CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
...But a lot of things that cause suffering also do kill you.
I mean, even the state of suffering is hazardous to your health - those with sufficient stress over long periods in their lives have shortened lifespans.
Unless you fall into the negative feedback loop of depression.
Or what if your state of living confines you to thinking about the day-to-day stuff, living in the moment, and making you a prisoner of your own horizon? We see this in countries rife with poverty, corruption and war - not only are those problems hard to overcome, but it becomes even harder when each person in the system only cares about maintaining their own life: what they will eat tomorrow and how they'll keep from getting shot in the face instead of how they can address the overarching problems, or how they can get to the moon, or whether they can invent a new thing.
tl:dr Collective suffering self-reinforces and prevents good things from happening.
People who don't know pain are pretty much stuck up assholes, so yes in some degree suffering makes you a better person. Everyone suffers in some shape or form even if it is small.
Or it makes you weaker or breaks you or causes you to lose your faith in the future. On what grounds do you assert that it "usually" makes you any particular way?
It seems like you are saying that suffering will make you more adapted to tolerate and avoid suffering in the future. But this isn't saying that suffering is a good thing.
But what you are saying seems to imply that suffering is a bad thing. Suffering makes you a better person why? Does it make you a better person because you have a greater understanding of how to prevent suffering from yourself and others?
Suffering may teach you how to avoid suffering, but that doesn't make suffering good. The ability to learn is good thing, obviously, your capacity to analyse situations that lead to suffering is good. I agree so far. But I don't think this amounts to a case that suffering is a good thing. It only amounts to saying that learning from suffering is a good thing.
For some people, yes, it does that. Other people become hardened, cruel, hateful, violent, jaded, cynical, and despise life. Suffering does not elicit the same positive effect every time.
Suffering does not elicit the same positive effect every time.
not everything must come by right to your face. one should try and see the positive effects of the after-suffering period.
although not everybody can do that. but those who do, suffering actually does a lot of good to them.
and most people, who become far worse, probably can get out of the phase if they try to do so. i'm not saying that always happens, but if and when it does, it does bring out the best in them.
Not everybody can do that. & i'm not saying that always happens
Precisely. You effectively just restated my argument against yourself. Not a very good disputation of my argument that while suffering can make a person better it does not always do so. If suffering is a mixed bag it is not a good thing. It is a neutral factor that can cause both good and bad.
Also, the way you write implies free will and choice in recovery and coping. Even if free will actually existed... There are clearly documented limits to human tolerance for suffering. There is clinical evidence of depression negatively affecting the human capacity for positive thinking, optimism, and self care. I could go on, but I think my point is clear enough.
You effectively just restated my argument against yourself. Not a very good disputation of my argument that while suffering can make a person better it does not always do so.
there are always two sides of a debate. there are some things i agree to and accept them. that does not make the other side of the debate fully acceptable.
If suffering is a mixed bag it is not a good thing. It is a neutral factor that can cause both good and bad.
isn't every other thing in the universe exactly that? having both good and bad effects?
There are clearly documented limits to human tolerance for suffering.
we'd like to see this.
There is clinical evidence of depression negatively affecting the human capacity for positive thinking, optimism, and self care
what i'm saying is clearly being missed here.
i've been trying to point out that depression and other such factors are a part of suffering.
when a person does overcome these, with help or without, they see a much better world. and become much better people. for they know now, how what they've gone through might only be a fraction of what most other people go through everyday.
these are people who bring the good in the society.
there are always two sides of a debate. there are some things i agree to and accept them. that does not make the other side of the debate fully acceptable. & isn't every other thing in the universe exactly that? having both good and bad effects?
I think you are missing my point. Suffering is a good thing" is an absolute statement. A partial negation (i.e. suffering is not always good) forces negation in a debate when affirmation require the defense of an absolute. That's why I negated. I think we might actually be largely agreeing here... just disagreeing on where that puts us on the debate frame.
we'd like to see this.
What came to mind when I was writing that were primarily documentations on torture breaking people and bullying and/or sever depression prompting suicide. I feel like I have read this in studies as well as in news events, but titles escape me at the moment. Remind me again later if you really want them though and I will look through my resources index on old papers and stuff to see what I can turn up...
what i'm saying is clearly being missed here. i've been trying to point out that depression and other such factors are a part of suffering. when a person does overcome these, with help or without, they see a much better world. and become much better people.
No, not really. I know that depression is a form of suffering. I have lived with severe and chronic depression for years. It has made me stronger in a lot of ways, it has also cost me years of my life that I will never get back and I missed a lot of opportunities because of it.
My point is that people cannot always overcome suffering, and that not being able to do so is not a choice or a lack of will... it's having reached the limits of their endurance. I know I'm probably splitting hairs but it really bothers me when I run into implications that people who fail to pull through their suffering just did not try hard enough and that any suffering can be good. Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it sucks. Sometimes it destroys people. Sometimes it kills them. I do not believe that suffering can always be good. Because, in fact, it is not always good.
agreed. you can be a good person, without going through all the suffering, but you will definitely become a better person after you suffer, however small it may be.
you will never see the value water, unless you actually die of thirst. there's some saying of that sort. i forgot. but you get the point.
agreed. you can be a good person, without going through all the suffering, but you will definitely become a better person after you suffer, however small it may be.
I have seen this to be not true as well. Some people become mean after they have been suffering for so long.
Some people become mean after they have been suffering for so long.
even these people will see the bright side, when they have overcome suffering. people who are mean, and bitter are still in the suffering-phase. (i don't know what else they call it )
It is not an inheirently good or bad thing. I believe that my past struggles have helped define who i am today, better or worse, but that does not justify inflicting unnessicary suffering of people in the name of personal growth. It is dependant on the situation, but generally i like to believe that things work out for the best.
These individuals are extremely prone to injury, infection, and disease because of it; pain is how our body lets us know we are injured. Plus, they can never fully enjoy being a switch or a sub, which is lamentable.
So are you saying that it would be better if when very harmful things are happening to us, it should only cause us slight pain, or the signals should be easier to ignore?
So are you saying that it would be better if when very harmful things are happening to us, it should only cause us slight pain, or the signals should be easier to ignore?
Yes, pleasure is a better feeling than pain. When people get injured they either didn't deserve to be injured, so suffering is unfair, or they intentionally did it to themselves, so they did get some pleasure out of it. So, suffering does not help in this situation. Plus, isn't pain different than suffering. Suffering is excessive.
themselves, so they did get some pleasure out of it. So,
suffering does not help in this situation.
Interesting inference. I think it would be better if that which is harmful were always painful, and that which is helpful was always pleasurable.
If by definition, suffering is excessive pain than I will agree that suffering is bad. If someone derives pleasure from that which is truly harmful, then this kind of pleasure is bad. If suffering prevents us from ignoring harmful events, then suffering is good.
Interesting inference. I think it would be better if that which is harmful were always painful, and that which is helpful was always pleasurable.
Yep, that would be much better, but impossible.
If by definition, suffering is excessive pain than I will agree that suffering is bad. If someone derives pleasure from that which is truly harmful, then this kind of pleasure is bad. If suffering prevents us from ignoring harmful events, then suffering is good.
Unless the only reason the event was harmful was because of the suffering.
Things are harmful before they ever cause pain/suffering. It would require a lot to cause suffering before something was found to be harmful. Maybe like a brain chemistry change that cause you to feel immense anxiety when you know you are doing something harmful. I don't see that as possible.
You mean like when the effort required to think rigorously is a source of suffering?
No, like torture. Torture is bad because suffering exists. If torturing someone caused pleasure, then there would be no reason for people who haven't been tortured to feel suffering to remember that torture happens.
Okay good. Some people think they are. I pray, speak, rant, and otherwise communicate with God. I don't think I am good enough to claim a religious label, but I am mostly Judeo-Christian.
I believe in the Bible and stuff, but I believe what is right for me. Sometimes I am like "WTF, God". I mean the whole problem of evil thing still makes me mad.
So you pick and choose which parts of the Bible you believe? And if you believe the Bible, then you believe a religious text... so the fact that you believe the Bible (I'm assuming both OT and NT) would make you a Christian. So you're a Christian who hates religions?
Hell, damnation and the end of times... all of those have their roots in religion (besides maybe "end of times"). Hell and damnation are particularly religious terms. So... religion seems to be a big part of your life, yet you hate it?
Ah someone else who prays! Do you ever write down anything THE HOLY LORD tells you?
I just prayed to god and he said he was going to make you a special kind of prophet! He wants to use you to teach others to pray right here on createdebate!
He said in his scary voice that if you keep refusing to deliver his messages, that he was going to leave you to yourself for even longer this time.
Well that depends on how you perceive suffering. Someone may see suffering as proof of existence or proof of resilience.
Suffering:
1. The condition of one who suffers; the bearing of pain or distress.
2. An instance of pain or distress.
This definition does not provide any negative connotations and thus allows interpretation and perspective to decide what it is deemed as for the individual.
Well suffering doesn't feel good and it can only be seen as good if the suffering didn't have much of an affect on your emotional state of mind in which case it can be seen as bad, it can be equally good and bad depending on how traumatising the suffering was. Since some people who have gone through traumatic suffering or just suffering can develop such things likes depression and nightmares etc, again depending on the event that caused the suffering.
it can only be seen as good if the suffering didn't have much of an affect on your emotional state of mind
First, Vermink, might I say that you have typed up a very good argument. Secondly, I seem to be having trouble agreeing with this portion of your argument. My example comes from a myth. Have you ever heard of the "Myth of Sisyphus"? Sisyphus was doomed by the greek gods to push a boulder up a hill for eternety and the boulder will always fall back down. However he is known as the absurd hero. His suffering is extreme, but he is happy because he controls his fate and he forever knows that his suffering proves he is worthy of existence.
By going off of that I can only slightly disagree with this portion of your argument. However you are right that perspective is the biggest dactor in this all. I just don't think we can objectively set a scale for suffering yet.
Yeah, suffering as we experience it is very subjective and qualitative. I'm not really sure it can even be effectively lumped into "good" or "bad" in any meaningful or useful way: it's a very situationally dependent state.
...Actually it can be made quantitative with brain scans, but for wide-scale applications that's currently impractical.
Suffering is an inherent reality to life. It is neither inherently good or bad; it just is. The notion that "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is a naive and romanticized obfuscation.
Masochism falls on a fine semantic line here, and arguably suffering and pleasure can be held in duality together.
However, that matter really is not all that important to my overall argument. I estimate the relative goodness and badness of a thing largely based upon its consequence. Suffering could plausibly be a good thing if it causes someone to find compassion, to discover new inner confidence or strength, and so forth.
It's true that one can suffer and enjoy it. However, it would have to be bad for them to truly be suffering. It's not just a semantic point, in my opinion, but an important philosophical one. You won't get much argument from me on your utilitarian-style views, though I'd like to point out that it can be very difficult to actually account for the consequences that aren't obvious; the process is a messy one. I also wouldn't dispute the claim that suffering can plausibly lead to good things, but the best-case scenario is one in which there isn't the suffering in the first place, and those good things can be led to through good means.
I disagree. I believe that suffering and pleasure can be held in duality, and that they are not mutually exclusive. I think we get lost in semantics at the point where we clearly understand what constitutes suffering differently.
I naturally realize that utilitarianism is constricted by the inability for complete accurate prediction of outcomes, even post-event. Deductions are made based upon reasonable probability and knowledge at the time. It is an imperfect means of analysis and decision making, but in my opinion less fallible than any other model I have learned about.
I also disagree that the best base scenario removes all suffering. Suffering is inherent to the human condition; the ideal is not to seek to eliminate it but to integrate it into our lives in a healthful manner.
Suffering may be useful but that doesn't mean that it's good in and off itself. We can conceive that something is harmful without having to rely on suffering, so from this perspective suffering isn't so good either.
I don't have to go hungry to know that starvation is bad. Likewise, one doesn't have to suffer to know that suffering is bad theoretically. In a Platonic sense, there could be a world in which suffering is an alien concept and all that is known is pleasure. In the current world we live in, I would concede that suffering may be an unfortunate necessity.
I can easily say that struggle makes people stronger, appreciate life more, be a more caring person. Instead I say screw that, give me money and a cushy life anyday.
Suffering is neither, it all depends on the situation, and a variety of factors. Suffering is a natural part of existence as a sentient being, we feel pain and pleasure, they come with that attribute. They both have their reasons, pain alerts us to what is bad, pleasure alerts us to what is good, pain is generally perceived as bad because we don't like it, however we do benefit from the capacity for it in the long run. I think the question isn't if suffering is a good or bad thing, but what we should do about suffering.
