Philosophy @lemmy.ml Codrus @lemmy.world 1d ago

Hey there philosophy! Regarding the question of using philosophy to end suffering: what if a concious mind is meant/made to "suffer?"

So I realized: what if the most logical explanation as to why a concious mind exists—on any planet, is to suffer? Suffer, however, based off our more fortunate standards specifically: to suffer the—what we would consider—"pains" of things like inconvenience, discomfort, misfortune, and displeasure.

Its the incessant indulgence in these things that lead a concious mind to be completely blind to the woes of such, thus the compassion and ability to empathize that comes with the experience (or knowledge) of suffering. It's hardly just an "eye for an eye"—the inherent need for ourselves to retaliate due to being concious of ourselves—that leads the world to be blind, it's our sense organs reacting to our environment and any desire for ourselves conjured from this reaction that is the most blinding; it's this that leads to the vanities we imagine in our heads, that we end up revolving our lives around, and make most important, that leads away from the "true life" a life of selflessness has to offer: a life most lived in the present, opposed to stuck in our heads, the images of what we consider the pain of our "past" and the thirst or fear for the "future" (our sense of time being yet another consequence of consciousness—like selfishness) dominating how we feel today.

It's our sense organs reacting to the extent we've presently manipulated our environment that leads to an addiction to it, even happiness, to the point where we become convinced that it's even lifes meaning: to become as happy as possible, but when we make our highest happiness the satisfaction of our greatest desires, we're only lead to an inevitable, massive disappointment, due to all exploitation of desire only being temporary. This begs the question: out of all the desire, and vanity that's bred from it, would there by any that don't end in inevitable disappointment due to being temporary? Love—but not Disney World kind of love, no, the Gandhi, MLK, Leo Tolstoy kind: selflessness—is the only desire that not only holds the ability to potentially last as long as man does, but also doesn't lead to inevitable disappointment. Dare I say: it's what the idea of a God or creator of some kind (not any man made God, but the substance of them)—its will: selflessness, to even it's extremes like self-sacrifice, that is the only desire worth seeking. But if you're someone against the idea of a God or creator (good luck finding the will to be selfless to the extremes) then let the fact that we're the only living things that have ever existed (on this planet, as far we know) that can even begin to consider abstaining from itself for any reason at all, be enough.

It's this that would end all suffering, but not by ending it, but by normalizing it I suppose you could say; to suffer for the sake of selflessness. To take the empty, ultimately only disappointing desire of stimulating our sense organs and fulfilling our vanities—for the sake of ourselves, and replace it, with the logic and alternative perspectives and behaviors that our inherency to selflessness breeds, that comes from our inherent ability to logic and reason.

What if we're designed to not be comforted or pleasured incessantly. Just look at the rich or people of great fortune: obese or crooked in some way or another, the idea of their temporary lifestyle they've become so attached to no longer being an avenue to being comforted and pleasured, saps or corrupts their concious mind, to the point where their willing to even kill to keep it. It's a life of abstaining from your sense organs, and teaching yourself to thirst and desire for the least, that ultimately leads to a life of the most.

You're viewing a single thread.

11 comments

Attempting to explain subjective experiences (suffering) through objective logic is folly. Inherently emotions are irrational, especially from the perspective of the "sufferer".

Scientifically, yes the brain is constructed in such a way that physical and emotional pain are commonplace. Regardless of how that came to be it is a useful trait for self-preservation present not only in humans but many other intelligent animals. Crows have funerals for their dead, bonobos have extremely human-like social structures, and whales sing songs of sorrow. Suffering is not unique to humans or special in some way, it is simply a biological process that most animals possess.

No combination of words will ever end suffering, nor should we try to. Suffering has subjective value, it makes you appreciate good things more, it warns you of situations that might disturb your emotional health, and has inspired almost all human innovation (and cruelty). A life without suffering would be without substance.

As to a creator, God is quite literally your understanding of God. Our brains have a specific section that creates profound "religious" experiences or epiphanies. Contemplating the nature of god or a creator can only ever be explained in terms of your beliefs as God offers no proof of thier existence (at least all the popular gods anyway) so any attempt to know them is doomed to failure. That is doubly true for the abrahamic god, who is understood to be inherently ineffable.
- Im getting the impression you're going off the title of the post purely, and haven't read what I've said about it.
  
  I read your entire post several times before responding. You made a number of factual claims that have no basis in reality, such as humans being the only animals capable of self sacrifice and rich people all being corrupt and obese.
  
  I focused my rebuttal on the points that I did because, those were the aspects of your essay that seemed worth discussing because it felt more productive to give you concrete arguements than going point for point refuting your argument.
  
  Your fundamental premise (to the best of my ability to determine) seems to be that human suffering is somehow special because we can choose it and somehow that supports an argument for a creator or god.
  
  I'm sorry. No I'm saying as a whole that the desire to be selfless, even to suffer for it, would be the most logical reason a concious mind exists—on any planet. Based more off the truth, in my opinion, that we're the only living things to ever exist (as far as we know) with the most capacity for either ourselves, or everything else. And less because of the idea of a God(s) or creator of some kind for any reason. I added in that the extremes of selflessness like self-sacrifice or service (something for nothing), and especially to resist the inherent need to retaliate, are more difficult to truly live up to, sustainably, without the will that comes from the idea of a God(s) of some kind; which would ultimately be: selflessness.
  
  But humans aren't the only animals capable of selflessness. Most mammals have instinctive drives that encourage risky behavior in some circumstances (a momma bear defending her cubs from predators, for example). Some types of insects (like ants and bees) will sacrifice their own lives in defense of their community.
  
  Just because humans are the most advanced intelligence (debatable) we are aware of doesn't make them special. Some of the other intelligent animals on earth, like crows, primates, octopuses, dolphins, and whales all demonstrate human-like intelligence in one or more areas. Gorillas and bonobos can be taught language, crows use tools, octopuses are better problem solvers than most people, whales and dolphins have naturally developed their own proto-languages. All of those creatures demonstrate behavior that suggests they have some form of consciousness (though probably not as advanced as humans, except maybe the octopus). Much of our study of the animal kingdom has been from an anthropocentric perspective, but in the last 20 years or so science has been leaving that behind because the more we learn the less merit it has.
  
  Existing to suffer discounts most of the human experience. If there was a logically grounded reason for consciousness a simpler explanation, based on the other animals we have to study, is that consciousness is a useful trait for social animals and provides a significant advantage for survival.
  
  It's also not reasonable to assume that a hypothetical god must be selfless. Almost all gods humans have worshiped have demanded sacrifice in one form or another. The Abrahamic God (which I am most familiar with) for example demands faith, love, and adherence to a code of conduct or be tortured for the remainder of existence with no possibility of forgiveness. Infinite punishment for finite infractions is not selfless, it is capricious and evil.
  
  Suffering, be it physical or emotional pain, is the way our automatic systems (like breathing or the cardiovascular system) communicate with the decision making part of our brains. Almost all macroscopic creatures have some form of this behavior.
  
  Humans happen to hold the most capacity for selflessness by a large margin—not only individually, but especially collectively, in contrast to any other living thing is what I'm saying. Not that we're special or the most advanced because of it or for any other reason; show me the dissertation from Mr. Dolphin or Elephant. Everything else still shit where they eat.
  
  The simple explanation for consciousness is to strive to be as selfless as possible, to even suffer for it.
  
  It's wrong of you to assume I'm referring to any man made God(s) that's been held as unquestionably true in all its various forms throughout the centuries. I don't see then therefore why a hypothetical God—with a big emphasis on to "never to take an oath at all," based off the knowledge that comes from the perspective and actions of anythings ability to be selfless at all, so unreasonable. Especially considering the substance of the majority of these man made things can be accumulated to: selflessness, to even the most extreme degrees. To be used as an alternative means to respond to what we would consider as hate or evil; to potentially bring about a day where violence, at the very least, is no longer consider relavant.
  We're the only living things that can not only acknowledge our inherency to retaliate but to even strive, even suffer, to do the opposite; to potentially change the heart of the aggressor, by responding to it with love. It's our ability to reason and logic that leads to these alternative, potential outcomes by doing so. Therefore I can't help but to see love—selflessness, as logical. Because love used as a response to hate is an appeal to the reasonable, logical thinking side of a consciousness.
  
  Dolphins and elephants don't write dissertations because they can't hold pens and don't have the same values as humans. Just because an animal does not behave like a human, does not mean it's less intelligent. I've never written a dissertation and I bet you haven't either. They don't shit where they eat in the wild, in captivity they do, but so would you or I if we were in jail. No other animal has all of the markers of intelligence we have defined, but many of them are close or equivalent to humans in one or more of those aspects.
  
  But more than that, we don't know how other creatures think and view the world. The blue whale, for example has a brain twice the size of a human's, they have language (and individuals have names), social structures, and regularly set thier own interests aside for thier pod. They may not write dissertations, but they do engage in creative activities recreationally (singing).
  
  Respectfully, that is not the simplest explanation, the shortest perhaps, but there is no evidence I am aware of that would even suggest that as an explanation. It also has the baked in assumption that humans are conscious on purpose. Intention implies some kind of intelligent hand guiding things, but nothing changes about the world if you accept a creator exists or doesn't. All the evidence science has been able to collect though suggests natural processes and pseudo-random chance are why the world is the way it is.
  
  I make no assumptions about the kind of god or creator you offer beyond what you've said about it. I used examples from history to point out that many people have dreamed up many gods, few of which are good. To me that brings into question your premise that your god must be the avatar of selflessness. If anything an inactive god who allows so much suffering to exist in the world is the opposite of that.
  
  Oh and on the topic of suffering being subjective: love and hate are quantifiable; morality can be measured. War can easily be measured amongst some of the many terrible forms of hate and evil for example. So yes, the more smaller, mediocre, examples of suffering can by very subjective, but I think it's safe to say we can agree to go to war is to suffer, and so on. Suffering isn't as subjective as you think is what I'm saying, but ultimatley what I'm saying regarding the more mediocre examples like displeasure, discomfort, inconvenience, misfortune, these can be seen as not suffering at all, collectively, and to resist them is to stay off the path of eventually losing them, losing the ability to be pleasured, fortunate etc; saps and corrupts a concious mind. But when teaching yourself the opposite, you're not setting yourself up for inevitable disappointment—because all desire except selflessness is temporary.
  
  And you said a few comments back that no combination of words etc. For me, the right combination of words were simply: "We can't beat out all the hate in the world, with more hate; only love has that ability." - Martin Luther King Jr.
  
  Couple that with the context of who said it and I couldn't help but to start taking the words themselves, and the logic it connotates, very seriously, and considering it in a whole new, far bigger way.
  
  Never said anything about anything being less intelligent, only that we're the most capable of our consciousness by a large margin in contrast. Again, I'm not arguing that we're any better or worse, or a superior race.
  
  Why? How is the evidence that we're the only living things to even begin to consider being selfless to the extent a capable concious mind can—on any planet, not be more than enough evidence to prove that that is the most logical explanation for why even one, not to mention a collection of them, exists—on any planet. Wouldn't this be just as subjective as suffering? But yet you say very plainly that this isn't a simple explanation, and that there's no evidence to support it, despite all the evidence that I gave to support my claim all the while. Where do I even begin to imply that we're this concious on purpose? Now that we're on the topic, I completely agree, everything is happening to happen, we've either stumbled upon conciousness or it was given to us by a creator of some kind; it's the only logical explanation as to why some of the worst things imaginable happen to the most innocent of people.
  
  It's sounds like you haven't much considered the idea of a God or creator of some kind. There was a time I didn't either, I was an atheist when I was younger for idk maybe 14 ish years. And ironically, it was science that brought me back over to the idea and the legitimacy of a God or creator of some kind, and gave me a reason for all the random: love; selflessness, thus freedom from the evil that life becomes by looking at it that way. "An inactive god:" Miracles are contradictory because it could be Hitler believing in a God, something good from his perspective would happen (captured more Jews for example; something bad) and he would say the same thing anyone else would: "God be praised!" To me, It's not that a God wants all the evil and suffering in the world, and of course it would want to do something about it and would want it to end, but that wouldn't be free will. If a God forced us all to be good, then that wouldn't be very loving would it? But especially we wouldn't learn together as a species the importance of goodness and virtue if it was just handed over to us. This is what makes morality and the teaching of it so important, we as the dominatly capable concious mind on this planet are the makers of morality; any amount of love or hate, good or evil both begins and ENDS with us. This is why returning the evil you're met with throughout your life, with love, so important.
  
  There's a great story in the Christian Bible hidden underneath all the distortion the dogma has created throughout the centuries, Jesus references it in the Gospels as "the sign of Jonah" - Matt 16:4, but it's from the old testament: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah 1&version=NIV This end bit: "And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many animals?”
  
  Hate, evil, iniquity—are an ignorance; a lack of knowledge. This is what warrants it infinite forgiveness, because some people (like autistic people or those without the education you and I have stumbled upon) can't even tell from their right hand from their left. This is also what makes the transfer of knowledge (teaching) so important, but not just any knowledge, the value of virtue especially; Socrates said something very similar.

11 comments