As I am still fostering hope I will someday find someone on this forum who has played the Talos Principle, I'm going to update this thread with another topic within this game that interests me greatly.

Of the three endings within the original game, the Ascension ending is widely considered to be the 'good' ending. I ascend the Tower against Elohim's wishes and eventually reach the top. Here I am congratulated and told that ascending the Tower was my final test. This feat proves I am an exceptional AI within the simulation and worthy of ascending. The ascension process entails that my AI is uploaded to a physical robot on Earth. The simulation, along with its inhabitants, is destroyed. Depending on my interactions with the MLA, the massive database containing all of humanity's history and achievements will be uploaded to my hard drive.The game then ends with the robot AI awakening on Earth among the remnants of long lost civilization.

Now, there are a couple of matters that need to be discussed before we can conclude to have found the 'best' ending to the Talos Principle.

Free Will(?)

Upon reaching the Ascension-ending the player unlocks the achievement called 'Free Will', which features a pictogram of broken chains. This, however, is a very misleading trick pulled by the developers. The player may congratulate himself for having proven he is capable of free will, but if one examines the facts, this is in fact not so. Elohim says the following upon the player reaching the top of the tower:

Elohim: "You were always meant to defy me. That was the final trial."

Wait a minute. Wasn't I meant to have exhibited free will? Doesn't this mean I have achieved the exact opposite? I have done exactly as I was programmed to do. And the game reinforces this further. The simulation was designed by humans to create an AI that could be uploaded to Earth to function as a last reminder of humanity's existence. A walking data bank.

After all, what have I proven by ascending the tower? It is hardly an act of free will to be tempted by the tower. This was done by many and I wasn't the first to have tried it, but I was the first to succeed. How? By solving logic puzzles. The game confirms this with the line "Analyzing logic performance . . . . . . . Satisfactory."

I have not exhibited free will. At most, I have shown an independence from Elohim ("Child program independence check . . . . . PASSED!"), but other than being a voice in the sky what authority did he have? I did not manage to show my independence from my actual creators; the humans who programmed me.

... But it gets worse.

Alright. I may have not proven myself to be capable of free will, but I have escaped that blasted simulation and gotten back to Earth! Surely this is a worthy achievement of itself?

Well...

If I approach things objectively, I am now stuck in a world that is not so different from the one I left. Alone among the remnants of a lost civilization. However, this time I am truly alone. Quite simply, I have traded my cage for a bigger one. While this new cage may be 'real', the hazards I face are also real. Hazards which, given enough time, will inevitably lead to my permanent death.

Alright, but that death won't occur for ages! Think of all the things we could explore and learn about human-... Oh God...

Yes. Ever wondered why that achievement was called 'Deal with the Deceiver'?

There is nothing to learn on Earth, because that blasted Serpent uploaded everything there was to know to my AI's hard drive!

...

...

Well, what about my hopes of rebuilding a civilization?

Given the fact that building a robot of the same quality would require vast functioning industries, I highly doubt the ability of a single robot to replicate one. Not only that, but any attempts at doing so would increase the risk of (potentially irreparable) damage. In fact, any attempt at doing anything could result in this. Not to mention the effects that time will have on the integrity of the robot. Finally, it was never my purpose to produce more robots, so it is highly unlikely that humanity has taken any steps in facilitating such an endeavor. So I guess Elohim wasn't lying when he said the only thing that awaited me at the top of the tower was death. Who would've thought?

Hmm... So I guess I'm stuck waiting for aliens to arrive. Lets hope they arrive within a reasonable time frame, because not only will time inevitably take its toll on my robot, I am also profoundly bored.

The Price

What? Oh yes. That ...other... thing.

Of course, these several life times of boredom I have bought for myself weren't exactly free.

To get here, I had to destroy the simulation. A simulation, while not perfect, was filled with AIs, some of which just as conscious as I. In the base game I found Samsara and The Shepherd, who just like me, were tempted by the tower, but could not ascend it fully. Of course there are countless of other AIs whose thoughts I occasionally see scribbled on the walls. However, in Road to Gehenna I encountered undeniable proof that the AIs were highly sentient and can even feel emotions. They were quite content 'living life' in each other's company, despite the fact they were locked in prison cells. Perhaps they understood something about life that I didn't.

I killed all these AIs and for what? To be reduced to a walking floppy disk, condemned to decades, perhaps centuries, of boredom, as part of humanity's last vanity project.

Ouch.

You have to answer this question, because if you don't, then the only thing you're saying is: 'everything is what everything is' — csalisbury

There is no problem here. If such is the nature of reality, then such a statement would be perfectly valid. Of course, a more interesting matter would be describing what the nature of that everything is. Any attempt at describing a oneness would inevitably imply a division, however the conclusion that therefore everything cannot be one is a hasty conclusion.

Even though Plato's views cannot be termed definitively monist or dualist, he does account for the aforementioned problem with his assertion that a person cannot directly attain knowledge about the One itself, but only through the imperfect lens of the human experience, resulting in 'the experience of the One', which can be viewed as a form of enlightenment.

Taoism teaches one to bring oneself into harmony with the natural order of things. Sometimes this corresponds to doing nothing at all, and quieting the mind.

Do you know that feeling of not knowing what to do, even though your mind is telling you there are many things you could be doing? A Taoist might say that at that moment one should give into the feeling of having nothing to do.

This also ties into the idea that Taoists do not like to force matters, and instead prefer to let matters present themselves naturally. For example, someone may have the ambition to study a certain subject. However, every time the person tries to study this subject it costs him a lot of effort. He cannot remember the material, he cannot make the connections, he becomes frustrated etc. For a Taoist this may be an indication that the person is acting against the natural harmony of things. If we assume that the person is intelligent enough to learn the material, a Taoist may advise him to put the book down momentarily and (ideally) wait for a natural urge to pick it back up.

While Taoists accept that there is a natural harmony to things and that it is in one's best interests to adhere to this harmony, it doesn't advocate to be passive in general. Whether you are active or passive can correspond with a wide variety of things, ranging from time of day to seasons to one's age, personality, ailments, etc.

How one follows the Tao is quite personal, but the key is never to go against one's own nature and force things to be in a way they are not 'meant to be'. Another example would be a person who has a busy job, even though he is not the sort of person that can handle stress very well. It is likely that his nature has been telling him he's not on the right path, but external pressures or conditioning have forced him into it. Maybe his parents wanted him to take over a family business, or he has been told from infancy that he should be ambitious and pursue material wealth. This disregard of one's own nature can ultimately result physical and psychological problems.

First of all, it's rather terrible journalism (granted I have come to expect nothing less these days) to put a rousing title above an article and then refer to a book without even mentioning some of the reasoning behind the conclusion. If I had to read an entire book every time a journalist makes some wild claim, I would have a day job sifting through speculation and hastily-drawn conclusions...

However, I found the following video on YouTube of the author discussing his book: Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World

The author is clearly a lot more careful in his conclusions than the posted article would have one assume. The author refers to the ancient Greeks and to schools of thought like Epicureanism, pointing out ideas which he terms 'atheistic'. The author's definition of atheism seems to have more to do with the denial of a anthropomorphic, omnipresent, omnibenevolent (etc.) God, and not denial of everything 'Divine'. I'd say such use of the word 'atheist' is rather liberal, and hardly correlates to the disposition of the average modern atheist. Considering his reason for writing the book seems to be to provide atheism with a degree of historical authority, it is rather misleading. Calling these ancient Greek philosophers atheistic carries about as much meaning as calling Buddhists atheistic. In both cases they have absolutely nothing in common with the average 'modern atheist' (insofar as there is such a thing).

Is it me, or does the article not provide a link to the study? Suspicious.

Considering an invasion by North Korea would undoubtedly drag the United States, Japan and possibly more into war, it is a highly improbable scenario. What would anyone hope to gain? And one shouldn't underestimate China's say in North Korea's actions. China has also very little interest in war. The real trick Trump is playing is that he's creating an imaginary threat to play the strongman against, and judging by the contents of this thread he's succeeding at it.

In that regard there is not much difference between science and philosophy. However, in science others can verify one's findings, which isn't always the case for philosophy.

There are a lot of people who have such prejudices, most often unknowingly. Things one has been taught from childhood and were never properly scrutinized. My example was an obvious one, but when we start uncovering similar (less obvious) predispositions, prejudices and false assumptions about the self, reality, etc., and one will start to see how big the web of illusion is that we've spun for ourselves. Indeed, these may not seem like falsehoods until we properly examine them.

It is exactly this process of dismantling one's false sense of reality that led Descartes to his famous proposition "I think, therefore I am", which was the only thing he felt he could be certain of. Similarly when the Oracle of Delphi proclaimed there was no Greek wiser than Socrates, she was right. For Socrates knew just as much as any other Greek; Nothing. Paradoxically, Plato's account famously stated Socrates saying "I know that I know nothing", and later "I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either."

Long story short; We have a lot of illusions about what we think we know, and one cannot build philosophy upon illusions.

Perhaps the first step towards finding truth is not uncovering truth itself, but uncovering falsehoods instead, or at least false thoughts. For example, I may be under the impression that all Italians are lazy, because I once met a lazy Italian and I did not like him very much. Realizing my assumption about Italians is not based on anything substantial uncovers a falsehood, or at the very least a hastily-drawn, unsubstantiated conclusion.

Perhaps there are those who can attach a name to their writing without their ego becoming engaged, but in 20 years of doing this dance I've yet to meet them. — Jake

How would you know?

One can never be sure that one is free of predisposition. But by virtue of striving honestly and critically one may hope to see more clearly. Some people have a natural inclination towards such an attitude.

Indications that one may be on a wrong trail depend on what the person is trying to understand.

It could be argued that if a person needs to be restrained in order to make him engage in true philosophy, he does not yet have the capacity to be a true philosopher. Anyhow, I tend not to worry myself with how others practice philosophy. For me it's a very personal endeavour.

Ideally one should strive to face the facts without predispositions, much like a scientist should not let his research be influenced by his personal opinions. Of course, this is not an easy task, but one should strive for nothing less.

Can you not say that in his quest for truth, the philosopher should be utterly dedicated to it, and not allow his view of it to be corrupted by his own preferences? That's the message I am trying to convey.

So one must find the lost city of Eldorado.

Thank you for clearing that up. I had gotten the impression you disagreed. To elaborate upon that general statement; much like a scientist a philosopher should concern himself solely with what is true, and not what he wants to be true. Even more so because the philosopher's findings cannot always be easily verified. He needs to be brutally honest about himself and his findings, lest he falls into the trap of self-delusion to which the human mind is so susceptible. That's why a philosopher needs to be utterly dedicated to truth, and nothing but the truth, and he must scrutinize himself every step of the way, for of all people a philosopher should know how valuable and rare truth is.

How can this possibly be so when the question "what is 'truth'?" is purportedly within the purview of philosophy? Wouldn't that beg the question? — Isaac

It's a perfectly valid question to ask. I don't see how a bias towards truth should prevent such questions from being asked.

Considering an unprovoked attack on North Korea would inevitably result in war with China, that is highly implausible.

N Korea isnt a real threat to US security, but it has proven it can hit Japan by mistake when trying to hit us, which makes it a perfect victim. — ernestm

Not really. It takes a single look at the anti-ballistic missile defenses of Japan to realize that North Korea poses no threat to Japan either.

North Korea doesn't pose a credible threat, the United States would not need nuclear weapons to defeat North Korea and using nuclear weapons would destroy the United States' (already questionable) reputation of being a benevolent superpower. What could the US possibly gain from nuking North Korea?

Feelings of moral superiority serve no other purpose besides inflation of the ego. Are such feelings common? Undoubtedly. But they are also highly dangerous, both when cultivated in individuals and in communities.

I'd say I am also morally superior to a husband who cheats and/or beats his wife. — chatterbears

This is where the mistake lies: This illusion of moral superiority stems from one instance, in which one attests that under the same circumstances one would have made a different decision.

Firstly, unless one has been in the same situation, one cannot be sure of this. How many people judge themselves to be morally superior to Nazi concentration camp guards? However, we also know that it is very likely that the average person would, under such circumstances, act in much the same manner.

Secondly, it is a mistake to judge the merit of a person on one example. Feeling morally superior to another means one has the illusion of being able to judge the entirety of another's moral being, and the entirety of one's own moral being, compare the two, and conclude one is superior.

Now, either of these could very well be true, but it is often very difficult, if not impossible, to find out. However, even if one were to gain, by some miracle, an accurate insight of one's own moral being compared to another, what is the use of blemishing this achievement with feelings of moral superiority? Why can one not congratulate oneself for being on the right path, and pity the poor fool who isn't?

It is certainly not hoping to go unnoticed. If you disagree, make your case.

Whenever philosophy is biased towards anything other than truth, it is not true philosophy. The ancient Greeks used to make a distinction between philosophy, the love of wisdom, and philodoxia, the love of opinion. That distinction nowadays is almost never made, resulting in much pseudo-philosophy posing as actual philosophy. Philosophy deals with facts and reality, and whenever it doesn't, it is delusion and nothing else.

Perhaps you should read what the good man had to say and see if your prejudice is merited.

Sounds like the typical Internet message board poster personality to me. — Terrapin Station

The irony of this comment is not lost on me.

For me to respond to that, you would first have to present a definition of spiritual depression.

As I understand the meaning of the text, Plato is saying that as long as reason is present, and it lowly whispers 'Thou shall not', spirit has the tendency to side with reason rather than desire. After all, if we commit an act that we know to be wrong (reason tells us it is wrong), don't we feel bad afterwards? This shows that spirit has a natural inclination towards what is right. In the absence of reason, it seems rather obvious that spirit and desire can form a destructive duo. I don't think Plato disputes this.

I fear we are in danger of having two different conversations here. I'm trying to explain to you Plato's model of the tripartite soul. It seemed only appropriate to use the example of the depressed Sam which you used earlier. What I am not trying to do is present you with an accurate explanation of depression! Not only is Plato's tripartite soul not a tool meant for such an endeavor, but clearly depression is a condition about which there are still many questions today and it would be impossible to capture its essence in a forum post.

With that in mind, I'd like to address your comment.

For example, there are negative thought patterns. And various other cognitive distortions.
This is the province of reasoning. And can be alleviated by cognitive behavioural therapy ( CBT ) amongst other treatments. — Amity

The word reason (λόγος) that Plato uses carries a significant meaning, of which you are perhaps unaware, and there is a very important distinction here. Reason can only lead to truth. To the degree that which it doesn't, it is being deceived by spirit or desire to make false conclusions. Cognitive distortions and negative thought patterns therefore, cannot fall under reason, because they are (I think by definition) not based in reality. Reasoning can be false, to the degree it is being mis(led) by spirit and desire. Reason can never be false.

I am not sure what you are trying to imply by bringing in aspects of the Good, or even deception by spirit.
I am frankly uneasy with your understanding of depression. There seems to be a moral element creeping in. For example - if you are thinking of a spiritual depression, what do you consider would be the causes and cures ? — Amity

The Good and the One should not be confused with morality. The concept of the Good and the One (they are the same) is fundamental to Plato's philosophies and if I were to try and explain it in a forum post I would not be doing it justice. Suffice it to say that Plato's 'the Good and the One' has nothing in common with the popular concepts of 'good and evil'. A simple, but insufficient explanation would describe the Good as 'that which is ultimately real'. It holds a very close connection to reason, which is why I brought it up.

I assumed you had studied Plato's idea of the Good and perhaps I have moved too fast in my explanations. It is quite fundamental to almost all of Plato's works and I would recommend studying it before moving on. The lecture I shared earlier is the first part of a two-part lecture on Plato's Republic. In the second part the Good and the One are explained. There are also lectures on commentaries on Plato by Proclus and Plotinus who go into greater detail, to which I can link you if you want.

I do not believe Socrates argues that spirit and desire cannot ally. Would you perhaps share the passage in which you believe he states this?

As far as my understanding goes, Socrates is not saying spirit is always an ally of reason. Instead, he is giving an example where reason, being firmly in control, may ally with spirit to control desire. After all, shouldn't reason propel a man to feel anger for being a slave to his desires? Thus there are cases in which spirit can aid reason. A man's passions are a powerful thing, and if guided can lead a man to greatness. If they are not, they may lead him to ruin. If they are denied or suppressed, they will surely return with a vengeance.

First of all, I fully encourage you to continue studying Plato. Trying to understand his philosophy is a rewarding mental exercise of itself, and there will come a point where something will 'click' and his ideas will start to intuitively make sense to you.

Now, to your question: I think we can determine depression is the domain of spirit by process of elimination. Desire clearly does not qualify. All men desire the Good, thus no man desires to be depressed. To eliminate reason is a little more complicated, because we must firmly understand its meaning in Plato's works. Reason is that part of the mind which seeks truth and wisdom, and is interested in the nature of the reality. The highest expression of reality is the One or the Good. Therefore, reason must necessarily lead one to the Good. Whenever it doesn't, one is not being lead by reason, but being deceived by spirit or appetite. That leaves us with spirit. And can we not say that depression is the presence of profound sadness, or the absence of happiness, therefore the natural domain of spirit?

One interpretation of Plato's Republic that I found particularly interesting and which opened my eyes to its contents was by Pierre Grimes. Many lectures he has done on Plato's works can be found on YouTube. Here's a link to one of his lectures about the Republic:

Plato's Republic as the Allegory for the Training of the Soul

If you're interested in Plato, as you seem to be, I would recommend taking a look at the channel. There is an absolute wealth of knowledge there.

Something else that ties into this discussion which I find interesting, is the fact that Plato speaks of the Good, but never of evil. There is no evil, only degrees to which people are wrong about the Good. Similarly I think that what we perceive as someone being 'driven towards something that is bad for him', like drinking, is someone who in that moment believes (perhaps wrongly) that drinking is good for him. Such judgements, which reason knows to be wrong, may be perceived as right by the desire or spirit. In your example, Sam is depressed. Such a state of mind can only be ruled by spirit (emotion), and it is in all likelihood his spirit that is convincing him to drink. Reason is not in control, thus Sam is driven towards things that are bad for him, though his spirit is telling him otherwise.

So I think the reason Socrates states ἀκρασία cannot exist, is because one is not acting against their better judgement, but their judgement was simply wrong, likely due to the fact that the wrong part of their nature was in control when the judgement was passed.

Do you feel λόγος is somehow alien to man? Because I would argue the opposite. Reason seems to reside within us all, inside some more than in others. What perhaps makes the λόγος of the ancient Greeks less easily grasped is that instead of turning their reasoning outward, they turned it inward in order to make sense of that which goes on in our minds. Many religions and philosophies (such as Gnosticism's 'divine spark' and Stoicisms 'divine logos') in the past have asserted that there's a divine quality to the reasoning part of the human mind.

Respectfully, wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense if God created the universe by reason? By logic? Which is incidentally exactly how the universe functions? According to laws and relations? I understand that just because it makes sense to me, doesn't mean it was the intended meaning behind the work, but perhaps it helps you understand where I am coming from.

In my understanding Plato claims "all men desire the Good", however they may be wrong in regard to what is Good. This also holds close relation to the what part of our being rules the others (reason, desire and spirit), which may cause us to develop a wrong understanding of what is Good. In the context of your question I would elaborate as follows:

It is reason that wants to stop smoking as a New Year's Resolution, because smoking is bad for your health, it costs money, it makes you smell etc. Reason therefore states that to stop smoking is Good. However, if reason isn't in control of the other to parts of our nature, it is a matter of time until desire or spirit (emotion) takes over and we start smoking again. Maybe because we crave the feeling of smoking (desire) or because we try to forget our wordly woes (spirit). These parts of our nature will therefore try to convince us that to start smoking again is actually Good, and if reason isn't firmly in control, they will eventually prevail.

So willpower seems to hold a close relation to reason and the degree to which it is able to control the other parts of our nature.

A way to restate the question would be:
Is it better to do moral things or things which are thought to be moral (by society). What is more important, your state of being or the perception of others?

This is an interesting question and it is dealt with directly in Plato's Republic in which he makes the argument it is better to be a just man who is perceived by all (even the Gods!) to be unjust, than to be an unjust man perceived by all to be just. I couldn't possibly do Plato's work justice without writing an essay, so if you are interested I can recommend reading the work. However, to summarize Plato argues that in a just man it is reason that rules desire, whereas an injust man is ruled by his desire. Therefore an unjust man cannot experience contentment and will be in a permanent state of want. The just man on the other hand controls his desire through reason and therefore experiences contentment wherever he goes.

I agree, I took a bit too much freedom in that interpretation. However I cannot help but find profundity in the word λόγος and its translation as 'reason' (or even 'cause', but we may get into that later). Doesn't it potentially give great insight into John's view of the nature of God? And if God is reason, and reason is God, then Jesus is the 'voice of reason'. What happens when we interpret Christian writings viewing God not as an anthropomorphous Zeus-like being, but as pure, perfect reason, the likes of which the Platonists sought? What about the fact that Plato called the ultimate object of thought 'the One', however closely related and equally important to the One was the Good. The Good, that which unifies and in its unification perfects. Love, among other things.

In some esoteric teachings, wisdom is explained as the application or practice of unity (love) and, God being the representation of absolute unity (the one) or love in the greatest form, divine wisdom (the word, logos) becomes interpreted as the endeavours of that absolute unity/love. — BrianW

That is in fact quite close (if not downright identical) to the (neo)Platonic view of 'the Good' and 'the One'. I'm not sure if I would term ancient Greek philosophy esoteric, though. At least not in the popular sense of the word.

Aren't all these extremely curious similarities and insights? To answer your question: If we were to assume that John meant λόγος in the Platonic sense, then the Christian image of God as a sentient being is wrong. If God is reason in the Platonic sense, John is saying God is pure conscious thought which binds the soul, intellect (νοῦς) and the One, together.

I hadn't even thought about Philo of Alexandria yet, but now that you present these ideas it seems more plausible that λόγος was indeed meant in the Platonic sense.

Some here seem to gloss over these similarities rather casually, but this potentially means that Christianity is based on Platonic thought, and, dare I say, a (mis)interpretation of it.

If one were to accept these profound similarities as the early Christians copying from the ancient Greeks, that has some very far-reaching consequences for the way one would interpret Christian writings. Considering these similarities penetrate into the core of the Christian belief (for example the Christian trinity and the Platonic trinity), that would imply that centuries of interpretation are simply wrong. Now, I don't mean to draw this conclusion, but you seemed to gloss over this matter rather casually and I thought I'd address it.

It is interesting to note that the word σὰρξ can refer to a body of flesh, but it can also refer to something which is physical rather than corporeal. One could therefore come to a translation such as "And the λόγος was made physical," now depending on one's interpretation of the word λόγος this could mean that the universe is reason made physical, and that reason resides in mankind. Reason (the Son) comes forth from the One (the Father).

In your view, could any of those translations change the meaning of the passages that are being discussed?

This seems largely right but it's clearly more than a mere incorporation or assimilation. It's also a challenge. Logos can no longer be understood apart or independently from God's oneness. — John Doe

Could you elaborate on this challenge?

So I guess you hate that election votes are anonymous? That it would be better that the government/political parties/your employer/everyone would know just who have you voted in all elections. — ssu

Don't quote half a sentence without at least reading the second half.

Or the anonymity in this site? — ssu

The anonymity of this site has no value for me, and therefore I would term it a neutral force rather than a positive one. However, I could easily turn it into a negative one if I were to start spouting vitriol, hostility and what have you.

The problem with this graph lies in the fact that it concerns voluntary spending. In countries with a lot of social security this type of spending is often involuntary, through taxes. If we were to account for that spending, we'd end up with a very different graph. Abuse of statistics is rampant these days. Please caution yourself from falling into that same pitfall.

Anonymity is not a good thing. It allows persons to participate in communities, no matter how vile that community or that participation is, without the risk of personal consequences. I struggle to find examples in which anonymity is strictly a positive force for both the individual and the communities they engage anonymously in, for which there isn't a valid alternative in the physical world (which doesn't share many of the problems of the digital world).

Of course, tackling anonymity has a good chance of damaging privacy. Privacy is mostly a good thing, insofar that it entails private matters and the only persons that can feel the consequences of such matters are the persons themselves.

Why put people through the gauntlet of life if there didn't need to be a person at all in the first place? — schopenhauer1

Because life is a wonderful experience, despite the fact that there is also struggle and adversity. These things teach us how life works. They give us insights into the nature of ourselves and into the nature of reality. When we choose to ignore the lessons life is trying to teach us, struggle, adversity and pain will turn into suffering.

The idea that life is nothing but suffering is rather melodramatic. There would be no suffering without things that we are fond of that could be taken away from us. Death makes us suffer, because we are fond of life. Unanswered love makes us suffer, because we are fond of another person. Etc.

In other words, the reason we experience suffering is because there are so many good things about life, which we are afraid to lose. Every time we experience adversity or suffering, life is trying to teach us not to grow too fond of matters which are ultimately fleeting.

If one believes life amounts to nothing but struggle and adversity, and it is without redeeming qualities, then it makes little sense to want to proceate.

Many agree that life has redeeming qualities, however.

Two thoughts come to mind.
The first: Why would anyone wish for another to experience adversity and struggle? This seems like a profoundly malevolent act, unless one believes the struggle and adversity will benefit the person. Even then, it is not up to the instigator to decide what is good or bad for another, unless one is asked specifically for their advice.

The second: The instigator does not let the Buddhist suffer. The instigator merely brings about a change of circumstance and the reaction of the Buddhist is to make himself suffer. In Buddhism, all suffering is seen as a result of attachment to wordly matters. In this case, the Buddhist was attached to life and feared death and starvation.

It is said Buddha once fasted for a long period of time, during which he consumed no food except that which by circumstance came to him. This naturally weakened him and when during his travels he attempted to cross a river he nearly drowned. This is when he experienced enlightenment.

The only logical conclusion one can come to given the aforementioned scenario is, like the wisest of the Athenians once said, "I know that I know nothing."

And it is from this realization alone, that one is profoundly ignorant of the nature of the reality that surrounds him, that any substantial thought can spring.