Problem of suffering

Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he is happy. It really is that simple.

Brainlet: the post.

Are you happy, user?

ironically, I am about to finish that book
I would refer to as for the second part I dont know, its just how he willed it I guess.

I just mean to say, suffering in itself is not a problem. It can have bad consequences, as Kierkegaard is speaking of, but it also has its place. Think of the kid who is sheltered his entire life and protected from all abuses, but one day forced into the world at large with no ability to cope with even the slightest of issues. I suppose I mean suffering along those lines, but in the end I was really just saying that to be contrarian for the hell of it.

pic related

meant to refer the second part to

wtf I'm happy now

>tautologies are tautological

>I think I could stand anything, any suffering, only to be able to say and to repeat to myself every moment, 'I exist.' In thousands of agonies -- I exist. I'm tormented on the rack -- but I exist! Though I sit alone in a pillar -- I exist! I see the sun, and if I don't see the sun, I know it's there. And there's a whole life in that, in knowing that the sun is there.

It might be the case that nature doesn't *know* suffering in the sense that it's not a property we can assign to most objects contained within it, but on the other hand there is a subset (that of living beings), who can only measure their do's and do not's after things go through the lens of pleasure/suffering. For example, a particle with charge "knows" it should go towards a certain direction when it faces a magnetic field, and how does a dog "know" it should not get too close to fire? By suffering realized or predicted, of course.

In this manner, people with their "suffering bias" turned off, would probably be utterly broken and unrecognizable to us because that's one of our basic parameters of "knowing". This is not dependent on our existence but rather happens consistently across most living beings.

>what do you mean by nature here?
man is part of nature, isn't he?

the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization.

>does a dog not suffer the hunger pains of starvation?
Yes dogs feel pain, but they don't blame it for their misery and call it suffering, as they don't call love the act of procreation.

Stop humanizing nature.

this guy can read dog minds

Not him but to be fair I can read the minds of anything with less intelligence

Suffering is a product of the analysis of phenomena, it's not a phenomenon in itself. Therefore, it can't exist if there's no analyzing entity. You're talking about pain, but that's not quite suffering, even if it may seem similar. After all, there are those who even feel -pleasure- from pain. Yes, animals avoid it, but there's no greater meaning to it. A house cat will avoid water like it will avoid pain, but to suggest that water causes it to suffer is ridiculous.

Suffering is the demonization of natural events, and only someone who can conceptualize evil can conceptualize suffering.

Does it? Can you even define suffering, rather than cite unpleasant sensations?

would you tell that to someone that just lost his 5yo son?

Dostoesvky lost a hell of a lot more than a 5yo son, and he wrote it.

>Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy; only because of that. It's everything, everything, Whoever learns will at once immediately become happy, that same moment...
"And when did you find out that you were so happy?"
"Last week, on Tuesday, no, Wednesday, because it was Wednesday by then, in the night."
"And what was the occasion?"
"I don't remember, just so; I was pacing the room...it makes no difference. I stopped my clock, it was two thirty-seven."
"As an emblem that time should stop?"
Kirillov did not reply.
"They're not good," he suddenly began again, "because they don't know they're good. When they find out, they won't violate the girl. They must find out that they're good, then they'll all become good at once, all, to a man.
"Well, you did find out, so you must be good?"
"I am good."
"With that I agree, incidentally," Stavrogin muttered frowningly.
"He who teaches that all are good, will end the world."
"He who taught it was crucified."
"He will come, and his name is the man-god."
"The God-man?"
"The man-god--that's the whole difference."
"Can it be you who lights the icon lamp?"
"Yes, I lit it."
"You've become a believer?"
"The old woman likes the icon lamp...she's busy today," Kirillov muttered.
"But you don't pray yet?"
"I pray to everything. See, there's a spider crawling on the wall, I look and am thankful to it for crawling."
His eyes lit up again. He kept looking straight at Stavrogin, his gaze firm and unflinching. Stavrogin watched him frowningly and squeamishly, but there was no mockery in his eyes.
"I bet when I come the next time you'll already believe in God," he said, getting up and grabbing his hat.
"Why?" Kirillov also rose.
"If you found out that you believe in God, you would believe; but since you don't know yet that you believe in God, you don't believe," Nikolai Vsevolodovich grinned.

suf·fer·ing
ˈsəf(ə)riNG
noun
noun: suffering; plural noun: sufferings
>the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.
"weapons that cause unnecessary suffering"

i don't see anything about demonization
you are using a specifically constructed philosophical definition of suffering rather than the commonly accepted widely used definition and then complaining that others aren't using the same.

Suffering is pain. Pain is not unique to humanity. Suffering is not unique to humanity.

>but to suggest that water causes it to suffer is ridiculous.

No no, that statement is ridiculous. This is the same device by which people try to cheaply find their way out of the hard consciousness problem. You're just imposing a barrier on a scale where capacity for analysis is located and claiming everything below human is "not doing analysis". Are you empirically sure a cat does not suffer from being wet? Even more so if you burn it with acid? Why do war hounds seem to experience PTSD just like soliders then? You can deny the existence of analysis in whatever being you can't communicate with and it means nothing.

>Suffering is the demonization of natural events, and only someone who can conceptualize evil can conceptualize suffering.

This is just an idealization of suffering; it is not a special by-product of some abstract process that miraculously only humans are able to conduct (something that may clear why this is an issue is to ask yourself: do I believe human language is a requirement to demonize natural events?).

>suffering man wrote some rationalization to try and cope but most probably didnt believe any of it, just as the life wrecked shrink doesnt believe a word of what he says to his patients
of course.

This thread looks like a YouTube comment section... But here:

"Moral and physical evil are due to the fall of man, but all evil is overruled by God to a good purpose."
>newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm

>HURRR GOD
no.

wtf I'm an atheist now

>Are you empirically sure a cat does not suffer from being wet?
Is it -possible- to be empirically sure of that? Is it even possible to be sure another human experiences suffering (suffering, NOT pain)? Does a braindead person experience suffering? You might cause pain and notice peaks of cortisol (and I'm making a medical assumption here), but does that body experience -suffering-? I digress, though, as this enters a solipsism I don't want to get into, and we'd venture into assuming whether trees suffer or not.

>this is just an idealization of suffering
Well, yes, that is precisely my point. Suffering only occurs in the abstract plane. It is a moral interpretation of natural phenomena, therefore it doesn't exist without the interpreter. I'm willing to concede you, then, that animals feel suffering, but only to the length that you'll concede me that they, too, are only making a moral interpretation, rather than analyzing something which exists per se.

And this brings back OP's question, which I'd more fully answer saying that suffering exists because life exists and interprets itself and its relation with its surroundings, suffering is a fabrication of life.

>something that may clear why this is an issue is to ask yourself: do I believe human language is a requirement to demonize natural events?
It seems to me you're implying that thinking and language are not closely tied and can exist (as we understand them) independently from each other.

>Suffering is pain.
It is not. See: your own post.
>"suffering... the state of UNDERGOING pain".
Hunger isn't the lack of food and suffering isn't pain.

wtf I'm christian now

> I'd more fully answer saying that suffering exists because life exists and interprets itself and its relation with its surroundings, suffering is a fabrication of life.

I fully agree with that statement and believe my doubts are cleared up about that

What is it with dumb communists always putting themselves outside of nature? Is the superiority complex this inevitable?

sophia reproduced without a mate, then hid her aborted child in a cloud. he then ensnared the lower aeons and caused them to reproduce in physical bodies

>when your depression is so bad you refuse to believe anyone has ever over come despair so you can continue to wallow in your misery not having to try

Power has no meaning if there is no suffering which power can bear or overcome.

>Why do suffering exists?
because its good for you pinhead

>its good for YOU to get cheated on then conscripted into the vietnam war and blown up by a land mine suffering disfiguratiob and having to amputate your legs for a failed war against communism only to die homeless addicted to CIA imported Heroin
yeah man WOW thanks JBP thanks Meritocracy THANKS muh amor fati genius, wonderful, must be amazing!!!! you’re so smart look at YOUUUUUUU :))))

work at your daddy issues somewhere else jabronie

>I'll use these very extreme examples of other peoples suffering to justify my own even though those people are probably happier than me still
>It's not depression its realism!
fucking stop with this shit for christ sake.

>be me
>liberate myself from earthly desire
>get kidnapped
>kidnapper subjects me to medieval torture
>it still hurts

What the H E C C

ACktually that wasn't real liberation user that's why you still felt pain.

It evolved because it was advantageous. You'll be more careful not to injure yourself (and therefore more likely to survive) if it hurts.

this.

suffering is experience is sensation. it is a survival feature of the animal kingdom and not exclusive to mankind. man, however, has a too-big brain and thinks up stupid questions like "why me" and "who's killin us"

But what happens when the questions actually have an (((answer)))?

they don't. trips ignored.

Right is only right inasmuch as it is not left, left is only left inasmuch as it is not right. Whereas you are simply you. While right and left are inert phantoms that depend on you, there is no such state of affairs that subordinates you to anything else. Neither is there anything preventing you from thinking otherwise. Good is good in and of itself, any and all refraction is irrelevant to the perfection of Self-reflection.

>have one life
>subscribe to life denying worldview
laughingübermenschen.jpg

When you are liberated you can still feel pain, it just doesn't make you suffer.

Because weakness still exists in you.

If we were unable to suffer, how could we grow and become more than ourselves?

but the puppies are so cute user

Ironic

Are we not different from nature in part simply because we are even able to have this conversation? We are not above nature but we have the capacity for imagination which separates us in part.

>Ergo, communism is a figment of imagination, ayo.

>Are we not different from nature
No, because nature encompasses everything, including us.

Tell that to someone with brain tumor.

In this example, the veteran did not need to do heroin and could have lived a good life even without his legs if he had done things differently.

Define nature

What if I have a brain tumor?

I agree, I did not communicate what I meant well. I was just pointing out the fact that humans have self-awareness and the ability to imagine. Hence why utopia, myths, poetry, and things of that nature exist and that they are not found elsewhere as far as we know.

Retard

>just do things differently lmao

Whoa... life changing stuff

God works in mysterious ways :)

Sucks for you for living in a shithole country, you shitskin mongrels will never and can never be enlightened.

why does happiness exist?

>
>are we not different from nature
No you stupid commie we are not seperate from nature. The reason their is so much pollution is because of communists and capitalists believing that the earth is something that should be exploited for the betterment of humanity no matter how degenerate we become.
We are seperate from the animals because the animals are unable to understand God. If we don’t understand God we become animals.

A life without suffering or adversary has no meaning. A life purely of suffering and adversary has no meaning. Without conflict our lives have no meaning.

To appreciate more the pleasure

>the vet who dies a sad lonely opiate addict from mistreatment by society, the thief gang raped to death in holding cell in shitty jail, the little girl hit by a car are all extreme examples and were probably very hapoy to die that way
you should be killed
>what is morphine addiction from maiming in Nam
>what is predisposition to addictive behavior among warrior phenotypes
>what is trying to dull pain of failure
again you sgould be killed, people like this should just be hung

To walk across the lawn one must tread on the grass.
Cause and effect don't see good or bad, just results

How do you know animals don't understand God? Elephants have funeral rituals; and maybe they are even smarter than you. You are an animal, and you're not special.

to let you know that you've still got things to do

You could walk around the lawn

Its a comparative measurement, it only exists if you allow pleasure to exist also

Is that a william Blake engraving?

yes

>Not mastering the art of the sword before liberating self from earthly desire.
To be liberated from Dukkha Dukkha you must be ready to fend it off.