Subjective / objective suffering
I find the attempts at negating the value of suffering most pathetic and hypocritical. Yet so many people start engaging in this strategy in arguments with antinatalists.
Antinatalists stress on the existence of suffering and the necessity to prevent it.
But to some people suffering is a myth, an illusion, a subjective, subjectively defined personal value judgement of the neutral events experienced purely subjectively, on an individual level.
And don't forget that subjectively must be stressed there, it's important! When you add the 'subjective' to a sentence, it's sort of suppose to say 'untrustworthy', because it's just one person's perspective, and that can be flawed, biased. Subjective suferring. There. Case closed!
Is it? Not so fast. First, let's extend that logic to more particular cases of suffering, not just talk global abstract categories.
Let's take a 6 year old girl being kidnapped and raped daily by a sociopathic pedofile. Does that girl suffer, or is her ordeal just a myth, a subjective assesment of the value of being raped by a maniac?
I actually see no problem in acknowledging the 'subjective' part. But what does it change? I'm a subject and - DUH - I experience both pain and pleasure subjectively. And I also know that others are capable of experiencing those things as well. Naturally, I value my own pleasurable and painful sensations and those of others. They may not matter to the Universe in the grand scheme of things or whatever it is you're implying when stressing out the subjective vs objective dimension, but they matter to me, and that's quite enough. The pain, the fear, the helplessness and horror experienced by the kidnapped girl are all in her mind, being experienced solely by her, but that does not make those things any less real and worthy of noticing and dare I say - preventing.
If we were to apply the 'suffering is an illusion' approach to our everyday life, what would it be like? Certainly, no activists, no charities, no cancer research, no prisons and hospitals, no human rights.
You want to erase the very concept of harm and benefit, of suffering and pleasure - do it consistently.
Say I were to drop 20 kilos on your foot and keep them there until you prove your suffering is objective, would you be ok with that? Can't complain about an illusion, can you? Can we harm your friends, your family? Why not, if their suffering would be just a myth?
How come antinatalists are the only ones having to prove that suffering is real?
---
More extensively on antinatalism.
More posts from this category: Morality: Is it still needed?Life as a gift quote and some more pessimism
 someone
|
02-03-2012
Having to explain that suffering is real and that it is bad sounds really bizarre and I might not believe it had I not been in the same situation myself. People are strange.
|
 Irina |
03-03-2012
They're just desperate in trying to get away from dealing with real issues. 'I don't know how to justify causing unnecesary suffering, so I'll just say I don't believe in it'. Then next minute they're going to argue for the harsher penalties for some crimes based on what pain and suffering they cause. |
 Rita
|
04-04-2012
If someone actually did argue that suffering is an illusion just because it is subjective, then they have used a very bad argument.
A better point is that the total value we place on life and against the suffering that comes with it are subjective. Yes, suffering is bad, but how bad is it? No parent or antinatalist can say what amount of suffering a person should wish to bear to experience life; they can only guess. The pessimists say life is not worth the risk, but isn't it basically a judgment call? Personally, if someone from the outside looking in tells me that the life of my child MUST be bad, I am inclined to try even harder to make something more beautiful in a sad world - because I have seen and known many people who do enjoy their lives -even though that means my child must learn how to bear suffering and search for the good things in life. The story told can still be good, interesting and fun.. inspite of suffering. |
|
Irina |
04-04-2012
Yes, surprisingly, this is one of the argument people resort to when trying to justify the decision to create a total new person without being able to guarantee anything for that new human being. No parent or antinatalist can say what amount of suffering a person should wish to bear to experience life; they can only guess. The pessimists say life is not worth the risk, but isn't it basically a judgment call? Exactly. And what antinatalists are saying is that noone is entitled to make such an important evaluation on behalf of another person. That includes parents, who are not entitled to make a judgement call that their children will have to deal with.
Yes, pleasure is good, but how good is it? that means my child must learn how to bear suffering and search for the good things in life. So you have decided on behalf of your child that they must. Now they have to. |
 Iconoclast
|
21-05-2012
Pain is not sorrow. Sorrow is the fundamental human problem born out of ignorance.
|
|
Irina |
21-05-2012
Care to elaborate how sorrow is born out of ignorance? Would you say the same about any suffering in general (not just sorrow)? So all the children who suffer are doing so because theyre lacking some knowledge? |
|
Iconoclast
|
21-05-2012
Yes, all suffering is born of ignorance of the self. Physical pain is just a part of having a body, but sorrow is a peculiarly human condition which is born of taking oneself to be other than what one is.
It's a natural mistake to make, as natural as thinking the Sun goes around the Earth. As Einstein pointed out in his general relativity, or even with quantum mechanics, things are very often not what they seem. I will be elaborating this topic in great detail eventually so appreciate that I can only give a thumnail sketch. The world (meaning the entire universe) can be divided into two things. I and Not I. There is no third thing. "I", is the subject and everything else is an object. Therefore anything that I objectify is 'not I'. To see what is 'I' it is easier to see what is 'not I'. You objectify your body, your mind, you know what you think. So your thoughts are an object of your knowledge as is your ignorance, you know what you don't know. So none of these things are I. In fact if you complete this inquiry you will find that "I" is the whole. It's all you. Therefore you are secure. Security is a matter of understanding, not belief. |
|
Irina |
21-05-2012
So a 5-year old in Africa who is in perpetual pain from starving is suffering because he is "taking himself to be other than what he is"? He shouldn't suffer, and instead should rejoice because he is a part of everything? What you're describing is an escaping strategy. You don't want to live in a world where you're but another animal, insecure and insignificant. Thus - all the poetry about I and not I, being part of a whole etc. As long as theres pain - there insecurity. Doesn't matter who or what is experiencing it. |
|
Iconoclast
|
21-05-2012
In the example you give you are in fact confusing 'suffering' and 'pain'. These words can often be used interchangeably so I will repeat that I reserve 'suffering' as a peculiar human condition.
In your example the child is in pain. But the child is not suffering in the sense that someone suffers when their new car gets scratched. The child is 'suffering' in the sense that something can be 'insufferable'. Basically the child is in pain. And the child not aware enough to fully cognise the situation. Non, non, et non. See how you have used the word 'you'. You see you have already bought into the notion where you take yourself to be your body. I will admit it is a pervasive sensation. However this is what is meant by ignorance and the only solution is knowledge. Look, maybe you ARE the mind and the body. Or maybe you are not, at least you'd want to make a proper enquiry before jumping in because it's an important subject. Look, a human being is an animal, for sure. And being an animal we have all the problems of an animal. The body is insecure, a bird will make a nest to be secure, then it will perhaps hoard food for it's security. But a squirrel will only hoard nuts for the coming winter. It won't store them for the winder after the coming winter. It does not plan for it's retirement. The human problem stems from what makes a human animal different from every other animal. That is, we are not only aware, but we are aware of our awareness. This self awareness allows us to be able to come to a self conclusion and that is universally, 'I am insecure, wanting, small, insignificant' But the human feeling of insecurity that stems from our self awareness can only be fixed in the knowledge that we are already secure. IF IF IF, we understand what we mean when we say "I". Most of the time we are talking about the colloquial 'I', but an inquiry into the self is an inquiry into 'I'. However this is not what I intend to elucidate on my site it is just the basis, from where I have been able to work out all the most intractable problems of relationships. So I bypass most of this type of 'who am I' enquiry because that's not really my subject matter, my stuff is more practical. I provide the solutions to the normal problems of relationships, in ways that eventually you will come to see are not like anything you've ever heard before because it's all original and it's all come out of living my life with one incredibly unusual woman. I won't say any more on that. But it's a rather magical story. |
|
Irina |
21-05-2012
In the example you give you are in fact confusing 'suffering' and 'pain'. Isn't perpetual pain - a process of suffering? Suffering, or pain in a broad sense, is an experience of unpleasantness and aversion associated with harm or threat of harm in an individual. [wiki] We can of course avoid the word suffering and say 'a child is in perpetual pain'. What would that change? Does this mean its all right to be in a perpetual pain? Does this mean the state of being in perpetual pain shouldn't be viewed as something negative that is causing physical and mental anguish to a sentient being? If, for example, we were talking about a deer being eaten alive by a lion and induring excrutiating pain for about 30 minutes, would you say that doesn't count because we can not label it as suffering, its only pain? By changing words we're not changing reality. The devastating effect of pain being experienced does not go away only because you claim there is no I to experience it. I suffer or We suffer or Consciousness experiencing/whitnessing/being aware of pain/suffering - these are just different words used to convey the same meaning. All you're doing is playing with words. You're emphasizing on I vs the Whole, implyng that only I suffers, and the Whole can never do so. What makes you think a Whole is devoid of sentience? If part of my body aches, this is still my pain, even though this part is just a part of the whole - of me. This is such a popular tactic to try to deny suffering by saying its all a product of our imagination/ignorance etc. I believe you one can manage to live a happy life even in our world. Brain is a magnificent distorting tool. It allows one to look at mass graves of Holocaust victims and say 'but the world is wonderful'. Go ahead, keep excusing the horrors. But know that to others you appear as someone who simply is trying to save himself from having to experience suffering, that's all.
So have you, just in this sentence ;) |
|
Iconoclast
|
21-05-2012
>Non, non, et non. See how you have used the word 'you'. So have you, just in this sentence
 Bejeezus, when I say 'See' how you used it I mean the way it's being used, not the fact that you actually used it. What part of 'I am using the word 'suffering' in the sense of 'sorrow' do not you understand? If you are going to stubbornly conflate the words 'suffering' and 'pain' continuously in the sense that they mean the same thing, no matter how clearly I define that I'm using the word 'suffering' to mean sorrow, then clearly there's no point attempting to communicate further. |
|
Irina |
21-05-2012
Bejeezus, when I say 'See' how you used it I mean the way it's being used, not the fact that you actually used it. That was a joke. Smileys in the end and all.. What part of 'I am using the word 'suffering' in the sense of 'sorrow' do not you understand? 1. If you mean 'sorrow', why not just say 'sorrow'? 2. This post you're commenting on isn't about sorrow. Clearly, sorrow isn't the only negative state that people endure. Or is it all you know? Check the synonyms dictionary, you might discover something. Suffering in this post is used as a cumulative generalization for all kinds of negative states that a human is capable of experiencing. 3. In my last answer I actually agreed to drop the word 'suffering' from the conversation and described the situation with the word you have no problem with - 'pain'. Then asked you if enduring continuous pain was all right in your view. I also made points about the 'I' topic you raised. And all you choose to react to was my joke and that I should have used the word suffering in the sense you are using it. I know there is no point in our discussions, I saw that we have no common ground from the beginning and said that back when replying to this post But if you continue commenting I have to reply. |
 |
30-05-2012
Iconoclast, what exactly is your purpose in these replies? This is a serious question. What do you seek to demonstrate?
What does it matter what we call it? Pain, suffering, whatever... you believe it is right to inflict it on new people. Can you justify this proposition or can\'t you? |
|
Iconoclast
|
30-05-2012
Hi Francois,
I do not understand the gist of your questions, are you asking me what is the purpose of being precise with the meaning of words? Because if that is your question then it would obviate any reply, would it not? |
|
|
30-05-2012
Is that what you're doing, being precise with the meaning of words? Again I reiterate: what does it matter what we call it? Pain, suffering, whatever... you believe it is right to inflict it on new people. Can you justify this proposition or can't you?
|