Suffering Makes Life Meaningful ?

[bagtaggar]

Oh come on. If everyone made up their own definitions to words, we'd lose our language. When someone uses a word, you can't make up your own definition and assert "that's what they mean't." Asking what the meaning of life is asks exactly what the definitions of each of those words imply, and nothing else.

Illustrating my point, actually.

The dictionary definition of "meaning" necessarily puts the impetus to substantiate the word "meaning" on the person using it or seeking it out.

Perhaps that's a bit clumsy a sentence. Let me rephrase that.

Definition of the word mean:

1. To be used to convey; denote: “‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things’” (Lewis Carroll).
2. To act as a symbol of; signify or represent: In this poem, the budding flower means youth.
2. To intend to convey or indicate: “No one means all he says, and yet very few say all they mean, for words are slippery and thought is viscous” (Henry Adams).
3. To have as a purpose or an intention; intend: I meant to go running this morning, but I overslept.
4. To design, intend, or destine for a certain purpose or end: a building that was meant for storage; a student who was meant to be a scientist.
5. To have as a consequence; bring about: Friction means heat.
6. To have the importance or value of: The opinions of the critics meant nothing to him. She meant so much to me.

So, "meaning" is based on personal experience, subjectivity, intention, opinion, belief, etc. So what the hell is "meaning"? i.e. How can anyone ask a silly question like "what's the meaning of life?" as if expecting there to be one answer. Or expecting something like suffering (or any one thing) for that matter, to be the thing that gives life meaning? A more appropriate question, based on the definition, would be "what meaning do I give my life?" or "what meaning do you give your life?" or "what meaning does someone else give my life?" and so on and so forth.

Perhaps I should not have used the words "to me" as in "Meaning, to me, is..." My intention was simply to say "meaning is". That was the meaning of my previous statements.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Do you think maybe you coud start a new thread about the definition of ' meaning ' ?


Or was the thrust of this thread totally lost on you, because you can't deal with the implied definition..

 

[l0rca]

Roflewaffle.

I'm going to be really, really shameless right here, and hyperlink to an essay I did. A large part of it foruses on meaning.

http://universalmind.diary-x.com/journal.cgi?entry=20051102

I'm thinking about trying to get it published.

 

[bagtaggar]

Well, I'ze jus sayin'

Perhaps the meaning of the thread was lost on me.

Oops.

 

[Ossai]

Iacchus

If you take suffering, you take away free will, and all you get is robots.

Freewill and omnipotence are mutually exclusive. If god exists and is omnipotent, the universe is deterministic and everyone is already a robot.

Two questions for you:
Is there suffering in heaven?
Do people have freewill in heaven?

Ossai

 

[kuroyume0161]

Iacchus

Freewill and omnipotence are mutually exclusive. If god exists and is omnipotent, the universe is deterministic and everyone is already a robot.

Two questions for you:
Is there suffering in heaven?
Do people have freewill in heaven?

Ossai

That's the point, now, iznit. In order to have free will, you must have suffering. When yuze die and goez to heaven, no more suffering; no more freewill. You're an automaton who gets to kiss God's a$$ for eternity. Now there's something to suffer for!

 

[clarsct]

http://odan.org/corporal_mortification.htm

Did anyone click on this?

This is a whole new thread, man. Seriously. "Pain is beautiful!"? Damn. Marquis de Sade would've been proud.

 

[c4ts]

Well, I'ze jus sayin'

Perhaps the meaning of the thread was lost on me.

Oops.

We need a Bub Rubb smiley with a sign that says "Woo woo!"

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus

Freewill and omnipotence are mutually exclusive. If god exists and is omnipotent, the universe is deterministic and everyone is already a robot.

What if God was the embodiment of free will and each of us were a piece of God?

Two questions for you:
Is there suffering in heaven?
Do people have freewill in heaven?

Ossai

What is meaning without sensation? What is free will without sensation? Yes, the experience of both heaven and hell are quite sensational.

 

[Iacchus]

Is there suffering in heaven?

Not so much suffering, but a lack of attentiveness, towards the delights in heaven. Otherwise there is nothing to compare your experience to.

 

[RandFan]

Suffering Makes Life Meaningful ?

Yes, 100% absolutely!!!!!!

Not in and of itself and not in any religious sense. All events provide context and meaning to our life. Some more than others and suffering particularly can and does bring focus and meaning.

I realize the intent of the OP and I would not try to justify suffering from a theological perspective based in part because suffering makes life meaningful. Meaningful to who? The child who was sexually assaulted and slowly tortured to death by BTK? What meaning did that make of HER life?

 

[David Swidler]

First of all, thanks to Diogenes for starting the thread. I've been away from the JREF site since Thursday (somehow I survived; I rediscoverd a group of people called my "family," which took up quite some time).

Not in and of itself and not in any religious sense. All events provide context and meaning to our life. Some more than others and suffering particularly can and does bring focus and meaning.

Darn tootin'. My point wasn't religious. It was an observation of the human experience. The opposite of pain isn't pleasure; it's "no pain," i.e. numbness. Without the contrasting experiences humanity would be emotionally rudderless, akin to a perpetually drugged state. Even without the actual experience of suffering or challenge, the mere potential for them enriches life.

I realize the intent of the OP and I would not try to justify suffering from a theological perspective based in part because suffering makes life meaningful. Meaningful to who? The child who was sexually assaulted and slowly tortured to death by BTK? What meaning did that make of HER life?

Ignoring the appeal to emotion, what makes death by torture categorically different from a bully picking on weaker kids in the playground? The severity of the suffering varies, but not the essence. Within the system of potential suffering, the range goes to the extremes. At one end lies the despair, pain, loneliness and depravity that your example invokes, while at the other extreme lies the transcendental pleasure of love. But they're all part of the human experience, each one just as real. Love can't exist without existential loneliness. Nobody envies the BTK killer's victim's fate, but don't focus only on her - how does it affect you? Everyone else now should have a greater appreciation for life, an appreciation that would not exist without the potential for it to end abruptly and unpleasantly.

But human actions don't always have consequences in this world. There are many murders who have never been caught and are not suffering as a consequence of their actions. Furthermore, there are babies born with incurable, painful diseases - surely their suffering is not the consequence of their actions.

Your question actually strenghtens the point. You're confusing "consequences" with "punishment." The consequence of the murderer's actions are the death of the victim; the consequence of the disease is the suffering of the afflicted person. Yes, that makes life scary, but that's what makes it real. Why do you think people go bungee jumping, skydiving, or engage in any number of life-threatening activities just for the thrill? Because of the risk. It makes them feel alive.

So going back to the question behind the OP: why would the God posited by western religion allow suffering? To enable real existence. Otherwise we'd be drones. There'd be no drive to accomplish anything because the alternative is also acceptable, so why bother? Humanity,or the poor excuse for it that would exist in such a universe, would never progress past caveman stage. What advantage would plumbing, writing, the wheel, or agriculture provide? No one would need it, 'cuz life's good as it is.

How depressing.

On the other hand, think of a universe in which human decisions have a real impact, and you can choose to make that impact constructive. A place in which we, as a species, brave adversity to reach achievements that our closest genetic realtives, the chimpanzees, can't fathom. A world that enables us to experience everything from the death of a child to the dizzying experience of realizing you're in love.

You live in that world. Would you give it up?

 

[Iacchus]

Darn tootin'. My point wasn't religious. It was an observation of the human experience. The opposite of pain isn't pleasure; it's "no pain," i.e. numbness. Without the contrasting experiences humanity would be emotionally rudderless, akin to a perpetually drugged state. Even without the actual experience of suffering or challenge, the mere potential for them enriches life.

Ah, so there is a point to emotions after all. Great! In which case maybe it isn't just a matter of saying emotionalism is irrational but, that "some" emotions are unfounded?

 

[BJQ87]

I dont know about much enough, or feel very inclined to debate whether or not "suffering makes life meaningfull".

But I do know that life makes suffering meaningfull.

 

[David Swidler]

Ah, so there is a point to emotions after all. Great! In which case maybe it isn't just a matter of saying emotionalism is irrational but, that "some" emotions are unfounded?

What on Earth are you babbling about? Start a new thread if you want to discuss emotionalism.

 

[RandFan]

Ignoring the appeal to emotion, what makes death by torture categorically different from a bully picking on weaker kids in the playground? The severity of the suffering varies, but not the essence. Within the system of potential suffering, the range goes to the extremes. At one end lies the despair, pain, loneliness and depravity that your example invokes, while at the other extreme lies the transcendental pleasure of love. But they're all part of the human experience, each one just as real. Love can't exist without existential loneliness. Nobody envies the BTK killer's victim's fate, but don't focus only on her - how does it affect you? Everyone else now should have a greater appreciation for life, an appreciation that would not exist without the potential for it to end abruptly and unpleasantly.

Hey David,

I started my example with a question. The answer to that question is key to the point of the example and not an appeal to emotion. Being tortured and killed brought no good meaning to her life, only suffering. Sure, one could argue that for a brief moment she came to a realization that here life meant an exposure to extreme cruelty and suffering. But that is not a very satisfying argument to justify suffering. If we look at the example from a religious point of view to justify suffering then we find it wanting because it can only give meaning to those who survive or those who observe the suffering.

My point: To accept the argument that suffering gives meaning to life we must accept that both the suffering and any benefit of that suffering is at best arbitrary. Not all benefit equally and not all suffer equally.

The question: What meaning of life did the aforementioned victim of BTK gain from being tortured and killed?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

So going back to the question behind the OP: why would the God posited by western religion allow suffering? To enable real existence. Otherwise we'd be drones.

I'm not sugesting it would be fun, but then again, it wouldn't really be anything..
I don't disagree that pain can be useful, and that to have it at all, it must exist in it's extremes. I'm just saying it makes no sense to suggest it is a gift from god, or that life without pain in heaven, would be any more meaningful than life with it, on earth...
If pleasure only exists when we can compare it to agony, how could heaven be any different ?

A drone doesn't know they are a drone..


There'd be no drive to accomplish anything because the alternative is also acceptable, so why bother? Humanity,or the poor excuse for it that would exist in such a universe, would never progress past caveman stage. What advantage would plumbing, writing, the wheel, or agriculture provide? No one would need it, 'cuz life's good as it is.

How depressing.

Not ! There would be nothing to compare it to ..

On the other hand, think of a universe in which human decisions have a real impact, and you can choose to make that impact constructive. A place in which we, as a species, brave adversity to reach achievements that our closest genetic realtives, the chimpanzees, can't fathom. A world that enables us to experience everything from the death of a child to the dizzying experience of realizing you're in love.

You live in that world. Would you give it up?

No. But I have no choice.. If the world were different, it would be different..

As it is, it is a world that makes sense, as long as no one claims there is a loving God who has the power to relieve innocent suffering but doesn't..

 

[David Swidler]

Hey David,

I started my example with a question. The answer to that question is key to the point of the example and not an appeal to emotion. Being tortured and killed brought no good meaning to her life, only suffering. Sure, one could argue that for a brief moment she came to a realization that here life meant an exposure to extreme cruelty and suffering. But that is not a very satisfying argument to justify suffering. If we look at the example from a religious point of view to justify suffering then we find it wanting because it can only give meaning to those who survive or those who observe the suffering.

My point: To accept the argument that suffering gives meaning to life we must accept that both the suffering and any benefit of that suffering is at best arbitrary. Not all benefit equally and not all suffer equally.

The question: What meaning of life did the aforementioned victim of BTK gain from being tortured and killed?

I can't answer that. It would demean her, and reveal nothing but my arrogance. Who am I to presume to know what was good for her? No one but an omniscient being can. We're not omniscient, and so can't say. Welcome to humanity.

Seriously. Whether it's arbitrary or not is beside the point (as far as the OP is concerned, anyway). Suffering must exist. When and why that suffering occurs to specific people is not something we as humans can usually get to the bottom of, God or no god.

What we do know is that without suffering there's no such thing as empathy, love, compassion, or devotion. Give those up and you give up humanity.

 

[David Swidler]

I'm not sugesting it would be fun, but then again, it wouldn't really be anything..
I don't disagree that pain can be useful, and that to have it at all, it must exist in it's extremes. I'm just saying it makes no sense to suggest it is a gift from god, or that life without pain in heaven, would be any more meaningful than life with it, on earth...
If pleasure only exists when we can compare it to agony, how could heaven be any different ?
A drone doesn't know they are a drone.

Who said anything about heaven?

I never called pain a "gift." I called it a logical consequence. What the OP is doing is following the logical consequences of assuming an omnipotent, benevolent God. Show me where the logic fails and I'll reassess.

How depressing.

Not ! There would be nothing to compare it to ..

Of course not. But from our perspective that would be depressing. This is the best of all possible worlds.

You live in that world. Would you give it up?

No. But I have no choice.. If the world were different, it would be different..

As it is, it is a world that makes sense, as long as no one claims there is a loving God who has the power to relieve innocent suffering but doesn't..

Actually you do have a choice, with profound implications for your personality. You can choose to believe that no suffering would be better, with the implication that given the choice you would do away with empathy, love, commitment, etc. rather than allow suffering. Or you can choose to accept that the mere potential for suffering, as unpleasant and unpredictable as it is, is part of the package that allows you to experience all of those things. The choice says very little about God, but a lot about you.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Who said anything about heaven?


The fundies, who say to get there, you have to believe in a God who will send you to Hell if you reject him ..



Actually you do have a choice, with profound implications for your personality. You can choose to believe that no suffering would be better, with the implication that given the choice you would do away with empathy, love, commitment, etc. rather than allow suffering. Or you can choose to accept that the mere potential for suffering, as unpleasant and unpredictable as it is, is part of the package that allows you to experience all of those things. The choice says very little about God, but a lot about you.

Where does it say it's not possible to have " .. empathy, love, commitment, etc. " without indescriminate suffering ?

Remember, this is from the POV that there is a God, who made everything just the way he wanted it to be..

Surely God could have allowed pleasure, love and a selective system of pain; say, a system where babies in burning bulidings could be spared suffering.


It goes back to the original point.. Either a God chose not to inorporate such a system in his universe or he was powerless to do so.. i.e., not omnipotent..

For those who insist this God is omnipotent, and chose to let babies suffer in burning buildings, I would ask " what would be a good reason for doing so "... How could it possibly make anyone else's life better ?


" God works in mysterious ways.. " Is not an acceptable answer..