Or is this just one of those things you’re not supposed to think too hard about?
How the hell thinks suffering is good? That’s cult level thinking.
If suffering is good because it gives life meaning, wouldn't it follow that hurting people is good?
Submitted 6 hours ago by november@lemmy.vg to [deleted]
Comments
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 hour ago
starlinguk@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
Guys, ‘suffering is good’ is literally a Christian thing. Mother Theresa used it as an excuse not to treat people because ‘suffering brings you closer to God’.
It’s bullshit, of course. It was made up as an excuse for treating people badly and (surprise!) making more money that way.
But that’s where OP gets the idea from. Religious indoctrination.
ArseAssassin@sopuli.xyz 4 hours ago
It’s bullshit, of course. It was made up as an excuse for treating people badly and (surprise!) making more money that way.
Must be why Mother Theresa was so rich.
Chronographs@lemmy.zip 4 hours ago
Net worth over $100m when she died according to a quick search
spittingimage@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
Does anyone actually believe that suffering gives life meaning? I’m sceptical.
jupyter_rain@discuss.tchncs.de 1 hour ago
Tbh I did, in my early youth. Films and art often depict suffering that way and being happy was generally just not on my agenda as a goal, because of my career and academically fixated parents.
glimse@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
Your premise is wrong but you should watch Bojack Horseman and pay attention to Diane’s arc, specifically the episode Good Damage
TheFogan@programming.dev 6 hours ago
Suffering isn’t good, but good can come from suffering, but certainly doesn’t always.
A harsh breakup can lead to personal growth.
A loss of a job could lead to a better job and possibly better money management strategies.
But a kid born into abject poverty in an undeveloped villiage, spends his whole life scraping by in suffering always hungry until succumbing to a slow painful death – no good, no meaning.
Mostly the idea that suffering is good is more common in religious ideologies that need an excuse to explain why their powerful god doesn’t step in and fix things.
TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip 3 hours ago
Throwing money on lottery can make you rich. Or it might not. Honestly, the odds are stacked against you.
What doesn’t kill you, may make you stronger… unless it maims you for life. People who have survived wars aren’t necessarily stronger. Quite the contrary actually.
dysprosium@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 hours ago
This is basically saying too much suffering is bad (succumbing to hunger). But a little (harsh breakup) can be good.
So this doesn’t suggest suffering is bad after all. If good can come from suffering, then suffering cannot be necessary bad.
DreamAccountant@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
Fuck you. Suffering is objectively bad, even if you 'make something good out of it".
What the fuck is wrong with you to defend suffering? YOU suffer. Enjoy your own suffering. YOU learn from it. Don’t sit here and pretend suffering is good in any way, you fucking psychopath.
naught101@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
No, it’s not. It’s saying that any amount of suffering is bad, but a tolerable amount of suffering can have good secondary effects (but this is not guaranteed, it’s circumstantial). The secondary good doesn’t mean that the bad part didn’t happen.
Spacehooks@reddthat.com 2 hours ago
Some humans feel that it adds to life like: “It builds character” or “pain makes him a real man”. Or that Suffering could enable people to appreciate the good but no, hurting people in general is unessessary because the world does that daily. Actively harming humans is actually counter productive because too much suffering can turn them evil or into living husks/zombies due to too much loss.
Now there are select humans that would benefit from this as they seem have not been exposed to any hardships of the masses. Still the pain didnt give meaning. all it was is a catalyst to give a person empathy. Even then physical pain is not the solution it needs to be a series of emotional experiences/trials that can be overcome.
The only people I know where suffering is the meaning/point would relate to something like karma or something like a slaanesh cultist who couldn’t live without pain because without it they have no life.
A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 6 hours ago
I reject the premise, and I doubly reject the conclusion.
rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
Suffering isn’t good. The growth that can be achieved through suffering can be good. There is a very big difference. Suffering doesn’t guarantee growth. Experience gained through suffering might not always be good (we may become jaded or cynical, or worn down).
Putting that aside for now, hurting others is bad. Inflicting suffering on others is not good, and doing so to try and force “personal growth” in a direction you desire is absolutely not good. That’s strange, cruel, controlling behaviour. That’s sort of like playing god.
When people say that suffering builds character, or reference bible passages like Romans 5:3 (And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also, knowing that tribulation worketh patience;) (apologies, I don’t know similar teachings from other faiths although I’m sure most faiths have a similar concept to this somewhere in them), they are typically talking about a sort of impersonal “suffering”. The death of a parent, sickness, poverty, that kind of thing – and crucially this idea is often separated from “blame” and is instead a sort of “faceless” suffering. It could be set up like this so that people can focus inwards or on something spiritually, rather than getting stuck in a cycle of blame or revenge, but other times the suffering in question is literally blameless, such as a parent dying of old age.
Either way, the key part in your question is that experiencing suffering is an unfortunate but inevitable rite of passage, and hopefully a person will learn and grow as a result, but that intentionally causing suffering is a choice to hurt another human and is bad. It’s sort of two separate things, really.
ArseAssassin@sopuli.xyz 4 hours ago
Post-traumatic growth is a thing. No need to cause more suffering, it’s locally available and plentiful in most parts of the world.
Acamon@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
The idea would be that the existence of suffering gives life meaning. By knowing that the risk of suffering is always there, we strive to avoid it and value our pleasures more because we can compare them to an unpleasant alternative.
How true “an existence without suffering would be meaningless” is open to debate, but there’s at least some day to day support. If you’ve ever been really hungry and demolished some fairly average meal while finding it delicious, or had the best glass of ice water after walking in the heat, you get that. And if we think of rich, entitled people, who appear to have no conception of how fortunate they are, instead getting upset about minor inconveniences, it gives you some indication of what life with less suffering might be like.
Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 5 hours ago
Yes, that's what a lot of rich people think. They're helping people build character by acting like monsters.
Kolanaki@pawb.social 5 hours ago
Calm down, Loviatar.
razorcandy@discuss.tchncs.de 6 hours ago
“Your Honor, I was only trying to make his life more meaningful” doesn’t really hold up well in court.
I would argue that challenges are a part of what give life meaning rather than suffering because they can teach us resourcefulness, resilience, gratitude, and provide a sense of accomplishment after completion. But challenges don’t have to include suffering, and the meaning isn’t always a positive thing.
Ultimately it’s up to each individual to decide what gives their life meaning. Who’s to say everything needs to have a meaning anyway? .
nocteb@feddit.org 6 hours ago
Being hurt and suffering are not the same.
november@lemmy.vg 6 hours ago
I would classify “suffering” as a particularly intense kind of “hurt”.
nocteb@feddit.org 6 hours ago
You can be hurt but are not suffering and you can suffer without being hurt.
zxqwas@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
If and only if suffering is good. I’d argue it’s not.
Occasionally experiencing suffering will lead to character growth, but mostly in dealing with future suffering of yourself or someone else. Not ever suffering and not needing the growth would be better.
But there is suffering in the world and occasional small doses is dealt out to everyone without anyone of us actively trying.
Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 4 hours ago
Hurting people is not generally good.
It is also not as directly related to suffering as your text suggests.
AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
The original (and still valid) meaning of “to suffer” is “to tolerate”.
Is it possible that whoever told you that “suffering is good” had that definition in mind?
Apytele@sh.itjust.works 4 hours ago
Or you could go Buddhist and consider “good” sensations to also be suffering and making it your goal to escape from all of it entirely.
crt0o@discuss.tchncs.de 6 hours ago
How does suffering give life meaning? Sure, a balance/contrast between pleasure and suffering can help create meaningful experiences, but that’s a different case
Naich@lemmings.world 16 minutes ago
Schopenhauer’s Theory of Human Suffering and Lack of Meaning: cambridge.org/…/E64B94DBB5CC35F61046073595377F25
He seems like a happy chappy.