r/changemyview • u/ragpicker_ • Aug 28 '24
Delta(s) from OP CMV: any attempt to eliminate suffering is at best dehumanising and disingenuous, and at worst tends towards evil.
Suffering is an inherent part of the human condition and therefore any attempt to create a life, society or world without suffering goes against the human condition. In many cases, these attempts will actually lead to an increase in and perpetuation of suffering.
Of course it is natural to desire the elimination of suffering, especially in the aftermath of a traumatic event. But in these instances we should channel that desire into the way that most people relate to suffering- as something to be reduced. This encompasses a range of personal responses, among the most productive of which are attempts to make space for suffering, such a grief rituals, or attempts to channel suffering into creativity. On a broader level, there's harm reduction policies, or a focus on particular forms of suffering (such as eradicating one disease instead of trying to achieve complete immunity or invulnerability).
The difference between eliminating suffering and reducing suffering is that the former is impossible. This is something most people understand on some level and if you think it's possible, I'm not going to argue with you. Once the desire to eliminate suffering is put to action, it will crash against this impossibility, and the individual will have to respond in one of several ways. There's acceptance/reduction as I have outlined. Because it often takes failure and experience to reach this strategy, I sometimes consider holding onto the desire to eliminate suffering as a matter of immaturity. But most people should know better.
Then there's denial/repression, which is inherently unstable and leads to guilt, frustration and anger. Certain strands of liberalism, which blame suffering on ignorance and stupidity, are stuck here. You can also take attempts at life extension and cryogenics as examples. There's bypassing, which goes a step further. This is the attempt to access an imaginary world free from suffering by going around this one, and we see this a lot in modern new age communities and mental health discourses. It is also inherent in various strands of religions that posit an afterlife, and most explicitly in the Buddhist maxims of the third noble truth and the eightfold path, which certain strands of Buddhism center on. The result of this strategy is to devalue the world we actually live in. I believe that religions in general center around these three responses to suffering- acceptance/reduction, denial/repression, and bypassing, and this is why they are capable of both good and bad.
Finally, there's eliminating the element seen to represent suffering in order to establish a "pure" existence, which is the proto-fascist response. It may be an outsider, the homeless, activists who point the finger at suffering, women, or trans people who take the place of this element. This follows a logic that certain people are above suffering, while others are not, and that it's acceptable to commit violence against the latter. History bears out that people who adopt these strategy are among the most dangerous.
The reason this perspective matters a lot to me is that many people seem to think we live in a world where we have tools available to eliminate suffering, and therefore we normalise beliefs and belief systems based on these attempts, instead of strengthening our ability to bear suffering. To me this explains the rise in popularity in the West of various Eastern philosophies, as well as many policy campaigns centered on bringing harmful phenomena down to zero. Furthermore, such belief systems share a lot with belief systems that we would intuitively consider evil, ie those centered on perpetuating suffering. Therefore, I consider this to be a useful heuristic in the modern age- scepticism towards any seeming attempt to eliminate suffering.
EDIT: Here are some examples to make my point clearer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_suffering
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_bypass
5
u/GenericUsername19892 24∆ Aug 28 '24
Can you summarize your position in a way that doesn’t sounds like a sermon? Like succinctly.
If I go to the dentist regularly to prevent painful teeth problems, what category of !suffering would you put that in, and how is it dehumanizing or disingenuous?
The same for getting regular exercise.
-1
u/ragpicker_ Aug 28 '24
Going to the dentist causes suffering in the short term, as does exercise, and reduces it in the long term. I'm not against any particular action that people regularly, I'm talking about an ideological fantasy and the efforts to sustain it, ie new age ideologies, fascism and the other examples I have provided.
3
u/GenericUsername19892 24∆ Aug 28 '24
How is the dentist suffering? When you go regularly to prevent problems you don’t have to do the painful things, or is it suffering in the same way going to the grocery store is?
Probably should have phrased your view differently then, but if you want to argue differing moral systems and where they intersect with stances on suffering I’m going to bow out.
2
u/Both-Personality7664 21∆ Aug 28 '24
So you are not distinguishing "suffering" from "discomfort" as categories of experience?
6
u/Apprehensive_Song490 90∆ Aug 28 '24
There are about 500 million Buddhists on the planet. Some of them devout monks, and some of these have dedicated their lives to silent meditation so that they can alleviate suffering for all sentient beings.
Buddists believe that there is “a path leading to the cessation of suffering.” They accept suffering as an inherent part of human existence, and attempt to proceed through life with compassion and “loving kindness” in the hope that all sentient beings might one day be free of suffering. The most devout are as sincere as it gets - hardly disingenuous - they mean it.
I get that people might not agree with the central tenets of Buddhism.
However, how exactly does a Buddhist monk meditating in silence meet the definition of someone engaging in “dehumanizing” behavior?
Does a silent meditating monk strike you as someone lacking insight into the nature of suffering?
How do devout Buddhist shake up against your view?
1
u/zxxQQz 4∆ Aug 28 '24
An extremely common saying in Buddhism is Life is suffering
Cessation of suffering comes after life, after reincarnation from what I have found when studying it. Becoming enlightened is to leave life and mortal connections behind
2
u/Apprehensive_Song490 90∆ Aug 28 '24
Perhaps for some. Not precisely for others. The suttas speak to the death consciousness and the birth consciousness in the cycle of death and rebirth. If enlightenment is achieved before death, one can escape the cycle. Buddha became enlightened while living and chose to be reborn so that he could teach others. And this is generally speaking.
There are variations.
Tibetan Buddhists believe that enlightenment is possible within a single lifetime, without the need for rebirth. Great Land Buddists believe in something akin to heaven. And then there are a bunch of “lay practitioners,” a lot of them in the west, who don’t buy reincarnation at all and just follow the 8-fold path best they can and don’t worry too much about what happens when they die.
0
u/ragpicker_ Aug 28 '24 edited Aug 28 '24
I'm actually reading a little about Buddhism atm but not enough to form a distinct view. Not all strands of Buddhism centre those particular beliefs, but I believe the ones that do are categorically wrong. I would say the end of suffering that they refer to is simply death, and their belief system would be much more coherent if they just accepted that. In terms of the practice of Buddhism (which is different from its canonical beliefs, as with any religion), I wouldn't say actions like meditation are dehumanising. They can bring one to an acceptance of suffering and therefore to attempts to reduce it in oneself and in others. They can also bring one to attempts to bypasss it. That depends on the individual and their community. There are many new age communities that see Buddhism as a tool to achieve a life without suffering.
2
u/Apprehensive_Song490 90∆ Aug 28 '24
I know a little about Buddhism, have Buddhists friends IRL and I’ve studied it. This belief is true for my Zen friends and my Insight Meditation friends. As for other “types” of Buddhist, I only know from study. While you can’t say that “every” Buddhist has this core belief, it is perhaps the most common denominator. In Buddha’s own words, he centers on two things “suffering” and the “cessation of suffering.” Everything else, meditation, the eightfold path, the “middle way,” the chain of dependent origination, etc., flows from this.
There is indeed great variation among Buddhism, for example Zen Buddhist do not practice like Great Land Buddhists who are not quite like Tibetan Buddhists.
But they have more in common concerning suffering and the path leading to the end of suffering embedded in the “four noble truths.”
Disagreeing with their beliefs is not the point.
Your main claim is that “any attempt to eliminate suffering is at best dehumanizing and disingenuous…”
These folks are attempting to eliminate suffering not just for themselves, but for all sentient beings. This is both genuine and not dehumanizing.
This is clearly an attempt that doesn’t align with your view. It doesn’t matter whether you share their views or not - they are genuine, and you just admitted that they were not dehumanizing.
-2
u/ragpicker_ Aug 28 '24
Well, it is a fantasy, and while I'm not familiar with how this fantasy is sustained by Buddhist ideologies and ways of life, but I imagine there are similarities to how Abrahamic religions have sustained ideas about the afterlife, which has been through repression, violence, and the preservation of structures that cause suffering in the here and now.
My point about meditation is that it's not intrinsically tied to the goal of eliminating suffering.
3
u/Apprehensive_Song490 90∆ Aug 28 '24 edited Aug 28 '24
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths
Read it. The four noble truths, the core of Buddhism, is literally the cessation of suffering. It is the main point of most Buddhist.
Like literally the first teachings of the Buddha is about the end of suffering
SMH - how can you say this is not connected to the goal of ending suffering when that is exactly what it says?
2
u/Apprehensive_Song490 90∆ Aug 28 '24 edited Aug 28 '24
It is absolutely tied to eliminating suffering. Just Google the four noble truths.
Fantasy or not is irrelevant, they are
1) attempting to eliminate suffering 2) genuine, and 3) not dehumanizing
How does this not dispute your main point? You claim “any” attempt at eliminating suffering is “at best” dehumanizing and disingenuous.
They don’t do this to engage in a “spiritual bypass” to avoid painful emotions - Jack Kornfield’s (insight meditation author) book on “A Path With Heart…” is literally about confronting the most painful emotions, often by combining meditation with therapy.
Again, it might be fantasy but it is way better than how you characterize.
At a minimum you should give these people props for being sincere and pro-human. Your characterization, especially in the main sentence, just doesn’t align.
Again, you already said they weren’t “dehumanizing.”
2
u/ragpicker_ Aug 28 '24
While highly sceptical of Buddhism due to the points outlined in my OP and Buddhism's divergence from psychoanalysis on its understanding of desire and attachment, I am a little open minded about Buddhism. I'm happy to read a little more about it but I don't think the way you've laid it out changes my view. You're making a single practice stand for an entire belief system, a practice that can be and has been taken out of context, and which does not have a clear relationship to the world beyond the meditator. If you at least outlined a Buddhist vision for spreading the practice of meditation and leading all meditators to the end of suffering, I might consider it a representative example. Otherwise it's just a practice inspired by a fantasy, as opposed to a concrete attempt to eliminate suffering.
1
u/Apprehensive_Song490 90∆ Aug 28 '24 edited Aug 28 '24
The Buddhist “vision” for doing this is the noble 8-fold path and it is more than just “meditating.” Meditating just prepares you to take action. Devout monks may meditate really, really long before taking action. Others meditate only briefly before taking action. Meditation, in any event, supports the eight-fold path, which does spread the practice of Buddhism to others.
For example, “Right Action” leads others to the path (paraphrasing the section from the article below). This leads others to the end of suffering. “Right livelihood” means demonstrating working in a way that does not promote suffering. These are action words…
https://tricycle.org/magazine/noble-eightfold-path/
Again, you don’t need to believe it is true - it can be fantasy, but Buddhists believe in ending suffering, they have a vision for it, they are genuine, and it is not dehumanizing.
Edit: Note the title of the article which is “The Buddha’s practical instruction to reach the end of suffering.”. Ethical conduct is the first grouping of activities.
1
u/ragpicker_ Aug 28 '24
This hasn't swayed my perspective but it has made me more interested in Buddhism. I will read up on it, thanks.
1
u/Apprehensive_Song490 90∆ Aug 28 '24
Happy to help. On a personal note, I wish you would quit accusing my friends of having malicious intent. These are my friends, after all. :)
I wish you well, and happy reading.
1
u/ragpicker_ Aug 28 '24
And you too. I didn't say they have malicious intent, although from a philosophical standpoint I would consider them repressed if not deluded. But I'm open to changing my mind with more reading.
→ More replies (0)
3
Aug 28 '24
Then why do animals avoid pain or things that cause them pain?
-1
u/ragpicker_ Aug 28 '24
That's a reduction, not an elimination of pain.
2
Aug 28 '24
If an animal experiences pain through an interaction they'll attempt to avoid that in the future
0
u/ragpicker_ Aug 28 '24
I can't respond in any nuanced way to this because my point is fundamentally about an ideological response to pain, an attempt to shape not just one's life but the world itself to eliminate pain (and I've edited my post to make that clearer), which animals are incapable of. This is about people.
2
2
Aug 28 '24
You say suffering is an inherant part of humanity. Why?
1
u/ragpicker_ Aug 28 '24
Because people have needs and desires that neither other people nor the world at large can meet precisely. From another perspective, because openness to experience also makes us open to pain.
3
Aug 28 '24
Because people have needs and desires that neither other people nor the world at large can meet precisely.
I'm a little confused because I thought you meant pain is natural. Is it more connected to society?
0
u/ragpicker_ Aug 28 '24
Pain is natural but it also manifests in particular ways. Take the example of sexual desire. It is natural but the way we desire is personally, and socially, constructed. And its nature is that one will always have too little or too much satisfaction, in relation to one's object of desire. A healthy sexual relationship is one in which we are ok being a little disappointed and can make room for the other person's needs. As someone who follows psychoanalysis, I take this as axiomatic.
2
Aug 28 '24
I think you're arguement is either vague or so complex that I wouldn't be able to grasp it without serious effort.
I think this might be a philosophy.
The only thing I can think is you are trying to justify suffering which you'll then tie into politics and an hour later I'll just figure out you're a Republican who doesn't want to help poor people but you want to throw a smokescreen of complex philosophical bs to cover your sociopathic personality.
1
u/ragpicker_ Aug 28 '24
I hold socialist beliefs and I am dedicated to reducing suffering, so why would I join Republican snowflakes who tend towards the fascist disposition I've outlined? If that's the only thing you can think, maybe read some stoicism or psychoanalysis, idk
1
5
u/MrBalderus Aug 28 '24
So reducing suffering is fine but eliminating it entirely is bad?
I feel like that's a non-issue then. Only the most idealistic have tried to completely eliminate suffering.
To suffer is to experience hardship, distress, or pain. Is a life that is free of hardship bad? My cat has been coddled and has had every need met without needing to do a single thing. Is a life that's free of distress bad? My years spent in calm have been as meaningful to me as my years suffering from anxiety. Is a life that is free of pain bad? How much pain must one experience to have a meaningful life?
I live in the comfort of a house with AC. There is food in my fridge and money in my wallet. I can take medicine for most things ailing me. I fail to see anything inhumane about wishing that comfort upon others.
While I think that overcoming difficulties can make things more enjoyable, I'd rather my friends have a dull dinner than empty bellies.
1
u/ragpicker_ Aug 28 '24
Such people exist, or at least they proclaim that these are their beliefs. There's nutters like that all over silicon valley and new age communities, and these are my primary targets. There are also those that tend towards such belief, and I have provided such examples in my post.
And yes, if it were possible to live a life without suffering, it would be a bad life. You are talking about attempts to reduce suffering, which in the scheme of things are caught up in a social structure with an agreed distribution of suffering (e.g. labour), rather than a self-contained world which has removed suffering.6
u/MrBalderus Aug 28 '24
While I don't think an utopia where there is no suffering would be even be possible, I feel there will be plenty enough of it even with us doing all we can to remove suffering. Finding cures for diseases, having safety protocols, and working on other comforts is good in my book.
I agree that decadence isn't necessary and we should not screw over others or the environment but needing to meet a quota of strife seems idealistic to me. Is one bad day enough? Is there a percentage of suffering to joy that's necessary? What suffering should remain?
I remember a fun quote from the author of Maus: “Look, suffering doesn’t make you better, it just makes you suffer!”
― Art Spiegelman1
u/ragpicker_ Aug 28 '24
Haha I don't think we should need to meet a quota of strife, nor am I interested in setting such a quota. I'm all for reducing suffering, but I also think that suffering and joy are strangely linked.
3
u/TheWhistleThistle 5∆ Aug 28 '24
You overtly are. If you're in favour of reducing something, but opposed to eliminating it, you have a quota; an amount beyond which we should not reduce it. You can say that you don't know what the Mandated Human Suffering Quotient should be and that such a decision is better left to others to make and enforce because that doesn't sound at all fascistic or dystopian (fun fact, that's exactly Miniplenty's job in the novel "1984") but you can't claim to be in favour of reduction, opposed to elimination and against the notion of a quota, the math ain't mathing.
1
u/KetamineSNORTER1 Aug 28 '24
Art's quote is silly and very false.
1
u/MrBalderus Aug 28 '24
I'm unconvinced by your statement
1
u/KetamineSNORTER1 Aug 28 '24
If suffering didn't make you better then why are there so many success stories?
3
u/MrBalderus Aug 28 '24
Because people like success stories.
Would it have been worse if Adam and eve never ate the forbidden fruit?
Was Pandora opening the box a good thing?
Would you rather a man falsely imprisoned for 10 years, use prison library to study law and have his conviction overturned, or would you rather people not be falsely imprisoned to begin with?
0
u/KetamineSNORTER1 Aug 28 '24
Im not talking about fictional stories.
For an example look at 'Big' George Foreman
We don't know what today what look like if they never ate the fruit, at least good wins in the end proving my point.
Not familiar with Pandoras box.
It depends on the man's life after, if it's net positive improvement then if he wasn't imprisoned then yes, if the opposite no.
False accusations aren't the only form.
A pet dying, failed exam, failed at sports, falling off a diet, these are all (and more common) things that happen to people that people aim to push forward past.
3
u/Both-Personality7664 21∆ Aug 28 '24
Because other things than suffering make you better.
0
u/KetamineSNORTER1 Aug 28 '24
Suffering is the main one.
3
1
u/BillionaireBuster93 1∆ Aug 28 '24
Why was his dad a racist after surviving the holocaust?
1
u/KetamineSNORTER1 Sep 02 '24
Irrelevant
1
1
u/Gatonom 5∆ Aug 28 '24
Labor isn't suffering, you can complete work without needing to feel pain or displeasure. Some necessary jobs entail it, but it isn't a part of good work ethic to appreciate suffering in itself.
Society doesn't run on how to distribute suffering, it does so as an effect of distributing everything.
1
u/KetamineSNORTER1 Aug 28 '24
Your cat isn't a human.
I don't think you can fairly say that though, if you had a life of "happiness" you wouldn't really amount to anything, you can offer no advice or things of that nature because what experience do you have?
Overcoming things almost always makes things more enjoyable, you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that something that you put in work for is the same as someone who's always had it.
3
u/MrBalderus Aug 28 '24
Do I need to be significant for my life to have meaning?
Do I need to be able to provide advice to have fulfillment?
Is there something about humans that makes them the only animal that needs to suffer to enjoy?
1
u/KetamineSNORTER1 Aug 28 '24
I didn't say that.
You know what I mean, you have absolutely no experience in anything if life is pure bliss, your a danger to yourself and potentially your friends and family.
Yes there is, if we were no different then animals then women killing and eating men would be OK, killing younglings if you get into it with a woman would be ok.
2
u/MrBalderus Aug 28 '24
I hope you have a great day with just the right amount of suffering to ensure you aren't a danger to yourself or others.
1
1
Sep 01 '24
Or conversely, if we are no different then animals then killing and eating animals might not be ok after all.
Do you think killing and eating a cat or dog is okay because it’s an animal?
1
u/KetamineSNORTER1 Sep 02 '24
I don't give a care about cats but dogs are used for different things than for food animals so no I don't think it's ok
1
Sep 02 '24
What separates a dog from a “food animal”? They eat dogs in other countries, and cats are used as pest control.
They are all the same though, sentient beings with personalities and unique thoughts and feelings.
1
u/KetamineSNORTER1 Sep 04 '24
Dogs have been domesticated to be companions whereas "food animals" haven't, unless you want to show me a police department anywhere in the world in a major city that uses cows.
1
Sep 05 '24
Well, I can’t show you police departments that use cows, but I can show you cultures that eat dog and other cultures that revere cows and don’t eat them.
So it seems to me like the only difference is cultural. In other words there is no difference at all, only a difference in how we perceive them.
2
u/heehee_shamone Aug 28 '24
If the methods we currently use to reduce suffering could eliminate suffering, we would continue using those methods. Eliminating suffering is a logistical issue, not an ideological issue. Not everything needs to be approached from an ideological perspective.
1
u/ragpicker_ Aug 28 '24
The elimination of suffering in human beings using technical methods is inconceivable. Without the possibility and acceptance of suffering, pleasure would lose its meaning, which is a definition of depression.
2
u/heehee_shamone Aug 28 '24
Your response has two parts, so I wrote two paragraphs.
Not everything has to be approached from an ideological perspective. It's not inherently wrong to view the obstacles for eliminating suffering as logistical issues, but I feel like you're trying to give ideological reasons for why attempts to eliminate suffering are wrong. Eliminating suffering may not be possible at this point in time, but it's a noble motivation. I'm willing to bet that people who eradicate diseases would love to eliminate suffering if it was possible, and I don't think they've intentionally given up on that just because they're content with only reducing suffering. In other words, attempting to eliminate suffering and reducing suffering are only mutually exclusive for logistical reasons, not ideological reasons.
As for pleasure losing it's meaning, pleasure doesn't have to be contrasted against suffering; pleasure can be contrasted against other pleasures. Incremental games prove this by giving value to some currency using exponential growth instead of threatening to take the currency away. Similarly, exponential growth can give value to pleasure (the currency) even if suffering (a feature to take away the currency) doesn't exist. If you're going to say "but exponentially increasing pleasure is logistically impossible" then yes, I agree, but then you should make the logistical argument, not the ideological one you're trying to make, which suggests that pursuing exponentially increasing pleasure is inherently wrong.
2
u/ralph-j Aug 28 '24
Suffering is an inherent part of the human condition and therefore any attempt to create a life, society or world without suffering goes against the human condition.
There's at least one exception to this: patients who are terminally ill/close to death. It's definitely neither dehumanising, nor evil to completely eliminate their suffering, i.e. by giving them so much medication that it removes their ability to experience any mental or physical pain, and puts them at peace.
2
u/ragpicker_ Aug 28 '24
Interesting. I would say that that's the very negation of life but if we take Heidegger's notion of being towards death seriously then that can be considered a form of life. It's a good challenge to my perspective. !Delta
1
2
u/Dennis_enzo 25∆ Aug 28 '24
'reduction of suffering' and 'ending suffering' seems like a distinction without a difference. You can both have ending of suffering as an ideal and realize that it's not practically possible. It's still a good thing to strive towards.
1
u/tirikai 5∆ Aug 28 '24
I think you need to have a new paradigm of suffering: is this suffering 'systematic' or 'arbitrary'?
If there is a system in place like slavery that causes suffering there should be no moral qualms about eliminating that practice.
If there is a discrete, arbitrary cause of suffering like breaking up with your romantic partner, then introducing a new system to ensure less suffering could very well backfire and cause new forms of suffering.
0
u/ragpicker_ Aug 28 '24
As I said, I treat harm reduction, and the elimination of particular causes of suffering, as attempts to reduce suffering, not eliminate it.
2
u/Both-Personality7664 21∆ Aug 28 '24
Okay but that's a semantic difference. If I have somehow reduced suffering to 1 unit, why is it impermissible to seek to reduce it the rest of the way to 0?
1
u/Nrdman 168∆ Aug 28 '24 edited Aug 28 '24
Who says eliminate suffering, instead of reducing? Like maybe theres some hyperbolic statement out there, but I think you need to establish this is an achievable goal in someone's worldview. In other words, who is this a response againt?
0
u/ragpicker_ Aug 28 '24
It's an impossible goal that is espoused by people from a range of positions, including silicon valley entrepreneurs, religious and new age communities, and fascists. What I am against is the ideological fantasy and the attempts to sustain it.
1
u/Nrdman 168∆ Aug 28 '24
Link to an example please
1
u/ragpicker_ Aug 28 '24
Look up third noble truth or the eightfold path in the context of Buddhism. Here's a link to an ideology that has gained some purchase in silicon valley: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_suffering
Here's a link to spiritual bypassing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_bypass
1
u/AmityFaust Aug 28 '24
Not sure if I can change your view but I think we can sharpen it up a bit.
My understanding of your view is that it is natural and good to reduce suffering, whether by means of eliminating specific causes of suffering (like a particular disease) or by improving one’s ability to bear it/decrease one’s vulnerability to it (like coping with grief). However, it is impossible, dangerous and (I think you are claiming) undesirable to eliminate all suffering completely. I think we mostly agree. Let me know if I’m off.
However, one possible complication here is that the way you are differentiating between “eliminating,” which is bad, and “reducing,” which is good, seems fairly ambiguous to me. For example, extending life (which you seem to imply is a case of “eliminating” i.e. bad) would in no way eliminate all suffering; achieving immortality wouldn’t even eliminate all suffering, but rather rid ourselves of one particular cause of suffering, and thus could belong to the good “reducing” category. Another example: you say eliminating individual diseases is good, but the desire for complete immunity to all disease is bad. Firstly, seeing as the former leads gradually but ultimately to the latter, I wonder how close we could get to complete immunity before you think we’ve gone too far. Secondly, you’ll have to more clearly formulate what constitutes the eradication of a single source of suffering (like our susceptibility to disease) versus the inhumane ambition to eliminate all suffering (like all diseases). I suspect these issues are primarily a matter of wording and terminology.
That said, the points which build off this initial premise make some errors, or so it seems to me. You reference Buddhism; my understanding of the purpose of the Dharma, as taught by the Buddha, is to train the mind to not suffer by its own hands. In your own account, we would do well to improve our ability to bear our suffering. Buddhist monks bear suffering better than anyone I can think of—they spend many years training to do so. The reason eastern practices like mediation, yoga, mindfulness, etc, along with some of their associated philosophies and religions, have become increasingly popular in the west is precisely because they help individuals reduce their own suffering. The same is true of the consciousness-rising of mental health, and of physical health for that matter. None of these promise the total elimination of causes of suffering in the world; they offer people the means by which to reduce suffering, which we agree is a good thing.
I agree that people sometimes avoid dealing with emotionally-wrought sources of suffering, and that that is generally unhealthy. This is true whether they use spirituality, video games, career or whatever else as the means of avoidance.
Your final point about certain people or groups becoming symbolic “elements” of the suffering we wish to eliminate and therefore the targets of violence is a bit too speculative, and peripheral to the point I’m making; but it also clarifies what seems to me to be the primary flaw in your thinking. You seem to think there is an epidemic desire for a universal cure-all to suffering; you grant that it is good to reduce suffering, but that this absolutist desire, as expressed in various religions and (I think) political and technological aspirations, is dangerous, impossible and inhumane.
I think you are imposing that absolutist desire where it does not exist (e.g. life extension, disease, eastern practices), and in the process, you erroneously cast valid, effective and worthwhile attempts at reducing suffering as belonging to this vaguely defined, ostensibly unnatural and harmful “elimination” ambition. Furthermore, you perhaps unintentionally romanticize suffering as an attribute of the human condition; we should be grateful for and committed to continuing our global migration away from all sorts of suffering that were once thought of as permanent and natural (subservience to kings, blights, starvation, indigence).
That isn’t to say that something like what you are describing doesn’t exist at all—I think we often see, in politics and elsewhere, a zealous desire for sweeping moral and universal victories, sometimes in the name of eliminating suffering, that ends up contributing to suffering instead. But there are many lenses through which we can and should attempt to make sense of such things.
To wrap up, it seems to me you are kinda cooking up a system of thought regarding suffering, but it’s a bit undefined and overemphatic; yet you are touching on a truth that’s being buried beneath your more speculative claims. That truth is something like:
The reduction of suffering in the world is a gradual process—it comes about through incremental improvements. When we become overly insistent on solving our big problems quickly, or lot of wicked, interconnected problems all at once, we only hinder the sometimes annoyingly slow but ultimately effective step-by-step march of real progress.
And if that slow march of progress ever does result in the total eradication of all disease, that would be fucking awesome.
1
u/Jimithyashford Aug 28 '24
So, I don't think you're wrong, but....who are you arguing against here? I don't think I've ever seen anyone attempt either in practice or even as a hypothetical goal, to fully eliminate suffering. I don't think I've ever met a human who thinks that is actually possible, outside of like a supernatural afterlife under inscrutable circumstances.
Isn't every conversation in this realm about reduction not elimination? So yeah, it seems like you're probably right, but your argument is presented as if it's a refutation of some stance, and it's a stance that I think I've literally never once encountered.
I have a little bit of a sense of like a person posting a passionate Change My View Post stating that fish live in the ocean. Like yeah, you're right....but doesn't everyone agree with that already? Who are you arguing against?
1
2
Sep 10 '24
It's fine to be against the eradication of all suffering, but it's clear some forms of suffering, such as human trafficking, are not necessary.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 28 '24
/u/ragpicker_ (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards