Surely, it doesn't have to be a definite yes or know. Some people fall apart amidst pain and suffering whereas others learn and are transformed. There is also the extent of pain and how much each person can bear and what support the person has. — Jack Cummins
Even if suffering is a source of growth and transformation it could be dangerous to just say that it is a good thing because that could lead to us to not offer compassion support for those in pain. — Jack Cummins
Surely, it doesn't have to be a definite yes or know. Some people fall apart amidst pain and suffering whereas others learn and are transformed. There is also the extent of pain and how much each person can bear and what support the person has. — Jack Cummins
And my reply would be the same. — schopenhauer1
How do you know who or when someone would fall apart prior to their birth? If its about "manning up" then why is thst a value people must be exposed to in the first place? — schopenhauer1
Yep. — schopenhauer1
What dont you understand? — schopenhauer1
No, actually, pain destroys a lot of people. Abusive parents destroyed a lot of children.According to this theory, it has some sort of redemptive quality whereby being exposed to it and overcoming it, one becomes "better", more "fulfilled", a more "complete" person, or something along those lines. — schopenhauer1
For example, can you try to qualify the below statement -- who says they're more fulfilled or complete after experiencing pain? If a physician must suffer all kinds of cancer, headache, broken bones, shattered limbs, and or cracked skull, then she wouldn't be an excellent doctor, would she? She'd be dead, as in rigor mortis. — Caldwell
one becomes "better", more "fulfilled", a more "complete" person, or something along those lines. — schopenhauer1
it has some sort of redemptive quality whereby being exposed to it and overcoming it, one becomes "better", more "fulfilled", a more "complete" person, or something along those lines. — schopenhauer1
For example, can you try to qualify the below statement -- who says they're more fulfilled or complete after experiencing pain? If a physician must suffer all kinds of cancer, headache, broken bones, shattered limbs, and or cracked skull, then she wouldn't be an excellent doctor, would she? She'd be dead, as in rigor mortis. — Caldwell
The general idea behind such a theory is dualistic, the yin-yang. I've always had a hard time understanding yin-yang. The claim is that to understand yin, yang must be understood but the problem is to understand yang, one has to have a grasp of yin and so on in an infinite loop that precludes any understanding at all. — TheMadFool
If I'm correct so far then it implies that happiness, sorrow, and other emotions need to be directly experienced to gain even a modicum of understanding of what they are. Since not experiencing pain/suffering firsthand means that one is completely unaware of a certain aspect of reality, we would, in that sense, be incomplete. — TheMadFool
Why would that be important? Even if it was, certainly we wouldn't want to experience all manner of pain just to be "complete" (torture, etc.). — schopenhauer1
That would assume we are all in a scheme of yin-yang with no self-agency. For example, If pain is necessary for pleasure (which I still don't think is proven, so we can go back to that), one can choose not to continue this scheme unto a next generation rather than saying "it is what it is" which would be a false presentation of the choice. There is a choice, it isn't.. "So let's continue forward with more people.". — schopenhauer1
Sorry, I couldn't make head or tail of this. — TheMadFool
As I said Caldwell, to use a sexual metaphor, one can get some, "adequate"???, idea of what a home run means if you get to first base. Praticals, as part of learning, are controlled environments, carefully designed simulations if you will, with the option, hopefully, to pull out. — TheMadFool
To reiterate, emotions can't be conveyed with words, making it impossible to understand what they involve or mean through discourse, written or spoken. This is a major obstacle if one is seeking knowledge of emotions which ultimately narrows our choices down to one viz. actually, directly going through, experiencing in an immediate sense, emotions if we are to ever know/understand them. — TheMadFool
We have agency to prevent pain. Whether the pain is some yin-yang with positive moments, you can make a decision to prevent future people from pain. Just because this up and down is part of the current reality, we do not have to procreate the current situation, just because it is the current situation and can't be anything else. — schopenhauer1
So what is your point with emotions and pain? Are you trying to say that since it's hard to put some sensations into words, that therefore pain is okay to create for other people? — schopenhauer1
However, don't forget that happiness is something real and that one has to be alive to experience it. This will force us to shift the focus to comparing degrees of happiness and suffering and that, for some, the suffering is far in excess of happiness, so and so forth. — TheMadFool
What if we could anesthetize ourselves completely and live a life free from all suffering/pain? Would you then agree that life is worth living? — TheMadFool
Is it okay to risk putting someone in pain because there is a chance they may get pleasure out of your decision without asking for their consent first — khaled
There is a difference between worth living and worth starting. I don't think schopenhauer1 is saying life isn't worth living because of the pain in it but he's saying that it is not worth starting. — khaled
Is pain a good thing because of some redemptive (or analogous) quality? — schopenhauer1
I want to ask you a question. What if we could anesthetize ourselves completely and live a life free from all suffering/pain? Would you then agree that life is worth living? — TheMadFool
You say that we have agency to prevent pain but this is not a straightforward. — Jack Cummins
But even then, we are not gods and cannot control nature. For example, no one a year ago would have expected Covid_19. Some people put the blame on a laboratory mistake in China, but even then, the virus as a deathly aspect of nature is hard to control. Of course, decisions made by politicians may have not helped but none of the decisions have been clear because the virus once it is spreading is a force of its own and human beings cannot master it. Also, preventing certain people's suffering may be at the cost of other people. For example, lockdowns may prevent deaths for certain vulnerable people but create poverty for others. — Jack Cummins
Another complication is that physical pain is easier to define than emotional pain. Certain experiences such as abuse and bullying are highly likely to lead to emotional suffering but beyond that emotional pain can be subjective. Two people can be in a group discussion and one person may come away feeling uplifted and another one may feel completely depressed. — Jack Cummins
However, I think the issue is a very important area of philosophical discussion. — Jack Cummins
I would argue that we should do the best we can to prevent all suffering but we can only do this to this. To intentionally create pain for others on the basis of promoting growth through suffering would be dangerous indeed. However, by the very unpredictable nature of life it is inevitable. We may fall apart or be transformed by it and this is a quest, but the creation of pain itself only partially preventable. Utopian attempts be worthwhile to eradicate a fair amount of suffering as humans are complex creatures it is likely that suffering would still exist in some form or another. — Jack Cummins
Let me ask you this then: Is it okay to risk putting someone in pain because there is a chance they may get pleasure out of your decision without asking for their consent first. An example would be buying you things with your money because they were on sale without asking for permission. In that case if you like the thing I buy all is well and good but if you don't then I have harmed you. Is it okay for me to do that? And does it become worse or better the higher the risk? (is buying lottery tickets with all your money worse than the previous example?) — khaled
There is a difference between worth living and worth starting. I don't think schopenhauer1 is saying life isn't worth living because of the pain in it but he's saying that it is not worth starting.
For example: Life is still worth living if you're blind, but that doesn't justify going around blinding people. Just because it is bearable once it has begun doesn't mean it is worth starting. — khaled
@180 ProofNo. It's good because it makes you pull your hand out of the meat grinder before you lose your whole arm. — frank
So, you think the best solution is to avoid bringing new human beings into the world. I have never brought another human into the world personally but surely the problem of pain is not so great that it means that humans should not be born. Surely, life for future humans may have great possible potential rather than being all negative.
At times during the Covid_19 situation I have even wondered if part of the reason leaders have allowed the virus to get out of control was a means of reducing the population, in a world of diminishing resources. — Jack Cummins
Pain that you can fix is good. Pain that you cannot is torture and unnecessary suffering. — Philosophim
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.