcome to the forum! ;-)
I never said that strain is "a form of non-suffering" or something similar. I clearly differentiated the two.
Quoting 64bithuman
I didn't bring up my personal definitions about suffering. I talked about different kinds of suffering. And about this, you can find a lot of data in the Web.
OK, here's a parallel: You cannot cover all the meanings of the term "sick" with a single definition or description. Why? Because it means a lot of different things. There are many kinds of "sickness".
I hope it is more clear now. If it isn't, I can't do anything more.
:up: :grin:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/705435
In a broader, more anthropological mindset, this pattern of propitiation is commonly repeated - the idea that sacrifices must be made to bring good fortune. In other words, a grieving mother whose son is sacrificed on the altar would have to have a reason to allow her son to die. Telling a grieving Mother that one death saves many people, only then she will 'allow' her son to die, because she believes that her son's death is justified. This is the tragedy of war! It is why veterans are haunted by the question of what it all meant, what it all added up to, for the amount of suffering occurring in a war never adds up to an equivalent amount of value. Despite this, we are generationally convinced that we need to fight and kill each other to produce value - in reality the consensus is that we hate war, we don't want to fight in wars, and that wars are almost never worth fighting.
How can you square the opposing facts; that on the one hand we all recognize that war is terrible and that it is primarily old men sending young men to die, and yet still fall for the same old tricks over and over again? I claim it is at least partly because we are easily led astray by this repeated idea of value being earned through suffering.
That is expected. Which is what i had suggested in the beginning, allowing you a chance to quit. But you tried a few swings and ended up where you are.
Quoting 64bithuman
Nonsense.
The facts are, you make "sacrifices" for war not because you see "value in suffering" or it is a means for "good fortune", but because you are conditioned to nationalism. The older war mongers use this sentiment to profit from your conditioning.
Note: Even though the quoted post is directed at someone else i have seen it now and felt it necessary to call out the nonsense in the post, for purposes of better deliberation by any interested parties.
My take is different, as I have already expressed. I would argue that suffering did not play the central role in evangelical enthusiasms, they were largely swayed by notions of righteousness, holy war and American nationalism. I agree that sacrifice can be used in public discourse but disagree about the extent to which it is used and involved in people's value systems. We're probably going to go in circles now, so I'm going to move on. Nice talking to you.
How then are we to find meaning in suffering when the latter negates the former?
By your reasoning, "a "meaning of suffering" is that suffering destroys meaning (like fire necessarily burning itself out)?
Aye, but I'm not sure whether that's linguistic auto-mutilation or truth of a deeper kind.
1. Religious, sensu amplo, rejection of the physical to, in the process, get to know one's mind, one's spiritual side. Self-mortification, ascetism, tapas (penance) via :fire: (Agni). Let's not forget Jesus, via dolorsa.
2. Endurance training (soldiers), prepping for worst-case scenarios. Pain threshold can be raised as per military records.
3. Suffer just for the heck of it (free will).
Fine.
Hardship, as in, a broken bone, poverty, hunger, cold, heat, working 12-hour shifts 6 days per week for minimum wage, etc.
The psychological experience of hardship is how one thinks and feels about having a broken bone, living in poverty, being hungry etc.
Yeah, I would say people do indeed look for meaning in suffering. Honestly not that much to be said about this other than that it is sad. People also seem to equivocate desensitization with the kind of toughness you can build up safely.
But there is something called post-traumatic growth in which trauma does indeed lead to an increase in mental robustness. Pretty rare if you are really being traumatized, however, or so it would seem.
Dukkha
1. Suffering (birth, aging, illness, death, ...)
2. Superimposed suffering (rubbing salt on wounds)
3. Tanha - the unsatisfiable thirst of craving
4. The anguish caused by refusal to accept anicca/anitya (impermanence/change)
5. Getting what you don't want and its mirror image, not getting what you want (Life can be cruel)
Wikipedia articles on suffering & dukkha are a gold mine as far as I'm concerned.