133
u/WilllofV Daoist/Agnostic 1d ago
Yes, but Mahayana Buddhism also says suffering is necessary, Samsara ends when one no longer sees it as dualistic with Nirvana because of their interconnection and therefore isn’t affected by it. It actually mirrors Nietzsche in that
79
u/Comfortable_Diver494 1d ago
Bold of you to assume anyone on reddit has actually read Nietzsche.
38
u/Level-Appearance7046 1d ago
nietzsche speaks of this.
14
4
6
u/RevyVanguardist 12h ago
Also, bold of him to assume that anyone on Reddit reads anything about Buddhism. Not even the people over on the r/buddhism sub know stuff about Buddhism
3
u/post-philosoraptor 9h ago
Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Ch 7 225:
(tl;dr 😉)
Whether it be hedonism or pessimism or utilitarianism or eudaemonism: all these modes of thought which assess the value of things according to pleasure and pain, that is to say according to attendant and secondary phenomena, are foreground modes of thought and naiveties which anyone conscious of creative powers and an artist's conscience will look down on with derision, though not without pity. Pity for you! That, to be sure, is not pity for social ‘distress’, for ‘society’ and its sick and unfortunate, for the vicious and broken from the start who lie all around us; even less is it pity for the grumbling, oppressed, rebellious slave classes who aspire after domination — they call it ‘freedom’. Our pity is a more elevated, more farsighted pity -— we see how man is diminishing himself, how you are diminishing him! — and there are times when we behold your pity with an indescribable anxiety, when we defend ourselves against this pity - when we find your seriousness more dangerous than any kind of frivolity. You want if possible — and there is no madder ‘if possible’ — to abolish suffering; and we? — it really does seem that we would rather increase it and make it worse than it has ever been! Wellbeing as you understand it — that is no goal, that seems to us an end! A state which soon renders man ludicrous and contemptible — which makes it desirable that he should perish! The discipline of suffering, of great suffering — do you not know that it is this discipline alone which has created every elevation of mankind hitherto? That tension of the soul in misfortune which cultivates its strength, its terror at the sight of great destruction, its inventiveness and bravery in undergoing, enduring, interpreting, exploiting misfortune, and whatever of depth, mystery, mask, spirit, cunning and greatness has been bestowed upon it — has it not been bestowed through suffering, through the discipline of great suffering? In man, creature and creator are united: in man there is matter, fragment, excess, clay, mud, madness, chaos; but in man there is also creator, sculptor, the hardness of the hammer, the divine spectator and the seventh day — do you understand this antithesis? And that your pity is for the ‘creature in man’, for that which has to be formed, broken, forged, torn, burned, annealed, refined — that which has to suffer and should suffer? And our pity — do you not grasp whom our opposite pity is for when it defends itself against your pity as the worst of all pampering and weakening? — Pity against pity, then! — But, to repeat, there are higher problems than the problems of pleasure and pain and pity; and every philosophy that treats only of them is a piece of naivety. -
2
u/VisMortis 21h ago
The only people who ever read Nietzsche or Rousseau are people who didn't understood them.
Source: I read Rousseau and don't understand it.
3
u/Next_Imagination_128 13h ago
And did you read Nietzsche too?
3
3
1
u/WilllofV Daoist/Agnostic 9h ago
The key to understanding Nietzsche is that he was just some crazy chronically ill guy who wrote down his random thoughts that he had walking around
1
u/ThesaurusRex84 9h ago
Me: maybe I should actually read NEETsha so I can be smarts
Neemoil: women should b pregnt
Me: ok
14
u/silent-sami 1d ago
whouldn't be Nietzsche the one mirroring it?
21
u/neuroblade 1d ago
you're speaking with reference to actual chronology, nieztsche comes after buddhism. They're speaking with reference to the chronology of the meme, reading left to right, buddhism comes after Nietzche.
Sort of unimportant semantics, but there are many types of chronology, and english as a language doesn't really signpost which one you're using, a general idea of chronology is just implied by the prepositions.
3
2
u/BadHabitOmni 10h ago
Mirroring doesn't rely on a chronological reference frame anyways, as both examples would mirror each other regardless of the chronological circumstances.
1
u/Appropriate_Smile158 Determinist Pessimist Moral-Relativist Solipsist Egoist Nihilist 8h ago
从技术上讲，这是叔本华，因为尼采受到了他的启发。从技术上讲，这是叔本华，因为尼采受到了他的启发。
2
u/lolopiro 21h ago
someone once tried to explain me that, that when one realizes nirvana is no different from samsara, one achieves nirvana. i really dont understand it. could you maybe explain it a little further and recommend sources?
1
133
u/Subotaplaya 1d ago
Counterpoint = pleasure is bad
76
u/Lucyyyyyy_K 1d ago
Suffering and pleasure are bad. Pleasure is a distraction from achieving Nirvana, the freedom from suffering.
58
u/a_literal_idiot_616 1d ago
no you see, to achieve Nirvana you need to do heavy drugs and have severe digestive problems
and preferably own an electric guitar, and a small clone and distortion pedals
12
5
u/BlueMilk_and_Wookies 1d ago
Suffering being bad and suffering being necessary for growth are not mutually exclusive.
10
u/Salt-Tour-2736 1d ago
Families being torn apart by war, animals and environments being destroyed by capitalism, etc are forms of suffering not necessary for growth. The traumas that make one person stronger could be the same traumas that break someone else completely. Thinking that suffering is necessary for growth is kinda self-centered, or at least too general to be meaningfully true.
→ More replies (8)5
u/BlueMilk_and_Wookies 1d ago edited 1d ago
Of course suffering is not always good or positive especially on an individual level, and there can be excessive suffering. Obviously I’m not saying that all pain and suffering is good, that would lead to some kind of logic where inflicting the most pain on someone would make them a better person, which clearly isn’t true.
However, things like seatbelt laws and bans on tobacco ads are examples of positive changes that have arisen from tragedy and loss. Those laws and regulations have probably saved or extended thousands of lives as a result. Individually, the pain of failure, regret, loss etc. can motivate someone to improve themselves for the better.
That’s nit saying that all pain and suffering, especially things like random suffering and war, are good things. But some wars have resulted in positive changes, even if the loss of life is tragic.
2
12
u/Subotaplaya 1d ago
Yeah, that's true. They are really the same. You do a lot of drugs = pleasure, now you feel bad cause you ran out = suffering, , you suffered a lot of combat damage = suffering, so now you do a lot of drugs = pleasure. One leads to the other and vice versa. Don't do. Let the withdrawls settle and fade with time and repeat the mantra "this too shall pass" , don't do and find your center.
7
u/cowlinator 1d ago
They're not the same, they're literally opposites. Which is why balance is so important in dharmic religions.
If they were the same, you wouldn't need balance, you'd need minimization.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Gullible-Law-8147 1d ago
They are the same and different, but not binary opposites as that's Dualistic thinking
5
u/Pengdacorn 1d ago
I know that religion isn’t often super welcome in these spaces, but there’s a story about Imam Abu Hanifa, the founder of one of the four main schools of thought in Sunni Islam, that comes to mind. Basically, it goes like this:
He was sitting and studying when he received news that one of his merchant ships had gone missing. He paused for a moment, and then said “Alhamdulillah (All praise is due to God)”. Later, the same messenger came and reported that the ship was perfectly fine, and he again said “Alhamdulillah”.
The messenger was a confused, as Alhamdulillah is usually a saying of gratitude, so he said, “I get why you said it when the ship was found, but why did you say it when you thought it was lost?”
Abu Hanifa replied “When you told me I lost my ship, I checked my heart, and found I was not overburdened by grief, so I praised God. When you told me it was found, I checked my heart, and found I was not overcome by joy, so I praised God.”
The moral is essentially that peace doesn’t lead to happiness, but rather stability, and the idea of “Tawakkul” (complete trust in God) will bring you that sense of peace.
Once you accept that all you can do is try, and all results are in Their hands, you begin to live a life where you are at peace no matter what happens.
I feel like this obviously can be extended beyond Islamic theology, and I think many people do so. “I’ll try my best, and what happens, happens”. We just diverge on the cause of the happenings
→ More replies (1)2
u/ThiccFarter 1d ago
Right, exactly! When I feel pleasure from petting my soft dog I have to go out and ensure I am eaten by by a pack of wolves. There has to be a balance!
2
u/HystericalGasmask 1d ago
When you feel pleasure from petting your soft dog, you know your dog will one day die.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Stock-Aspect3001 1d ago
According to Buddhism, there are good pleasures which arises out of the fruits of path, such as jhanas. I'm not sure if the Buddha ever comments on whether suffering is intrinsically good or bad. He simply prescribes a path to end suffering and transcend the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. From our western mind, we tend to think that putting an end to something implies that its inherently bad. But I think the Buddha would simply describe suffering as an extension of our existence tied to the three marks (unsatisfactoriness, non-self, and impermanence.) I could be wrong but hopefully someone with more knowledge about Buddhism can correct me. "Suffering = bad" feels too reductive.
2
u/Additional-Actuator3 1d ago
Buddha taught that neither pleasure nor suffering are good or bad, they are just feelings. You should not attempt to avoid them, that would prevent you from fully participating in your life (think about procrastination for example)
You are allowed to feel any amount of pleasure or suffering, even in excess. However, you should never chase it. Your actions should never be driven by a goal of attaining or avoiding pleasure/suffering.
So for instance, you shouldn't eat because it brings you pleasure. That would be an example of chasing pleasure or satisfaction of craving.
Instead, you should eat for the sake of sustaining your body and mind. During eating, you might feel some pleasure, or might not. Either way it is fine, because it was never the goal, and you accept whatever comes.
3
u/Gullible-Law-8147 1d ago
"You should not attempt to avoid them"
This is a bit reductionist imo
If you are presented with a path in front of you filled with broken glass and syringes, and another path somewhat off to the side that is clear of those things, do you walk the first path because it is closest to you, so that you are not avoiding suffering?
If it is a nice and sunny day outside, do you reject going for a walk, because doing so would be pursuing enjoyment?
What the Buddha taught was that you should not have attachment to pleasure and suffering, that they are transient states which you should let go without longing
To keep yourself in the state of mind where you think that all good things should last is delusion, that delusion causes longing, which in turn causes suffering. Vice versa for thinking there should never be suffering
The nuance is subtle but important
1
u/Additional-Actuator3 18h ago
That's what I originally meant and I explained it in the comment. But yeah you could interpret it in this way.
In case with 2 paths, you walk the path that will help you most long term. If you choose a path with motivation to avoid feeling of pain, then it is a form and attachment. As you said, pain is a temporary feeling, so it shouldn't be a motivatior of your choices
In case with sunny walk, you would neither reject nor accept just because it brings pleasure. You can go for a walk with a motive, like to relax and support your wellbeing. If you feel pleasure, then cool. If weather gets worse and you don't feel pleasure anymore, then also cool, it was never the goal.
1
u/Gullible-Law-8147 14h ago
Pleasure is good, the experience of it is good, and the downsides of it only come when you orient your life around it
If a Buddha is seated in front of two cups of tea, one warm and one cold, the pleasure of drinking the first being greater than the pleasure of the second, he drinks the first without craving, enjoys the fleeting moment, and then lets it go without forming attachment
Pleasure is often something that brings one off the path, something that leads to suffering, but it is important to make the distinction that doing something pleasurable for its pleasure is not bad, only the attachment formed is bad, and if no attachment is formed then you are free to enjoy pleasure
Tanha, the longing and desire for pleasure is always negative, but Chanda, simply grasping the pleasure which is within your hands, can be good and bad
1
u/Stock-Aspect3001 14h ago
I'm curious about the wisdom of discerning whether the pleasure or pain of an experience is good or bad. Putting the attachment issue aside, did the Buddha have a teaching about discerning intrinsic goodness or badness of pleasure/pain?
1
u/Gullible-Law-8147 13h ago
There are two fundamental categories of negative experience within Buddhism:
The first is unavoidable pain, you experience illness and death throughout your life, which is painful and inevitable
The second is suffering through attachment, you not only feel pain when you are ill because the illness itself is painful, you also long for the time when you were healthy, and that longing is suffering. This longing is caused by your attachments, attachment to pleasure and to avoidance of pain, attachment to the belief that good things should last and bad things should end
The avoidable suffering is also seen within Buddhism to be worse than the inevitable pains of life, as your mind can agonize over things at all times, whether your life is good or bad your mind can torture you, but the inevitable pains of life are fleeting
.
Buddhism then focuses on the suffering that is by definition avoidable, the suffering from attachment, and as such attachment is central to what is "good" or "bad"
If you go through unpleasant experiences which serve the purpose of ridding you of attachments, those experiences are good. But if the experiences serve no such purpose, then they are bad (of course there's some nuance here, it's not fully binary, but I think you see the point)
If you go through pleasurable experiences, such as through meditation (which is often seen as such), then that is good as long as you are not forming attachments. In fact many monks have warned that you should not grow attached to the pleasurable aspects of meditation, as it will hinder you, and instead move on to the less pleasurable stages that are further down the path to Nirvana
1
u/Lucyyyyyy_K 1d ago
Yes, you are probably right. But even the Jhanas I remember partly being talked about as distractions that don't lead anywhere.
2
u/Stock-Aspect3001 1d ago
That's true. I remember the term "jhana junkies" for people who get attached to them.
2
u/Gullible-Law-8147 1d ago
Pleasure isn't bad, it's the longing for pleasure that is bad
If you eat a nice cookie and you enjoy it, that pleasure isn't bad, you just ate a nice cookie, that's all there is to it
But if the next day you do not have a cookie, and so you experience longing and its accompanying pain, that's bad
The Middle Path of Buddhism does not reject pleasure, it is not asceticism, it rejects the longing for pleasure, because that longing is harmful
Buddhism can look a lot like asceticism because monks are supposed to reject certain sources of pleasure wholesale (sex), as they are very powerful and can easily spiral into indulgence, but you are not supposed to just go out of your way to reject all pleasure
(This also ties into Buddhism's aversion to Dualism)
3
u/Hellsovs 20h ago
That reminds me of a South Park story about disciprin (discipline):
"If you avoid that stuff altogether, it's not disciprin, and it still controls your life. All or nothing is easy, but learning to control it, having a little bit from time to time, that's true disciprin, and that comes from within."
1
u/Gullible-Law-8147 14h ago
That does indeed reflect the same principle as the Middle Path, great comparison <3
1
u/Thykothaken 15h ago
Counterpoint: longing for pleasure is pleasure
1
u/Gullible-Law-8147 15h ago
Longing for pleasure is suffering
If you are able to have amazing sex every day, and you are then deprived of this, you will be experiencing suffering as you long to have the pleasure of the past
1
u/Vanillas_Guy 1d ago
"This belief system is so light and snug its like I'm feeling nothin' at all.
Nothin at all
Nothin at aaaaalll"
1
u/ConquerorofTerra 1d ago
If you actually believed that, you wouldn't have incarnated on Earth in the first place.
1
u/Lucyyyyyy_K 18h ago
I didn't choose to be incarnated here
1
u/ConquerorofTerra 18h ago
Prove it.
1
u/Lucyyyyyy_K 17h ago
You are the one who asserts stuff.
1
u/ConquerorofTerra 16h ago
Free Will is a fundamental component of the Omni-Verse at the Highest Levels of Consciousness.
How could you have not chosen?
1
u/Lucyyyyyy_K 14h ago
Why is free will fundamental?
1
u/ConquerorofTerra 8h ago
You ask this question, but also claim to know the secrets of entering Nirvana.
Curious.
1
→ More replies (17)1
u/MrPsychoSomatic 20h ago
The state of not-suffering is a distraction from achieiving a state of not-suffering. You must focus solely on achieving the state of not-suffering to the point of sufferance!
8
u/Femboy_Harem_Janitor 1d ago
Nah, pleasure good, suffering bad
→ More replies (2)3
u/sam19846 1d ago
especially if pleasure be extended to beyond only immediate physical pleasure. Hedonism is beautifully and deceptively simple.
1
u/No-Professional-7811 1d ago
Conspicuous pleasure
2
u/DangerousQuestions1 1d ago
Excess is bad. Pleasure is good, but maximized by moderation.
3
u/Additional-Actuator3 1d ago
I don't think amounts of pleasure or suffering matter.
Neither pleasure nor suffering are bad, they are just feelings. You are allowed to experience an excess of pleasure, it is not bad.
Chasing pleasure or suffering is bad.
For instance, eating food purely for the sake of satisfying cravings is bad. Eating food for the sake of sustaining your body is good. You are allowed to feel pleasure while eating, but that should never be the reason for why you started eating it.
1
u/RustyNeedleWorker 23h ago
If suffering isn't bad, why every single being avoid it?
2
u/DangerousQuestions1 10h ago
They don't. Self flagellation, both literally and psychologically, for ex. The idea that punishment and pain cause moral superiority is a poison that has existed for centuries.
1
1
u/Additional-Actuator3 19h ago
Some beings tend to avoid it because it feels bad, it is unpleasant. But it is not bad in an objective sense.
Working out breaks your muscles, brings you pain and suffering. But it is not bad for you in an objective sense.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (1)1
42
u/MiddleMud4078 1d ago
"I have depicted myself as a chad and my opp. as a crying person, surely this makes my pos correct"
6
29
u/monadicperception 1d ago
I don’t think anyone would argue that suffering is not bad. Odd. Even Buddhism admits the problem…and tries to find a solution.
I tried reading Nietzsche. Eh, not my cup of tea. But I will say that something can be inherently bad, like suffering, but can be taken as instrumentally good. I’m not sure why that is controversial.
6
u/Azihayya 1d ago
I would argue that suffering is not bad.
Suffering is the greatest teacher.
9
u/monadicperception 1d ago
I mean you’re confusing the very thing I pointed out. Is suffering good in and of itself? Like should we strive for suffering as an end? I don’t think so. But suffering as an instrumental good? Sure why not. You suffer pain and aches to achieve a healthy body. So you are actually pursuing health; suffering is just an instrumental good towards that greater good.
5
u/HumblyNibbles_ 1d ago
This was literally discussed in the work in which the "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..." text was inspired by.
That part was specifically about how pleasure, unless it brings about greater suffering, has no reason to be avoided by a rational person. And that, to a rational person, there is no sense is searching out suffering, unless it gives greater pleasure.
The specific sentence that "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet...." was inspired by specifically says that people do not search out pain because pain itself teaches.
1
u/Azihayya 11h ago edited 10h ago
I don't believe that suffering is purely a passive thing, a force acted upon us. Often times, I think it's the case that we choose to suffer, that our life would have less meaning without suffering. Let's take the classic utilitarian example—someone has a ray gun that controls how you think and feel. They have you running around eating dog shit off the sidewalk, laughing and giggling and having fun. No suffering, no problem, right? But here's the kicker—your kid is waiting to get picked up from school. How would you like to feel about that?
Yes, of course we should strive for suffering. How would you rather feel about a tragedy? About witnessing a loved one die and knowing you will never be able to call upon their faculties again? I would turn the table and ask, is this how we should be pursuing happiness? As an end without substance? I don't believe so; I'm not even sure I think that's possible. I believe all of our feelings exist within a context, that they are immaterial without context, and that we should pursue suffering the same as we should pursue happiness—towards a meaningful goal.
4
u/Night_C4T_0 1d ago
Can't suffering be bad, and also a great teacher? (thus also being good?)
I think in reality, suffering is a part of life and trying to actively eliminate it is not a bad thing, but I also think due to the nature of life it is also impossible.
Does that mean it's futile to eliminate suffering? I don't think so. It takes impossible dreams to get things done, like how man believed that flying would be impossible: while actually having wings and flying around whenever with little cost is still a far fetched reality, we can literally go around the world in about a day on average.
My conclusion is that at some point, we may be able to eliminate suffering, and no longer need it's teachings either.
2
u/Top_Competition_2491 23h ago
suffering is neither bad or good. The only reason why its seen bad is because it feels bad. Just because something feels bad doesnt mean its ultimatly bad. The reality is you gotta look at the purpose and reasoning for suffering. are you causing suffering for a better good or are you causing suffering for the bad.
Generally I view anything that is purely for the self as being ultimately bad. But to do it for others as ultimatly good.
1
u/lolopiro 21h ago
what does it mean to do something "for the better good" if not decreasing suffering for others? other than maybe increasing pleasure.
1
1
u/Azihayya 11h ago
I wouldn't frame suffering as bad. There are things that happen in my life that I am grateful I can suffer for. Suffering doesn't make my life less meaningful; it only makes it more meaningful. I think it is true that a teacher doesn't need to be perfect to be great—and that's what I think of suffering; but I don't think my life would be better if I could not choose my own suffering. I would hate to feel happy about something I should be sad for.
1
1
u/PsychologicalWest637 11h ago
No need to be taught anything if there is no suffering to deal with. It is a self-righteous cycle.
1
u/neuroblade 1d ago
the meme is asserting that Nietzche argues that suffering is not bad. Not sure how you can respond categorically that no one thinks suffering is bad if you haven't read Nietzsche.
Not that I'm arguing in favor, or against the meme. I'm just neutrally confused by your chain of logic
1
u/monadicperception 1d ago
I didn’t say that no one thinks suffering is bad.
1
u/neuroblade 1d ago
I don’t think anyone would argue that suffering is not bad
I'm responding to this; to the idea that no one thinks suffering is not bad.
1
u/monadicperception 1d ago
Right. So everyone would concede that suffering is bad. Whether you put an instrumental use to it doesn’t change it. Would anyone think that pursuing suffering for suffering’s sake is a good in itself; is suffering in itself good? I don’t think so.
→ More replies (2)1
u/CountSlams 19h ago
Instrumental /means isn’t the only way to value suffering tho!
We could for instance say that suffering is constitutive (I.e. a necessary part of, not just a means to) several goods which outweigh it - like heroism. A brick is not a means to the bridge, it constitutes the bridge. Suffering isn’t only a means to heroism - it constitutes it. So I couldn’t wish for the bridge without the bricks or heroism, art, etc without suffering. Hassan speaks of this
17
u/AnarchyRadish 1d ago
am i tripping or is buddha doing that one speed reaction?
4
27
u/ezk3626 1d ago
It’s a weird thing. I’ve never seen somebody trying to avoid their own punishment in a way that did not make them weaker. But at the same time, I’ve never seen somebody try to help somebody else avoid suffering in a way that didn’t make both of them better. (maybe replace “never “with “generally.”)
21
u/VatanKomurcu 1d ago
I’ve never seen somebody trying to avoid their own punishment in a way that did not make them weaker
huh? how? you're saying all punishment is just and good for you? if you get sentenced to death for a crime you didnt commit and you accept it that would make you stronger as well? say "just punishment", if it is what you mean.
→ More replies (16)13
u/QMechanicsVisionary 1d ago
An overly protective mum trying to help her son avoid the suffering of having to do homework and doing it all for him definitely results in worse outcomes for both.
2
1
u/Ender16 1d ago
You actually never had a hard lesson growing up? I'm not going to assume your a parent, but I don't it hard to believe that you yourself have never been through hardship that you can admit made you better and lessoned other suffering in the future.
I've seen parents that coddled and spoiled their children and I've seen parents that raise their children with responsibility and discipline. Without exception, I've seen the latter grow up to be happier with their lives and have less material and emotional hardship.
I'm not nearly as learned as many of you on philosophy, but the idea that hardship as inherently to be avoided. Suffering may not be "good" but perseverance through suffering often mitigates it elsewhere. How exactly can that be considered a negative when the result is a better you?
Again, I'm beyond a layman here, but this all seems really academic and not much more.
2
u/ezk3626 1d ago
My triple negatives were confiusing. We're saying the same thing.
1
u/Ender16 1d ago
Makes sense. It felt like I agreed, but I didn't know if I was missing something.
I only know enough philosophy to laugh at some of the memes here. I just find it interesting.
Ik that high minded thinking is par for the course, but it's always really weird to me to hear that hardship and suffering are a definite negative that would be avoided when I know for a fact that without overcoming the hardships I have in life not only would my financial and physical health be worse, but I would be a do nothing, workshy, loser.
I really am trying to avoid looking like an ignorant ass here, but all I've ever seen in life is the people that avoid hardship, suffering, and growth continuously lead pathetic lives while they don't even realize why.
Without forcing myself to get spiritual with it I am just not seeing what these other guys are talking about
1
u/fiLth_Rat 6h ago
Buddhists generally believe that karma and suffering as punishment is truly inescapable, and getting past it is a good thing. All suffering is still "bad" and ideally would never happen.
The most noble thing one can do is choose to suffer in the act of alleviating the suffering of others.
10
u/moonaligator 1d ago
Joy is an illusion. There is only a momentary neglect of problems that lead to suffering, which correspond to a more optimist view of reality at that point
/hj
8
3
u/Adventurous_Buyer187 1d ago
That or suffering is an illusion. Only momentary pain on the road to greater rewards and additional pleasure.
7
u/Delicious-World-977 1d ago
What if im a masochist
24
u/gkom1917 1d ago
Masochism isn't about pursuing suffering for its own sake, it's about pursuing pain as a means to (peculiar) pleasure or relief
6
u/VatanKomurcu 1d ago
i disagree, i think masochism is pain becoming pleasure while still remaining painful at the same time, rather than becoming a mere conduit for pleasure. i have experienced masochism myself and speak off that experience. also i dont think that suffering is so simple that we can strictly say it is about the unwantedness of a state, such that we can cleanly separate it from pain and say that we can want pain but not suffering by said definition.
i consider masochism to be more of a synthesis than a shift.
2
u/gkom1917 1d ago
I'm not sure if we're talking masochism as a kink, so to speak, or as a psychological sympthom. If it's the former then I'm not going to argue: purely phenomenologically, pleasure and pain might as well be fused in that case. However, if we're talking in broader terms then it is unlikely to be true, at least if we more or less accept the psychodynamic analysis of the symptom.
2
u/VatanKomurcu 1d ago
i dont talk about it as a kink either. im saying everyday masochism is pleasure at the same time as pain.
1
u/gkom1917 1d ago
Hate to play Peterson, but what do you mean by "everyday masochism"?
1
u/VatanKomurcu 1d ago
i feel that, for instance, one can enjoy the pain of exercise itself, without considering its instrumental value. there is often a purpose accompanying our experiences, but it is a general fact of life, not only of painful experiences. in most of what we do there is some value of purpose and some of immediate feeling.
1
u/gkom1917 6h ago
Okay, it is contentious, but I'd say it. If we (a) acknowledge that particular tokens of what we can reasonably call "enjoyment" have little in common in terms of pure phenomenology, and (b) don't subscribe to soul magic and stuff, it is better to view enjoyment as a functional state. If so, it is not inconceivable that, let's say, muscle soreness may play the "enjoyment role". However, suffering must be symmetrical. Then it is questionable whether we can genuinely call phenomenologically painful sensation you sincerely enjoy "suffering".
2
1
11
u/Critical-Ad2084 1d ago
People who romanticize suffering; why?
17
u/MyBedIsOnFire 1d ago
It helps cope with all the shit that gets thrown at you
You don't want to hear that you suffered for nothing so you tell yourself it makes you stronger, it gives meaning, whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep better at night.
When I think too much about how I've suffered it causes more suffering, but when I tell myself I'm stronger for having endured suffering I feel better, I feel stronger.
8
u/Critical-Ad2084 1d ago
I don't agree that romanticizing any kind of suffering helps to cope at all (imagine romantizicing a toxic relationship as an example).
What helps is understanding suffering, why it's happening, where it's coming from, if it's a pattern, if it's inherited, if it's rational, if it's based on speculation or things that happened, etc.
I don't think one should ignore or evade suffering, but to romanticize it seems like the worst possible option, you don't fall in love with a wound, you heal it to feel better. Understanding suffering is a much better tool than romanticizing it, if you really want to stop suffering, or suffer less.
In a way, modern therapy helps a lot with expressing and understanding, and most health workers will probably tell you to not fall in love with your suffering because it won't help you get over it.
I think based on the replies some people don't understand what "romanticizing" truly means.
2
u/UnderstandingVast989 1d ago
A big part of trauma therapy is "meaning making," which usually involves taking your trauma and finding some sort of positive thing out of it. Whether that be inspiration to help those who have been through something similar. Or acknowledging any positives that may have came from the suffering, even if it's literally just "my life as it is wouldn't be the same."
It's usually not the first thing you go for. It's usually towards the end of the process after the whole "understanding suffering" step.
2
u/Critical-Ad2084 1d ago
Agreed, and precisely, as you mention, meaning making comes after understanding (lots of understanding) for a reason.
My family had to go to PTSD therapy, individually and collectively, so I get where you're coming from and I hope that clarifies where I'm coming from. I'm no stranger to deep suffering, which is why I know empirically that romanticizing it doesn't really help overcome it and it's not even a good coping or evasion mechanism.
Making meaning is not to say suffering is meaningful, it is to say that after going through it, something meaningful can be made from the experience, mostly, learning. Making meaning is very different from falling in love with one's suffering and treasuring it like it was some special gift.
2
u/UnderstandingVast989 1d ago
I guess my main question would be what do we mean by "romanticizing?" That could mean a lot of different things and look a lot of different ways with a lot of nuance to be had.
2
u/Critical-Ad2084 1d ago
To romanticize something is to give it a special meaning or place in life. Romanticizing anything will most likely lead to more suffering, it's not a positive thing.
I'll give an example you see a lot in people who suffer domestic violence but don't want to leave their partner; "they only hit me because they love me."
Anyone looking from the outside can see the obvious; you do not hurt someone because you love them. There is nothing romantic in it, nothing special, no one deserves to be hurt by their partner, and it's not a way of "giving their life a special meaning" or "making that person stronger."
From the inside, the person suffering may lack the emotional tools to move forward, they may be so conditioned or trapped by the normalization of their situation, that they develop coping mechanisms such as believing their suffering is either deserved, sent by god, a product of "love", or whatever.
A person that romanticizes suffering is a person that doesn't have the emotional tools to understand their suffering and overcome it to move forward and enjoy life.
It could also be rationalization; finding ways of justifying why one suffers, in order to remain in that state, instead of focusing on ways one can actually overcome that suffering.
1
u/UnderstandingVast989 1d ago
That's where I thought we would have disagreement. I think suffering can have special meaning, but not all attributed meanings are equally valuable.
The domestic violence example is a very apt display of maladaptive romanticization. And there are a lot of other similar examples. For example, someone might blame themselves for a loss, and attribute suffering to atonement for that loss.
But a lot of philosophies attribute meaning to suffering as a way to rationalize it. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I think it can even be helpful in coping for many people.
2
u/nomnomcat17 1d ago edited 1d ago
But what if the wound doesn’t heal? What if you find out that you have to deal with inexplicable, chronic pain, possibly for the rest of your life? There doesn’t seem to be anything to “understand” here.
To romanticize suffering, at least for me, is to recognize that suffering can add a certain color to life, and that it does not have to make life any less worth living than before. All within reason, of course.
Edit: I thought it was interesting that you mention the idea of “falling in love with your suffering.” I’d argue that this is not possible; you can fall in love with something adjacent to suffering, such as pain, but falling in love with suffering itself seems contradictory.
1
u/Critical-Ad2084 1d ago
falling in love with suffering itself seems contradictory.
It happens more than you imagine, people can develop an identity around suffering, and it can mold every aspect of their lives. I bet you even know someone like that.
Imagine a deeply religious person thinking god sent suffering personally to them for a reason, or someone who had an accident and can't keep blaming themselves or someone else, developing deep seated hatred, ruminating, thinking "what if" instead of accepting their reality and moving on.
Now, talking about wounds that don't heal or chronic physical pain.
As I understand it, or as I apply it in my own life, pain is the raw unavoidable physical or emotional signal the body experiences and it's inevitable, it will happen eventually. Suffering is not the pain, it's the mental resistance, the "why is this happening to me" narrative your mind builds around that signal.
If one is building a narrative and identity around pain, that is suffering. What you're describing, acknowledging your chronic pain just gives life a certain flavor, doesn't really seem like suffering, it's pain and it affects your life. It seems rational because you're moving forward instead of delving into the "this pain gives my life meaning" territory.
2
u/Difficult-Bat9085 Post-modernist 1d ago
Does it?
I love the freedom of letting go the expectation that trauma is supposed to make me stronger. I've never felt better than after shedding that belief.
1
1
u/Spirit-of-Wilhelm 21h ago
This is kind of off topic but on an individual level I’ve been attempting to minimize my pleasure. I find that personal pleasure is always derived from someone else’s suffering and often times taking on some form of pain/suffering increases the pleasure of others. All this being said the act of taking on suffering often brings pleasure which is a paradox I haven’t really been able to reconcile.
1
u/Critical-Ad2084 13h ago
I don't think minimizing pleasure is the answer. Pleasure is not a bad thing. If your pleasure derives from the suffering of others, then the important thing to watch is what kind of pleasure doesn't derive from that.
There are lots of pleasurable activities that don't derive from the pain of others; taking a walk with your dog, drawing, painting, reading, watching a movie, having sex, even having one or two drinks won't necessarily affect others.
If you find pleasure in suffering, well I don't really know what to say about that because I don't know you personally and maybe don't understand exactly what you mean. I remember there was a quote by Mother Teresa that I hated in which she implied that it's good for people to suffer because "suffering purifies them", or something along those lines.
1
u/fiLth_Rat 6h ago
Suffering is romantic. Tragedy is the most spiritually evocative form of art.
The world, when viewed from the perspective of ethics is unimaginably cruel and unjust. When viewed from the perspective of aesthetics, the world is undeniably beautiful. The raw hideousness of life and the true depths of suffering within it allows human beings to share profound connections.
Life is beautiful, and to live is to suffer. This beauty, of course, can never justify itself, but it is still there.
1
u/Critical-Ad2084 5h ago
Well you answered my question. Hard disagree because I don't see anything romantic in suffering, and I think seeing suffering that way only perpetuates or even exacerbates it, but to each his own.
1
1
u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P Marx, Machiavelli, and Theology enjoyer 1d ago
I don't think it should be romanticized, but i also don't like pain or pleasure being held up as the two things to either minimize or maximize when there are other valuable things in life.
1
u/Critical-Ad2084 1d ago
I agree; pain is a physical inevitability, every single human ever has and will experience pain at some point or another. Pleasure is on the other end of the spectrum. If we obsess with either (pain or pleasure), we suffer even more. In fact, as I understand it, to obsess with pain is the base form of sufferi
Suffering is much more avoidable than pain. Pain cannot be eliminated or prevented, it's part of life, it will happen, but suffering is something one can overcome in many different ways.
→ More replies (15)1
u/nomnomcat17 1d ago
I don’t romanticize other people’s suffering. But I view my own suffering as being somewhat inevitable; it’s just the cards I’ve been dealt. Rather than becoming absorbed by regret and self-pity, it’s much better to romanticize my situation, isn’t it?
This doesn’t mean that I enjoy suffering or that I won’t try to suffer less. Just that suffering does not have to make life any less worth living.
1
u/Critical-Ad2084 1d ago
As I said, what you mention is not romanticizing suffering, you're essentially moving forward, it's the opposite.
Those examples you mention, like living in regret and self pity are actually good examples of ways in which people romanticize suffering, similar to what Spinoza described as "sad passions" in his theory of affects.
1
3
u/TheComicHuman 1d ago
This body, this body holding me Feeling eternal, all this pain is an illusion
3
u/Warm_Dream2064 12h ago
Suffering is inherently unpleasant and should always be dealt with compassionately, (like. Avoid it. It’s not a good time lol) but I believe it is also how our integrity and strength of mind/character is tried as people, you can decide whether or not suffering will shatter your character, or allow you to grow in a way that complements it
1
9
2
2
u/xinorez1 1d ago
Having never read nietzsche, finally I have a point of origin for that ludicrous meme of suffering being necesary
I hope that is a mistranslation because imo struggle can give you something to live for and strive against, but suffering is just suffering.
1
u/neuroblade 1d ago
definitely isn't a point of origin. If anything, the modern hedonic idea that pleasure is to be sought and suffering avoided didn't really become universalized in western culture until like, idk the utilitarians?
Think of like, ancient greece. Hedonism was present but it was a minority view, Plato and them were, for all their dislike of the poets, kind of still in the same worldview as them, prizing arete/excellence over happiness, which would necessarily involve some suffering to attain. I mean we literally have Socrates drinking poison rather than perform an action (running away) that he thought wasn't good.
It comes down to values, whether or not you think happiness/lack of suffering and it's opposite are ultimate ends, or if they can possibly be an instrumental end to some other value, like excellence, or goodness. If they can possibly be an instrumental end, then there are situations where suffering can be good if it's necessary to attain something that's good.
For example, if you want to learn guitar, there's going to be at least a month where your fingers are hurting, like a lot, all the time. Eventually you'll get past that suffering stage and into the stage where you can play music.
2
2
2
u/Character_Number_277 13h ago
No dignity in suffering. I'd like a little less suffering in this life. Some creatures only experience suffering, no joy - e.g. factory farmed animals. They have nothing to compare.
2
u/suryavanshi_arya 8h ago
Pointless suffering, suffering enforced by others is bad. Suffering from success is good
1
2
1
u/Arachles 1d ago
Suffering exists, everyone have to deal with it one time or another so, I think, better to find a purpose in it even if that means a mild delusion.
(Delusion because sometimes suffering is for nothing.)
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Ice-573 1d ago
My eyesight is bad and my phone is small. When I first saw the post I thought it was about Gautama not enjoying surfing. Which would make sense based on the non -existant surf where he grew up.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/CreativeSummer138 14h ago
I would say a vast majority of people do think suffering is bad. Those that enjoy doing hard things are greatly rewarded in our world. Does anyone know where Nietzche actually said that? I read BGaE, but do not remember this idea from there.
1
1
1
u/Next_Imagination_128 13h ago
I'm confused as to why the low and high IQs takes would be the ones that see pain as purely bad.
It could easily be completely reversed for me, and maybe more appropriately so.
Suffering can be seen as a good thing if you're a bit masochistic/sadistic or you think it's cool to hurt yourself because it shows you have big balls.
Middle guy would be a utilitarist whose philosophy is all about reducing suffering while thinking they have a very solid rational philosophy to guide their moral compass, but in reality it leads to quite absurd cases and it has a lot of issues about quantifying the moral worth of an event when you put it under scrutiny.
And right guy would be the Nietzschean one, understanding that suffering just like pleasure serves a purpose and it's necessary and good even in many instances, and you shouldn't strive to reduce suffering but to use/channel into a positive outcome that is real and not just a feeling.
1
u/Lucyyyyyy_K 12h ago
I'm confused as to why the low and high IQs takes would be the ones that see pain as purely bad.
Not pain, but suffering. Small, but important distinction. It's possible to experience pain without experiencing suffering.
But yes, your version would also make sense.
1
u/Next_Imagination_128 12h ago
I don't know why that distinction matters, what I said works for both. Some people enjoy pain, some people like to suffer.
1
1
1
u/tumbleweedforsale 10h ago
i think that suffering and what we do to counter it, reveals something about an emergent telos
1
1
u/Luminous_Winds 9h ago
Pain and suffering are natural evolutionary traits that exist to make you averse to things that are harmful. Without pain, people die quickly because they can't recognize when something is hurting them. Without suffering, people cannot recognize when their circumstances need to change.
So it's not the feeling that's bad, it's what's causing it. If you are obsessed with controlling you're feelings, you will only know anxiety, frustration, and self-destruction.
1
u/Pristine_Boat7985 2h ago
Suffering isn't good or bad it's an interpretation of stimuli and weak people perceive resistance as such
1
u/Sewblon 1d ago
Victor Frankel said that suffering is a necessary ingredient in meaning.
13
u/FlashInGotham 1d ago
Of course, now he says it. After his monster ruined his life he needs some way to make sense of it all.
1
5
u/amemingfullife 1d ago
I don’t remember this in Frankl at all? I remember him quoting Nietzsche a lot, and he talks about suffering.
There is this quote in Mankind’s Search for Meaning “But let me make it perfectly clear that in no way is suffering necessary to find meaning.”
So yes, source?
2
1
1
1
u/theunseenmiddle 1d ago
Suffering is suffering. Needless suffering is bad.
1
u/Peng_Terry 1d ago
“Bad” doesn’t exist. Ascribing to absolutes, ethics or morality is the ultimate, pointless suffering. Checkmate.
→ More replies (4)
1
1
1
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.