4 ms·

I am aware of that, yes. I was making an analogy. The point of the analogy is that, even though Romeo and Juliet would likely not have considered their world "t

I am aware of that, yes. I was making an analogy. The point of the analogy is that, even though Romeo and Juliet would likely not have considered their world "the best of all possible worlds," we (the readers) do consider their world to be much better than they do (albeit not "the best"). In other words, the reason Romeo and Juliet do not consider their world to be "the best" is because they are only experiencing their localized part of the story, not the story as a whole. Likewise, even though individual humans suffer, that does not preclude the possibility that this is still the best possible story for us to be collectively experiencing.

griffinmmahon 10y ago
Nah, it does preclude that possibility, because some of the suffering of those individual humans is entirely unnecessary.
- nemo1618 10y ago
  How can you judge whether someone's suffering is unnecessary? Only the author of the story knows that, because only the author knows how the story ends and how the individual arcs tie together.
- randcraw 10y ago
  Is it unnecessary? Can you invent a tale of "star-crossed lovers" in a world that is "best" for the characters? I think their suffering is essential to the narrative. If so, perhaps their world is indeed "best" toward serving that purpose, at least for the audience.
lisper 10y ago
> [W]e (the readers) do consider their world to be much better than they do (albeit not "the best"). What??? I think you've completely missed the point of tragic fiction. R&Js world totally sucks (or it would totally suck if it were real). That's the whole point. We tell the story of R&J so that we can learn its lessons without actually putting real people through that wringer. The point of tragic fiction is to say: the world would suck if it were like this, so let's try not to make it like this. > Likewise, even though individual humans suffer, that does not preclude the possibility that this is still the best possible story for us to be collectively experiencing. "Best" by what quality metric? By what would make the best screenplay? That's a pretty horrific way of looking at the world. The best stories are often driven by the worst experiences. All fiction, both tragedy and comedy, is driven by conflict. Again, that's the whole point: humans invented story-telling so that we could engage in shared contemplation of possible worlds that we did not want to bring into reality in addition to those we do. Just because something makes a good story doesn't mean you would actually want it to happen.
- nemo1618 10y ago
  > The point of tragic fiction is to say: the world would suck if it were like this, so let's try not to make it like this. I think that is a narrow interpretation. Many tragic plays are catalyzed by sheer misfortune rather than anything we could draw a practical lesson from. Stories don't have to be educational to be deeply moving. I don't know what metric to use for "best," but I think "makes a good story" is preferable to "minimizes human suffering." You may find that horrific, but it's only horrific if you view suffering as meaningless and unnecessary. On the contrary, suffering is the engine of the world! Every achievement was motivated by a feeling of lack, and every happiness we enjoy is derived from our equal capacity for suffering. If you accept that, then the question is: "why, then, do we observe events of suffering that do not serve any discernible purpose?" That is, if this really is "the best of all worlds," then how can it contain meaningless suffering? That's a much better question. If you're in my camp, and you do believe that this is the best world, then the only option is to argue that there is no meaningless suffering. You can only declare something meaningless if you know its complete and total effect on the future. Since we don't know the future, we can't know for sure whether anything is truly meaningless. Now, we can't know the opposite either -- we can't know for sure if all suffering will eventually turn out to have been meaningful. That's where you either lean on your faith (if you have it), or take the agnostic position and declare the whole thing moot.
  - lisper 10y ago
    > Many tragic plays are catalyzed by sheer misfortune rather than anything we could draw a practical lesson from. Like for example? > If you're in my camp, and you do believe that this is the best world, then the only option is to argue that there is no meaningless suffering. Have you read the news lately? Are you really going to tell me that the world we live in is better than a hypothetical one where Bashar Al Assad did not attack civilians with chemical weapons yesterday? BTW, I agree that not all suffering is meaningless and unnecessary, that suffering can motivate achievement. It does not follow that all suffering is meaningful and necessary. In fact, rejecting the idea that we live in the best possible world is necessary if suffering is to motivate achievement, because if you believe that we already live in the best possible world then there can be no point in doing anything to try to change it.

griffinmmahon 10y ago

Nah, it does preclude that possibility, because some of the suffering of those individual humans is entirely unnecessary.

nemo1618 10y ago
How can you judge whether someone's suffering is unnecessary? Only the author of the story knows that, because only the author knows how the story ends and how the individual arcs tie together.
randcraw 10y ago
Is it unnecessary? Can you invent a tale of "star-crossed lovers" in a world that is "best" for the characters? I think their suffering is essential to the narrative. If so, perhaps their world is indeed "best" toward serving that purpose, at least for the audience.

lisper 10y ago

> [W]e (the readers) do consider their world to be much better than they do (albeit not "the best"). What??? I think you've completely missed the point of tragic fiction. R&Js world totally sucks (or it would totally suck if it were real). That's the whole point. We tell the story of R&J so that we can learn its lessons without actually putting real people through that wringer. The point of tragic fiction is to say: the world would suck if it were like this, so let's try not to make it like this. > Likewise, even though individual humans suffer, that does not preclude the possibility that this is still the best possible story for us to be collectively experiencing. "Best" by what quality metric? By what would make the best screenplay? That's a pretty horrific way of looking at the world. The best stories are often driven by the worst experiences. All fiction, both tragedy and comedy, is driven by conflict. Again, that's the whole point: humans invented story-telling so that we could engage in shared contemplation of possible worlds that we did not want to bring into reality in addition to those we do. Just because something makes a good story doesn't mean you would actually want it to happen.

nemo1618 10y ago
> The point of tragic fiction is to say: the world would suck if it were like this, so let's try not to make it like this. I think that is a narrow interpretation. Many tragic plays are catalyzed by sheer misfortune rather than anything we could draw a practical lesson from. Stories don't have to be educational to be deeply moving. I don't know what metric to use for "best," but I think "makes a good story" is preferable to "minimizes human suffering." You may find that horrific, but it's only horrific if you view suffering as meaningless and unnecessary. On the contrary, suffering is the engine of the world! Every achievement was motivated by a feeling of lack, and every happiness we enjoy is derived from our equal capacity for suffering. If you accept that, then the question is: "why, then, do we observe events of suffering that do not serve any discernible purpose?" That is, if this really is "the best of all worlds," then how can it contain meaningless suffering? That's a much better question. If you're in my camp, and you do believe that this is the best world, then the only option is to argue that there is no meaningless suffering. You can only declare something meaningless if you know its complete and total effect on the future. Since we don't know the future, we can't know for sure whether anything is truly meaningless. Now, we can't know the opposite either -- we can't know for sure if all suffering will eventually turn out to have been meaningful. That's where you either lean on your faith (if you have it), or take the agnostic position and declare the whole thing moot.
- lisper 10y ago
  > Many tragic plays are catalyzed by sheer misfortune rather than anything we could draw a practical lesson from. Like for example? > If you're in my camp, and you do believe that this is the best world, then the only option is to argue that there is no meaningless suffering. Have you read the news lately? Are you really going to tell me that the world we live in is better than a hypothetical one where Bashar Al Assad did not attack civilians with chemical weapons yesterday? BTW, I agree that not all suffering is meaningless and unnecessary, that suffering can motivate achievement. It does not follow that all suffering is meaningful and necessary. In fact, rejecting the idea that we live in the best possible world is necessary if suffering is to motivate achievement, because if you believe that we already live in the best possible world then there can be no point in doing anything to try to change it.