7 ms·

This comes from religious perspective, and one probably not widely shared (idk), so I expect this to be taken with a grain of salt: (hopefully, it is still comf

This comes from religious perspective, and one probably not widely shared (idk), so I expect this to be taken with a grain of salt: (hopefully, it is still comforting) God's purpose is not to make us comfortable or to make life easy. It is to make us better, and happier. As part of that setup and goal, there are a couple of ways we can experience hard times. It can be from our own actions, and even the actions of others. Other times, it can be because we are doing things right, and are ready to grow and push our limits. My point is this: experiencing a hard time doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong - it can come just as easily to someone doing everything right as to someone doing everything wrong. And in both cases, it can feel much the same Bonus Analogy: When searching for the absolute maxima in a 3d plane, you can be at low point for one of two reasons - either you're not doing it right and aren't actually heading uphill, or you reached a local maxima, and need to go lower in order to reach higher heights. Corollary: We don't get to judge others for their hard times :)

Aaargh20318 8y ago
> God's purpose is not to make us comfortable or to make life easy. It is to make us better, and happier. I'm not religious and I don't think life has a purpose, but this sounds like a contradiction. How can life be good if it's not comfortable and easy ? You're basically saying she's making life better by making it worse. That makes no sense. > My point is this: experiencing a hard time doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong - it can come just as easily to someone doing everything right as to someone doing everything wrong Of course it doesn't, but that doesn't mean there is some higher power guiding it. Life is just random, bad stuff happens for no reason, so does good stuff.
- anonthrowaway2 8y ago
  Having some challenges is more fun than just vegging all day. Having too many challenges, maybe not, but some? Necessary for most people's happiness.
- abraae 8y ago
  > How can life be good if it's not comfortable and easy ? Really? As soon as you encounter discomfort or difficulty, life's no longer good? That philosophy will be wearying over the years.
  - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
    How much discomfort and difficulty are too much?
    - Aaargh20318 8y ago
      Any. Good doesn't compensate for bad. That is: if you start out life at a neutral score of 0, subtract points for anything negative, do not add any points for positive stuff.
  - krageon 8y ago
    This is hedonism. If you are a hedonist, then this sentence will not make sense to you. Some people go through their entire lives without ever thinking they could approach it any other way, so I don't think it's as wearying as you imply here. It all depends on what you think is important.
    - rusk 8y ago
      My personal take is that Hedonism isn't zero-sum. By that I mean, a hedonistic life-style can't support itself, so if you're living a hedonistic lifestyle and never have to rebalance yourself you're taking energy somewhere or somebody is emotionally bankrolling you. Thus you sacrifice your individuality, independence and a sizeable chunk of the human experience. For most people if such an approach continues unchecked it leads to burnout.
      - Aaargh20318 8y ago
        > if you're living a hedonistic lifestyle and never have to rebalance yourself you're taking energy somewhere What kind of energy are hedonistic people taking ? Electric ? Kinetic ? Thermal ? Magnetic ?
- jack_pp 8y ago
  > How can life be good if it's not comfortable and easy ? Do you have fun playing tic-tac-toe? The harder a game is the more rewarding it is to succeed at it. Some games are so hard they can crush you but if you manage to rise up again and eventually succeed then you will be stronger for the experience and happier. One example of this is the game of regular jobs vs the game of startups. A regular job is easy and comfortable but few people are content and the ceiling of achievement is not that high. A startup can make you have mental breakdowns but if you manage to eventually win you'll be much richer /respected than someone who played it safe.
  - Aaargh20318 8y ago
    > The harder a game is the more rewarding it is to succeed at it. No it's not. I hate games that are too hard. Back in the day when cheat codes were still a thing I used to play most games in 'god mode' all the time. Also, what do you define as 'success'. For me a comfortable and easy life is success.
    - jack_pp 8y ago
      Everyone hates games that are too hard, that is why people progress gradually and depending on each individual's ambition they will work harder to progress faster and play harder games as they progress. Even if you're not ambitious you still don't play the simplest games possible, you still try to play games that are somewhat difficult. The analogy for computer games cheats in real life are drugs / wireheading. If your goal is to just feel good regardless why not do heroin?
      - Aaargh20318 8y ago
        > Even if you're not ambitious you still don't play the simplest games possible, you still try to play games that are somewhat difficult. Not really. I mainly play games for the story. > If your goal is to just feel good regardless why not do heroin? Because that also has negative consequences. If all it did was make you feel good, then sure.
- yonoataraxia 8y ago
  > How can life be good if it's not comfortable and easy Good question. Nietzsche talked alot about this issue, this was his very main concern when he talked about "becoming oneself" as one of many desirable (subjective) goals in life that can give us meaning. You don't even need religion to endure suffering with meaning. It depends on your definition of a good life. I hope you see that it's not a objective truth that life is good when it's comfortable and easy. It can be that you see it as your goal, but e.g. I don't want that - but this isn't even relevant. Important is to understand that all truths that we believe in are assumptions (some of them called "facts" which are assumptions commonly shared by many people or in a group) and that they can differ between individuals which means that we perceive reality differently. Objectively describing what reality is is not possible - this is one key aspect of epistemology. "Bad stuff" and "good stuff" has also subjective and normative aspects. What do we perceive as good or bad? It's based on values and a belief system. For a nihilist there's not even "good" or "bad" because those can only be defined with a belief system. Nihilists have a collapsed belief system which says that nothing has inherent value. But the question is: What is the motivation for an individual to become a nihilist? (pro: you don't have to take responsibility and fight for your beliefs, con: it can suck alot to have a meaningless life) Does your belief system enables you to be happy and fulfilled (in your terms)? This is the relevant question I would personally use to assess if a belief system is enabling or hindering you.
  - Aaargh20318 8y ago
    > It depends on your definition of a good life. For me it's simple: an easy, comfortable life with as little contact with human beings as possible. > Objectively describing what reality is is not possible I disagree. I believe there is such a thing as absolute, objective truth. A 'fact' is not a shared assumption, a fact is any statement to which a truth value can be assigned.
    - yonoataraxia 8y ago
      To say it in programmer terms: belief systems are functions that assign truth values to assumptions. for example a belief system can look like this: belief_system("earth is flat") -> false belief_system("life is meaningless") -> true Where is the truth value coming from? For a flat earther: They can e.g. use a emotional and individual belief system to determine truth values. For a scientific-minded person: They assign truth values based on scientific evidence (which is a type of assumption). btw: saying there is absolute and objective truth is highly unscientific - science is based on the premise that you can replace theories with another theory if the evidence suggests it. The problem of induction shows the limit of empiric evidence and I hope that most scientists are aligned with this scientific principles (otherwise they aren't scientists by definition). IMHO there is no absolute truth that can be identified as such (I'm not assuming that there isn't objective truth, but merely that we couldn't identify it if there is such a thing). It's like IT security, it is a relative measurement and the relations (in this case) are made by belief systems. There is a consensus that there is no "absolute security" in the security sector. If you accept that there is no absolute security in IT systems and only "reasonable security" (I do not assume that you do assume this), why do you have problems to accept that there might not be a way to recognize the "true truth values"? If you see absolute security as a given you don't have to solve this conflict. I'm merely exercising logic here using my assumptions (and yes, some of them I call "facts", but I see them as something which gets defined by my belief system). your belief: belief_system("there is such a thing as absolute, objective truth") my belief: belief_system("truth as we use it in our daily lives is defined by our belief systems") btw, would love to see discussions using assumptions and then logically deriving conclusions. Especially funny when somebody has conflicting assumptions (logic of explosion).
- tomrod 8y ago
  Former religious person here. A common analogy drawn upon is a tree. A tree that faces no hardship (bad weather, etc.) looks pretty but has little depth and can't sustain during high winds and such. The converse says that if a tree has survived hard times it probably will survive additional hard times. It's bollocks, of course, and often pacifies folks from working to improve their own personal situations. Nietzche's religious critiques come to mind in this type of situation.
  - Aaargh20318 8y ago
    > A tree that faces no hardship (bad weather, etc.) looks pretty but has little depth and can't sustain during high winds and such. It doesn't need to because it doesn't face hardship.
ajuc 8y ago
Atheist interpretation: there is no God and no purpose, so experiencing a hard time doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong.
- pls2halp 8y ago
  And experiencing a good time doesn’t mean you’re doing anything right.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    But if you prefer to have good times over bad times, then experiencing a good time is evidence you're doing something right, and experiencing a bad time is evidence you're doing something wrong.
- yonoataraxia 8y ago
  One of many atheist interpretations. There's no consensus in the group of atheists except that they reject the idea of a god. Trying to frame it like there are more common assumptions ("Atheist interpretation: <your assumptions what you and other atheists think>") seems generalizing to me. Speak for yourself. I'm an atheist and I see how people have purpose and I also find meaning in life (although I struggle with it all the time like many other people including theists).
  - ajuc 8y ago
    Of course people can create goals for themselves, but there is no one external purpose made for them. I think this is pretty universal POV among atheists, but if you disagree - whatever. I never even claimed it's the only possible interpretation.
    - gerbilly 8y ago
      >there is no one external purpose Avoiding pain and seeking pleasure seems to be a built in goal to almost all living beings. No living thing creates that goal for themselves, it comes built in. One of the easiest way to find meaning then, is to strive to reduce other sentient beings sufferings, and to increase their happiness. There is no need for a god, or an idea of a god to promote this point of view.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jgtrosh 8y ago
I think that's a good feeling. I also don't think you need to involve any superstition for this good sense to be meaningful. You can just replace this God ex Machina with your own will / your understanding of a life worth living and this will resonate just fine with atheist folks. Anyway nice comment.
- rusk 8y ago
  your own will / your understanding Kant would say that this is indeed God.
  - qanjl 8y ago
    Does Kant say this explicitly?
    - rusk 8y ago
      Yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_th...
murderfs 8y ago
> God's purpose is not to make us comfortable or to make life easy. It is to make us better, and happier. Someone tell that to the millions of children who have died of AIDS.
- yonoataraxia 8y ago
  This seems to be a very shallow analysis of the question of theodicy. Modern theology isn't that ignorant of suffering and its origin as you might imagine. I'm not a religious person, but I see how people see meaning in their belief systems. I don't see any underlying beliefs in your comment that have a positive attitude, it has a rather negative focus (without trying to neglect it). I just happen to wonder what your goals are. What are you fighting for with this statement, what is the underlying belief system that leads you to this statement?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - brazzy 8y ago
    > This seems to be a very shallow analysis of the question of theodicy. It's about as deep as is necessary. The answer is really that simple, people just don't like it. > Modern theology isn't that ignorant of suffering and its origin as you might imagine. Theology is (and has been for many centuries) expending a lot of effort to handwaving away the answer people don't like, that much is true.
trevyn 8y ago
>When searching for the absolute maxima Another corollary: When searching for an absolute maximum in a population of individuals with the ability to communicate with each other, it may be helpful to compare notes with those who appear to be at higher levels on the dimension whose maximum you are seeking. Also, choose the right dimension (or projection).

Aaargh20318 8y ago

> God's purpose is not to make us comfortable or to make life easy. It is to make us better, and happier. I'm not religious and I don't think life has a purpose, but this sounds like a contradiction. How can life be good if it's not comfortable and easy ? You're basically saying she's making life better by making it worse. That makes no sense. > My point is this: experiencing a hard time doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong - it can come just as easily to someone doing everything right as to someone doing everything wrong Of course it doesn't, but that doesn't mean there is some higher power guiding it. Life is just random, bad stuff happens for no reason, so does good stuff.

anonthrowaway2 8y ago
Having some challenges is more fun than just vegging all day. Having too many challenges, maybe not, but some? Necessary for most people's happiness.
abraae 8y ago
> How can life be good if it's not comfortable and easy ? Really? As soon as you encounter discomfort or difficulty, life's no longer good? That philosophy will be wearying over the years.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  How much discomfort and difficulty are too much?
  - Aaargh20318 8y ago
    Any. Good doesn't compensate for bad. That is: if you start out life at a neutral score of 0, subtract points for anything negative, do not add any points for positive stuff.
- krageon 8y ago
  This is hedonism. If you are a hedonist, then this sentence will not make sense to you. Some people go through their entire lives without ever thinking they could approach it any other way, so I don't think it's as wearying as you imply here. It all depends on what you think is important.
  - rusk 8y ago
    My personal take is that Hedonism isn't zero-sum. By that I mean, a hedonistic life-style can't support itself, so if you're living a hedonistic lifestyle and never have to rebalance yourself you're taking energy somewhere or somebody is emotionally bankrolling you. Thus you sacrifice your individuality, independence and a sizeable chunk of the human experience. For most people if such an approach continues unchecked it leads to burnout.
    - Aaargh20318 8y ago
      > if you're living a hedonistic lifestyle and never have to rebalance yourself you're taking energy somewhere What kind of energy are hedonistic people taking ? Electric ? Kinetic ? Thermal ? Magnetic ?
jack_pp 8y ago
> How can life be good if it's not comfortable and easy ? Do you have fun playing tic-tac-toe? The harder a game is the more rewarding it is to succeed at it. Some games are so hard they can crush you but if you manage to rise up again and eventually succeed then you will be stronger for the experience and happier. One example of this is the game of regular jobs vs the game of startups. A regular job is easy and comfortable but few people are content and the ceiling of achievement is not that high. A startup can make you have mental breakdowns but if you manage to eventually win you'll be much richer /respected than someone who played it safe.
- Aaargh20318 8y ago
  > The harder a game is the more rewarding it is to succeed at it. No it's not. I hate games that are too hard. Back in the day when cheat codes were still a thing I used to play most games in 'god mode' all the time. Also, what do you define as 'success'. For me a comfortable and easy life is success.
  - jack_pp 8y ago
    Everyone hates games that are too hard, that is why people progress gradually and depending on each individual's ambition they will work harder to progress faster and play harder games as they progress. Even if you're not ambitious you still don't play the simplest games possible, you still try to play games that are somewhat difficult. The analogy for computer games cheats in real life are drugs / wireheading. If your goal is to just feel good regardless why not do heroin?
    - Aaargh20318 8y ago
      > Even if you're not ambitious you still don't play the simplest games possible, you still try to play games that are somewhat difficult. Not really. I mainly play games for the story. > If your goal is to just feel good regardless why not do heroin? Because that also has negative consequences. If all it did was make you feel good, then sure.
yonoataraxia 8y ago
> How can life be good if it's not comfortable and easy Good question. Nietzsche talked alot about this issue, this was his very main concern when he talked about "becoming oneself" as one of many desirable (subjective) goals in life that can give us meaning. You don't even need religion to endure suffering with meaning. It depends on your definition of a good life. I hope you see that it's not a objective truth that life is good when it's comfortable and easy. It can be that you see it as your goal, but e.g. I don't want that - but this isn't even relevant. Important is to understand that all truths that we believe in are assumptions (some of them called "facts" which are assumptions commonly shared by many people or in a group) and that they can differ between individuals which means that we perceive reality differently. Objectively describing what reality is is not possible - this is one key aspect of epistemology. "Bad stuff" and "good stuff" has also subjective and normative aspects. What do we perceive as good or bad? It's based on values and a belief system. For a nihilist there's not even "good" or "bad" because those can only be defined with a belief system. Nihilists have a collapsed belief system which says that nothing has inherent value. But the question is: What is the motivation for an individual to become a nihilist? (pro: you don't have to take responsibility and fight for your beliefs, con: it can suck alot to have a meaningless life) Does your belief system enables you to be happy and fulfilled (in your terms)? This is the relevant question I would personally use to assess if a belief system is enabling or hindering you.
- Aaargh20318 8y ago
  > It depends on your definition of a good life. For me it's simple: an easy, comfortable life with as little contact with human beings as possible. > Objectively describing what reality is is not possible I disagree. I believe there is such a thing as absolute, objective truth. A 'fact' is not a shared assumption, a fact is any statement to which a truth value can be assigned.
  - yonoataraxia 8y ago
    To say it in programmer terms: belief systems are functions that assign truth values to assumptions. for example a belief system can look like this: belief_system("earth is flat") -> false belief_system("life is meaningless") -> true Where is the truth value coming from? For a flat earther: They can e.g. use a emotional and individual belief system to determine truth values. For a scientific-minded person: They assign truth values based on scientific evidence (which is a type of assumption). btw: saying there is absolute and objective truth is highly unscientific - science is based on the premise that you can replace theories with another theory if the evidence suggests it. The problem of induction shows the limit of empiric evidence and I hope that most scientists are aligned with this scientific principles (otherwise they aren't scientists by definition). IMHO there is no absolute truth that can be identified as such (I'm not assuming that there isn't objective truth, but merely that we couldn't identify it if there is such a thing). It's like IT security, it is a relative measurement and the relations (in this case) are made by belief systems. There is a consensus that there is no "absolute security" in the security sector. If you accept that there is no absolute security in IT systems and only "reasonable security" (I do not assume that you do assume this), why do you have problems to accept that there might not be a way to recognize the "true truth values"? If you see absolute security as a given you don't have to solve this conflict. I'm merely exercising logic here using my assumptions (and yes, some of them I call "facts", but I see them as something which gets defined by my belief system). your belief: belief_system("there is such a thing as absolute, objective truth") my belief: belief_system("truth as we use it in our daily lives is defined by our belief systems") btw, would love to see discussions using assumptions and then logically deriving conclusions. Especially funny when somebody has conflicting assumptions (logic of explosion).
tomrod 8y ago
Former religious person here. A common analogy drawn upon is a tree. A tree that faces no hardship (bad weather, etc.) looks pretty but has little depth and can't sustain during high winds and such. The converse says that if a tree has survived hard times it probably will survive additional hard times. It's bollocks, of course, and often pacifies folks from working to improve their own personal situations. Nietzche's religious critiques come to mind in this type of situation.
- Aaargh20318 8y ago
  > A tree that faces no hardship (bad weather, etc.) looks pretty but has little depth and can't sustain during high winds and such. It doesn't need to because it doesn't face hardship.

ajuc 8y ago

Atheist interpretation: there is no God and no purpose, so experiencing a hard time doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong.

pls2halp 8y ago
And experiencing a good time doesn’t mean you’re doing anything right.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  But if you prefer to have good times over bad times, then experiencing a good time is evidence you're doing something right, and experiencing a bad time is evidence you're doing something wrong.
yonoataraxia 8y ago
One of many atheist interpretations. There's no consensus in the group of atheists except that they reject the idea of a god. Trying to frame it like there are more common assumptions ("Atheist interpretation: <your assumptions what you and other atheists think>") seems generalizing to me. Speak for yourself. I'm an atheist and I see how people have purpose and I also find meaning in life (although I struggle with it all the time like many other people including theists).
- ajuc 8y ago
  Of course people can create goals for themselves, but there is no one external purpose made for them. I think this is pretty universal POV among atheists, but if you disagree - whatever. I never even claimed it's the only possible interpretation.
  - gerbilly 8y ago
    >there is no one external purpose Avoiding pain and seeking pleasure seems to be a built in goal to almost all living beings. No living thing creates that goal for themselves, it comes built in. One of the easiest way to find meaning then, is to strive to reduce other sentient beings sufferings, and to increase their happiness. There is no need for a god, or an idea of a god to promote this point of view.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jgtrosh 8y ago

I think that's a good feeling. I also don't think you need to involve any superstition for this good sense to be meaningful. You can just replace this God ex Machina with your own will / your understanding of a life worth living and this will resonate just fine with atheist folks. Anyway nice comment.

rusk 8y ago
your own will / your understanding Kant would say that this is indeed God.
- qanjl 8y ago
  Does Kant say this explicitly?
  - rusk 8y ago
    Yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_th...

murderfs 8y ago

> God's purpose is not to make us comfortable or to make life easy. It is to make us better, and happier. Someone tell that to the millions of children who have died of AIDS.

yonoataraxia 8y ago
This seems to be a very shallow analysis of the question of theodicy. Modern theology isn't that ignorant of suffering and its origin as you might imagine. I'm not a religious person, but I see how people see meaning in their belief systems. I don't see any underlying beliefs in your comment that have a positive attitude, it has a rather negative focus (without trying to neglect it). I just happen to wonder what your goals are. What are you fighting for with this statement, what is the underlying belief system that leads you to this statement?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- brazzy 8y ago
  > This seems to be a very shallow analysis of the question of theodicy. It's about as deep as is necessary. The answer is really that simple, people just don't like it. > Modern theology isn't that ignorant of suffering and its origin as you might imagine. Theology is (and has been for many centuries) expending a lot of effort to handwaving away the answer people don't like, that much is true.

trevyn 8y ago

>When searching for the absolute maxima Another corollary: When searching for an absolute maximum in a population of individuals with the ability to communicate with each other, it may be helpful to compare notes with those who appear to be at higher levels on the dimension whose maximum you are seeking. Also, choose the right dimension (or projection).