|
This blog may come off as depressing or morbid to the casual reader, be advised.
So today I was talking to a long-time friend of mine. He's a fireman/first responder, which is a line of work, as you can imagine, in which you encounter some pretty unfortunate and downright twisted things. Every once in a while he unloads some of his stories on me, which I generally don't mind. At his particular department they provide counselling (usually within the first 24 hours) after particularly traumatic events. However, like most professions that involve "manly men" (soldier, cop, etc.) these services seem to be stigmatized in the sense that if you need them or use them, you aren't cut out for that line of work. While I definitely disagree with this position, that isn't what this blog is about. So I take his unloading of these stories as his form of dealing with some of these scenarios without having to make use of these services, and thus being stigmatized. Him being a life-long friend of mine, I generally don't mind.
Most of these stories are somewhat shocking, and sometimes even comical in a morbid sort of way. Today I heard a few stories that, upon further reflection, one of which bothered me in particular, and the conclusion I have come upon is... unfortunate in its own right. I'm not going to recount the stories in detail, for the squeamish reader, but one of them involved a child dying in a seemingly painless way, while another involved a much older man (in his 70s) dying in a much more painful way. The story with the child, while unfortunate, didn't really bother me that much, while the story with the old man bothered me much more. I soon realized it was the suffering part, not the death part, that really bothered me. In other words, it wasn't death that bothered me, but the seemingly almost senseless suffering followed by death, that bothered me.
At this point I should mention I am not a religious person by any means, so when faced with this scenario I am inclined to ask "why do we suffer?" and my personal answer will not be religious or spiritual in anyway. In situations like this I often turn to evolution and the need for certain behaviors/characteristics in order for survival. Now, on Earth, there are organisms that seem to be alive that do not suffer (or not suffer very much). Plants are a great example of this (although, not the only one). Now, we can get into some sort of metaphysical discussion about whether plants have a "spirit" or "soul," or whether or not they suffer in some shape or form, but scientifically speaking, most plants lack the biological systems (nervous system, etc.) that we currently understand as necessary to experience "suffering."
From here I realized that suffering, in some form, offers a form of advantage. In other words, suffering elicits a response from an organism that is good for its survival (fire is hot, don't touch it, you are hungry, reduce hunger by eating, etc.) So suffering actually is an evolutionary boon, in some respects, as it gives organisms that experience it an advantage over those that do not. Organisms that experience suffering are less likely to engage in behaviors that destroy themselves, if those behaviors are accompanied by some form of suffering. So, following that logic, we can assume there are some organisms that did not experience suffering, that actually went extinct because of it.
However, as mentioned above, there are organisms on this planet that do not seem to experience suffering, yet still survive and even thrive. So really, we are not only guided by some selective pressure to suffer, we are the unfortunate lot of living organisms that survive, in part, because we suffer. And this suffering has driven our species to dominance on this planet, but at a pretty terrible cost (i.e. we experience physical pain).
At this point, I can only help but to laugh at the absurdity of it all, that we are biologically disposed to suffer in order to further our own survival.
I may not have made everything I mean to say clear, let me know if I need to clarify anything.
  
|
Why we "dominate" is that we have the drive to improve ourselves.
Not just pain, but joy drives us.
So rather than being depressed about pain, why not be pleased about joy? It's all about perspective.
|
Suffering does not extend life, it keeps death at bay.
|
I think it's sad that people reduce our whole richness of experience to biological determinism. What a shame to be given such a powerful tool as the mind and then surrender all volition because of one philosophical theory out of many. Surely we can strive for more than mere species survival. Isn't laughing at absurdity a sign that we have a soul? Why would biological machine feel anything like absurdity, irony, humor or despair?
|
On April 07 2013 13:53 goodkarma wrote:
Why we "dominate" is that we have the drive to improve ourselves.
Not just pain, but joy drives us.
So rather than being depressed about pain, why not be pleased about joy? It's all about perspective.
We could define "joy" as an absence of suffering. Or more than that, but that is an age-old philosophical debate I don't really feel like having.
And to clarify, I'm by no means depressed.
|
On April 07 2013 14:25 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2013 13:53 goodkarma wrote:
Why we "dominate" is that we have the drive to improve ourselves.
Not just pain, but joy drives us.
So rather than being depressed about pain, why not be pleased about joy? It's all about perspective. We could define "joy" as an absence of suffering. Or more than that, but that is an age-old philosophical debate I don't really feel like having. And to clarify, I'm by no means depressed.
or find some way to enjoy both joy and suffering. especially if your life has a lot of suffering. might as well embrace it.
|
i always feel strange when people try to use "biology" and "evolution" to explain complex human behaviors. things like "pain" etc. are useful because it gives feedback about whether or not "the body" likes what is going on, it is useful as a means of preservation by "telling us" to "avoid" these things. but it doesn't "explain" "suffering", unless you are defining "suffering" specifically as this kind of "tactile feedback".
|
From here I realized that suffering, in some form, offers a form of advantage. In other words, suffering elicits a response from an organism that is good for its survival (fire is hot, don't touch it, you are hungry, reduce hunger by eating, etc.) So suffering actually is an evolutionary boon, in some respects, as it gives organisms that experience it an advantage over those that do not. Organisms that experience suffering are less likely to engage in behaviors that destroy themselves, if those behaviors are accompanied by some form of suffering. So, following that logic, we can assume there are some organisms that did not experience suffering, that actually went extinct because of it.
However, as mentioned above, there are organisms on this planet that do not seem to experience suffering, yet still survive and even thrive. So really, we are not only guided by some selective pressure to suffer, we are the unfortunate lot of living organisms that survive, in part, because we suffer. And this suffering has driven our species to dominance on this planet, but at a pretty terrible cost (i.e. we experience physical pain).
So what was your point in the end ?
It's the pretty common conclusion that pain for moving creatures is a survival tool (you avoid harmful things therefore increasing your odds). On an evolutionary basis, plants do not suffer because its a useless tool, they cannot do anything to avoid being cut, smashed or chewed.
However I disagree with And this suffering has driven our species to dominance on this planet, but at a pretty terrible cost (i.e. we experience physical pain)..
Cats do suffer and they don't dominate (yet). Pain is only one of many tools to our survival and helps domination over others as much as cats.
Of course unless you want to imply that everything you do or want is to counter suffering (in its whole spectrum, example: avoid loneliness, mental pain, sadness, hunger etc), which in this case yes but that doesn't say much.
|
There are two types of suffering: physical and non-physical.
Non-physical suffering is orders of magnitude worse than physical suffering.
Why?
|
We are indeed made to suffer to some degree, and sometimes our suffering has no positive benefits, but we are also made to experience joy and happiness as well. In roughly equal amounts, actually, no matter the conditions. Google the hedonic treadmill.
|
|
|
the fact that we have the abilty doesn't mean that the entire existence should revolve around it.
like everything a bit of health suffering does put on alot more value on the non suffering part. also suffering is the best way to let people start thinking.
|
On April 07 2013 14:49 fight_or_flight wrote:
There are two types of suffering: physical and non-physical.
Non-physical suffering is orders of magnitude worse than physical suffering.
Why?
I don't think so. Physical suffering you often have no control over, non-physical or psychological suffering is more than likely self inflicted (assuming it doesn't have it's basis in physical suffering, i.e. a hereditary illness), and while it is often difficult to over come, it is still possible given the right stimuli and/or frame of mind.
|
Organisms that experience suffering are less likely to engage in behaviors that destroy themselves, if those behaviors are accompanied by some form of suffering. So, following that logic, we can assume there are some organisms that did not experience suffering, that actually went extinct because of it.
Eh? Here's your reasoning:
suffering -> survival
SO:
not suffering -> extinct
That doesn't logically follow at all, nor do you present any decent proof for your premises. And saying that SOME organisms went extinct makes your logical deduction even less logical without any explanation. I suggest spending some time first on logical syllogisms.
|
Also on the main subject: You put unnecessary emphasis on human suffering for some reason, why?
|
On April 08 2013 00:48 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +Organisms that experience suffering are less likely to engage in behaviors that destroy themselves, if those behaviors are accompanied by some form of suffering. So, following that logic, we can assume there are some organisms that did not experience suffering, that actually went extinct because of it. Eh? Here's your reasoning: suffering -> survival SO: not suffering -> extinct That doesn't logically follow at all, nor do you present any decent proof for your premises. And saying that SOME organisms went extinct makes your logical deduction even less logical without any explanation. I suggest spending some time first on logical syllogisms.
You are reducing some of my generalizations to absolutes, that is the problem. I already address there are some organisms that do not suffer (plants, single cell organisms, etc.) yet survive. If you study evolution a bit, you will realize there are hundreds of thousands of extinct species, that went extinct for almost as many reasons. It is pretty rational to conclude (given the numbers) that some of them went extinct because they lacked mechanisms to discourage harmful behavior.
I thought some of this was obvious, but I guess not, especially if you haven't spent some time studying evolution. I'm not asserting with 100% certainty that humans/animals survive because we suffer, but I think that it is entirely plausible given the amount of organisms on this planet that do suffer, compared to the number of those that don't (and looked where those organisms end up on the food chain). It can't be proven with 100% certainty, of course.
|
Poor logic, an obsession with rationalization, and a self-righteous clinging to the word "evolution" seem like indicators that, indeed, we are made to suffer. This thread is proof.
|
On April 08 2013 01:38 farvacola wrote:
Poor logic, an obsession with rationalization, and a self-righteous clinging to the word "evolution" seem like indicators that, indeed, we are made to suffer. This thread is proof.
Short reply, high post count, and a need to say people are wrong indicates a troll.
|
Hong Kong9162 Posts
Your writing literally proves that the characteristic theme of the capitalist paradigm of expression is the futility, and thus the meaninglessness, of neostructural culture. Any number of discourses concerning the difference between class and truth exist and their primary theme is the absurdity, and some would say the genre, of dialectic society. If deconstructive neodialectic theory holds, we have to choose between patriarchial sublimation and Baudrillardist hyperreality. Therefore, the premise of expressionism suggests that the task of the observer is significant form, given that Foucault’s analysis of Lacanist obscurity is valid. Marx’s critique of expressionism states that discourse is a product of the collective unconscious. If one examines expressionism, one is faced with a choice: either accept Lacanist obscurity or conclude that the discourse is fundamentally used in the service of capitalism.
|
On April 08 2013 07:42 itsjustatank wrote:
Your writing literally proves that the characteristic theme of the capitalist paradigm of expression is the futility, and thus the meaninglessness, of neostructural culture. Any number of discourses concerning the difference between class and truth exist and their primary theme is the absurdity, and some would say the genre, of dialectic society. If deconstructive neodialectic theory holds, we have to choose between patriarchial sublimation and Baudrillardist hyperreality. Therefore, the premise of expressionism suggests that the task of the observer is significant form, given that Foucault’s analysis of Lacanist obscurity is valid. Marx’s critique of expressionism states that discourse is a product of the collective unconscious. If one examines expressionism, one is faced with a choice: either accept Lacanist obscurity or conclude that the discourse is fundamentally used in the service of capitalism.
Did Sam!zdat get a new screen name?
|
If that can make you happy as a human being you are also able to experience much more pleasure and joy than those inferior life forms.
|
Hmm that was a pretty interesting post. It does make sense that pain would be an important evolutionary tool for survival, particularly for more complicated organisms. Of course this does not make it the only tool like some others here wrongly concluded! Generally I think you are correct in your analysis.
But I think its more correct to say that we were made to have the capability to suffer *if* things go wrong. Maybe we can say that we were made to suffer at least a few times, in a number of situations. But after that our brains can take over, and we can choose to avoid suffering and live a happier life. When you look at the grand scheme of things, and if we can anthropomorphize evolution a bit for the sake of argument (as we're doing already) - we can say that we were made to use our brains to better our lives and ensure a mastery of our environment, but suffering was a fall back plan to ensure we didn't do things that were overly harmful to ourselves.
I'm hopeful that in the future suffering can be entirely avoided, maybe we can even genetically modify it out of our system. I'm not sure I buy the idea that suffering or lack is necessary in order to experience happiness or joy. At least it doesn't need to be as extreme as it is today!
On April 08 2013 07:42 itsjustatank wrote:
Your writing literally proves that the characteristic theme of the capitalist paradigm of expression is the futility, and thus the meaninglessness, of neostructural culture. Any number of discourses concerning the difference between class and truth exist and their primary theme is the absurdity, and some would say the genre, of dialectic society. If deconstructive neodialectic theory holds, we have to choose between patriarchial sublimation and Baudrillardist hyperreality. Therefore, the premise of expressionism suggests that the task of the observer is significant form, given that Foucault’s analysis of Lacanist obscurity is valid. Marx’s critique of expressionism states that discourse is a product of the collective unconscious. If one examines expressionism, one is faced with a choice: either accept Lacanist obscurity or conclude that the discourse is fundamentally used in the service of capitalism.
You got this from one of sam!zdat's posts, didn't you  . I wonder if there is even one person (including the author) who understands this jargon.
|
On April 08 2013 01:50 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 01:38 farvacola wrote:
Poor logic, an obsession with rationalization, and a self-righteous clinging to the word "evolution" seem like indicators that, indeed, we are made to suffer. This thread is proof. Short reply, high post count, and a need to say people are wrong indicates a troll.
High post count definitely indicates a troll, as TL moderation is generally considered quite tight about flame-baiting and trolling, so he definitely would have been banned from the high standard of modera...wait...
I actually got basically what farvacola did out of this. If anything, the conciseness with which he posted is laudable. Since when have there been rules about post length for trolls? Their posts run the entire spectrum, hence post length should be no indication of troll status. In a separate and unrelated occasion, you'd probably call sam!zdat a troll for posting something you consider long.
Complete lack of regard for the content to which you have written a supposed rebuttal (which, incidentally, deals exclusively with attacks against the person to whom you are responding), failure--whether intentional or born of ineptitude--to interpret the meaning of his post (it goes a bit farther than "you are wrong"), and logically bankrupt reasoning indicate not only an ad hominem fallacy but also a self-confirmation of the assertions leveled against you.
|
MY ENEMIES WERE MADE TO SUFFER AT MY HAND.
|
On April 08 2013 01:31 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 00:48 Frits wrote:Organisms that experience suffering are less likely to engage in behaviors that destroy themselves, if those behaviors are accompanied by some form of suffering. So, following that logic, we can assume there are some organisms that did not experience suffering, that actually went extinct because of it. Eh? Here's your reasoning: suffering -> survival SO: not suffering -> extinct That doesn't logically follow at all, nor do you present any decent proof for your premises. And saying that SOME organisms went extinct makes your logical deduction even less logical without any explanation. I suggest spending some time first on logical syllogisms. You are reducing some of my generalizations to absolutes, that is the problem. I already address there are some organisms that do not suffer (plants, single cell organisms, etc.) yet survive. If you study evolution a bit, you will realize there are hundreds of thousands of extinct species, that went extinct for almost as many reasons. It is pretty rational to conclude (given the numbers) that some of them went extinct because they lacked mechanisms to discourage harmful behavior. I thought some of this was obvious, but I guess not, especially if you haven't spent some time studying evolution. I'm not asserting with 100% certainty that humans/animals survive because we suffer, but I think that it is entirely plausible given the amount of organisms on this planet that do suffer, compared to the number of those that don't (and looked where those organisms end up on the food chain). It can't be proven with 100% certainty, of course.
You realize that you're basically saying that your own theory is worthless right. And YOU said that there was a logical connection, suddenly I'm the one reducing 'generalizations to absolutes', lol. You're blaming logic for not working the way you want it to. You can stop pretending to be an expert too, I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about since I've scored a perfect score on logic/philosophy both in psychology and law school.
Ofcourse you have a brilliant defense for what I just said so I'll just leave you with this: Imagine if Darwin presented his theory on evolution the same way you just did.
And my question still stands, why the emphasis on human suffering? Are you secretly cutting yourself? Do we need to alert the principal?
|
On April 08 2013 01:31 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 00:48 Frits wrote:Organisms that experience suffering are less likely to engage in behaviors that destroy themselves, if those behaviors are accompanied by some form of suffering. So, following that logic, we can assume there are some organisms that did not experience suffering, that actually went extinct because of it. Eh? Here's your reasoning: suffering -> survival SO: not suffering -> extinct That doesn't logically follow at all, nor do you present any decent proof for your premises. And saying that SOME organisms went extinct makes your logical deduction even less logical without any explanation. I suggest spending some time first on logical syllogisms. You are reducing some of my generalizations to absolutes, that is the problem. I already address there are some organisms that do not suffer (plants, single cell organisms, etc.) yet survive. If you study evolution a bit, you will realize there are hundreds of thousands of extinct species, that went extinct for almost as many reasons. It is pretty rational to conclude (given the numbers) that some of them went extinct because they lacked mechanisms to discourage harmful behavior. I thought some of this was obvious, but I guess not, especially if you haven't spent some time studying evolution. I'm not asserting with 100% certainty that humans/animals survive because we suffer, but I think that it is entirely plausible given the amount of organisms on this planet that do suffer, compared to the number of those that don't (and looked where those organisms end up on the food chain). It can't be proven with 100% certainty, of course. One reason to why species go instinct is because they were not able to adapt to change, and you're claiming they weren't able to adapt because they didn't suffer. You're making too many assumptions, extinct species --> unable to adapt --> didn't suffer. Generally a-->b doesn't meant b-->a, you need some more solid evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
