B
buddhafish
Guest
that's a fantastic quote.
:m: peace :m:
:m: peace :m:
Life is suffering = Shit happens ???
- Thread starter Bend_It_Like-ME
- Start date
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Life is suffering means that the capacity to feel opens one up to both pain and suffering as well as pleasure. Indeed suffering and pleasure are both just forms of sensation, different flavors of the same thing. To eliminate suffering would nessesarily eliminate pleasure too. So, shit happens so good shit can happen.
Wow. Not only is there no evidence for this position, it's incredibly pessimistic.
First of all, this implies that life is a zero-sum game when it comes to pain and pleasure--no matter what you do, the quality of life for all people is exactly the same.
Second, this implies that malnutritioned and homeless children in third-world countries aren't REALLY miserable, because they have no pleasure to contrast their pain with. Sick and disgusting.
This is just another attempt to justify suffering in the world, and consequently, an attempt to stifle the elimination of said suffering.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
It's not a position, it's the truth. To be able to feel at all is inseparable from being able to feel pleasure and pain. In the same way, the ability to see is inseparable from seeing both light and dark. I don't understand why you think its pessimistic, I'm not implying that there is only one level of feeling. Sometimes we feel pain and sometimes we feel pleasure.
The quality of life is different for all people, but no one goes through life without feeling pain, physical and emotional, and no one goes through life without feeling some pleasure, even if that is only the absence of pain.
Malnutritioned and homeless children in third-world countries are really miserable, that is an undeniable fact. How do they know they are miserable? They only know because of the contrast in how they feel when they have eaten or drank something. They only know misery because they also have the capacity to feel pleasure. It is the same capacity. The starvation and the people who ignore it are disgusting. Besides you cannot say that the people in question do not feel pleasure at all, they certainly remember the pleasure of not being hungry, or the pleasure of drinking some water when they can get it, or even just sitting in the shade as opposed to the sun.
I'm not trying to justify anything. Suffering exists because we feel. I would never attempt to stifle any move towards feeding these people. I'm making a rather existential point about the human condition, which is that suffering can NEVER be eliminated. Even rich, prosperous people suffer. The more extreme forms of suffering like starvation and torture can of course be reduced, but as long as we can feel at all, we will feel pain.
spidergoat is right.
what he said is not sick or disgusting it is the truth.
If a person lives in misery then he or she won't feel that miserable because there is nothing to compare it to.
No one is justifying suffering, how can one justify something that has always existed and will keep on existing.
Oh I disagree. Maybe no one from the get go but eventually most of us get aqquainted with such an asshole.
Having seen and been near his fair share of poor people, I mean truly poor people, I can safely conclude that, that is not the case by far.......yes one or two are an exception to the rule but the majority of the derelicts are brutal and bitter.
This isn't so far off. I can agree with this.
I agree mostly. Experience can be awful, by the many standard values of people, but you are living and you must be assimilating the situation somehow. If you have the strenght to live through the challenging conditions as well. That's how you learn.
It is a very optimistic way to think of things that way; if "no one is out to get you or hurt you." We can even compare this to karma doctrines, cant we? At the end, the values of things are nule, as everything balances out sooner or later.
I was born in a very poor family, yet given the apparent hardships I got to see things in a very amazing way. We placed a lot of value when something good, little things, happened. There is no much food over there in Peru, and for instance, every meal was a kind of a celebration, full of conciousness. You get a judging vision, and things have, in general, more taste. A well-timed smile, a word of kindness, a healthy day. And you are aware also, that's the important bit. Things can always be worse.
However, the process of life continues, and there is some print that the pain caused in the soul. You try to find beauty, but there is always that unpleasant sense of burden because in some way, you feel it was unfair not to have had the same opportunities, or starting states, that were apparently "better" for many others. I agree with Sargent's vision as the "majority of the derelicts are brutal and bitter." Can anyone tell me if a man can be happy with an empty stomach?
And here is where I again agree with Plato's quote: "everyone is fighting a hard battle."
Thus being kind doesn't sound too bad.
Good to see you've defended your position (yes, it is a position, whether it's true or false) with "it's the truth!" Why, because you declare it so? Sorry, but in the world of reason, we like to back things up with evidence.
You have no evidence that if one feels, one feels pleasure and pain. You don't even have a good conceptual reason. All you have is a single example: humans in their current state feel pleasure and pain. But we're not talking about the current state: we're talking about potentials, once we master neuroscience.
It's pessimistic because it declares that pain will always exist. You have closed your mind to the possibility that pain might be eliminated. Even if you turn out to be right, not giving it a shot is not a chance humanity can afford to take. The benefits would be infinite if you turned out to be wrong.
That's because we're still operating with primitive brains. This has absolutely nothing to do with what we might be able to do if we altered our brains.
So, you're saying that it's an undeniable fact that they're miserable? If indeed all pleasure is in contrast to pain, and vice-versa, why are they any more miserable than us? Or, why 'happy' people any happier than them? If they are constantly miserable most of the time, wouldn't their positive experiences (getting food, warmth, etc) be equivalent to ecstacy, thus balancing out their lives and making them just as happy (overall) as us? Do you see what I'm getting at? Your model suggests that life is a zero-sum game. Perhaps you're right, perhaps you're wrong. But if you are right, you have no reason to say that their 'suffering' is disgusting, because it is that very suffering which will lead them to happiness eventually. In fact, you have no right to call any decision made by any human 'good' or 'bad'--because everything that leads to pleasure also leads to suffering, and everything that leads to suffering leads to pleasure. In your model, life is a totally meaningless back-and-forth see-saw of experiences, as opposed to the wonderful--beyond mine or your own imagination--series of positive experiences it could be, if only we could escape our Darwinian wiring.
Luckily, there is no evidence for your theory, and plenty of evidence for the opposing one: that pleasure and pain can be experienced independent of eachother. Try reading up on hypomania or depression.
You are not making a point, you are stating an opinion--which, so far, appears to be totally arbitrary. It doesn't become a point until you give some basic reasoning supporting it.
Even rich, prosperous people suffer? Yes, of course they do--I never said money equals happiness. Why should I care about your example of rich people being unhappy sometimes? They are unhappy sometimes because nobody changed their brain. They are happier than the average person (yes, it's a fact, despite what society says about money) because they are able to control their lives (and therefore, input to their brains) better than most people. If anything, your example of a group of people that are happier than average only serves to weaken your position.
The main problem is that you don't have any logic or evidence to support your point.
See my previous post for more information, plus..
Despite what you claim, your consciousness (probably) a direct function of your brain state. Even if you were right about needed to contrast with past experiences, what would you say to the idea of modifying the brain so that a person was tricked into thinking they were suffering some time in the past, but really didn't? In other words, let's say I insert false memories of pain--things that you certainly never experienced before--would your current state of mind become more ecstatic because of this comparison to something that never happened?
Nonsense such as this is one of the main reasons the idea of contrast of experiences doens't make sense.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
What I'm describing has nothing to do with past states, which exist only in memory. Pain and pleasure are a continuum of feeling. Futhermore, pain and suffering are essential to life. If you did not have pain, you would not live long.
This is a rather scary thought. Millions of years of evolution have given us all we need in the middle of a garden of eden, but somehow thats not good enough!!!??! I tell you, the more we try to "improve" things, the more we f*ck it up. Build a dam, and the river floods somewhere else. Kill all those nasty wolves, and the deer suffer all the more for starvation and overpopulation. Create antibiotics, and we get germs that cannot be killed. WE ARE NOT SMART ENOUGH TO IMPROVE THINGS. I blame the ideology of religions that wrongly characterize the universe as a war between good and evil. What possible benefit could there be by eliminating pain? An infinite benefit, yet!!? In surgery, ok, that's fine, but all together? Pain, and fear, and death are not evil. We can transcend suffering by accepting pain, accepting the way things are, like the buddha. Pain does not always imply suffering, it is just a sensation, we know this is true because some people enjoy pain.
Last edited:
So you're saying that pain and pleasure are always occuring simultaneously with the exact same magnitude? Then why are people able to report the states 'I am happy' or 'I am sad?'
Also, you are wrong about no pain = no life. In our current state, yes, pain is fairly essential for basic tasks, such as refraining from picking up burning hot objects. Things evolved this way because this is the simplest method. However, there is another, much more complicated method: intelligence. The primary reason I don't pick up hot things is because I know they will damage my body, not because they hurt. However, this kind of programming is extremely complex and highly unlikely to evolve in simpler animals--no, instead, send a signal that says 'ouch', rather than 'this is hazardous to your health for the following reasons, etc, please stop'.
The more we try to improve things, the more we mess them up? Are you SERIOUS? Things are getting better thanks to advanced medicine; if you care to differ, you can take it up with the thousands of people diagnosed with depression who found a better life through anti-depressents. Or perhaps chemotherapy to treat cancer is just 'f***ing things up?' Just because some choices which appeared to be beneficial on the surface turned out to be harmful (e.g., 'kill all the wolves) does not mean all changes are harmful. We ARE smart enough to improve things, and any other attitude is anti-progress. The attitude that we can't make things better is precisely what keeps the world from being what it could be.
I don't know what language you're speaking, but pain is a subset of suffering in English. To 'transcend pain by accepting it' is giving up the fight for a better life, no matter what the Buddha says. It is just a sensation? Please give an example of suffering that is not a sensation or emotion of some sort.
Also, no people enjoy pain, by definition. People with a fetish for pain don't like the pain, they like the temporary euphoria caused by the release of endorphines and the like into their body.
i still agree w/ spidergoat.
Life is not a battle. I mean, why would it be a battle? What would we be fighting against? And if this is true, storni is right anyway- it can't hurt you to be kind to everyone.
True, but do we have a choice? no. Pain is part of life. For example let's say you were born in a really poor family and when you grow up, a certain individual takes notices of your talent (painting) and you get help and eventually reach success. Now you remember your childhood and instead of being all greedy about the money you are making from your art, you give back to the place you were born and raised by helping little kids that have the potential and talent to get where you got. Life could be seen as a circle. Like I said before, you are experiencing something for a reason- not just for the hell of it.
Life is not a battle. I mean, why would it be a battle? What would we be fighting against? And if this is true, storni is right anyway- it can't hurt you to be kind to everyone.
By answering "no" to "do we have a choice", you have admitted defeat. Also, you have admitted that all decisions we make are completely meaningless--because pain will always be there in a constant amount, nothing we can do will make the world a better place.
Although some people may channel their bad experiences (growing up poor) into good, that does not mean that everyone is experiencing something 'for a reason.' What about children born with Tay-Sachs? Is their completely meaningless suffering and death 'for a reason?' What reason?
I never said it would hurt to be kind to everyone, so I have no idea what you're talking about. However, you seem to be defending the position that kindness is irrelevent, whether you realize it or not. Hey, look, that mean person over there is making other people suffer--but it's cool, it's all for a reason.
What would we be fighting against? Pain. But heck, you've already given up that fight, declaring it impossible. Not sure why, as pain is being battled every day with advances in medicine. If you would like to argue that the level of suffering in something like, say, childbirth, is the same as in pre-scientific times, you're welcome to. But I doubt you would make it very far.
It's funny how the gods of karma always organise their creation very thoroughly.
How else can we explain that most men who did evil in their previous lifes are now being born in Africa
I find it heart warming when I see on tv that millions of previously evil men and women are now suffering righteously for their sins.
I also know that since this is only cause and effect and since it is not up to me to mess with any karma god, I can not support third world organisations. Messing with the balance can seriously mess up your karma, dude.
Since I never actualy felt hungry in my life, I guess I did ok in my previuos one. So there is no need for me to change my ways, to examine my actions, to adjust my behavior. People should look at me and bow down.
I'm starting to feel a bit like the god of karma myself.
my post was not really addressed solely to you hence my last comment.
anyway accepting that pain is part of life is not accepting defeat. I am not a masochist but I think feeling pain is vital for a person to learn and gain wisdom. if an individual has been protected all his/her life from the woes of the world how will he ever build a connection with other people. He/she wouldn't be able to relate and be capable of being truly compassionate at all.
our actions could be thought as meaningless, i mean we are less than a speck compared to the rest of the universe,but if a single electron in space can make it tremble, imagine what we can do. Many speculate our destinies have been written, other say it is not but the finish point has already been determined. I can't say who is right, but everyone is living for something- there is a reason you are here. Is it too look past economical status in regards to judging people? Or is it too make the most out of your life (Tay-sachs for example)- live it to its fullest? that mean, cruel person over there (say Hitler) what did he bring to the world? well I dunno about you, but people became much more aware of human rights and how to prevent things like this from happening in the future. And what about Hitler- I am not saying what he did was right but analyze him. He was a man deeply in "love" with his country and would do anything to bring her back to glory. It is said his dad abandoned him, his childhood was a mess.
I am intoxicated with life, I can't see the fight in it. Again I ask what am I battling against? Pain? No, I embrace it, learn from it and use it to make myself a better person.
Accepting that pain is a part of life IS accepting defeat. You may think that feeling pain is vital for a person to learn, but you are wrong. Although we can often learn from our pain, there exists a much better way to learn things. Why should pain be necessary for understanding? People often learn the most profound things, or, at least, things profound the them, during ecstatic experiences of joy. How do you reconcile your views with this fact?
This is utterly ridiculous. Compassion has absolutely nothing to do with pain--it has to do with caring about others, whether they're going through pain or not. I can build onnectionswith my friends, family, and girlfriend that have absolutely nothing to do with suffering. Next time you go to a bar, try to comprehend how much fun people are having, bonding with each other, building connections, that have nothing to do with the 'woes of the world.' If we eliminate pain, all of the bonding and connections previously formed by pain-related compassion will be transformed into celebrations of life.
Complete contradiction. Our actions are meaningless, yet we're here for a reason?
Dude, give it up. This is really reaching. Are you so stuck in your worldview that you can't imagine another, less painful way to get the 'human rights' issue into the minds of the public? Or was the systematic slaughter of billions of people the best way to educate people about humans rights?
Not to mention, this argument is flawed because if pain were eliminated, 'human rights' wouldn't even be an issue to recognize; it would be an unalienable given for all people. To justify actions such as Hitler's, claiming they raise awareness to pain, is circular and fallacious.
We are not talking about understanding why Hitler did the things that he did. That is an entire other issue. We are talking about whether the world would be a better place without him or not.
What about the millions of people who are NOT intoxicated with life, who see life as unfair and cruel, and rightly so, given their condition? Your reasoning is as follows: I'm happy with my life, so let's not eliminate the pain. Could you be any more selfish? Wake up, my friend: your pain is virtually nothing compared to those less fortunate.
You have a very pessimistic view on life. You have no authority to tell anyone if they are right or wrong. Dude, everytime I read your post they are so hostile like if you are always on defense mode. lighten up, i won't bite. Compassion, which I can tell you don't know the full meaning of that word, is not about only caring for a person but relating with him/ her. I am not going to repeat what I said in previous posts, so I will stop here. I will not even attempt to rebuke your last response; it is obvious my past posts have gone "through one ear and out the other".
Being intoxicated with life is celebrating life. Why would I be selfish by accepting that I am human and feel pain? And how do you know what I am going through?
very ignorant comment.
anyway, hope you have a nice day.
Truly,
"Voltaire"
Being intoxicated with life is celebrating life. Why would I be selfish by accepting that I am human and feel pain? And how do you know what I am going through?
very ignorant comment.anyway, hope you have a nice day.
Truly,
"Voltaire"
No, I have a lot of hope for the future--hope that we can totally eliminate suffering. How is that pessimistic?
It's my opinion that you're wrong. It's called a debate. This is a forum.
Sorry, it's just that the implications of your argument are pretty depressing. It does rouse me a bit.
Yes, I know. It is you that's trying to say that without suffering in the world, there would be no compassion. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the only relation you can have with a person is one concerning their pain?
Trust me, it hasn't gone through my head. I fully understand what you are saying.
Being intoxicated with life is celebrating life. Why would I be selfish by accepting that I am human and feel pain? And how do you know what I am going through?
It's not ignorant. Your argument is as follows: "There is no problem with suffering. I am intoxicated with life, even though I suffer some. Therefore, if another person suffers and can't handle it, that's their problem."
The selfishness comes in assuming that your suffering and a that of a starving, homeless and freezing person are of equal magnitude. True, I have assuming that they are not of equal magnitude, an assumption you say is 'ignorant.' You may correct me if you wish, perhaps you just went through something absolutely mind-blowingly horrific. However, I doubt you would be 'intoxicated with life' if that really did happen to you.
You see, you're saying we shouldn't eliminate suffering because, after all, it ain't that bad. And you're projecting your own experience of suffering onto others--a really, really bad assumption.
You too.
Sincerely,
Eric