What's Wrong With Suffering?

[David T]

I try and use the correct meaning of words and use them for structured coherent thoughts. That's usually why my answers are short. I'm only just so coherent.

I try and use the correct meaning of words and use them for structured coherent thoughts. That's usually why my answers are short. I'm only just so coherent.

Language should be more the topic on RF instead of simply lost in a singular.form of language as the site tends to be.

This is a great topic in context.to. this "explanatory" form of language It is very good at a sort of mechanical explanation actually is total crap in context to the topic. It is interesting we have in fact three distinct forms. A literal, like this is a car engine. Or fiction, which has the appearance of literal, but with caveats of it not being.literal, and poetic. I think many get stuck in the first one and have little clue about the other two. That's certainly true in religion, or at least the version of christianity in the US generally speaking.
In regards.to.suffering without it we don't have this.lovely song. Made more powerful by the singer's recent.suicide. chris Cornell.

 

[sayak83]

What makes them negative?

According to the dictionary definition suffering is the state of undergoing pain, distress or hardship.

And why can't suffering be sweet?

If you experience something as sweet, then that is not suffering, by definition. Suffering is defined as those experiences which, when experienced by a person, has highly negative and bitter qualia to them. So suffering can't be sweet in the same sense that bachelors can't be married people.

 

[sayak83]

Show me that definition.

See below,
Suffering - Wikipedia

Suffering, or pain in a broad sense,[1] may be an experience of unpleasantness and aversion associated with the perception of harm or threat of harm in an individual.[2] Suffering is the basic element that makes up the negative valence of affective phenomena. The opposite of suffering is pleasure or happiness.

Suffering - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Although sometimes identified with pain, suffering is better understood as a highly unpleasant emotional state associated with considerable pain or distress

 

[blü 2]

All based on the assumption that suffering is bad.

No, the problem is fraudulent advertising.

People are free to like or dislike suffering, red cars, Oroton handbags, red hot chili sauce, whatever. There's no necessarily correct choice with any of them.

The product is advertised as being good for the removal of suffering.

And it ain't.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Just how much suffering is allowable before God is bad for allowing it. This seems very subjective.

If you're expecting a neat one line answer then you're expecting oversimplification. Just like the line at which point laissez faire parenting becomes criminal neglect can't be summrized by a single line.

I can give examples. For example, I would never allow someone to drown no matter how careless they have been as long as I can prevent it. Drowning isn't a learning or growth experience. Dying doesn't make them stronger. It doesn' add something to society. There is no net benefit.

Personally though, this line of argument as a non-christian is not super interesting to me. I don't believe god exists so I don't believe suffering exists or does not exist at gods whim. Suffering just is.

And if wanted to talk about why I would never worship the God of the bible even if I believe he existed as how I read the scripture, there's much more pressing reasons: such as multiple genocides, excusing slavery, homophobia, sexism and racism perpetuated throughout scripture.

 

[QuestioningMind]

So now suffering has to be qualified?

Only if you want to be clear as to what you're talking about, instead of giving a concept as potentially diverse as suffering a single blanket definition that renders it virtually meaningless.

 

[Quagmire]

Although sometimes identified with pain, suffering is better understood as a highly unpleasant emotional state associated with considerable pain or distress

Agree exactly. Suffering isn't a physical sensation, it's an emotional one.

Remove the emotion from the equation and pain is just pain, which is a lot easier to deal with.

 

[suncowiam]

What doesn't kill you will make you stronger.

 

[Kenny]

Where is that solid line that says this suffering is good and that is bad and who decides where the line is?

I'm not sure it is such a solid line because of too many variables. Using the example of excercis, exercising is good but if overdone, you can damage muscles. For one person it may be sooner than another. Are you just starting? Are there previous injuries than may affect your capacity? What is your bone structure like? It all factors in.

However, there are some lines that are bold and definitely bad. Cancer is one of those lines. It steals, it kills and it destroys and there is nothing good about cancer.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

I put this in the Religious Debate section because I often hear that God is bad because He allows suffering. Alright, pony up. What's wrong with suffering.

I don’t believe God causes any suffering ever.
However, although God could prevent all suffering, it woukd require that humanity effectively be like robots without free will.
It’s the free will that causes suffering.

 

[Kapalika]

It's bad because we don't like it, duh. We have an instinct to see inflicting unneeded suffering as wrong, and so to stand by and do nothing while others suffer, when you created the situation which brought the suffering, is seen as evil.

It's really as simple as that. I don't think you would think it was good if someone stood by and didn't help you if you were in terrible pain (say your legs got crushed), and you would think less of them if they caused the pain on purpose, especially when they had many other valid options.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I have never found anything remotely wrong with suffering, I find it the natural state of mankind. I simply refuse to believe a god created this world to cater to our needs as everything we love has to be created by us.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

If it isn't bad, why avoid it?

I don't like it.

 

[Koldo]

I don't like it.

Nobody does. Therefore, it is bad.
You can close the topic now.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Nobody does. Therefore, it is bad.
You can close the topic now.

Liver must be bad then as well.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm not sure it is such a solid line because of too many variables. Using the example of excercis, exercising is good but if overdone, you can damage muscles. For one person it may be sooner than another. Are you just starting? Are there previous injuries than may affect your capacity? What is your bone structure like? It all factors in.

However, there are some lines that are bold and definitely bad. Cancer is one of those lines. It steals, it kills and it destroys and there is nothing good about cancer.

Instead of quibbling over the quality consider this then. One event happens to two people. One suffers and one doesn't. Clearly it's not the event bit the expression of the individual. This means all God has to do is change people so they have no capacity to suffer. Life would be good then.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You can close the topic now.

Tada! Boom.

 

[vijeno]

I put this in the Religious Debate section because I often hear that God is bad because He allows suffering. Alright, pony up. What's wrong with suffering.

Nothing is inherently wrong with suffering. However, ask me the same question the next time I have a severe headache.

Speaking in a theistic context, it would seem that this god created all sentient beings with an innate fear and avoidance of suffering.

In some dharmic religions, e.g. buddhism, suffering is a pretty good motivation to become enlightened.

If you prefer an evolutionary approach, it makes sense that beings should avoid suffering, so they can propagate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't like it.

So? Do you avoid every thing you dislike? Why don’t you like it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Instead of quibbling over the quality consider this then. One event happens to two people. One suffers and one doesn't. Clearly it's not the event bit the expression of the individual. This means all God has to do is change people so they have no capacity to suffer. Life would be good then.

That would be one way to do it, yes.

For example, eating a peanut doesn’t involve any suffering at all for most people, but involves quite a bit of suffering for people allergic to peanuts.