4 ms·

I think we can try to differentiate: There is struggle and there is suffering. A human needs (to pick) struggles to overcome in their lives, and they can give

I think we can try to differentiate: There is struggle and there is suffering. A human needs (to pick) struggles to overcome in their lives, and they can give us so desired meaning. I cannot imaging a life without any struggles. Even in a society where all the basic needs are satisfied, there will be struggles of higher order - to love and be loved, to be recognised, to create art, etc. Overcoming struggles empowers, trains mentally and physically. On the other hand, suffering seems to affect our most essential needs - food, security, health, it severely limits our choice. Eliminating suffering expands our freedom to choose our meaningful struggles.

yters 7y ago
What I mean is that the necessary struggles related to suffering keep people from thinking about whether there is ultimate meaning. If we eliminate these struggles of necessity, then people can reflect that all the voluntary struggles you mention are meaningless, and so despair (unless the question of ultimate meaning is resolved). So, elimination of physical suffering perhaps will increase the psychological suffering due to meaninglessness. On the other hand, if someone has ultimate purpose locked in their mind, then perhaps even the sufferings of necessity can become more bearable and even easier to overcome.
- playing_colours 7y ago
  A very good point. We are both blessed and cursed that we do not have any ultimate purpose pre-programmed, we even can question and reject the call of the fundamental instinct to reproduce. Although, through our history most humans lived in conditions where existential questions could not arise, plus religions did their best to spread their answers.
  - yters 7y ago
    It seems existential questions must have arisen, otherwise why would people care about religions and their answers?
- homonculus1 7y ago
  Are those really suffering of the same degree though? Surely the ennui of unexamined comfort is preferable to the agony of war and starvation--and an individual has almost total power to solve the former, effectively nil against the latter.
  - yters 7y ago
    I totally agree with you. Comfortable suffering certainly seems preferable to unbearable pain, but maybe is not preferable to a daily struggle. My point is eliminating physical suffering does not eliminate existential suffering, whereas eliminating existential suffering with ultimate meaning can in a certain way eliminate physical suffering. For example, many Christians, and people in other religions and philosophies, in the past and even today voluntarily undergo tremendous torture and painful executions because they've found a profound relief for the existential suffering.

yters 7y ago

What I mean is that the necessary struggles related to suffering keep people from thinking about whether there is ultimate meaning. If we eliminate these struggles of necessity, then people can reflect that all the voluntary struggles you mention are meaningless, and so despair (unless the question of ultimate meaning is resolved). So, elimination of physical suffering perhaps will increase the psychological suffering due to meaninglessness. On the other hand, if someone has ultimate purpose locked in their mind, then perhaps even the sufferings of necessity can become more bearable and even easier to overcome.

playing_colours 7y ago
A very good point. We are both blessed and cursed that we do not have any ultimate purpose pre-programmed, we even can question and reject the call of the fundamental instinct to reproduce. Although, through our history most humans lived in conditions where existential questions could not arise, plus religions did their best to spread their answers.
- yters 7y ago
  It seems existential questions must have arisen, otherwise why would people care about religions and their answers?
homonculus1 7y ago
Are those really suffering of the same degree though? Surely the ennui of unexamined comfort is preferable to the agony of war and starvation--and an individual has almost total power to solve the former, effectively nil against the latter.
- yters 7y ago
  I totally agree with you. Comfortable suffering certainly seems preferable to unbearable pain, but maybe is not preferable to a daily struggle. My point is eliminating physical suffering does not eliminate existential suffering, whereas eliminating existential suffering with ultimate meaning can in a certain way eliminate physical suffering. For example, many Christians, and people in other religions and philosophies, in the past and even today voluntarily undergo tremendous torture and painful executions because they've found a profound relief for the existential suffering.