3 ms·

> 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 interpretat

> 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.
- kazinator 10y ago
  Voltaire wrote a whole book to poke fun at the view that this is the best of all possible worlds: Candide, ou l'Optimisme.
- nemo1618 10y ago
  Titanic (1997) is a pretty well-known example. There isn't much of a lesson to draw from that movie that would have averted the disaster. It simply uses the disaster as a plot element to tell a story about love. >rejecting the idea that we live in the best possible world is necessary if suffering is to motivate achievement This is a very important point. I think the key is to accept that our nature is to be motivated by suffering, and not try to transcend that. I suppose this is what Camus was talking about when he described Sisyphus as being happy. Essentially, you can't use the belief that the world is perfect as a justification for anything, because nothing you do (or refrain from doing) can alter the perfection of the world. And that means you can't look at civilians dying and just shrug your shoulders because hey, it's all perfect, right? It's not something that can be used to justify inaction. It doesn't offer any moral guidance at all. It's just a different way of thinking about the world.
  - lisper 10y ago
    > Titanic ... simply uses the disaster as a plot element to tell a story about love. It does a lot more than that. It has quite a lot to say about the social class system of the early 20th century. > I think the key is to accept that our nature is to be motivated by suffering, and not try to transcend that. Why not? Our nature is to be angry and jealous and violent some times too. Transcending those qualities is generally considered progress (it's called "growing up") so why not strive to transcend our need to be motivated by suffering? > I suppose this is what Camus was talking about when he described Sisyphus as being happy. Camus was an idiot.
    - nemo1618 10y ago
      >why not strive to transcend our need to be motivated by suffering? If you can do so in a way that does not lead to stagnation, I am willing to hear you out. The only people I'm aware of who have transcended suffering are Buddhist monks, and... well, they are exactly models of trans-human progress. They mostly just sit quietly and keep to themselves.

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.

kazinator 10y ago
Voltaire wrote a whole book to poke fun at the view that this is the best of all possible worlds: Candide, ou l'Optimisme.
nemo1618 10y ago
Titanic (1997) is a pretty well-known example. There isn't much of a lesson to draw from that movie that would have averted the disaster. It simply uses the disaster as a plot element to tell a story about love. >rejecting the idea that we live in the best possible world is necessary if suffering is to motivate achievement This is a very important point. I think the key is to accept that our nature is to be motivated by suffering, and not try to transcend that. I suppose this is what Camus was talking about when he described Sisyphus as being happy. Essentially, you can't use the belief that the world is perfect as a justification for anything, because nothing you do (or refrain from doing) can alter the perfection of the world. And that means you can't look at civilians dying and just shrug your shoulders because hey, it's all perfect, right? It's not something that can be used to justify inaction. It doesn't offer any moral guidance at all. It's just a different way of thinking about the world.
- lisper 10y ago
  > Titanic ... simply uses the disaster as a plot element to tell a story about love. It does a lot more than that. It has quite a lot to say about the social class system of the early 20th century. > I think the key is to accept that our nature is to be motivated by suffering, and not try to transcend that. Why not? Our nature is to be angry and jealous and violent some times too. Transcending those qualities is generally considered progress (it's called "growing up") so why not strive to transcend our need to be motivated by suffering? > I suppose this is what Camus was talking about when he described Sisyphus as being happy. Camus was an idiot.
  - nemo1618 10y ago
    >why not strive to transcend our need to be motivated by suffering? If you can do so in a way that does not lead to stagnation, I am willing to hear you out. The only people I'm aware of who have transcended suffering are Buddhist monks, and... well, they are exactly models of trans-human progress. They mostly just sit quietly and keep to themselves.