Wikipedia will tell you that it is pain and unpleasantness. But that is too shallow. That isn't true suffering. To me, suffering is when thoughts start causing physical pain. When the prospect of death seems like the only escape. But sometimes not even death can stop suffering.

I've been thinking about this a lot. What is the nature, the purpose of suffering. And then, it hit me. Maybe the lack of a purpose is the problem? It is easier to take pain when we know when it will end, or when we know that it is a pain of healing. But when it is a destructive pain, or suffering without a purpose, then it is true suffering. Pain for the sake of pain, where nothing is gained and everything is lost. Is that the nature of suffering? I don't know. I can't say that I experienced true suffering on that level. I don't think anyone has. Or at least they haven't lived long enough to tell the tale.

Is being stuck upside down in a cave until you slowly die, knowing nobody will come to rescue you true suffering? Is being a victim of a terrible crime and not being able to ever get justice for it true suffering? Or is it something simpler?

I was never good with words. So please don't blame me if I can't fully define it. That is exactly why I ask this question. I invite you all to discuss the essence and the nature of suffering with me. I wish to understand.

DISCLAIMER: This is a philosophical question. Nothing more, nothing less.

all 54 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 11 points 3 months ago (15 children)

I highly recommend you look into Buddhism. This concept is explored in depth.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] [S] -4 points 3 months ago (14 children)

    I'm not asking the Buddha about the nature of suffering. I'm asking you, the people. What is it to you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago (10 children)

    You mean as a concept or as in file? I assume a concept, since there are no file attachments or links here.

    Attachment is definitely a cause of suffering, but it is not the essence of it. There can be suffering without attachment, and attachment without suffering.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    How can there be suffering without attachment?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    Physical pain is not caused by attachment. It could be caused, for example, by electricity, or perhaps a sharp object. No attachment needed.

    And no, the physical body is not a form of attachment. It is a part of you just like the mind is. You literally cannot exist without some form of a body.

    And what about suffering due to desease? Like having a very bad fever dream. Where's the attachment there?

    Do you get my perspective?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (7 children)

    Physical pain is a signal in your brain telling you to stay away from electricity, sharp objects, and fire etc. It also tells you when something important for survival is absent like food leading to hunger headaches.

    So basically all physical pain is caused by you (the brain) being attached to survival.

    Physical pain has a huge emotional component. That's why we can train pain tolerance. Placebos and holding a loved one is sometimes as effective as morphine in reducing pain.

    So all in all suffering is due to attachment. If you let go of the attachment by training your mind you can end suffering. That's what Buddhism is all about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago (6 children)

    Are we mixing philosophy and biology? Because this way we can explain all emotional states we experience. I do not disagree with this perspective, but I do not believe it is the whole truth. If we let go of all attachments in this perspective, we let go of life itself. And that is not a valid solution in my view. Since there are other ways to avoid suffering, I do not see attachment as the main cause of it. Attachment can actually alleviate suffering in some cases.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

    Are we mixing philosophy and biology

    I am not sure I mixed in much philosophy. I gave a scientific explanation because most people prefer it.

    If we let go of all attachments in this perspective, we let go of life itself

    We don't let go of life but our attachment to it. You train to watch it happen and end like a spectator. Then you won't feel a rush when good things happen which inevitably leads to a low (suffering) when they end. You will also accept the bad things beyond control without suffering.

    You will be in a steady state of happiness and peace.

    there are other ways to avoid suffering

    Like?

    You can't avoid losing everything you call yours—including your loved ones. You can't avoid sickness and death.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    Alright. Let me adress all your points. As well as I am able to.

    1. I asked a philosophical question, expecting a philosophical answer. My general question was "what is suffering?" Your answer was basically "a reaction to negative stimuli.". Yes. Obviously it is a reaction with its reason and cause rooted in biology. That is not what I was asking.

    2. Is watching your own life like a spectator not letting go of life itself? I never said suicide. I said letting go of attachment to life. Acceptance of life is not the same as letting go of one's attachment to it. You still want to live, don't you? That means you are attached to life. That attachment is needed for life itself to exist. And what is happines anyway? Is it a lack of suffering? Because in my perspective, you cannot achieve happines without accepting life with all the good and the bad it brings. It's a balancing act. The solution is not to stop playing, but to enjoy the game for what it is. I do not see that and "letting go of attachment" as the same thing.

    3. And what are those coveted ways of avoiding suffering? Imagine a scenario in which from birth you are pumped full of drugs that make you happy, and hooked up to a simulation that makes you experience a perfect life. Do you suffer in that scenario? And I'm not saying THAT is the solution ot all suffering, it's just the first idea off the top of my head.

    4. "You can’t avoid losing everything you call yours—including your loved ones. You can’t avoid sickness and death." No, you can't. But is that really the essence and cause of suffering? Once you accept that you will lose everything you gain, there is no loss. It's a zero-sum game. Therefore, you don't suffer. Not in the same way as someone who doesn't accept this reality. Pain is unavoidable. Wether it be physical, mental or emotional. But pain by itself is not "suffering". It's just pain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    suffering is a reaction to negative stimuli

    a conditioned response to stimuli that go against your attachments. Positive and negative are just perceptions colored by the mind based on attachments like survival.

    Is watching your own life like a spectator not letting go of life itself

    I have to be clear that this is more a direct realisation of truth than something you actively do.

    You can use neurobiology to prove it and meditation to see it for yourselves. All thoughts, decisions etc happen unconsciously and then the consciousness becomes aware of it—like a spectator.

    So it's simple. There's no need to play a game or to play it well or for longer. Or there's a need to to achieve anything. You are already there standing still in the bliss of the moment.

    from birth you are pumped full of drugs that make you happy and hooked up to a simulation that makes you experience a perfect life

    The brain adjusts back to normal levels of happiness after new circumstances or chemistry.

    "perfection" is an imaginary concept. What do you mean by a perfect life?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago* (2 children)

    Then perhaps there was a misunderstanding. I assumed you meant actively letting go of attachment. Because I agree, doing so mentally allows for a certain numbing of sensations that are experienced. Our views on that might be very similar, but we just word them differently.

    And when I mentioned a "perfect life" I was refering to a subjective perfection. Everyting going just how you want it to. And obviously, the drug dosage in the theoretical scenario would be adjusted accordingly to the body/brain developing resistance.

    A "small" note/question. If happiness is just circumstances or chemistry, then so is suffering. In that case we don't need to let go of attachment, just the circumstances or chemistry that cause emotions in the first place. Would you agree with that statement? Although the complete removal of emotions could cause complete detachment from reality in a human being, so I guess it goes back around to attachment again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    Our views on that might be very similar, but we just word them differently

    Yes it does seem so! letting go means you neither want it nor don't want it because both are some forms of attachment. When you let go of it, you become perfectly accepting of everything around you. So they are related at least if not the same.

    Everyting going just how you want it to

    Interesting. If we can enter and live in such a world perhaps there's no need for mental training and philosophy.

    If happiness is just circumstances or chemistry, then so is suffering. In that case we don't need to let go of attachment, just the circumstances or chemistry that cause emotions in the first place.

    There is some assymetry here. I believe fundamental goodness and happiness is the default mode of a mind. And suffering arises when your circumstances conflict with your attachments—basically when life gives you or takes away something against your wishes.

    So yes you can attack this both angles. By training your mind to let go and accept everything or gaining full control over everything.

    I find the latter very hard or impossible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 months ago

    I cannot fully agree with your last statement. Goodness and happiness are NOT default states/modes of mind. The default state of mind is indifference. Happy is not the default.

    Aside from that. I think we have come to an understanding. At least as well as it can be done through text alone. Thank you for engaging me in discussion. It was a pleasant exchange.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    I think your line of reasoning falls somewhere between the "No True Scotsman" and "Persuasive Definition" logical fallacies.

    While one can be aware of their own threshold for what they consider "suffering", one cannot set that threshold for anyone else. To some, a papercut may be suffering, while others may enjoy physical pain and suffer when their dog dies.

    The point I'm trying to make is there is no true suffering. Suffering is whatever the sufferer says it is and it's a subjective experience, so that would apply only to them. We can, of course, generalize the idea of suffering, as Wikipedia has done in the definition you provided but again, this can really only explain the fact that suffering exists or maybe even the fact that many people consider many of the same things to be forms of suffering.

    You may enjoy the teachings of Buddha, as his beginning premise is basically "all life is suffering" and his teachings largely revolve around the nature of suffering and how to accept it / overcome it.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 0 points 3 months ago

    I did not mean to look for scenarios of true suffering. That is pointless. I'm more interested in the concept itself. It's not just pain and futility. Suffering is something else, something distinct. I'm not trying to find the "true definition". I just want to know different perspectives to understand the concept better.

    I do agree that the concept is subjective to a large degree, and what I am looking for are the parts that are not subjective, the "core" of the concept. Thank you for providing your perspective.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    I go with the buddhist thing. suffering is when we don't get what we desire. It a bit tricky because things that are common or normal we don't think about desiring until we don't have them. People want to be safe and healthy and free and we can't have this is various ways and when we can't even have the slightest bit its way worse.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I define suffering the same way I define art:

    • I know it when I see it
    • I can look at someone’s suffering, call it suffering, while some pretentious jagoff next to me goes, “Pff, that’s not suffering. You clearly don’t know what real suffering is.”
    • Some suffering I like, some suffering I don’t.
    • I had to go to school to learn about other people’s suffering.
    • Some of us hide our suffering and some display it
    • Some people use their suffering to make money
    • I tried to show other people my suffering and they laughed at it. So I don’t show people my suffering anymore.
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    So is it subjective in your view?

    And could you explain what you mean by "Some suffering I like, some suffering I don’t."? I don't exactly understand that one?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I'm not the person you were replying to, but I read that as when you witness suffering.

    Watching a news report about ongoing genocide is suffering I don't like. Watching a trillionaire get flensed is the sort of suffering I can get behind.

    Although maybe it could be personal experience. Going to the gym can be a rather mild form of suffering, but it's probably something you would choose to do and learn to enjoy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    The description of suffering that I identify with is a desire for things to be other than they are. I may experience physical pain and want it to end; that's a type of suffering. I may desire for my annoying co-worker to stop bragging about his vacation and get to the point of the meeting; that's another kind of suffering. I know that there are people in concentration camps in the US, right now, suffering who knows what all torments and indignities of their own that I wish to end; that gives me some suffering even though I am not there with them, nor do I know their situation exactly.

    All of these things, and millions more, are things about my experience of the world that I desire to be different. The fact that they aren't as I would like is upsetting, and I must either change them or, if I can't, I must suffer them.

    I can't think about them all the time. It used to be that I thought my only options were to think about them all the time, which is exhausting, or not think about them at all, which feels callous to the point of psychopathy. A large part of my mental health journey has been tuning how I identify, deal with, and compartmentalize the suffering I do, on my own behalf and on the behalf of others.

    I don't think suffering is bad, or to be avoided. It is a thing to become familiar with, like anger (itself usually a response to suffering), that needs to be identified for what it is and channeled. Suffering is very like an emotion in that it is an indicator in the brain that you want something different. Sometimes, identifying the suffering makes it easier to identify and remedy the cause. Other times, the cause is so huge and overwhelming (the whole US situation right now), that I just have to deal with suffering the whole thing while I do what small things I can to make things a little bit better.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago

    Being upset about things not being how they ought to be isn't really "the essence of suffering". I agree, it's annoying, but what can you do?

    I agree, suffering of itself is not bad or good. It builds character in certain situations, and it destroys people in other situations.

    I'd say it's more about being able to change something, but not being able to do it. It's futility combined with self-imposed lack of action or idleness. Or at least it is to me. When you can see the right solution, it is right there in your grasp, but you don't grasp it, for whatever reason. Makes me uncomfortable just thinking about it. Like the concentration camp thing. Tou suffer because you can't bring yourself to help (not that I'm saying that you personally should go out there and help). But it's that nagging feeling at the back of your head that if you really tried you could do... something, anything. But you don't.

    Or maybe this is just my personal interpretation based on my current situation as well as my past experiences. The world may never know.

    Thank you for the comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    I like the fact that "to suffer" can be a transitive verb, taking a direct object, of which "I don't suffer fools" is an example, albeit not one relevant to this theme, in which case it partially carries the meaning "to endure".

    Firstly, I don't think that there is a predetermined or universal purpose of suffering. I think that the Wikipedia abstraction is in fact good, because it moves away from trying to generalize.

    Secondly, your examples conflict with the question in the title, because your examples, while helpful for starting discussions, make it sound like you are trying to hear what people think are the worst ways to suffer, simply. The question in the title of your post, on the other hand, is to me much more intriguing, since it enables me to say:

    To me, suffering can be sweet, although this interpretation perhaps deviates from its most common connotations, as in, the result of torture, agony, anger, fear, grief and so on. Whenever my self hatred reaches levels that drive me to start imaging hurting people around me in order to release, I instead turn all that destructive energy inwards, and when I do, I want to vomit, scream, bleed, explode, implode and die, but the total result of that, which is one example of what I call suffering, can give me such a kick of adrenaline that I experience some sort of euphoria.

    Suffering in itself is nothing more than a Wikipedia abstraction. Only in a context with an active subject/actor does it have purpose or function. For animals, including humans, self aware or not, for instance, it can serve as an indicator that a certain behavior, place or adversary needs to be avoided and that this knowledge has to be passed on to their descendants.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago

    Thank you for the comment. The examples I gave were purely for the purpose of roughly approximating my personal definition/understanding of "suffering". I tried to be vague, to avoid making people think of "worst ways to suffer". Seems it didn't work very well.

    You say that to you suffering is a result. But I don't fully agree with that view. Suffering is not an emotion, it's more of a state. Emotions are reactions, states are different, more complex. And self-loathing is not the essence of suffering either. Not to me personally. But it is definitely a part of it.

    Personally, I don't connect the concepts of suffering and catharsis. These actually seem like opposites. I tried to separate the concepts of suffering and pain (including mental pain), but they are too connected to do that. Although, what I can definitely say: Just physical pain or just mental pain is not "true suffering". At no point am I trying to deminish or "put down" people who say that these things make them suffer. It is just that I am looking for the central "concept" around suffering, and what it means to people.

    Thank you for your contribution to the dicussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (11 children)

    Suffering is an emotion, a mood, a state of mind.
    The stimulus is almost irrelevant.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago (10 children)

    That is a very vague description. I'm not asking for a definition. What does it mean to you personally? Is it simply a "state of mind". If so, is it equal to other states of mind, and if yes, in what ways?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (9 children)

    It's just like happy, angry, sad, bored, content, nervous.
    Suffering is an emotion. Nothing more complex than that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago (8 children)

    So, do you not understand your emotions? Are they just "things that happen" to you?

    I'm not trying to be mean. And I'm sorry if I came off that way. I just want to understand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (7 children)

    Maybe I don't know what you're trying to understand.
    Emotions do happen. Not sure what alternative you're thinking of.

    Calling them things is only a convenient short hand. They aren't tangible objects in any way. They're patterns of neuron firing.

    Reading your OP again. Some emotions may have a functional purpose, to guide useful behaviour, others may simply side-effects of having emotions at all. I'm not sure suffering would be one of the former. Sometimes people choose to make good of their suffering. Building character or what not. But that's far from automatic. Often people gain nothing from suffering.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago (6 children)

    I am looking for the underlying cause of the emotions. I just want to understand your perspective. So do you see it as purely biological? A means to an end? Pain = Don't do that. Pleasure = Do that a lot. Suffering = Avoid. Ecstasy = Seek. Is that it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (5 children)

    You ask about their cause, then give examples of their effects? It doesn't seem you have a clear understanding of you're curiosity. Of course that is another emotion, so it may make sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    I admit, my grasp on the concept of language is tenuous at best. I am asking you what it is to you. My example was my understanding of your perspective. I assume I was not correct in assessing on what your perspective is. Or perhaps the example was not clear. It is an example of direct logic. "Pain->Discomfort->Avoiding stimulus" would be equal to "Experience->Emotion->Action". Does that clarify my example, and is it anywhere near what your perspective on the matter is?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    In the simplest of situations, yes, they work that way. But emotions aren't driven solely by single experiences. In any moment there many things collectively acting on our emotions. Not all are external either. Memories of past events and surrounding contexts also effect emotions. We can also experience multiple emotions at once. All of those possibilities get woven together into a complex pattern that is our current Emotional State.

    Suffering as an emotion is not purely a result of pain. In some context at some times, pain can be an important part of good emotions. And even pleasure can be source of suffering. I have a current example of the later right now. My mother died 11 months ago. I inherited a bunch of money, and no longer need to worry about my retirement. On the face of it, that's a good thing I should be happy about. But it's also a reminder that she's gone. So mostly I'm sad about it. Two conflicting simultaneous emotions from a single stimulus, because of it's complicated context.

    “Experience->Emotion->Action” isn't wrong. Just simple. Simple things layered and interacting with each other can become very complex very quickly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Yes. I completely agree with your statement. So, is that it, or is there something more to it in your view?

    Also, thank you for taking your time and explaining. Many people get frustrated with me. Thank you for not doing that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    As far as I can tell that's all there is to our emotions in a moment by moment basis. Nothing metaphysical. No cosmic purpose or meaning. Just a function of being socially evolved creatures.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago

    I find that view slightly reductive. Not all emotions come from the outside. Yes, most of them are caused by external stimuli, but not all. For example, take the feeling of contentment. With enough overthinking and drugs, you can philosophize yourself into that feeling. Does it still come from the outside? Emotions are not external actors influncing the psyche, they are a part of the psyche just as much as the body.

    And I would hold on on claiming if emotions have any metaphysical qualities, or any purpose/meaning in the grand scheme of things, as I simply do not have enough information to claim either. I do believe that emotions are entirely physical, biochemical reactions to what is happening to our bodies. But that doesn't necessarily mean they have no grander meaning. It's a bit like with life itself. The meaning is what you make of it. Or at least that's what I think, given the information I currently possess about the topic.

    Also, a small note. Emotions have nothing to do with being socially evolved creatures. Almost all living creatures complex enough to have a brain feel emotions. Even if it's simply fear of danger, that is still an emotion.

    Thank you for explaining your point of view.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

    Life. Life itself is suffering. Life is the worst thing to have happened to anyone.

    Regarding purpose, no one has any purpose. Purpose is assigned to tools; not to sentient beings with consciousness. Life is utterly meaningless, and it is due to this lack of meaning, that we search for superfluous things like purpose.

    The true nature of life is suffering. The default state of life is pain. Everything you do from there is just to temporarily alleviate that pain. You keep doing that until you die.

    We have friends and lovers because loneliness is painful. We eat because hunger is painful. We sleep because deprivation from it is painful. We laugh so that we can escape from crying.

    People say suffering is a hurdle, and see it as something essential for character development, and whilst I acknowledge the essentiality of some types of pain, I also see it as something contingent on life. We suffer because we are alive. All sentient and conscious beings suffer. It just comes with life.

    Note that I am not however, promoting termination of life. By terminating your life early, you would be depriving yourself of all the potential pleasures you could have had (regardless of the pain around them). Once you are here, your optimization problem should be maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain. So, whilst the asymmetry still exists, the potentiality for pleasure might (/should?) be enough of an reason to continue living. I do acknowledge that exceptions do exist where the asymmetry is so skewed for some, to the extent that there is little to no potential pleasure for them, in which case, it might be preferable for them to terminate their own life (think extremely painful chronic/terminal illnesses). I'm sorry if this feels a bit loosey-goosey.

    With all that said, I believe we are all sufferers from the incurable disease of life. And the only thing to do from here is to vehemently struggle and rebel against suffering. To help our fellow sufferers and maximize the pleasurable moments. To do everything we can to cope with life whilst still being aware of the true suffering it stands for.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    That is a very bleak perspective. By this logic, we can say that everything ever is meaningless.

    Life of itself is not meaningless. It exists to test, create, and replicate patterns at a faster time scale than the regular processes of the universe. Meaning is usually assigned after the fact. Or at least that's my experience.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    I somewhat agree with you. The meaning you describe seems personal (correct me if I am wrong), i.e. we assign meaning to our own lives. The meaning I was referring to in my previous comment was a more absolute take on it; the kind of meaning people refer to when they are searching for it. From my perspective, people search for an all encompassing absolute meaning (or rather a guidebook) which tells them that they are here for something. I disagree with that perspective, and I think there is no such meaning or guidebook. We are not here for any grand purpose, we just exist because someone else got together and thought it'd be nice to be a parent (in the best of situations). I agree with you however, in that, we must assign meaning to our own lives, just so our lives won't feel empty. It is more like drawing your own scenery on a canvas instead of looking for the perfect one.

    I understand that this is a bleak perspective, but I see this as the true nature of suffering; and by acknowledging it, we can be more compassionate to our fellow sufferers. Although the perspective itself is bleak, the conclusion need not be. You can learn to live, stuff your life with pleasurable moments, and make the most of it, whilst helping others do the same.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 months ago

    I completely respect your perspective. But I do believe there is a meaning to life itself. Not just what we assign it. Even if there was no initial goal in life becoming a thing, now that it exists, it is tefined by its attributes. Evolution. Progress. Concentration of energy and resources. Engines of anti-entropy. That is the meaning of life. To me. It is the universe calling out to save itself from certain doom. That is the goal now. Survival. On an ultimate scale. But that is just my philosophy. I do not claim that it is the objective truth. But I do believe that it is the truth.

    This doesn't really explore the concept of suffering. Anyway, thank you for sharing your thoughts.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    I tend to agree with Wikipedia. Pain is tricky, some can be enjoyable in certain contexts, so you are right that it's a response to the stimulus more than the physical sensation.

    But combined with "unpleasantness" it's spot on. When I get a migraine I am suffering even if I try to adjust my mind to accept it differently, it's unpleasant no matter how I slice it. It's one of the feelings humans seem wired for.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    No offense, but you are like the third person to bring masochism into the discussion. What's up with that? Just because someone "can find pain enjoyable" doesn't mean that "suffering" means something else to them.

    Or am I mistaken on that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    It's just a physical sensation, and amplifies my pleasure during sex, adds intensity in a good way, I'm surely not alone in that. So to me, it's not simply the physical sensation of any pain that is suffering, since some amount is pleasurable. It's not just a sex thing though, presumably you like spicy food, that involves some level of pain but is enjoyable.

    Unpleasantness combined with pain causes me to suffer.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    It's a word made by humans.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    The descriptor is not the essence. Do you look at an image and say that it is the thing it represents?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I mean you can interpret so much into that word if you want.. it's just self-destruction wallowing in Weltschmerz. That's not philosophical, that's depression

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 0 points 3 months ago

    You can't just say that the essence of suffering is "the big sad". These are all aspects.

    And what is so depressing here? I really don't understand. Is it that talking about suffering makes people sad? Is that how empathy works? This is a genuine question. I do not feel uncomfortable or sad talking/hearing about tragedy or suffering. I understand the feelings, but I don't feel them. That's why I would never link the philosophical discussion of suffering and depression.

    Unless your point is that depression and suffering are linked? If that is the case, then I fully agree. One can cause the other, both ways.

  • source
  • parent