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.

Aerisky

United States12128 Posts

April 08 2013 03:11 GMT

#23

On April 08 2013 01:50 HardlyNever wrote:

Show nested quote +

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.

ninazerg

United States7290 Posts

April 08 2013 05:14 GMT

#24

MY ENEMIES WERE MADE TO SUFFER AT MY HAND.

Frits

11782 Posts

April 08 2013 08:50 GMT

#25

On April 08 2013 01:31 HardlyNever wrote:

Show nested quote +

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?

We Are Here

Australia1810 Posts

April 08 2013 10:01 GMT

#26

On April 08 2013 01:31 HardlyNever wrote:

Show nested quote +

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.