I don’t see much of an argument being presented nor a solid position. You do not believe that suffering is necessary for a full life? What is it to live a good life? Is a good life a life absent of suffering? Does ‘meaning’ make a life a full life or is meaning more or less a waste of time? How does meaning relate to knowledge in terms of suffering/woes in life?

I do not really think searching for ‘meaning’ in life is very ‘meaningful’ … I find the whole idea of searching for meaning to be ‘meaningless’ … maybe that is your point?

I do not see how being poor or rich has anything to do with meaning or suffering so some of your points in the OP are empty for me.

All right bear with me here: I did not set out to strictly have an argument, firstly. I make no comment on suffering being necessary for a full life. I don't know what a 'full' life might entail and certainly wouldn't wish to comment on it. Nor do I know what a 'good' life would entail. Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced as Kierkegaard says. I'm working with broad brushes here, that's part of it.

My point, as initially stated, is to talk about our natural inclination for finding meaning in this reality of suffering. In order to understand my point, you have to accept a few axioms. Which is why I have to take the time to explain them.

My terms would be:

Suffering: entails strain, pain, work, sacrifice,
Value: entails reward, enlightenment, good fortune, opportunity

Now keeping in mind my terms, my axioms would be:

1. All of reality is hostile to human life
2. To survive the suffering of reality, we assign value to suffering to make sense of suffering
3. In assigning value to suffering, we begin to make the correlation that suffering has inherent value

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.

The example I use is the swindling of the German people by the Nazis into accepting authoritarianism and then war and then genocide. Hitler used promises of good fortune, enlightenment, rewards and opportunities to make sense of the sacrifices and sufferings of plunging Germany into war. It is common to justify war as a sacrifice for the future good. I see this common theme repeated in many avenues of life and in history.

The most blatant historic example is when we literally sacrificed human beings in the mystical belief that we could sort of 'buy' good fortune from the gods. If you accept that we assign value to suffering, then it would seem to make sense to a more primitive mind that by increasing the sacrifice and suffering to the maximum, we would stand to gain the most amount of value. I hope you can see what I mean. This is a very extreme example of fundamentally failing to understand how reality works, but all of human history has been walking back this misunderstanding, from literal human sacrifice to the sacrifice of animals, to the much more palatable symbolic sacrifice of the perfect man Christ.

In this way, we misunderstand this reality we live in! Especially because Christian teachings tell us that suffering is a good thing, that bearing your cross and emulating the suffering of Christ is a good thing, we are prone to making fatal mistakes about life. One of these mistakes is assuming that just because we work really hard, sacrifice and suffer we can increase our value in society by making ourselves rich, or by making ourselves enlightened. It's true that we can work hard to get a better job, but it's also true that many people work hard at their jobs and don't make any money at them, even if their intention is to get a better job.

My point is not to suggest that nothing has value or that suffering can't have value - that would be absurd. It's to talk about the times when we get swindled by the promise of value, it is to talk about our instincts and our historical relationship to suffering and what has become an expectation of value. That is what I'm interested in. I fully recognize the pedestrian fact that suffering can lead to value.

I don’t see much of an argument being presented nor a solid position. — I like sushi

Right. There is none.

A casual overview Op's posts demonstrate one of two things or possibly all two (possibly more if looked deeper).1- First, op could be genuinely mistaken his post is complicated and needs minute attention. While truth of the matter is it is nothing but a medley of flaky incoherent thoughts and so simple to understand that any backwoods caveman can get it. Or perhaps op is deluded with his self-importance, which s undersatandable, many are. 2- This is a bait post created by a bait account to get as many responses as possible to keep the thread/forum busy.In which case the obscuration and the attempts at evasion is deliberate. But let's get to the points:

If you read the latest installment of op's clarification, it is still the same points i was asking him to confirm earlier. These are:

1-Mankind erroneously believes 'suffering can and will lead to good fortune'. Note he isn't talking about a fringe demographics. In fact he is asserting it's a mainstream/majority phenomenon.

2- He is objecting to the above phenomenon by saying it is incorrect and that suffering has no value.

3- His proposed antidote to this alleged problem of mankind is to seek some form of value in positive thinking.

Am i the only person laughing here? 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.

so some of your points in the OP are empty for me. — I like sushi

Its all empty. There are no points. Points begin with facts, not essayed obscurations. For example one may start with, is suffering a fact? Is the search of meaning a fact? What is the nature of both? And so on.....

It seems an inquiry starts with facts and the usage of reason, not half baked reactive silly sentiments.

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

I think you've done a better job in articulating your ideas.

Not sure I can see this as much of a risk. I don't see a significant relationship with suffering playing out in such a dynamic away. You mention Hitler - I think this is a simplification of what he was offering, based on the books I have read on his rise to power. And that was 80 years ago. Churchill, in the fight against Nazism, actually made this argument in a much more direct way - 'I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat..' and he was probably right. Many would say justified.

That said, can you provide 2 examples from now where the pubic have specifically been swayed by this - apart from a generalized cultural version of the Protestant work ethic which you have already alluded to?

As stupid as a nickel -- wow some welcome to forum I'm getting lol. I thought I left reddit for a more welcoming community. Obviously, I was mistaken. Why such meanness? You still do not understand my points - further, you are not even trying to understand my points. You are simply trying to brute force your way to victory. Which doesn't make sense, because I'm not trying to argue with you. It's astonishing that you still don't seem to understand what I'm trying to say, which is surprising considering that any backwoods caveman could get it - what does that say about you, I wonder?

I can't make heads or tails out of most of the endless "old man yells at cloud" that you're saying, other than the below-the-belt insults and oddly misplaced (yet very intense) anger. That I can understand, unfortunately. You seem very upset by my post! Or perhaps are addicted to the rush of hate-posting. A known phenomenon that I would urge you to explore. ie: https://www.vice.com/en/article/a33yq8/trolling-addiction

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. Which leads back into my points, which you seem to assert require facts. I dispute that points require facts! It is possible to have a point and not have a fact.

For example, you yourself once wrote in a quite long, complicated, and awfully essay-like post, "All our pursuits in life are essentially a pursuit for fulfillment, for happiness. In some extreme cases as in loonies, if they pursue unhappiness, naturally, it is still a pursuit of happiness." which is your first point, and yet I do not see any facts.

Rather you are stating your personal opinion, and rather ironically, your personal opinion is that all our pursuits in life are seeking fulfillment, which is mighty close to saying that mankind is searching for meaning. Yet if I assert something like that you see it as absurd. Seems pretty unfair to me.

It would seem that you don't follow the rules that you seek to enforce.

Which would be the hallmark of one suffering from a delusion of self-importance...

I 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. It is our in-born nature. Only that we must guard this instinct and be wary of falling into traps of delusion in which we seek meaning where there is none. That is my point, good sir!

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.

It is a simplification of Hitler's rather complicated rise to power, but I'm dealing in broader subjects and trying to tie a theory to reality. If that example is too flawed, could you respond to my example of human sacrifice, as I see that as a much more eloquent example? Absolutely, Churchill made a similar point and it worked like gangbusters, people were stirred and willing to sacrifice and fight on the beaches and so on. In that case, Churchill was supposedly justified to employ such a tactic because Britain was under threat, yet the fact remains that wars are fought by young men who must be prepared to offer themselves as sacrifice for the greater good - despite the fact that wars are instigated by primarily old men with conflicting ideas who are often manipulative of the general public.

A grieving Mother seeking value in her son's sacrifice would be reassured to know that the sacrifice did have a bigger value. This is why military culture is all about stressing that young men die for their countries. If you want a modern example, take Iraq. Why would so many young men sign up to fight in the divisive and arguably morally bankrupt war in Iraq? What are they told? What is the general public told by the government? What are their grieving Mothers told? That their sons died for their country. That their sacrifice was for the greater good. What is the greater good, in reality? That they died for an ideal?

Or that the war in Iraq was based on the lie that they had WMDs, that it was a political power move made by a government that had an interest in dethroning Saddam Hussein and furthering American interests in the middle east, including the establishment of large American oil and gas companies that stood to profit from the invasion, or the private military groups and arms being produced. Never mind the civilian casualties, Guantanamo bay, a lack of international consensus for war, and the failed responsibility of creating and fostering a new nation.

In essence, it was easier to just explain to everybody that they died for the greater good - and that made sense to a lot of people and was all they needed to hear - I claim in part because of our inborn nature to understand suffering as the creation of value.

Ok. Sure, I think then the argument about 'greater good' is the issue here primarily.

I think the WMD argument was unconvincing to most people as millions of protests around the world would attest. They did it anyway, using a range of arguments.

A grieving Mother seeking value in her son's sacrifice would be reassured to know that the sacrifice did have a bigger value. — 64bithuman

Which may well be true depending upon who you are and which war. Maybe not Iraq, but maybe yes Ukraine. But again, I don't think this is necessarily the suffering argument. This is the 'is war ever just' argument.

In essence, it was easier to just explain to everybody that they died for the greater good — 64bithuman

I hear you but I am not sure this kind of argument is all that convincing to people (not since Vietnam anyway)

Anyway, food for thought. I'll mull it over some more.

As stupid as a nickel — 64bithuman

Read again. Underneath is what was said.

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

No sir, In the highly unlikely event it may be be used, which is almost never, it will only be used against equals.. You aren't my equal. The question of victory and loss only comes to petty minds/hearts lacking backbone. The thought never crosses my mind, but clearly it does, in your case.

.

I can't make heads or tails out of most of the endless "old man yells at cloud" that you're saying — 64bithuman

So far i asked you a simple question. That is to confirm "Am i stating your position correctly?". Which you evaded and yes, that says a lot about you.

other than the below-the-belt insults — 64bithuman

That distinction belongs to you. Your very first attempt was:

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 are projecting. Grabing any straw in order to vilify.

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

You're arguing a straw man. Addressing an irrelevant issue. An issue that hasn't even been discussed. We never went that far because you folded way prior to even reaching that point, by evading a clear and direct question.

For example, you yourself once wrote in a quite long, complicated, and awfully essay-like post — 64bithuman

Couple of days in the forum and you have already read my year old posts? Indeed, it does tell a lot about your "new account".

and yet I do not see any facts. — 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.

It would seem that you don't follow the rules that you seek to enforce. — 64bithuman

I am not an enforcer in this forum. That job is for the central committee. Get your facts straight. Don't just make up straws. It is pathetic.

.

I 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

Underneath is your own words wherein you have indicated your antidote
:

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

That is rich coming from you, after your long winded series of ad-hominems.

But you know what establishes you as a fool ( And i am simply reiterating your words)? The fact that you felt the need to respond to a post that wasn't even directed at you, and your rather weak -pathetic attempts to paint a picture of me that isn't backed by evidence.

Like i said before, it might be healthier for you to continue with others.

If you really want to continue with me then start by bracing your backbone and giving an honest answer to the question i had asked you.

I'm totally fine if you can't come up with that honesty. Let's call it a day.

Suffering.

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.

Thus, "value" is manifested by habits (virtues) which reduce net suffering (disvalue).

:death: :flower:

One suffers doubly whenever one suffers without *purpose.
Thus, "value" manifest by habits (virtues) which reduce net suffering (disvalue). — 180 Proof

:100: :clap:

Algos is your ally, it saves you from Thanatos
Thanatos is your ally, it releases you from Algos.

What a mind job! — Cypher

Frenemy! :snicker:

:smirk:

:grin: It's true, it is!

@64bithuman

On second thoughts, i may have pushed it a bit when i said "am i the only one laughing here", and for that i ask (ignoring all your ad-hominems) you pardon me. But the rest are clearly factual and i stand by them. Just as i stand by my response to your ad-.hominems.

I think you over reacted by reading it wrong. Like how you read 'simple" as "stupid". Maybe you were a bit mad and thus blind, eh. Its ok. Also, giving you the benefit of the doubt, since you mentioned a welcome, welcome to the forum! ;-)

in reframing strain as a form of non-suffering, — 64bithuman

I never said that strain is "a form of non-suffering" or something similar. I clearly differentiated the two.

our personal definitions of suffering are indeed malleable, particularly because we do not consider suffering with a 'point' to actually be 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.

OK, here's a parallel: You cannot cover all the meanings of the term "sick" with a single definition or description. Why? Because it means a lot of different things. There are many kinds of "sickness".
I hope it is more clear now. If it isn't, I can't do anything more.

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

:up: :grin:

I still disagree. Suffering solicits others. My death afflicts others. :point:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/705435

Ok. A question: Do you mean to say that h. sapiens suffered the most during the course of evolution? After all we are the ones most adept at metacognition, as self-aware (self-conscious) as we are. Ref: you associate suffering with metacognition. Interesting.

I'd say the c99% of all extinct species (with complex nervous systems) might have suffered more than h. sapiens to the degree suffering had killed them off. I'm convinced most mammals are natally bonded via degrees of suffering. Also, 'metacognition' is an artifact of a fortuitous aptitude for linguistic abstraction that facilitates collaborative simulations of (scheming for) multiple scenarios without (or with less) suffering.

Wouldn't you agree that within our evaluation of the 'greater good' there lies the calculation of suffering and value? Means and ends, so to speak? 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.

I see, maybe I was confused. I think we're saying the same thing. :up:

I do not wish to continue this line of questioning, so if you don't mind, I will continue on with other lines of questioning that I feel are more worth my time. Thank you for the welcome now good day sir!

That is expected. Which is what i had suggested in the beginning, allowing you a chance to quit. But you tried a few swings and ended up where you are.

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

Nonsense.

The facts are, you make "sacrifices" for war not because you see "value in suffering" or it is a means for "good fortune", but because you are conditioned to nationalism. The older war mongers use this sentiment to profit from your conditioning.

Note: Even though the quoted post is directed at someone else i have seen it now and felt it necessary to call out the nonsense in the post, for purposes of better deliberation by any interested parties.

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

My take is different, as I have already expressed. I would argue that suffering did not play the central role in evangelical enthusiasms, they were largely swayed by notions of righteousness, holy war and American nationalism. I agree that sacrifice can be used in public discourse but disagree about the extent to which it is used and involved in people's value systems. We're probably going to go in circles now, so I'm going to move on. Nice talking to you.

You also go to war because there is money to be made in war. Or you want to either expand or protect your borders. Or you use war as a diversion from what is going inside your country.There are no notions of righteousness or holy war that is free from the aforementioned defects. Righteousness is not a group phenomenon. It is an individual path for the righteous, to walk "alone". Course one needs a backbone for that sort of thing.

Suffering destroys meaning. The expression "fly in the ointment" doesn't leave anything to the imagination now does it? An awesome day can be ruined completely by something as small as a paper cut or bird poop on an expensive suit/dress.

How then are we to find meaning in suffering when the latter negates the former?

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)?

By your reasoning, "a "meaning of suffering" is that suffering destroys meaning (like fire necessarily burning itself out)? — 180 Proof

Aye, but I'm not sure whether that's linguistic auto-mutilation or truth of a deeper kind.

Meaning in suffering:

1. Religious, sensu amplo, rejection of the physical to, in the process, get to know one's mind, one's spiritual side. Self-mortification, ascetism, tapas (penance) via :fire: (Agni). Let's not forget Jesus, via dolorsa.

2. Endurance training (soldiers), prepping for worst-case scenarios. Pain threshold can be raised as per military records.

3. Suffer just for the heck of it (free will).