I don’t see much of an argument being presented nor a solid position. — I like sushi
so some of your points in the OP are empty for me. — I like sushi
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. — 64bithuman
A grieving Mother seeking value in her son's sacrifice would be reassured to know that the sacrifice did have a bigger value. — 64bithuman
In essence, it was easier to just explain to everybody that they died for the greater good — 64bithuman
As stupid as a nickel — 64bithuman
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. — skyblack
brute force your way to victory — 64bithuman
I can't make heads or tails out of most of the endless "old man yells at cloud" that you're saying — 64bithuman
That distinction belongs to you. Your very first attempt was:other than the below-the-belt insults — 64bithuman
I'm sorry that your worldview does not accommodate answers that are non-binary, good sir — 64bithuman
Or perhaps are addicted to the rush of hate-posting. A known phenomenon that I would urge you to explore — 64bithuman
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 — 64bithuman
For example, you yourself once wrote in a quite long, complicated, and awfully essay-like post — 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.and yet I do not see any facts. — 64bithuman
It would seem that you don't follow the rules that you seek to enforce. — 64bithuman
Underneath is your own words wherein you have indicated your antidoteI 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. — 64bithuman
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 — 64bithuman
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. — 64bithuman
Thus, "value" is manifested by habits (virtues) which reduce net suffering (disvalue).Nature is indifferent to human life.
To the degree one acquires adaptive habits in spite of (spurred on by) one's suffering, whatever has been suffered was *purposeful.
When one suffers purposefully, psychologically one correlates suffering's purpose with the simultaneously acquired adaptive habit's "inherent value".
One suffers doubly whenever one suffers without *purpose.
One suffers doubly whenever one suffers without *purpose.
Thus, "value" manifest by habits (virtues) which reduce net suffering (disvalue). — 180 Proof
What a mind job! — Cypher
I never said that strain is "a form of non-suffering" or something similar. I clearly differentiated the two.in reframing strain as a form of non-suffering, — 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.our personal definitions of suffering are indeed malleable, particularly because we do not consider suffering with a 'point' to actually be suffering. — 64bithuman
:up: :grin:I started out born as a single byte and through the years I have evolved from 8 bit to 16 bit to 32 bit and now 64 bits. — 64bithuman
My point would be that even in the face of a widely unpopular and unjustified war, many families still sent their sons to war primarily because of this flawed calculation of suffering and value - and it isn't an accident that evangelical conservatives broadly supported the Iraq war, despite the evidence - their entire doctrine is based around this flawed notion of suffering and value. They are the easiest to sway with an argument of sacrifice.
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. — 64bithuman
My point would be that even in the face of a widely unpopular and unjustified war, many families still sent their sons to war primarily because of this flawed calculation of suffering and value - and it isn't an accident that evangelical conservatives broadly supported the Iraq war, despite the evidence - their entire doctrine is based around this flawed notion of suffering and value. They are the easiest to sway with an argument of sacrifice. — 64bithuman
By your reasoning, "a "meaning of suffering" is that suffering destroys meaning (like fire necessarily burning itself out)?How then are we to find meaning in suffering when the latter negates the former? — Agent Smith
By your reasoning, "a "meaning of suffering" is that suffering destroys meaning (like fire necessarily burning itself out)? — 180 Proof
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.