Should we strive to suffer?

**Unelias** · 08-16-2011 03:29 PM

I do not write on this forum to debate, only to exhange thoughts. If you wish to change the impression you have left on me, you'll have a hard time working it out. This far you have only succeeded in embarassing yourself in my eyes. Though, I really doubt you'll want to change it or even succeed if you wanted.

**Laughing Man** · 08-17-2011 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by Somii

Suffering as a cause to become a 'better' person seems to be a ridiculous idea. It then follows, that the deterministic outlook of suffering to be a catalyst of betterness, which is implied as a cause, should seem to be a ridiculous idea to me, as it does. There should be plenty of examples in one's life to see that the presence of suffering has not always been associated with 'betterness', thus refuting any silly notion of this subjective idea as ridiculous.

If anything, 'suffering' and 'better' should be better defined in a context we can all agree on. I recommend the version of 'better' noted in one of my former post in this thread. In any case, this thread probably won't reach the objective level :]

That's actually a good point.

By better could we not mean a state of being in which conditions or the surrounding environment remove a felt unease concerning the individual in question?

An example:
A. I am hungry. (A felt unease)
B. I eat a sandwich (means)
C. I am no longer hungry (end)

The transition from B to C (the application of means to a stated end) is the removal of felt unease experience by the person in A. Therefore the transition is makes them "better."

I guess this would tie into what you first said somewhat. But is the presence of suffering the same as a felt unease? Do we suffer when we feel unease? If we weren't suffering while we had this felt unease would we still utilize the application of means to a given end in order to "better" our situation? Or are people trying to say that suffering is the removal of unease (the transition between B and C). Well that wouldn't be right because suffering more wouldn't relieve unease if we are to assume that unease is suffering. I think we need to define suffering in order to either differentiate or link it with the concept of unease.

**Malac Reborn** · 08-18-2011 05:02 AM

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

That's actually a good point.

By better could we not mean a state of being in which conditions or the surrounding environment remove a felt unease concerning the individual in question?

An example:
A. I am hungry. (A felt unease)
B. I eat a sandwich (means)
C. I am no longer hungry (end)

The transition from B to C (the application of means to a stated end) is the removal of felt unease experience by the person in A. Therefore the transition is makes them "better."

I guess this would tie into what you first said somewhat. But is the presence of suffering the same as a felt unease? Do we suffer when we feel unease? If we weren't suffering while we had this felt unease would we still utilize the application of means to a given end in order to "better" our situation? Or are people trying to say that suffering is the removal of unease (the transition between B and C). Well that wouldn't be right because suffering more wouldn't relieve unease if we are to assume that unease is suffering. I think we need to define suffering in order to either differentiate or link it with the concept of unease.

I think it would be more appropriate to say that 'better' is the state of being, 'resulted' from the removal of uneasiness, caused by the conditions of its removal - according to your context of its usage.

In relevance to suffering and uneasiness, I would say suffering is an emotional distress toward a feeling of uneasiness, though giving a 'precise' abstract of something so subjective is difficult for me, also tieing into other philosophical problems.

**Laughing Man** · 08-18-2011 06:43 AM

Originally Posted by Somii

I think it would be more appropriate to say that 'better' is the state of being, 'resulted' from the removal of uneasiness, caused by the conditions of its removal - according to your context of its usage.

In relevance to suffering and uneasiness, I would say suffering is an emotional distress toward a feeling of uneasiness, though giving a 'precise' abstract of something so subjective is difficult for me, also tieing into other philosophical problems.

Yea it would be difficult. I guess suffering is just too ambiguous a word to discuss without putting it in context. Perhaps it is like Wittgenstein's point concerning pain. You can be mistake about someone else's pain (suffering in this case) but you can never be mistaken whether you are in pain.

**Arra** · 08-25-2011 12:49 AM

Suffering isn't mere unease. I'm a bit thirsty now but am not suffering. It has to be pretty strong unease.

I've been thinking lately about how many different types of suffering there are. Not different levels, different types, all terrible in their own ways. Suffering due to starvation is very different from suffering due to the death of a loved one. There are many different negative states we can be in that can be emphasized to cause different brands of suffering: empathy, physical pain, loss, stress, fear, etc. Even though they're different, I suppose any of these have the potential to aid in personal growth.

**Darkmatters** · 08-25-2011 01:18 AM

So do the corollaries of each.

**LucidFlanders** · 08-25-2011 02:38 AM

I've lived through many extreme sufferings, and nobody has thought of me to be anything more. I always have a smile on my face but nobody ever notices, not that i care. I know for a fact i am who i am today because of everything i've been through, and nobody i could ever talk to.