Life is suffering = Shit happens ???

Voltaire,

Let me apologize for the harsh tone. No hard feelings. I don't mean to say that you are selfish: either I misunderstand your position, or you, mine.

Allow me to rephrase:

1. Would you eliminate the hunger of one starving person, given the chance?

2. Would you eliminate the hunger of all starving people, given the resources?

3. If yes to #2, would you not agree that the world would be a better place because of this?

4. If yes to #3, if a particular set of actions can increase the well-being of the population, what is the limit of this increase, given other methods?

Sincerely,
Eric

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I know that your questions weren't posed to me, but I'd like to respond to them with one overall answer.

In feeding any hungery person, you must first find food for them. This food, be it plant or animal or artificial, will require the death/deprivation of another being. In the short term, easing the hungry person's suffering will be better for that person. for the thing which died/was deprived of it's own food, it's not a good thing.

In the medium time frame, there is a chance that feeding this hungery person will have a profound effect on the world. this could be a good or bad thing, depending on your viewpoint and the particular situation.

in the long run, something lives, something dies, something suffers less, something suffers more. Overall, nothing changes.

Which of the above applies truely depends on which one you decide to use, all are valid.

So to answer your question, Life is suffering. And it is joy. and it's neither. Depends on the scope of view you choose to focus on and use.

god, I'm starting to sound like the crasy old guys who live up in the mountains. :bugeye:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not necessarily. We can grow more food, and nobody has to suffer because of it. Also, if I go out and buy cans of food with my excess money, and donate it, who am I depriving of food? Where is the suffering? Certainly not with people who were going to buy the things I just bought; as I buy more, the demand for that product goes up, and people will produce more of that food.

What evidence do you have that nothing changes? It's one thing to claim that it's very difficult to change things, which, of course, it is, but you seem to be saying we can't even hypothetically progress. There is no rule that says a decrease of suffering will eventually lead to a later increase, a balancing-out. And, once again, there is no evidence that this is true--actually, there's evidence to the contrary. Things do get better.

Life does not have to have a significant amount of suffering, with sufficient progress.

Regards,
Eric

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Without suffering, you would not even have a direction to improve things. It is not defeat to accept the way things are, life is not a battle. So, when there is no suffering, what will we do? There would be no incentive to do anything. No inspiration for art, no sports (what's the challenge), no reason not to kill, or fight wars, no advertisements (what would you need if everyone is content) and therefore no economy, in fact, very little reason to eat (no hunger). Without suffering, there is no compassion, everything would break down, and we would all be living in a world of shit.

 

So what? Why is this a bad thing? If something cannot be improved, it is probably close to perfect.

You've said this several times, but it's just an empty assertion without reasoning.

How about enjoy life? And yes, there would be *more* incentive to do things. People are more productive, and enjoy a wider variety of mental (and physical) stimulation when they are happy. It's like how after a cup of coffee, even slightly boring tasks can become enjoyable.

This is possibly some of the worst logic I've seen in a while. Although you may have a point about art, because some of the greatest art is inspired by suffering, you are totally wrong about the rest. A sport is a game, which has nothing to do with suffering. No reason 'not to kill'? This is ridiculous. Tell me, who would be more likely to kill someone, a suffering person on the edge, or a content person? Indeed, there would be no reason to kill. Same with fighting wars. No advertisements? Says who? Just because I'm happy doesn't mean I don't want to buy things. And where do you get off saying no hunger? Hunger doesn't always mean suffering, unless, of course, it's starvation. In fact, sometimes I like being hungry, because I really look forward to eating, and the anticipation excites me.

Right. No evidence for any of this. In fact, plenty of evidence to the contrary. How can you, by *definition*, be living in a world of s**t, without suffering?

 

We are speaking of two slightly different things. One the one hand, there is the notion that the specific things that cause us to suffer can be eliminated. This would include things like feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, curing diseases and mental illness, cleaning up the enivironment, etc... On the other hand, we talk about the notion of eliminating pain at it's source- creating a human that feels only pleasure. This, I feel, cannot be done while preserving our humanity. I am all for working to change our environment to minimize suffering, but I suggest that even if all this were done, we would still have suffering in the world. How, for instance, can you eliminate the suffering associated with love? It is almost the definition of love, that we suffer when our loved one(s) cannot be with us. Sometimes the one you love, loves someone else. When this kind of pain occurs, we say it is bittersweet, a kind of pleasure/pain combination. That love is considered to be the highest form of pleasure, and also the source of life's greatest pain, is a perfect example of my premise. You might say, what is wrong with this? Our idea of what it means to be human can change. So, a world without pain is a world without love. And without love, we are less than human.

I didn't say that without suffering, there can be no improvement, just that the very idea of improvement would be meaningless. I assert that humans in general are perfect the way they are, it is the environment that has been made less perfect by our very attempts to improve it. Let us now consider the hypothetical humans that only feel pleasure.

Why do we admire athletes more than, say, card players? Why do we admire Lance Armstrong, for instance? It is because he does what we do not want to do- confront pain daily. In your perfect world where we do not suffer, Lance Armstrong's grueling training program would not be difficult or admired. Anyone could cycle the Alps every day if they wanted too, it would be nothing special. And winning the tour de France would just be a game of scheduling- who could get in enough practice time to be fit enough to win.

I assert that happiness comes when we overcome challenges (suffering), not that it is the inevitable state of being that pain interrupts. If happiness is the pursuit of stimulation, then those people most stimulated like rock stars, movie stars, rich socialites, and presidents should be the happiest people in the world. Of course, they are not. If happiness is just a constant state produced by the elimination of pain, then it would not be noticed at all, in the same way that a comfortable room temperature or pair of shoes is not noticed.

The assertion is that eliminating pain leads to contentment. I respectfully disagree. In your painless future, it would be logical to kill all AIDS victims, we don't, because we know suffering ourselves, and can reason that they would suffer too, if killed. If not from the pain of death, then from fear. I equate such emotions as fear and hunger as a form of suffering too. The pleasure of eating is not just the taste of the food, but the transition from an uncomfortable state of hunger, to a comfortable state of fullness.

It would be hell, but we wouldn't know it. Like a fish that never knew the ocean, something would be missing, something we would not even begin to know how to define. We might live like the Borg from Star Trek, a huge collection of zombies.

I feel it is only our conditioning that makes suffering so significant. By accepting it, we can transcend it. This approach is indeed progress, it is relatively new in the history of mankind, only three thousand years old or so.

 

Re: Reply to storni

Hey, fellas/guyz I have lived for at least 10 years in the third world; asia,africa,pacific islands and have to agree that the poor are mostly more happier than the filthy rich. As long as the poor fellows have something to eat and are not sick they enjoy the simplity of human existence.
In central america,mexico,India,africa it is people-oriented community; no true loneliness. someone can turn up at the residence of a cousin, uncle,sister un-announced and be welcomed with food, conversation and even offered a place to spend the night. Not so in the rich, ever-busy western world. People schedules are so tight you can't drive out of town and pop up at a former collegemates' place and expect them to have time for you.

 

undefinedundefinedShit does happen, but it sucks really because it can happen more to you. Like being in a sparail of emotions and taking things the wrong way just to get attention. like suside when you know no one cares or want to believe it and focusing on that part of life that makes you depressed. i can't sleep right now because of this f*cked up problem that i should be over but can't get over in my life. mann i really wish i can get stoned :m: then i'd be asleep!

 

Dear depressed &young, i know how you feel.Believe me many people great,intelligent,rich,poor,famous guyz all experience such troubled feelings. Abraham Lincon the great President had battled with depression most of his young life according to some historic books.. Then he got out of his shell travelling the country as an aspiring politician trying to help and understand people's problems.This helped him not focus on himself and somehow he conquered the negative feelings, and what a respectable spot he has in the history of the US.

When you cannot fall asleep cause of troubled thoughts, anxiety, worry,anger etc.; it is because you have un-friendly bed-mates. I have been there. When you think something over and over it Just magnifies the issue and does not change a thing.

That is why the true answer to your depression will not be through medicationetc. This are just temporary fixes.
Ever heard about the "peace which surpasses all understanding".
There is a prince of peace of whom it is said" You will keep him in perfect peace him whose mind is stayed on thee because he trusteth on thee."

Call on the name of Jesus and know there is a higher power in the un-seen realms whose presence is full of light and peace. Believe in Jesus and talk to him like to any human being; in the privacy of you room. Jesus is real and he will give your heart peace. Then do not think over and over about what depresses you. everybody feels lonelyetc sometimes.( "Which of you by worrying can add one hour to their lives. If you cannot do this by worrying why worry about the rest?" Jesus asked.

Men, dear depressed &young you spoke about suicidal feelings meaning its serious. Talk to a local minister; but finally the ball is in your court how you handle it. Be strong and you are not alone.

 

"Life is suffering = Shit happens ???"

Life is whatever the fuck you want it to be to a very large extent.
If you don't fully believe that, then the title of this thread will always be somthing never too far away.

 

Hey depressed and young, wots up with ya?

 

Life is not to suffer. But we would suffer when we are plugged into the matrix. Once you take the red pill and unplug yourself then you have the freedom to plug and unplug the matrix any time you want.

Once you unplug, then life is just bliss. this is how the spiritual masters unplug understand the mystery of life.

it is not simple, one has t understand the concepts and do just a little practise.

get help from this link

http://www.matrixjourney.com