Physical pain is an inevitable result of living.
Emotional pain is an inevitable result of living with others.
Both are preferable to the alternatives.
Understanding Suffering
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 47800
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Eru, I'm deeply sorry that you're feeling so bad. Please keep in mind how many people care what happens to you, and want you to feel better.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
-
axordil
- Pleasantly Twisted
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: Black Creek Bottoms
- Contact:
Not living isn't all it's cracked up to be, you know. We really are programmed to perservere. Most of humanity live what most of us would think to be pretty miserable existences...and yet suicide rates are no higher in Bangalore then they are in Baltimore. We may hate our lives, our faces, our selves, but we keep on chuggin' along.
It's because life is biased in favor of life. It has to be. Whether you think it's because of six billion years of chemical and biological programming or six thousand years of divinely guided history, life really does depend on things continuing to live. Self-preservation is engrained so deeply in us that we cannot easily examine it except in the most extreme situations.
Why fight it? Just live and let life take care of itself.
It's because life is biased in favor of life. It has to be. Whether you think it's because of six billion years of chemical and biological programming or six thousand years of divinely guided history, life really does depend on things continuing to live. Self-preservation is engrained so deeply in us that we cannot easily examine it except in the most extreme situations.
Why fight it? Just live and let life take care of itself.
-
The Watcher
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:04 am
- Location: southeastern Wisconsin
You make it sound like life is always the preferred outcome.axordil wrote:Not living isn't all it's cracked up to be, you know. We really are programmed to perservere. Most of humanity live what most of us would think to be pretty miserable existences...and yet suicide rates are no higher in Bangalore then they are in Baltimore. We may hate our lives, our faces, our selves, but we keep on chuggin' along.
It's because life is biased in favor of life. It has to be. Whether you think it's because of six billion years of chemical and biological programming or six thousand years of divinely guided history, life really does depend on things continuing to live. Self-preservation is engrained so deeply in us that we cannot easily examine it except in the most extreme situations.
Why fight it? Just live and let life take care of itself.
"Just live and let life take care of itself" means a rather passive stance on things to my mind.
Granted, if you yourself are dead, there is nothing that you can do any longer to influence events occurring around you, but I think it is a bit more than "biology designed us for life, so that is the answer" sort of rationale.
There are definitely times where I think death is a worthy outcome on its own part. Death, as opposed to being the polar opposite of life, is only the end process of life. The opposite of life is "non-life." As in a rock or a flame or a molecule of water.
Yes, life proliferates. That means in spite of death being the end all of all life, life continues on. That is ALL it means.
Woah, wait, there's death, and then there's death.
Surely, we will all die one day.
It is a matter of when, and how, and why and what for....
Some people die senselessly - in, say, a car accident.
Others succumb to horrible illnesses, whether they fight them or not....
I mean, we will die. Eventually.
But suicide is different. It is....dying of miserableness.
To feel that trapped, that life is that blah....that is horrible. In many ways, it is as horrible as cancer, or some other deadly disease. Well, I guess suicidal depression is a deadly disease.
Eru, I know this won't help at all, but
Please, PLEASE, hang in there. It will get better. Honest.
I also agree that there are situations where it may be noble (not suicidal) to die. For instance, a soldier who risks his life to save a buddy (or a Mom who rushes back into a burning house to save her child). Maybe not the smartest move ever, but everyone will recognize that sometimes you may choose someone else's life over your own.
Just contrast the deaths of Boromir and his father. Denethor is throwing his life away, committing suicide in despair. His vision has narrowed until all he sees is himself and Sauron...he's forgotten his people. Boromir, on the other hand, fights valiantly to try to save Merry and Pippin. He is not despairing, he is not giving up....he is merely fighting impossible odds until the end, on the off chance that he will hold out long enough for help to arrive. Had Aragorn (and Legolas and Gimli) come on the scene 10 min. earlier, would it have gone differently? Would they have all died? Who knows?
And since you cannot know, sometimes you can take that risk. But that is different than throwing your life away, or not caring about it. It is....worth it.
Surely, we will all die one day.
It is a matter of when, and how, and why and what for....
Some people die senselessly - in, say, a car accident.
Others succumb to horrible illnesses, whether they fight them or not....
I mean, we will die. Eventually.
But suicide is different. It is....dying of miserableness.
To feel that trapped, that life is that blah....that is horrible. In many ways, it is as horrible as cancer, or some other deadly disease. Well, I guess suicidal depression is a deadly disease.
Eru, I know this won't help at all, but
Please, PLEASE, hang in there. It will get better. Honest.
I also agree that there are situations where it may be noble (not suicidal) to die. For instance, a soldier who risks his life to save a buddy (or a Mom who rushes back into a burning house to save her child). Maybe not the smartest move ever, but everyone will recognize that sometimes you may choose someone else's life over your own.
Just contrast the deaths of Boromir and his father. Denethor is throwing his life away, committing suicide in despair. His vision has narrowed until all he sees is himself and Sauron...he's forgotten his people. Boromir, on the other hand, fights valiantly to try to save Merry and Pippin. He is not despairing, he is not giving up....he is merely fighting impossible odds until the end, on the off chance that he will hold out long enough for help to arrive. Had Aragorn (and Legolas and Gimli) come on the scene 10 min. earlier, would it have gone differently? Would they have all died? Who knows?
And since you cannot know, sometimes you can take that risk. But that is different than throwing your life away, or not caring about it. It is....worth it.
As promised, I'd like to briefly return the thread to the idea of suffering in the world as it relates to the concept of god, especially that of a creator god.
I think I live a very comfortable and carefree life as compared to the vast majority of people on the planet. And yet I have experienced, as I've grown older, an acute, inescapable and increasing sensitivity to all manner of suffering: the daily emotional, physical, psychological and spiritual suffering of humans, the suffering of the young and the old, the wealthy and the poor, the guilty and the innocent, as well as the suffering of the whole creation - the remarkable cruelty of its design - that most creatures must kill other living things to sustain themselves.
In order to believe in an immanent and transcendent creator god, one who is omnipotent and omniscient, the creator of all that is, one must conclude that suffering is with us by design. To reach any other conclusion is to place 'something else', whatever that might be, above god.
Now many of our great philosophers and theologians have, in fact, reached that conclusion. That is, they have asserted in many different ways and over millenia, that it is not proper thinking to believe that god can really do, you know, absolutely anything at all.
(Even though it is never so overtly stated). But that god is constrained. That god must work in and through only that which we humans believe god has to work with.
While it is not explicitly stated, the elephant in the room here is that there is something bigger and more powerful than god - some kind of construct that god must operate within and cannot transcend.
And from that line of thinking follows all of the age old ideas about the need for free will, or the conclusion that suffering is a result of a "fall", or of "sin", or of the wrong choices, mistakes and defects of the creator's creatures rather than the creator who made them, etc. etc.
Oh, there have been creative updates to this standard way of thinking of the problem of suffering. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin dealt with it by asserting his belief that god cannot yet reveal himself to us because we, along with the entire universe, are not yet in a sufficient state in the process of our collective evolution towards spirit to allow him to do so. Notice the italicized words in that last sentence and tell me if that truly describes a transcendent god, an omnipotent, omniscient creator who is "above" time.
Could not a truly unconstrained god have constructed a universe where love does not require free will? Where suffering is not needed to elicit a "higher good"? Or any of the other myriad of explanations we use to comfort ourselves about the problem of suffering?
Should the fact that we cannot, from our limited human experience and perspective, conceive of how that might be accomplished result in our placing a box around a limitless god? Is it not an example of incredible hubris for us to believe that a truly transcendent god could not have created a world of love without suffering? Without hate? Without any need at all for the dualism which requires us to measure light against dark, warmth against cold, and goodness against evil, in order to know these things for what they are?
So ultimately, it seems to me there are really only two theistic choices that allow for divine intentionality: To believe there is a limitless god who chose a model for the creation that included suffering when there was no need to do so, or to conclude, as so many have in subtle ways, that there is some larger construct or framework which even god must work within.
In the former case, we are led to question whether we can love and worship such a god. (I couldn't possibly). While in the latter case, we are led to question whether our love and worship is aimed in the proper direction at all.
Yes. I believe the problem of suffering is quite a terrible conundrum.
edited to fix a typo
I think I live a very comfortable and carefree life as compared to the vast majority of people on the planet. And yet I have experienced, as I've grown older, an acute, inescapable and increasing sensitivity to all manner of suffering: the daily emotional, physical, psychological and spiritual suffering of humans, the suffering of the young and the old, the wealthy and the poor, the guilty and the innocent, as well as the suffering of the whole creation - the remarkable cruelty of its design - that most creatures must kill other living things to sustain themselves.
In order to believe in an immanent and transcendent creator god, one who is omnipotent and omniscient, the creator of all that is, one must conclude that suffering is with us by design. To reach any other conclusion is to place 'something else', whatever that might be, above god.
Now many of our great philosophers and theologians have, in fact, reached that conclusion. That is, they have asserted in many different ways and over millenia, that it is not proper thinking to believe that god can really do, you know, absolutely anything at all.
(Even though it is never so overtly stated). But that god is constrained. That god must work in and through only that which we humans believe god has to work with. While it is not explicitly stated, the elephant in the room here is that there is something bigger and more powerful than god - some kind of construct that god must operate within and cannot transcend.
And from that line of thinking follows all of the age old ideas about the need for free will, or the conclusion that suffering is a result of a "fall", or of "sin", or of the wrong choices, mistakes and defects of the creator's creatures rather than the creator who made them, etc. etc.
Oh, there have been creative updates to this standard way of thinking of the problem of suffering. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin dealt with it by asserting his belief that god cannot yet reveal himself to us because we, along with the entire universe, are not yet in a sufficient state in the process of our collective evolution towards spirit to allow him to do so. Notice the italicized words in that last sentence and tell me if that truly describes a transcendent god, an omnipotent, omniscient creator who is "above" time.
Could not a truly unconstrained god have constructed a universe where love does not require free will? Where suffering is not needed to elicit a "higher good"? Or any of the other myriad of explanations we use to comfort ourselves about the problem of suffering?
Should the fact that we cannot, from our limited human experience and perspective, conceive of how that might be accomplished result in our placing a box around a limitless god? Is it not an example of incredible hubris for us to believe that a truly transcendent god could not have created a world of love without suffering? Without hate? Without any need at all for the dualism which requires us to measure light against dark, warmth against cold, and goodness against evil, in order to know these things for what they are?
So ultimately, it seems to me there are really only two theistic choices that allow for divine intentionality: To believe there is a limitless god who chose a model for the creation that included suffering when there was no need to do so, or to conclude, as so many have in subtle ways, that there is some larger construct or framework which even god must work within.
In the former case, we are led to question whether we can love and worship such a god. (I couldn't possibly). While in the latter case, we are led to question whether our love and worship is aimed in the proper direction at all.
Yes. I believe the problem of suffering is quite a terrible conundrum.
edited to fix a typo
An optimist is simply someone who can never be pleasantly surprised.
-
The Watcher
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:04 am
- Location: southeastern Wisconsin
Windfola -
There is a third explanation. There is a divine within all of us, but it is not exhibited in any foreseeable way. In other words, creation itself is the product of what we term the divine, and that there is no more purpose to it than that which we discover for ourselves. Maybe there is such a thing as the "god gene" - the need for human beings to find solace in the thought that other forces control their destiny, but I doubt it is that easy.
I guess what I am referring here to is deism, or many other terms. I tend to believe much like Einstein and others - I cannot know the universe, there is much in its design and construction that amazes me, and something, whatever one wishes to call it, is there that we cannot detect or know in the empirical way. But, it IS there in the spiritual way, and whether one wants to call it "life force" or those little green thingies from Star Wars or whatever, why does it need to be humancentric? Isn't that the biggest vanity of them all, that WE are somehow the most special thing out there?
When I answer THAT question for myself, I need to do nothing further than look up at the sky on a clear night to realize that answer.
And, it does not disturb me in the least.
There is a third explanation. There is a divine within all of us, but it is not exhibited in any foreseeable way. In other words, creation itself is the product of what we term the divine, and that there is no more purpose to it than that which we discover for ourselves. Maybe there is such a thing as the "god gene" - the need for human beings to find solace in the thought that other forces control their destiny, but I doubt it is that easy.
I guess what I am referring here to is deism, or many other terms. I tend to believe much like Einstein and others - I cannot know the universe, there is much in its design and construction that amazes me, and something, whatever one wishes to call it, is there that we cannot detect or know in the empirical way. But, it IS there in the spiritual way, and whether one wants to call it "life force" or those little green thingies from Star Wars or whatever, why does it need to be humancentric? Isn't that the biggest vanity of them all, that WE are somehow the most special thing out there?
When I answer THAT question for myself, I need to do nothing further than look up at the sky on a clear night to realize that answer.
And, it does not disturb me in the least.Thanks for replying, The Watcher.
I'm aware that there are some people who see things in the way that you describe. That's why I framed my two choice dilemma within the framework of "divine intentionality".
The thing is, at least for me, once you remove the concept of divine intention, it gets pretty hard to hold onto the divine part at all.
Afterall, what are the alternatives? Divine randomness? Or as you describe it, a kind of divine delegation?:) That doesn't feel quite right to me. But I see what you're saying. And I sure wish I could be where you are!
I'm aware that there are some people who see things in the way that you describe. That's why I framed my two choice dilemma within the framework of "divine intentionality".
The thing is, at least for me, once you remove the concept of divine intention, it gets pretty hard to hold onto the divine part at all.
Afterall, what are the alternatives? Divine randomness? Or as you describe it, a kind of divine delegation?
:) That doesn't feel quite right to me. But I see what you're saying. And I sure wish I could be where you are! An optimist is simply someone who can never be pleasantly surprised.
-
The Watcher
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:04 am
- Location: southeastern Wisconsin
I understand your POV. Yeah, the idea of divine seeding for lack of a better term sort of discomforts many people out there. I am interested to know why that thought is so scary? I can tell you why I am not comfortable with traditional religions, so I am no cutting off discussions. I find it fascinating to find out WHY people arrive at such faith based decisions, to be honest.Windfola wrote:Thanks for replying, The Watcher.
I'm aware that there are some people who see things in the way that you describe. That's why I framed my two choice dilemma within the framework of "divine intentionality".
The thing is, at least for me, once you remove the concept of divine intention, it gets pretty hard to hold onto the divine part at all.
Afterall, what are the alternatives? Divine randomness? Or as you describe it, a kind of divine delegation?
Hey, Windy!
I agree, suffering is a great mystery.
It's so good to see you here.
I disagree. God is who God is. He is not other than who He is. The creation reflects the Creator; that is what cannot be otherwise. It seems people want God to rearrange the universe according to their understanding (that is, they want God to be consistent with the universe as they think it ought to be).Windfola wrote:While it is not explicitly stated, the elephant in the room here is that there is something bigger and more powerful than god - some kind of construct that god must operate within and cannot transcend.
Is it not an example of incredible hubris for us to believe that He should have? (It goes either way, you see.)Should the fact that we cannot, from our limited human experience and perspective, conceive of how that might be accomplished result in our placing a box around a limitless god? Is it not an example of incredible hubris for us to believe that a truly transcendent god could not have created a world of love without suffering?
A third: To believe there is a limitless God whose creation reflects the truth of His being.To believe there is a limitless god who chose a model for the creation that included suffering when there was no need to do so, or to conclude, as so many have in subtle ways, that there is some larger construct or framework which even god must work within.
I agree, suffering is a great mystery.
It's so good to see you here.
The Watcher wrote:
Cerin: I won't be able to get to a more thorough response to your post until later today. But suffice it to say that after a quick reading, I don't think I disagree with anything you wrote. What you say may very well be the ultimate truth of things with a capital "T". But my point was that the kinds of things you say in your post all fit into my theistic choice #1, as it were. And that falls squarely into one of the two halves of the dilemma as I see it.
:)
Not sure how I gave the impression that this idea was scary or discomforting. That's not the case at all for me. It's just that the concept of the divine, of a "more", is not very persuasive to me without the intentionality aspect in there.I understand your POV. Yeah, the idea of divine seeding for lack of a better term sort of discomforts many people out there. I am interested to know why that thought is so scary?
Cerin: I won't be able to get to a more thorough response to your post until later today. But suffice it to say that after a quick reading, I don't think I disagree with anything you wrote. What you say may very well be the ultimate truth of things with a capital "T". But my point was that the kinds of things you say in your post all fit into my theistic choice #1, as it were. And that falls squarely into one of the two halves of the dilemma as I see it.
:)An optimist is simply someone who can never be pleasantly surprised.
Oh, I see.Windfola wrote:But my point was that the kinds of things you say in your post all fit into my theistic choice #1, as it were.
That's somewhat different than the idea I'm putting forward, because your idea includes the concepts of 'chose' and 'when there was no need to do so'.To believe there is a limitless god who chose a model for the creation that included suffering when there was no need to do so
I'm saying, the creation must reflect the truth of who God is if the presence of God is to be part of that creation. So it is not a matter of choice (unless you posit a God who could choose to be this or that 'before' He is it -- that is, a God who makes Himself rather than who is Himself), and it is not a matter of there being 'no need to do so'.
What is (in principle), must be (if it is to be).
So I must disagree that the concepts I'm putting forward fit into your theistic choice #1 (at least, according to my thinking).
I think suffering is an inevitable result of creating a reality like this: one that is composed of dualities. Light vs. Dark, suffering vs happiness, sick vs. well, life vs. death.
We all consider things in terms of what it is not as a way of defining what it is. When one goes for a "well woman" check up, what is the answer defined in? "No, you don't have cervical cancer" "No, you don't have high blood pressure" "No, you don't have diabetes" Wellness is defined in lack of sickness.
If there was no suffering on this planet, how would we define happiness? We all swing back and forth on pendulums of definitions. Good/bad, light/dark, mad/happy, busy/bored. It's the nature of this world, and if God is omnipotent- then that god certainly set it up that way. I simply trust there was a very good reason for doing it that way- even if it was only to make the "story" more interesting.
Eruname, you seem to be on the downswing of the pendulum right now. If you just ride it out, you'll see the upswing again soon enough. One can no more stay miserable all the time than one can stay happy all the time. The most you can hope for is to increase the *hang time* between extremes. We all die soon enough. No need to yearn for it.
We all consider things in terms of what it is not as a way of defining what it is. When one goes for a "well woman" check up, what is the answer defined in? "No, you don't have cervical cancer" "No, you don't have high blood pressure" "No, you don't have diabetes" Wellness is defined in lack of sickness.
If there was no suffering on this planet, how would we define happiness? We all swing back and forth on pendulums of definitions. Good/bad, light/dark, mad/happy, busy/bored. It's the nature of this world, and if God is omnipotent- then that god certainly set it up that way. I simply trust there was a very good reason for doing it that way- even if it was only to make the "story" more interesting.
Eruname, you seem to be on the downswing of the pendulum right now. If you just ride it out, you'll see the upswing again soon enough. One can no more stay miserable all the time than one can stay happy all the time. The most you can hope for is to increase the *hang time* between extremes. We all die soon enough. No need to yearn for it.
-
axordil
- Pleasantly Twisted
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: Black Creek Bottoms
- Contact:
There is to me a difference between things having a purpose, and things having a place. The first implies design and intent, the second only functionality.
Suffering, functionally speaking, is what we feel when we experience something that isn't good for us. It's how we KNOW it isn't good for us. In terms of physical pain, it's nature's way of saying "don't do that again, or avoid the situation that caused it." Except that sometimes we decide that the benefits that accrue from being in those dangerous situations outweigh the potential for pain...whether those benefits involve getting paid for dangerous work or merely meeting a self-imposed challenge.
Actually, it's pretty much exactly the same for emotional suffering. It is a direct and probably unavoidable byproduct of living with family, or friends, or society. But for most of us, it's worth it. Usually.
As far as being passive--no. It's more along the lines of actively choosing to not worry about making your heart beat, or your lungs take breaths, or your body otherwise taking care of itself. We are not just the sum of our organs' activities, nor are we just our instinct for self-preservation. Those things can take care of themselves, and trying to fiddle with them is generally a bad idea. Instead, let life in all its mechanical forms do what it has to do, and concentrate instead on the bits that aren't automatic or programmed in. Most of those are outside ourselves, in the delightfully, terribly unpredictable (yet familiar) mess that is the world.
So we shouldn't worry about living. We should simply live. And yes, death is part of that, but it too is, generally, an automatic function not worth fretting about or fiddling with.
Suffering, functionally speaking, is what we feel when we experience something that isn't good for us. It's how we KNOW it isn't good for us. In terms of physical pain, it's nature's way of saying "don't do that again, or avoid the situation that caused it." Except that sometimes we decide that the benefits that accrue from being in those dangerous situations outweigh the potential for pain...whether those benefits involve getting paid for dangerous work or merely meeting a self-imposed challenge.
Actually, it's pretty much exactly the same for emotional suffering. It is a direct and probably unavoidable byproduct of living with family, or friends, or society. But for most of us, it's worth it. Usually.
As far as being passive--no. It's more along the lines of actively choosing to not worry about making your heart beat, or your lungs take breaths, or your body otherwise taking care of itself. We are not just the sum of our organs' activities, nor are we just our instinct for self-preservation. Those things can take care of themselves, and trying to fiddle with them is generally a bad idea. Instead, let life in all its mechanical forms do what it has to do, and concentrate instead on the bits that aren't automatic or programmed in. Most of those are outside ourselves, in the delightfully, terribly unpredictable (yet familiar) mess that is the world.
So we shouldn't worry about living. We should simply live. And yes, death is part of that, but it too is, generally, an automatic function not worth fretting about or fiddling with.
Cerin:
Interesting. So are you saying that suffering and evil reflect part of the truth of who God is? Or are you positing that the Creation can itself become Creator by introducing elements (for example, evil) that are outside of/not a part of God?
It seems to me that it must be one or the other.
I'm saying, the creation must reflect the truth of who God is if the presence of God is to be part of that creation.
Interesting. So are you saying that suffering and evil reflect part of the truth of who God is? Or are you positing that the Creation can itself become Creator by introducing elements (for example, evil) that are outside of/not a part of God?
It seems to me that it must be one or the other.
An optimist is simply someone who can never be pleasantly surprised.
Windfola wrote:Interesting. So are you saying that suffering and evil reflect part of the truth of who God is?
Yes, I think they must reflect part of the truth of who God is, in relation to His creation. How would we who are finite understand compassion without suffering? How would we understand Holiness without evil?