Suffering

[bobhikes]

What ?
You are hilarious, but this is the 'religious debates' section on this forum and not the 'jokes' one.

I'm hilarious, you do realize you can go almost a month without food and still survive. So what is a person that is not starving but has enough food to survive. Is that a person that gets one meal a day, one meal every other day, or one meal a week. This is a debate forum give me something to debate. What do you think a person is that qualifies as getting enough food to be hungry but not starving.

 

[Koldo]

I'm hilarious, you do realize you can go almost a month without food and still survive. So what is a person that is not starving but has enough food to survive. Is that a person that gets one meal a day, one meal every other day, or one meal a week. This is a debate forum give me something to debate. What do you think a person is that qualifies as getting enough food to be hungry but not starving.

Let's have a quick look at Wikipedia:

"Early symptoms include impulsivity, irritability, and hyperactivity. Atrophy (wasting away) of the stomach weakens the perception of hunger, since the perception is controlled by the percentage of the stomach that is empty. Individuals experiencing starvation lose substantial fat (adipose tissue) and muscle mass as the body breaks down these tissues for energy.[6] Catabolysis is the process of a body breaking down its own muscles and other tissues in order to keep vital systems such as the nervous system and heart muscle (myocardium) functioning. The energy deficiency inherent in starvation causes fatigue and renders the victim more apathetic over time. As the starving person becomes too weak to move or even eat, their interaction with the surrounding world diminishes. In females, menstruation ceases when the body fat percentage is too low to support a fetus.

Victims of starvation are often too weak to sense thirst, and therefore become dehydrated. All movements become painful due to muscle atrophy and dry, cracked skin that is caused by severe dehydration. With a weakened body, diseases are commonplace. Fungi, for example, often grow under the esophagus, making swallowing painful. Vitamin deficiency is also a common result of starvation, often leading to anemia, beriberi, pellagra, and scurvy. These diseases collectively can also cause diarrhea, skin rashes, edema, and heart failure. Individuals are often irritable and lethargic as a result.

There is insufficient scientific data on exactly how long people can live without food.[7] Although the length of time varies with an individual's percentage of body fat and general health, one medical study estimates that in adults complete starvation leads to death within 8 to 12 weeks.[8] There are isolated cases of individuals living up to 25 weeks without food.[9] Starvation begins when an individual has lost about 30% of their normal body weight.[10] Once the loss reaches 40% death is almost inevitable.[10]"

Now, with this in mind, can you answer my questions ?

 

[bobhikes]

Let's have a quick look at Wikipedia:

"Early symptoms include impulsivity, irritability, and hyperactivity. Atrophy (wasting away) of the stomach weakens the perception of hunger, since the perception is controlled by the percentage of the stomach that is empty. Individuals experiencing starvation lose substantial fat (adipose tissue) and muscle mass as the body breaks down these tissues for energy.[6] Catabolysis is the process of a body breaking down its own muscles and other tissues in order to keep vital systems such as the nervous system and heart muscle (myocardium) functioning. The energy deficiency inherent in starvation causes fatigue and renders the victim more apathetic over time. As the starving person becomes too weak to move or even eat, their interaction with the surrounding world diminishes. In females, menstruation ceases when the body fat percentage is too low to support a fetus.

Victims of starvation are often too weak to sense thirst, and therefore become dehydrated. All movements become painful due to muscle atrophy and dry, cracked skin that is caused by severe dehydration. With a weakened body, diseases are commonplace. Fungi, for example, often grow under the esophagus, making swallowing painful. Vitamin deficiency is also a common result of starvation, often leading to anemia, beriberi, pellagra, and scurvy. These diseases collectively can also cause diarrhea, skin rashes, edema, and heart failure. Individuals are often irritable and lethargic as a result.

There is insufficient scientific data on exactly how long people can live without food.[7] Although the length of time varies with an individual's percentage of body fat and general health, one medical study estimates that in adults complete starvation leads to death within 8 to 12 weeks.[8] There are isolated cases of individuals living up to 25 weeks without food.[9] Starvation begins when an individual has lost about 30% of their normal body weight.[10] Once the loss reaches 40% death is almost inevitable.[10]"

Now, with this in mind, can you answer my questions ?

There was no question you claimed my answer was hilarious and should be in the jokes section. By the way I like your dodge of presenting something to debate, Wikipedia is always a good dodge.

When a child only gets rice and water every day which reduces bone, muscle and mental development but survives like this for years, what do you call it?

 

[Koldo]

There was no question you claimed my answer was hilarious and should be in the jokes section. By the way I like your dodge of presenting something to debate, Wikipedia is always a good dodge.

I meant the post before that one.
Can you properly answer my questions now ?

When a child only gets rice and water every day which reduces bone, muscle and mental development but survives like this for years, what do you call it?

Malnutrition.

 

[bobhikes]

I meant the post before that one.
Can you properly answer my questions now ?



Malnutrition.

Then we disagree and just so you know in the real world most people die from and are dealing with malnutrition fewer people actually die or deal with starvation per your Wikipedia definition and even when they do it was malnutrition that caused them to get to the point of your definition of starvation.

 

[Koldo]

Then we disagree and just so you know in the real world most people die from and are dealing with malnutrition fewer people actually die or deal with starvation per your Wikipedia definition and even when they do it was malnutrition that caused them to get to the point of your definition of starvation.

What is the nature of this disagreement ?
What exactly do you disagree with ?

 

[bobhikes]

What is the nature of this disagreement ?
What exactly do you disagree with ?

Your definition of starvation. A child or person that only has rice or worse daily with water is being starved, with starvation of many minerals, proteins and vitamin's necessary for survival and while there body will make due with what they get, they are starving just slowly. It will reach the point of death through weakened immune system or full on starvation. I am not medically disciplined to deal with either so have not personally talked with a person in either condition and I doubt many have. As such I would be guessing their suffering but unless you are a doctor that administered to them you would be guessing as well. I do find many people in the hospital and outside the hospital with very serious conditions happy and not considering themselves suffering.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

There's a position D

Position D: Suffering is an illusion, and is part our (imperfect) view of the world. That is, suffering will end, when we no longer see the world in terms of good/evil.

This position is from kabbalistic Judaism, I believe, and some branches of monism.

 

[Koldo]

There's a position D

Position D: Suffering is an illusion, and is part our (imperfect) view of the world. That is, suffering will end, when we no longer see the world in terms of good/evil.

This position is from kabbalistic Judaism, I believe, and some branches of monism.

A complicated stance.
I doubt many could say with a straight face that suffering is an illusion in front of someone in distress.
"You are not really suffering."

 

[Koldo]

Your definition of starvation. A child or person that only has rice or worse daily with water is being starved, with starvation of many minerals, proteins and vitamin's necessary for survival and while there body will make due with what they get, they are starving just slowly. It will reach the point of death through weakened immune system or full on starvation. I am not medically disciplined to deal with either so have not personally talked with a person in either condition and I doubt many have. As such I would be guessing their suffering but unless you are a doctor that administered to them you would be guessing as well. I do find many people in the hospital and outside the hospital with very serious conditions happy and not considering themselves suffering.

What I wanted to know is what exactly this 'starving' person was undergoing when he told you he was happy.
By the sound of it, it seems like you are talking about someone that had barely anything to eat but could just get by and keep living. Not someone that was about to die any moment completely unable to find any source of food to eat the very minimum required to live. You can't get used to that and keep living because you will die... soon. Those are two very different scenarios.

 

[Ponder This]

This thread seems necessary after seeing the varying opinions of RF users on the reality of suffering. It seems that suffering needs a thread to further discuss it, examine ideas of it, and see if there's any consensus to arise at about it.

I will present three views about suffering that exist in the mainstream as a starting point, and feel free to introduce others I may skip over. This is merely for the convenience of getting us started.

Position A: Suffering is not ideal and should be ended

Position B: Suffering is not ideal, but it helps us grow, know what bad is, and develops character- so it shouldn't necessarily end

Position C: Suffering is beautiful. If we embrace suffering we'll be sharing in the burden of God/Christ for all creation. Suffering presents us with a chance to be God/Christ, and suffer with him.

Buddhism seems to take A&B together. Suffering is absolutely bad from a Buddhist perspective, but at the same time- it has been reflected on by various masters as a way of seeing the futility of clinging to love of the world and possessions.

Suffering has a use in Buddhism- if and only if it brings one to practice, so that it can be ultimately overcome. That things suffer is not somehow virtuous or ideal from a Buddhist perspective.

I've encountered those that tend to be of Position B only. That suffering might be not ideal, but there are reasons it should continue.

This position is often set up in opposition to the Buddhist perspective. We are asked to consider that suffering makes us grow, or it causes us to overcome hurdles.

I think those that often hold to Position B do not realize they are arguing for Position A. Some of them may not even realize they stand with Position A concerning suffering.

Allow me to expound. I will attempt to show that Position B as often argued, is an extension of Position A. Most people arguing for Position B do not actually think suffering is ideal or good. Actually, if they did think so- I'd ask why suffering is a catalyst for overcoming in their perspective.

This argues that suffering is not good, and it's only usefulness is in pushing humans to overcome it. Position B typically is not that suffering is good, or should remain. Position B is more an active application of Position A.

That's why I think the two are probably more interrelated than often realized. Position A will usually lead one to Position B- because Position A is the motivator.

I don't think those arguing that suffering has a use are necessarily making a good case for it's being good or desirable. Yet often, when coming up against Buddhists- suffering is frequently appealed to that way.

Suffering is said to be useful and even admirable from a certain outlook, so Buddhism's desire to end it is short-sighted.

As stated, I don't think those that hold Position B while rejecting A are thinking through their premises very well. They are not in fact saying that being in suffering is good.

There are those that do hold such a position. Many of those can be relegated to what I defined above as Position C. This view is typically held by Christians of a certain sort. Mother Theresa is a good example of this kind of approach to suffering.

In a certain way, she stated many times during her life that suffering is beautiful. That she feels like suffering is the passion ever present. That she sees Christ when she looks at suffering.

I don't want to take up fifty paragraphs framing an OP, so I've said enough. There was no simple introduction of this subject.

Now let's begin. What do you think suffering is good for? Do you think suffering is desirable or repellent? Do you see something beautiful and transcendent in suffering? Do you think suffering should be ended?

This should be a good discussion.

Unfortunately, you started a discussion about suffering without providing a clear definition for the word 'suffering'.

The common definition for 'suffering' is: 'the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship'.
'Dukkha' is a Buddhist concept translated as 'suffering', 'pain', or 'unsatisfactoriness' (the fundamental unsatisfactoriness and painfulness of mundane life). In other words, as one of the Four Noble Truths, we crave and cling to impermanent states and things which are incapable of satisfying and painful.

From the point of view of medical practice, we ask people what their 'pain level' is on a scale from 1 to 10... a person's 'pain level' is subjective (not objective).

I would say 'suffering' also has both a subjective and objective reality.

More objectively...
On the one hand:

Did Gandhi consider his hunger strike suffering or was it an purposeful act of rebellion. Hunger strikes have been used around the world to inspire others to change. Do the participants feel they are suffering.

And on the other hand:

I can't believe you're throwing that out there as a comparison to countries where people actually starve to death

So there are apparent causes for suffering such 'starvation'. And it would seem that the thing to do is to end starvation and then we would somehow be closer to ending 'suffering'. But the Buddha suggests that suffering is part of mundane life. And I interpret that to mean that it can't be avoided simply by removing apparent causes such as starvation. In other words, people who aren't starving can still be so unhappy with their life that they will try to deliberately starve themselves!

Position A:
So what about the idea that 'suffering is not ideal' and therefore we should seek to 'end suffering'.
I would respond with the Story of the Struggling Butterfly.
In the story, it is obvious that the butterfly struggles. And while that struggle can be seen as suffering, it does not mean that the butterfly shouldn't struggle. I would also note that the struggle does end.
It seems that the point of view of Position A that 'suffering should be ended' is superficially true and therefore not useful. Position A does not state that 'there should be no suffering'. It states that 'suffering should end' and therefore leaves open the question of when and how suffering should end.

Position B:
'Suffering should not end'. The Story of the Butterfly makes it clear that the struggle of emerging from the cocoon does end. The suffering of not being able to fly appears to be an necessary suffering unwittingly inflicted by the boy. The butterfly's suffering should have ended and not been prolonged by the boy, but now the butterfly will suffer the rest of it's life in the state of not being able to fly and thus it's suffering fails to 'help us grow, know what bad is, and develop character'. The endless suffering this butterfly must now endure of never being able to fly has failed to help this butterfly, which is in opposition to the very thing Position B purports will occur.

Position C:
'Suffering is beautiful'.
The Story of the Butterfly appears to mesh with the idea that 'suffering can lead to beauty', but what of the suffering the butterfly now experiences of not being able to fly now that the boy has helped it? Is that also beautiful? No.

So I think we can distinguish that suffering is not beautiful in and of itself. Suffering requires a purpose to fulfill it. If that purpose is Christ, then perhaps Position C fulfills that purpose for all suffering... but I will leave that for others to decide.

 

[bobhikes]

What I wanted to know is what exactly this 'starving' person was undergoing when he told you he was happy.
By the sound of it, it seems like you are talking about someone that had barely anything to eat but could just get by and keep living. Not someone that was about to die any moment completely unable to find any source of food to eat the very minimum required to live. You can't get used to that and keep living because you will die... soon. Those are two very different scenarios.

I'm understand what you are saying you just don't understand me. I believe I have made my point for others that read through. I am not going to personalize my encounters out of respect for the people. If you want, help out in a third world country where people are malnourished and decide for yourself.

 

[Koldo]

I'm understand what you are saying you just don't understand me. I believe I have made my point for others that read through. I am not going to personalize my encounters out of respect for the people. If you want, help out in a third world country where people are malnourished and decide for yourself.

I live in a third world country.
Nice to meet you.

 

[bobhikes]

I live in a third world country.
Nice to meet you.

We haven't really met but it was an interesting exchange. There are many beautiful places in third world countries a few even better than many places in the US. May you see the beauty in the country and its people.

 

[robocop (actually)]

This thread seems necessary after seeing the varying opinions of RF users on the reality of suffering.

Raelians can be Buddhist. In fact they consider themselves most like a de-mystified Buddhism. I am sure if I looked at your questions I would be on the Buddhist side about suffering.

But more important to us is the societal progress than the individual. Society fights its demons and sometimes progresses and sometimes regresses. They, the Raelians, try to help it go in the right direction.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

@robocop (actually) I would think an Epicurean jolly well would be on the side of Buddhists about suffering. If there's anything Epicurus and the Buddha were in agreement on it's that suffering is 'actually' bad/not ideal, and joy is good. Not a joy that you aim for with things, but you naturally have through content living. I continue to admire Epicurus because he and the Buddha do agree on a few good things. I'd venture to say that the ideal earth of the Epicurean and Buddhist are the same. If people were living together as we could and ever-working to end suffering that's preventable. Some of those sufferings are there due to human greed and the like.