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.
The reason why suffering is in this world is because of sin. Ever since Adam rebelled against God sin entered into the world. That is why their are so many diseases, death, sickness, natural disasters, hunger, and many other things. God could get rid of suffering but He is waiting for the world to get corrupted and until He says he has enough of what is going on this earth. Christ is soon going to come and I as well as other Christians around the world need to be ready.
NO! you've got it all wrong. Because of your phony beliefs, there is suffering. Countries are a war because of it. Whole nations fighting each other in disgusting blood feuds because "my god is better than your god" or some shit like that. You know why sooo many people in Africa have aids. Because of the pope. He tells them God doesn't want them to use a condom, so they don't. Now the world is over populating and disease is spreading like rabbits. There is so much suffering in this world all because of it, because you people are too blinkered to take a step back, and look at what is happening in a different country. Take an interest in a different religion. you never know, you might ACTUALLY learn something. What makes you think that Jesus is coming. What makes you so sure it's YOUR God. Huh? Please give me some solid proof. I don't care if i'm going to hell in your view. I'll have a fun time. Besides. You will die, I will die and everyone else sooner or later will die, most sooner than they should because of religion, and you know what will happen? Fuck all. you'll just rot in the ground, and your atoms will be used for something else. There was a time before you were alive, and there will be a time, after you have died.
I respect your view point but I think you can take it down a notch while still getting your point across. You're coming off very upset.
The pope is the leader for the Catholic church. Not all Christians follow him. There's a lot of rape, famine, as well etc in Africa. Not just the lack of condoms. Back in the day When people started to come to Africa to steal their resources many of the foreigners used God, racial segregation to control them and when the resources left disappeared in some parts of Africa the foreigners decided to go back to their home country.
You say that because of Christianity suffering is in the world? There was suffering before Christianity was ever formed. I don't think that Christianity is the problem. I think it's human error and the thirst for power. I'll ask you another question. If Christianity disappeared from the world would suffering stop?
No, i suppose in some aspects you are right. now sir, i hate to sound like a pessimistic anti humanitarian, but the world, would be a much happier place with out humanity. If you look at other animals, they are completely different to us. Of course, they hunt and kill. But we, on a much larger scale. There are far too few words i know to describe what humanity means, but i am sure if i ever find the right word, it will be a negative.
He is not just saying it's Christianity, it's all religion. I myself am atheist, so I don't believe in any kind of God or gods. But he's right. Religion has been a huge cause of suffering in the world. Look back at the Dark Ages when faith was the leading authority in the world. Many had died in the name of God, and many countries suffer because of the religions. In Nigeria, the country remains divided because Christian and the Muslim followers are killing each other because they don't accept their religion. So mush suffering has come due to religion.
My apologies sir, but i wouldn't try. People like hum don't listen. They get in their heads what they want to hear and say, and only believe that. They od not see the other peoples point of view! Of course, you can carry on arguing by all means, but there is not much use!!!!
I'm trying to understand that's why I asked you to clarify your argument. Listening is a hard skill and people do tend to be self indulged. I'm not on either side. I just want to listen to what other's have to say about topic. Thank you for participating regardless.
Another reason there is suffering. You mentioned it! Self indulgence. People keep asking "what went wrong to humanity, how come we became so bad?" Truth is, since the very first bacterium split, humanity was doomed. We, since we became human have always been this way. Angrier, more selfish, and greedy. With out our intelligence, our species would never had survived without killing each other off and not reproducing. Of course other species have hierarchy's but none like we do! Too many people in this world are power crazed, and this will be our demise. Long before the sun breaks in on its self.
There's a lot of rape, famine, as well etc in Africa. Not just the lack of condoms.
Okay, but just because other bad stuff happens does not mean a doctrine of making it worse by disallowing condoms in these countries is then justified. It is ironically part of the bigger point you are replying to, that Christianity has a historical habbit of justifying misery through the guise of religion.
Back in the day When people started to come to Africa to steal their resources many of the foreigners used God, racial segregation to control them and when the resources left disappeared in some parts of Africa the foreigners decided to go back to their home country.
Exactly. Humans on their own have trouble justifying injustices in the pursuit of power, wealth, etc. It requires a "god" for most to feel okay perpetrating evil on others. When you take away the handy excuse that you're "bringing god" to groups of people, then suddenly exploiting them becomes more difficult and less prevalent.
You say that because of Christianity suffering is in the world? There was suffering before Christianity was ever formed.
This is a fallacy, the same fallacy you used with the condom argument. Just because there was suffering prior to Christianity does not mean Christianity does not also cause suffering. It would be like if I had a broken leg than hit my head, then you said my head could not possibly hurt because I already had a broken leg.
I don't think that Christianity is the problem. I think it's human error and the thirst for power
There are many tools people can use to obtain power. Religion, and Christianity as the most widespread and powerful religion, are just the most convenient tools and the one most often used.
If Christianity disappeared from the world would suffering stop?
No more so than if sin were to disappear earthquakes would as well (for srom's comment above). But it seems fairly evident that should Christianity and the related religions cease to exist, there would be a whole lot less suffering in the world.
Sir, what you've said is truly spectacular! I'm always posting shit like this to dunder-headed retards like the person who started this above you. Never tone yourself down.
There is solid evidence that Jesus Christ is coming back, all of the prophecies are being fulfilled and becoming true. All we need to wait for is Jesus Christ to come and rapture the Christians. Its getting really close but we don't know when it will happen.
There is solid evidence that Zeus is coming back, all of the prophecies are being fulfilled and becoming true. All we need to wait for is Zeus to come and rapture the Greeks. Its getting really close but we don't know when it will happen.
Please, let's have an educated conversation. You say that Zeus isn't real because it's part of Greek Mythology. On what grounds are you dismissing Greek Mythology as invalid? Because that's what you were told? What if I told you that your 'God' isn't real because it's just a form of thought created in ancient times to convey the masses into doing what the kind/monarch wanted?
I presume you are not lying about this part (how messed up can one be?). Good you are not a troll, but that's where the good part ends...
I am actually telling you the truth.
Delusions are not truth. If you think Jesus will come back then you are delusional.
Well I am not going to waste my time because something will happen.
If your life is based on religion and you adhere to it this strongly then you are wasting your life.
If Jesus said He was coming back He meant what He said.
He said it to you? If he ever existed it was what, some 2000 years ago? So, you are as old? Or did you take it from The Book of The Great Unicorn? There are much newer and better fantasy stories currently available, I suggest reading some of them... Actually, don't! You'll start praising that stuff as absolute truth also.
Be ready my friend.
I don't remember being your friend. There's a good reason for that... because I'm not and never have been and never will be.
You will be disappointed. He will never come back because he has never existed and if he did he is long dead by now. You do know that dead is dead, after that there is nothing? I presume you think otherwise. You want to prove me wrong, then test your idiotic belief and come back to tell me. I mean if Jesus can come back why wouldn't you?
If he did exist then in one sense he could still be around. Through the atoms and molecules his body consisted of and after his death got carried far and wide by other organisms and natural effects, like wind and water. That way you could have Jesus right up your ass this very moment. Would you like I called you Jesass? Would be appropriate if what I said is true. Don't you think?
He said it to you? If he ever existed it was what, some 2000 years ago? So, you are as old? Or did you take it from The Book of The Great Unicorn? There are much newer and better fantasy stories currently available, I suggest reading some of them... Actually, don't! You'll start praising that stuff as absolute truth also.
I took it out of the Bible. Jesus said to the disciples that He will come back.
You will be disappointed. He will never come back because he has never existed and if he did he is long dead by now. You do know that dead is dead, after that there is nothing? I presume you think otherwise. You want to prove me wrong, then test your idiotic belief and come back to tell me. I mean if Jesus can come back why wouldn't you?
Actually Jesus did exist. There was the 4 authors Matthew, Mark, Luke and John who all 4 saw Jesus Christ when He was on this earth. They both wrote about Jesus Christ and what He did on this earth, but it different styles and writing's. Also 500 people saw Jesus when He got resurrected from the dead. And all of those people were eyewitnesses who saw Jesus and you can't deny the fact that 504 people saw Him.
If you wrote a book saying that you saw John F. Kennedy got killed by a bow and arrow there would still be people who would step up and proclaim that they eyewitnesses it and they would set the record straight.
If he did exist then in one sense he could still be around. Through the atoms and molecules his body consisted of and after his death got carried far and wide by other organisms and natural effects, like wind and water. That way you could have Jesus right up your ass this very moment. Would you like I called you Jesass? Would be appropriate if what I said is true. Don't you think?
He did exist. There was actual documentations and people who saw Jesus. When it says that He rose from the grave. Also He ascended into Heaven when He left so that is why the tomb is empty.
I took it out of the Bible. Jesus said to the disciples that He will come back.
And how can you be certain what the book says is true and not a lie intended for people as credulous as yourself?
You have any proof?
Actually Jesus did exist. There was the 4 authors Matthew, Mark, Luke and John who all 4 saw Jesus Christ when He was on this earth.
Prove it.
They both wrote about Jesus Christ and what He did on this earth, but it different styles and writing's.
I, in fact, have a 20 thousand fantasy story written. It is unfinished at the moment but the point is, writing a story is very easy. How can you know they did not do just that? That they didn't just write a fantasy story?
Also 500 people saw Jesus when He got resurrected from the dead.
Again part of the story?
Prove it.
If someone is dead that person is dead, there is no coming back. Just a made up story for people as credulous as yourself.
And all of those people were eyewitnesses who saw Jesus and you can't deny the fact that 504 people saw Him.
I can deny it because none of it ever happened.
If did, prove it.
If you wrote a book saying that you saw John F. Kennedy got killed by a bow and arrow there would still be people who would step up and proclaim that they eyewitnesses it and they would set the record straight.
With this you are essentially proving yourself wrong. That is exactly what this Bible crap is - stuff that never happened but stupid people saying it did.
He did exist. There was actual documentations and people who saw Jesus.
Prove it.
When it says that He rose from the grave.
Impossible to prove. Dead is dead, no coming back to life.
Also He ascended into Heaven when He left so that is why the tomb is empty.
Again impossible. Because there is no heaven.
If heaven did exist then why would anyone need a tomb in the first place? Kinda pointless, don't you think?
I, in fact, have a 20 thousand fantasy story written.
Oh, really!?
I've been working on one myself, but I've just been working on the Fantasy Universe and Lore; not the book. Could you tell me all about it? What is your world called? Who are your characters? :D
The world currently has no name, neither do the characters, although some of them and some places do have nicknames.
It's not on Earth. There are no humans. But the place is Earth-like, if you leave aside the magical part. Could say the planet, life on it, is changing, with a slowly accelerating rate. A science/"magic" experiment gone wrong long ago, the result killed the "magic-doers" of that time, and pretty much everything that was actively affected with magic in a certain way. The place where the experiment happened, the getting there, is the goal of the story.
There is an "evil" side, a very old organization with a lot of power, and which controls most of the civilization. There was a "good" one also but they were killed, only a few survived. Of those survivors two have their mission to get to the place of the experiment (a place where getting killed is very easy).
One very important part of my story is that there are NO Gods of any kind. The "evil" guys do have their religion to keep people stupid and under control. The fact that so many books (every book I've read so far) have Gods in them annoys me shitless. Gods are BORING. The word God itself is boring.
It's all been written before in one way or another, nothing new but my own perspective.
I made a short plot, a little bit of lore, to begin writing and added, changed, and improved it while writing the story. I've still got an ending to do, after that I'm gonna leave it for a few months, do some other things (like working on my grammar, reading books, and learning words), and then start editing it.
It's a rather short one, intended as an exercise, for gaining experience.
It will be 3-5 years before I begin with an actual book. Although I've already got ideas and a bit of lore and plot created for them (very little).
From what I see, this may be the foundation of something that I hope would reach a level of awesomeness. The skeleton of the plot demonstrates a kind of originality, added with an abundance imagination. Good luck with your story! I, personally am not the best when it comes to fantasy writing, but I am always seeking new knowledge and grammar to edit my story.
In my Universe, it is slightly more of a "Dungeons and Dragons" and "Oblivion" type of fantasy. The are about 7 primary characters in the story, each with their own specialties and attributes. There are also roughly about 31 different races, the main ones including the Elves, Humans and Dwarves. The other ones were mostly made up from the top of my head, such has the Vrelak or the Dask. The name of my world has not been decided yet, but I do have a list of names...
I'm planning on making it massive, somewhat like Tolkien's Middle-Earth- but even bigger.
I like your enthusiasm about the return of our Christ. Also, you have a basic interpretation of why there's suffering in the world, but I think you need to have better grounds on explaining why there's suffering in the world. I want you to answer this question. Why did God create us if he knew we'd suffer and be in pain Christians, atheist, Muslims, just humans in general.
The reason why suffering is in this world is because of sin. Ever since Adam rebelled against God sin entered into the world.
If you made a bike, and it broke, what would you blame? The person that made the bike, or the bike itself?
Clearly, the blame falls upon the person who made the bike, as they were clumsy and unwise when building the bike.
This goes for Adam and God as well, but the catch is, God is supposed to be perfect, and not make mistakes, and what's even worse is that he decided to blame his creation, even though it was he that created it.
God gave Adam and Eve instructions to not eat from the tree. God told them about it and so they abused their free will and sinned. Adam and Eve weren't forced to do what God said. They had a choice. We aren't God's puppets.
Does it seem right or fair to you that because of the actions of Adam and Eve, some uneducated barbarian exhibitionists who lived thousands of years ago, all of humanity is cursed, from you to me to the pope to newborn babies? Even if Adam and Eve had a choice - even if god didn't see this coming - why is humanity made to suffer for their decisions? Why does your god not present each of us with our own sinful apple scenario and see what we pick before damning us as he has?
As it stands, God seems to assume that because Adam and Eve, his first human creations, were sinful all of humanity is and will always be sinful, and he condemns us accordingly. But if we are all sinful, from Adam to you and me, and we were made to be sinful, how did we have a choice in the matter of sinning? God might not have physically grabbed and forced Adam and Eve to choose sin, but he might as well have in designing them to be as curious and potentially disobedient as they were, and then placing them in a situation he knew beforehand they wouldn't be able to resist - also of his creation.
In conclusion, if your god exists he's an asshole and we're a bunch of lab rats that he's just kind of fucking with for his enjoyment.
God created the very embodiment of inconsistency. The blame should fall upon the one who made this inconsistency.
Think of the Quarians and the Geth; the council races condemned the Quarians for creating the Geth, as their AI technology went against them. You can't blame the Geth for what they had done because it was not their choice to be made.
If you made a bike, and it broke, what would you blame? The person that made the bike, or the bike itself?
You can't compare a bike to a human they're two different things. Does a bike have free will? No. Do humans do? Yes.
Clearly, the blame falls upon the person who made the bike, as they were clumsy and unwise when building the bike.
Again what I said above.
This goes for Adam and God as well, but the catch is, God is supposed to be perfect, and not make mistakes, and what's even worse is that he decided to blame his creation, even though it was he that created it.
God gave Adam and Eve specific instructions about what not to do. God gave them a warning but they were tempted and ate the fruit and rebelled against God.
You can't compare a bike to a human they're two different things. Does a bike have free will? No. Do humans do? Yes.
The bike still applies.
Adam was as unpredictable as the bike was shoddy. Both things bear relative inconsistencies where the blame befalls the creator of inconsistency. If God was wise beyond bounds, he should of known this, instead of sadistically pretending that he didn't know it would happen so he could punish him.
Blame the Creator of inconsistency, not the inconsistency. Understand?
Hm, If create a program, lets call it adam, (with various conditional statements(ie. "freewill")) have it run in some enviroment, and it preforms "badly", generating a buch of errors throughout the enviroment; is it ultimatly adam's fault or mine? Further more, if I allow these errors to occur intill they become annoying enough that I have to fix them, am I a good system admin?
Ultimatly, what is the reason for all of these errors?
Well, by definition, it will be 'Adams' fault. Define the word fault. Something is faulty. Adam is faulty. you have done nothing wrong. However this is irrelevant to our conversation. Your metaphorical sentence makes no sense. Though it says support, i did not intend this.
Adam was faulty, yes, because of his creators actions. Ultimately the blame falls on whoever made the product, not the product itself, and this is evident in all walks of life. If a restaurant messes up your order, it's the fault of the chef or the waiter, not the food.
This is sort of a broad question in a sense of indirect specification, anyhow, here we go! When assessing human behavior one must use a objective/subjective filter of observation and study its origin. People achieve emotional gratification from both ends of the spectrum, depending on the person of course (Compassion vs Callousness). Most people want to think it's possible to live in a perfect world in which everyone gets along and lives together peacefully. However, this problem has plagued man since the beginning of time. The answer to question is very simple. So long as man values power over love, we will always have suffering and violence in the world. So long as revenge triumphs forgiveness, you'll see a continuation of the wars that have been fought for centuries if not aeon's... The problem is that human behavior typically is a continuation of previous exposure. When you see abusive behavior in a household, typically this usually goes unchecked and once the children are older they themselves raise their children the way they were raised. Obviously some are able to recognize they were raised in a flawed manner but the same can't be said for the majority. So when a group of young African rebels are handed AK-47's at a young age and told to go into a village slaying anything and everything in sight. This becomes a part of who they are and how they perceive the world. If the child rejects the task they'll simply be shot in the head and the rifle will be handed to someone else. The only way to get these people who inflict suffering back to a right vs wrong perspective most competent civil beings possess. Would be a long drawn out intervention and the hopefulness of their participation. The power of perspective is THE GREATEST TOOL known to man. If you can put yourself or anyone else in the shoes of another person. They can instantly understand a plethora of complex ideas even if they've never been previously introduced. All it takes is trying to relate to these people and showing you care. Compassion and selflessness overrides all emotion. Be the change you wish to see in the world...
I most definitely agree with this statement. When you stated : "So when a group of young African rebels are handed AK-47's at a young age and told to go into a village slaying anything and everything in sight. This becomes a part of who they are and how they perceive the world. If the child rejects the task they'll simply be shot in the head and the rifle will be handed to someone else. The only way to get these people who inflict suffering back to a right vs wrong perspective most competent civil beings possess." you added a sense of morality that most people can conceive without any question. Though most people do not have the intelligence it takes to observe the things around them in a non-biased perspective, most people have the moral foundation needed to understand such a case. In a very large sense, people tend to blame one another on the things that they have done, rather than taking 100% responsibly for their actions. We live in a very grudge-holding world, and like it or not i believe religion plays a major role in most wars. In short, 809 million people have died in religious wars. That’s nearly a billion people. However that is a debate within its own. The basic conclusion would be that man feels superior to other men. They feel as if they can offer more than they already have, Which isn't the case. Once these individuals realize that we are all confused and hopeless, then maybe we can start seeing less suffering in our world. Until then, the souls of the tortured will still be unrecognized.
I love the way you presented your argument. That's why I made this a perspective argument instead of which side are you on type of thing. I left this very broad because I wanted to see where everyone stood on this issue. If I would have but barriers in the question I would have directed you into what I wanted you to say and gave a self fulfilling prophesy for myself. I've always tried to see the perspective of everyone else instead of allowing my perspective to overrule what I think about people. Each person has a story to be told no matter how small it may be and the the eyes of another you'd see a whole new world. Unfortunately some people are closed into the idea of seeing and respecting other people's view. I think this leads to arguments and disputes because they have the lack of understanding for another person and the lack of understanding will stem the root of the lack of love.
This is perhaps one of the most difficult questions that a Christian can answer, but that does not mean it is impossible. Obviously, no answer will be perfect and sometimes those answers won't settle some people's qualms, but as Matt Slick says on www.carm.org (check the references) "our lack of ability to answer the question perfectly does not mean that we cannot offer solutions". And solutions we shall offer, and there are quite a few, none of which individually provide the ultimate answer but collectively they help substantially answer this problem. I'll lay them out one by one-
God may use evil and suffering to show us, rather clearly, what is bad and what is good. In the Book of Genesis God told Adam what is wrong and yet Adam still went against His wishes. Ok, he was tricked, but tricking others is exactly what evil does- it makes it seem that what is wrong is right and sometimes visa versa. By establishing an obvious definition between right and wrong mankind has enough experience of both, in his/her lifetime, to knowledgably choose which path to take- God's or our own. So therefore we could say that one reason why evil exists is to give us enough knowledge to decide whether or not to follow God. Without that what would we base our decisions on?
We have to differentiate between moral and natural evil here. Natural evil is basically suffering, the kind of thing caused by natural diseases and natural disasters. Moral evil is a result of free will; it tends to be that which is inflicted by man unto man. For example, however evil World War 2 is it is the result of mankind and his free will, the same goes for nuclear weapons, guns etc. So, the problem is with free will. The reality is, however, that God knows the necessity for free will. Think about it- would you want to live in a world where you were FORCED to do good, FORCED to love God, FORCED to do His will? Of course not, and God doesn't want it neither. Would you want your children to be forced to do all those things? I doubt it. Therefore, free will is necessary otherwise we'd all effectively be robots with a mind only to do good. The 'doing good' bit is attractive, but God would rather have His love be proper and true rather than a falsehood.
Sometimes suffering is actually necessary and may be inflicted upon some by God in order to achieve a higher purpose and a greater good. Before you start, this does not mean God is evil. Evil by its very definition is an absence of good. If there is a greater good and a higher purpose for an act of suffering, inflicted by a morally perfect and a benevolent God, then that surely means that the act is not without good. Therefore, it isn't evil. Take for example the story in Genesis concerning Joseph who was sold into slavery by his brothers. Out of that apparent 'evil' there came a greater good- Joseph later saved Egypt and his brothers from a drought by making provisions. Joseph then said in Genesis 50:15-21, "you meant it for evil, but God meant it for good".
There may be other reasons, and yet we may never get the ultimate answer. It's a mystery as to why evil and suffering exists in the light of God, but as you can see there are good and sensible solutions. Do these offer the truth? Maybe not on their own. Perhaps if we add up everything then we will have a collective answer to this problem. However, until that day, I don't think it is wise for us to merely dismiss God because we don't 'like' what we see in the world. Not everything is black and white. What may seem wrong to us may have a better purpose.
Quite simple actually, because humans in general decide them first others next, a lot of help is withheld from those who need it. Being human means we have the choice to help each other or to help ourselves. Most choose to help themselves which usually needs others to do stuff for them increasing the amount of suffering again. Because now for a rich selfish person to have all he wants a bunch of lower class people have to make it or do it for him. Where as if he spent his money building decent homes for the poor and researching medicine, to a degree, he would keep most of his money and help hundreds if not thousands of people. Humans are why there is suffering in the world just as humans are the best hope for there to be no suffering.
Thank you very much but can you clarify your argument? What I'm getting from reading this is that suffering comes from the selfishness of human beings. What about sickness? A selfish human cannot cause someone to have cancer can they? What about being born with a defect? Mental illness? What are your views on suffering about these thing.
But is it not the Creator's fault for inventing the very fiber of inconsistency? Shouldn't he at least bear some kind of wisdom to for-tell the actions of his creations?
Africa has markets, however they are markets dominated by large companies and political strife left over from being a colony. Consider Nigerea and it's Petroleum industry. Some may consider colonies and slavery to be a violation of capitalism, but defining capitalism without moral considerations and only economic ones we come to understand that they are but results of it.
Many areas in Africa have private property rights, just not much private property. This is due to a lack of economic diversification due to a lack of leadership from goverment and large corporations. The people within such places simply are not profitable investments.
Some areas of africa may lack defense against violating personal liberty, however that doesn't neccassirly mean there is a lack of personal liberty nor does occassional violations of it mean it is lacking. Due to the lack of govermental infrastructure the people are very free in some areas, albeit with little opportunity, so long as they maintain peace amongst themselves.
It's capital and resources are more valuable exported.
Africa is underdeveloped for numerous reasons, and it isn't like capitalism doesn't develop the area due to it being restricted artficially beyound what is profitable, rather it doesn't because it naturally isn't profitable to do such. It may and often is, more profitable for them to be underdeveloped. If there wasn't a large class of unemployed, or the region wasn't underdeveloped, how much more would companies pay to harvest resources?
Africa has markets, however they are markets dominated by large companies and political strife left over from being a colony.
Of course, all countries are subject to markets in some shape or form, but none of which are close even to free markets. The freest economic African country is Mauritius at eight.
Consider Nigerea and it's Petroleum industry
Nigeria is ranked 116th freest economic country. The structural changes of less government that are necessary to develop a more vibrant private sector or achieve more broad-based growth have not emerged.
This is due to a lack of economic diversification due to a lack of leadership from goverment and large corporations.
More like due to the lack of government and the rule of law to establish property rights. For example, Nigeria was scored an 30 on property rights while Hong Kong scored an 90. Free
Some areas of africa may lack defense against violating personal liberty
The lack of personal liberty because there is a lack of voluntary exchange, and when there is a lack of voluntary exchange and production, people use violence to steal.
It's capital and resources are more valuable exported.
The only resource that Nigeria exports is oil, it only has one higher order stages of production good because individually, there is no savings and investment for other production or lower stages of production for oil.
I agree! However, I would expand this a little by saying that a large number of people think that everything thats wrong in their life is the fault of someone els and as long as people don't take responsibility for their own choices and reactions they will live in a world of unending suffering.
"No, all we have to do is call it something else and it will forever be considered something else."
So you think suffering has no objective qualities, if it isn't percieved through the senses then it cannot be accounted for, it is not a "thing in itself" to quote Kant?
Do you beleive 'things in themselves' exist, and if so, do you beleive they are knowable?
For instance, I know it is a bit cliche, but if a tree falls in the woods, do you think it makes a sound?
"Pain is another word defining another thing."
Suffering is defined as enduring pain, they are not synonymous, but it's hardly another word defining another thing.
Objective qualities only based on the definition. For instance, if we decide to change the word suffering to hoobastank, we would apply all aspects of that definition to hoobastank. There are children in africa hoobastanking from hunger and AIDS.
if it isn't percieved through the senses then it cannot be accounted for
Well, if no one sees something happening, why would we say it is? If you view a nail lodged in someone's foot as suffering, then to you they are suffering. That is not in question. However, if you just say "that man is suffering" with no reason to say he is, it is an empty word.
Do you beleive 'things in themselves' exist,
Everything is only as real as you want it to be. If there is a measurable way, we can objectively say how much it exists. If you measure suffering by how much emotional or physical distress someone is going through (which can be measured through neurological scans), then yes, suffering can exist in certain objective ways. However, no one has defined suffering in such a manner, so it makes little sense to say that suffering is anything more than a word that us humans try to apply to what we see. Like Art.
but if a tree falls in the woods, do you think it makes a sound?
Soundis a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard, or the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations.
Unless the laws of science are an illusion of some sort, yes, it makes a sound.
Suffering is defined as enduring pain
It's a bit more broad than that, but that wasn't even my point.
It is another word... that is obvious. It defines another thing. That is obvious. The things can be similar, but they are still different. It doesn't matter how related two things are, language is a system of made up symbols to represent various things that we sense. It is only as useful as its application. People like me, honestly, will purposefully misuse words and phrases to point out language's arbitrariness. Pain and suffering are related within the realm of language. but looking at them through face value all we see are two different words with two different definitions (made up of words which also have many other definitions).
Suffering only exists because we've decided to call these experiences that we find painful or displeasing as "suffering." But the use of it to describe what you go through when you listen to a pop album is no more incorrect than describing what you went through in prison. It all depends on the person, for they are the only thing keeping those words alive. But all it takes is misuse to show that there is nothing concrete or true about language. It's a way we communicate and try to put things together, but removed nothing changes. Rocks are still there, people are still missing their legs, birds are still in cages. None of it is attributed through the existence of a word.
"Objective qualities only based on the definition. For instance, if we decide to change the word suffering to hoobastank, we would apply all aspects of that definition to hoobastank. There are children in africa hoobastanking from hunger and AIDS."
Agreed, but wouldn't "hoobastank" represent the same essential state of being?
"If you view a nail lodged in someone's foot as suffering, then to you they are suffering. That is not in question. However, if you just say "that man is suffering" with no reason to say he is, it is an empty word."
Agreed.
"Everything is only as real as you want it to be."
I'm asking if you think "thing in itself" exists? It's not a trick question I'm simply curious to know what you think.
"If there is a measurable way, we can objectively say how much it exists."
This is only true of observable phenomena, not things in themselves, but I'm sure indirect methods could be used in such a way that they formed a systematic system of measurement of suffering (i.e. its objective qualities/properties), not that this would serve a purpose.
"If you measure suffering by how much emotional or physical distress someone is going through (which can be measured through neurological scans), then yes, suffering can exist in certain objective ways."
Yes exactly, I anticipated your response before reading it.
"However, no one has defined suffering in such a manner, so it makes little sense to say that suffering is anything more than a word that us humans try to apply to what we see. Like Art."
Why neglect something that so many people can attest to feeling, does that not represent the empirical evidence necessary to classify it as more than simply a word, it doesn't matter what that word is, the feeling is universally recognised in all languages and peoples that have ever existed on this planet.
I realise that you haven't disputed the fact that changing the name won;t change the feeling, I also realise that you see this as completely subjective, so my question is simple:
Given that you believe suffering to be subjective, do you think a change in name (or whatever) will change how it is perceived or felt?
"Unless the laws of science are an illusion of some sort, yes, it makes a sound."
My apologies, I forgot to include the "and nobody is around to hear it" part, surely you've heard this ancient proverb before?
Do you still believe it makes a sound with nobody there to hear it?
"It's a bit more broad than that, but that wasn't even my point."
You think that pain and suffering are different things, I think they are inseparable, because they are, when someone is in pain they are said to be suffering with something, when someone is suffering they are said to be in pain with something, the two are virtually synonymous.
"It is another word... that is obvious. It defines another thing. That is obvious."
No, it really isn't, the only reason they are not synonyms is because pain is generally reserved for physical suffering.
"It doesn't matter how related two things are, language is a system of made up symbols to represent various things that we sense."
That is exactly my point, both words are used to represent the same state of being that we sense, it is just that (in isolation) suffering has a broader classification.
"but looking at them through face value all we see are two different words with two different definitions (made up of words which also have many other definitions)."
If the language is taken as literally as we are taking in this discussion, then the only difference between the two is that the definition of pain is slightly narrower than that of suffering, they describe exactly the same state.
"Suffering only exists because we've decided to call these experiences that we find painful or displeasing as "suffering."
That's also why its definition is broader
"But all it takes is misuse to show that there is nothing concrete or true about language."
Agreed.
"Rocks are still there, people are still missing their legs, birds are still in cages. None of it is attributed through the existence of a word."
I think you're giving words too little credit, but I agree that (objectively) that is the case, and that is the only way to interpret it.
but wouldn't "hoobastank" represent the same essential state of being?
As much as people want it to.
"thing in itself"
Not really. Unless there's a very specific definition of the object that can be measured, there's no reason to believe that it truly exists beyond personal interpretation.
This is only true of observable phenomena, not things in themselves
Well, that would make "things in themselves" unscientific if this is the case.
Why neglect something that so many people can attest to feeling, does that not represent the empirical evidence necessary to classify it as more than simply a word
No, because then I would have to say that God and Spirits are also supported by empirical evidence. I require more than just a "feeling." That's faith based; not how I do my thinking.
Who knows, faith may be superior to my way of thinking, but I can't, currently, see how.
do you think a change in name (or whatever) will change how it is perceived or felt?
Back to Psychology, absolutely. If you change the word to something silly, people are going to treat it differently. Really, they'll stop using the word if it doesn't match a certain feeling well enough, rendering it obsolete. People will either use other words (like pain or misery) or just not try to describe it all. Look at how NewSpeak works.
Do you still believe it makes a sound with nobody there to hear it?
Yes, sound is made of waves. Now, in order for the sound to be audible, one must be there to interpret it. It really comes down to whether you believe sounds must be heard or not, but according to that link, a listener isn't required for sound waves to exist.
You think that pain and suffering are different things, I think they are inseparable
Inseparable? Yes, you did miss my point.
As stated, they are two different words with two different definitions. They have similarities, that doesn't matter. At face value, they are two different symbols with different connections. Like DNA that is similar to others but still not the same thing.
"Not really. Unless there's a very specific definition of the object that can be measured, there's no reason to believe that it truly exists beyond personal interpretation."
Of course not, but I wouldn't simply dismiss it either, otherwise you are negating what little receptivity you have for such things/feelings/etc., many aspects of our personal experience could be defined as such (i.e. not measurable, indeterminate, etc.), but that does not mean one should simply dismiss them just because we currently don't have the language or scientific methodology necessary to understand them. I believe fully only in what is measurable, in what is objectively verifiable, in this sense I am a rationalist, but I am not a reductionist, or even a logical positivist. Not that these positions are not rational or logical, in fact one might argue they are even more rational and logical than my own. They definintely leave less room for error.
"Well, that would make "things in themselves" unscientific if this is the case."
I know, that's the whole point.
"No, because then I would have to say that God and Spirits are also supported by empirical evidence."
Yes, but everyone suffers, can you not see that? If everyone saw/experienced God and Spirits, would that not validate their existence to some degree? Unless you think you have never suffered, and therefore can't take another persons word for it. Or because you have nevered suffered quite like them (due to its subjectivity) and therefore cannot say whether they are suffering or not.
What you're saying is that something that happens or is experienced by everyone has no objective qualities simply because everyone has their own interpretation of how it affects them.
"I require more than just a "feeling." That's faith based; not how I do my thinking."
No it is not faith based, suffering is a broad term, are you really saying that something like a pain in someones stomach is a purely subjective and faith based phenomena, and the only way you will believe it exists is if some doctor shoves an endoscope down that persons throat to reveal an excess build up of acid? If someone says something about their pain, there is a certain amount of objectivity in it, that is why doctors take patients seriously.
Your's seems to me a highly unsatisfactory way of thinking, you seem to need 100% certainty before you will take anything seriously at all, while that is a very safe way to think and act, it seems too narrow minded to me, aren't you worried that your thinking may forever remain in the realm of an infantile tautology?
I prefer to try to keep my awareness as heigtened as it can be, I try to cast my net as far and wide as I am capable of casting it. If I see something I cannot explain with reason, I will not beleive it, but I will not dismiss it either.
"Who knows, faith may be superior to my way of thinking, but I can't, currently, see how."
Neither can I, that's why my thinking is not faith based.
"Back to Psychology, absolutely. If you change the word to something silly, people are going to treat it differently."
Yes, but only up to a point, if someone has the flesh-eating disease you can call it whatever stupid name you want, it isn't going to greatly alter the feeling of someone having their insides eaten.
"Really, they'll stop using the word if it doesn't match a certain feeling well enough, rendering it obsolete."
I agree, however that isn't what you have been asserting up to this, you been saying that changing the word will change the state or how it is perceived.
"People will either use other words (like pain or misery) or just not try to describe it all. Look at how NewSpeak works."
Again, i completely agree, but that isn't quite what you were saying up to this point, although I can see how it relates to your last post, you really should have been explicit about this though.
"Yes, sound is made of waves. Now, in order for the sound to be audible, one must be there to interpret it. It really comes down to whether you believe sounds must be heard or not, but according to that link, a listener isn't required for sound waves to exist."
This is getting into Taoist philosophy, and the idea that there is no world without conscious organisms (such as ourselves) to experience it, you may think it still exists, but really, without anything or anyone there to perceive it, how can it be said that it exists?
I obviously don't believe it doesn't exist, but I think it is important to realise how important our observation and reflection are to the animation of existence, everything proceeded unconsciously before animals evolved consciousness, and for all intents and purposes, did not exist, at least not in a meaningful (i.e. self-concious) sense.
"As stated, they are two different words with two different definitions."
One is defined in terms of the other, it is sub-category of it, pain is physical suffering. Pain in the broad sense of the word is exactly equivalent to suffering, i.e. synonymous
"They have similarities, that doesn't matter. At face value, they are two different symbols with different connections. Like DNA that is similar to others but still not the same thing."
Fair enough, they can be differentiated, but only if someone specifically and explicitly refers to pain (i.e. physical) and mental suffering (i.e. mental), but they are effectively synonymous, as one definition encompasses the other. But fair enough, I take your point.
but that does not mean one should simply dismiss them just because we currently don't have the language or scientific methodology necessary to understand them.
Possibly. But that doesn't mean that I have to acknowledge that it exists, if it even does.
Not that these positions are not rational or logical, in fact one might argue they are even more rational and logical than my own. They definintely leave less room for error.
It's not about saying that anything beyond measurement or provability doesn't, without a doubt, exist. It's just about eliminating a notion that something DOES exist without objective, verifiable evidence. Maybe it does, but that is up to opinions of the individuals, not an acceptable fact.
Yes, but everyone suffers, can you not see that?
Used so broadly, sure. But we can apply that to anything, thus rendering the terminology useless except for aesthetic appeal in reflecting the pains and angst of humanity.
If everyone saw/experienced God and Spirits, would that not validate their existence to some degree?
Most people experience God and Spirits. I can not speak for all humans on how much they feel God or suffering, but neither can you.
This is why I require more.
What you're saying is that something that happens or is experienced by everyone has no objective qualities simply because everyone has their own interpretation of how it affects them.
If there are any objective qualities, the only things that are objective are the objective qualities.
Like with eroticism. Some qualities of eroticism are objective, like a physical erection or secretions from the vagina, but things like "love" and BDSM are subjective, and thus only interpretative to an individual level, holding no objective value. Eroticism is subjective, like suffering.
are you really saying that something like a pain in someones stomach is a purely subjective and faith based phenomena
No, but people going through PTSD would say that stomach pains isn't REAL suffering. To an individual level, they're right. At an objective level, it doesn't matter.
If someone says something about their pain, there is a certain amount of objectivity in it, that is why doctors take patients seriously.
Yes, the very specific characteristics that cause the pain, such as nausea that can be treated, or a flu, or a parasite. Those things are real and observable in some way. The simple state of being, be it suffering, is an individual matter. Some don't believe it is suffering, others believe it is. Neither are right nor wrong, for it is a subjective term.
aren't you worried that your thinking may forever remain in the realm of an infantile tautology?
Nope.
I prefer to try to keep my awareness as heigtened as it can be, I try to cast my net as far and wide as I am capable of casting it. If I see something I cannot explain with reason, I will not beleive it, but I will not dismiss it either.
Me too.
if someone has the flesh-eating disease you can call it whatever stupid name you want, it isn't going to greatly alter the feeling of someone having their insides eaten.
Yes, a physical feeling. Suffering is more broad than that. And interpretative, at an individual level.
I agree, however that isn't what you have been asserting up to this, you been saying that changing the word will change the state or how it is perceived.
Not exactly, but that isn't far from the truth, either. The Psychology of words is much stronger than you think. but I was just speaking on the word itself. There is no objective way to view suffering, so the word suffering is limited mostly to its definition and interpretation.
but that isn't quite what you were saying up to this point, although I can see how it relates to your last post, you really should have been explicit about this though.
Maybe you just jumped to conclusions.
I'll skip the Taoist stuff. I don't care about it, and you said you don't believe it, so we're just wasting time with that one.
Pain in the broad sense of the word is exactly equivalent to suffering, i.e. synonymous
Synonyms don't have to be "exactly equivalent." The term synonym was created to explain altered ways of trying to get an idea across to someone. As in, you can either say "It's chilly," or you can say "it's a bit cold." Cold is not the same as chilly, yet the terms are synonymous. However, cold can be a measurable term in the absence of heat. Chilly, on the other hand, is a subjective feeling. Same with suffering and pain.
But that is hardly my point. Words are symbols, much like DNA. Human DNA can all be called the "same thing," but looking at the DNA at face value we will see how different DNA strands are... different. Words can be similar in their definition or even spelling (depending on how you wish to compare them), but they are not the same. They ARE different, for various reasons. If aliens viewed all animals as the same thing, we'd be a bit upset. Hell, we don't like being compared to relatives, let alone other animals. The subtle differences, at face value, prove how everything is separate from the other. Either that, or everything is exactly the same, for you can find comparisons with everything.
Read Derrida for more insight on the issues with Structuralism in language.
What I mean is, I am amazed you think changing the word can completely change perception. Admittedly, I agree that if a certain word doesn't match a feeling, that word will be discarded, I suppose what I'm really arguing is just how much a given word affects a feeling. You seem to think it can completely change it, well, up to a point anyway - whereupon that word ceases to be considered useful in describing the feeling.
I think you've overestimated just how much a word can alter a persons state of being, but of course this is just my opinion - there is no way to measure this.
"Possibly. But that doesn't mean that I have to acknowledge that it exists, if it even does."
It depends on what you're talking about.
"It's just about eliminating a notion that something DOES exist without objective, verifiable evidence.Maybe it does, but that is up to opinions of the individuals, not an acceptable fact."
Agreed.
"Used so broadly, sure.But we can apply that to anything, thus rendering the terminology useless except for aesthetic appeal in reflecting the pains and angst of humanity."
I agree, individual instances are impossible to determine accurately due to their subjectivity, therefore, labeling suffering objective in that sense would be equivalent to labeling happiness itself objective because everyone feels happy at some point, but I still would not revert to believing the state itself can literally be changed just by changing the word, although I do agree it could be altered, depending on the case.
"Most people experience God and Spirits."
No they don't.
"I can not speak for all humans on how much they feel God or suffering, but neither can you.
This is why I require more."
Can we both agree that if you randomly went out with a questionnaire asking whether anyone has ever "felt god" or "felt suffering" the answers would reflect the point I'm making?
Surely even you can recognise that the existence of suffering has more credibility than that of "God" or "spirits."
"If there are any objective qualities, the only things that are objective are the objective qualities."
But even observable phenomena can rarely be measured directly, but dyou still believe they exist objectively, don't you? Or would you say only the objective qualities of these phenomena are objective?
"Like with eroticism. Some qualities of eroticism are objective, like a physical erection or secretions from the vagina, but things like "love" and BDSM are subjective, and thus only interpretative to an individual level, holding no objective value. Eroticism is subjective, like suffering."
Not really, a pain in ones stomach can be considered to be fairly objective, but the loss of a loved one is subjective, it depends on the case. As I said, if suffering was completely subjective, then doctors wouldn't take patients seriously.
"No, but people going through PTSD would say that stomach pains isn't REAL suffering"
So?
"To an individual level, they're right. At an objective level, it doesn't matter."
At an individual level they may be right, but PTSD can't be measured, the causes of stomach pain can.
"Yes, the very specific characteristics that cause the pain, such as nausea that can be treated, or a flu, or a parasite. "
Exactly, no phenomena can be measured directly, therefore, do you believe no phenomena exist objectively? After all, everyone experiences existence differently, and phenomena can only be measured in terms of certain objective properties/characteristics.
"The simple state of being, be it suffering, is an individual matter. Some don't believe it is suffering, others believe it is. Neither are right nor wrong, for it is a subjective term"
I will be the first to admit that suffering is more subjective than most phenomena, but like most things in life, it isn't either/or, i.e. completely subjective/objective
"aren't you worried that your thinking may forever remain in the realm of an infantile tautology?
Nope."
Fair enough.
"Not exactly, but that isn't far from the truth, either. The Psychology of words is much stronger than you think. "
I think we're more in agreement than you realize, but you definitely seem put more weight on words than I would. Then again, you're the psychology student here, my disagreement could easily be construed as arrogance.
"Yes, a physical feeling. Suffering is more broad than that. And interpretative, at an individual level."
I suppose you're right.
"There is no objective way to view suffering"
I wouldn't go that far.
"Maybe you just jumped to conclusions."
I don't believe so, you clearly made statements indicating that a change in name is accompanied by a change in feeling, as if changing the name "pain" to "happiness" and anytime anyone experiences what we now call pain -they will want to commit self harm or mutilation, that is what I disagreed with.
"Synonyms don't have to be "exactly equivalent." The term synonym was created to explain altered ways of trying to get an idea across to someone. As in, you can either say "It's chilly," or you can say "it's a bit cold." Cold is not the same as chilly, yet the terms are synonymous. However, cold can be a measurable term in the absence of heat. Chilly, on the other hand, is a subjective feeling. Same with suffering and pain."
Of course not, there would be very little need for them if they were all exactly equivalent, aside from sheer novelty of course, which I believe is important (and so did Oscar Wilde), but you must admit it still isn;t quite right to call it another word for another thing, as if the word "pain" has no more relation to suffering than the word "orange".
"Words can be similar in their definition or even spelling (depending on how you wish to compare them), but they are not the same."
Agreed, just by virtue of the fact that it is not the same word it will find uses in other contexts.
"Hell, we don't like being compared to relatives, let alone other animals. The subtle differences, at face value, prove how everything is separate from the other. Either that, or everything is exactly the same, for you can find comparisons with everything"
Agreed, the point I'm getting at is that somethings are more related to one another than others.
I think ideas, concepts, and systems of ideology in general, that are largely decimated via the use of language (both written and oral), have a much more significant effect on how people perceive themselves, granted, you can attribute a certain importance to the words themselves, but the words are not decisive in shaping an individuals psychology. The words are merely a means to an end, it is the images, concepts, and ideas, created and transmitted via the use of words (and language), that are the real determinants (IMHO).
This is certainly the case with suffering, a perfect example of this is the "Imitation of God" (imitatio Christi) which most monotheistic faiths have supported in one form or another. Particularly the catholic church - this has a massive impact on a person, it forces them to imitate Christ, it tells people redemption can only be attained through suffering, so they view life as a struggle, and then everything becomes a struggle.
However, with physical pain I still believe ideology has a very insignificant/limited role, physical suffering is largely an objective phenomenon but I will conceed other varieties are much less objective, again though, I get the distinct feeling that you wish to label things true or false, 100% or 0%, and I do not agree with that. Nothing in the existence is "true" or "false", there is no such thing as pure objectivity, not even the fundamental axioms of mathematics are not purely objective.
"Read Derrida for more insight on the issues with Structuralism in language."
Ah yes, the post modernists/reconstructionists, it will be a long while yet before I reach them, I have done some study into some of their theories, but I am largely ignorant of most of "it". I am also highly sceptical of it, but I will reserve judgement until I get a chance to thoroughly research Derrida, or Foucalt, or another prominent reconstructionist thinker.
I am amazed you think changing the word can completely change perception.
I never said that... but as I've stated, I agree that it does alter perception. But that is just how our brains work...
It seems that the first half of your argument was based on this misunderstanding...
But even observable phenomena can rarely be measured directly, but dyou still believe they exist objectively, don't you? Or would you say only the objective qualities of these phenomena are objective?
No, they're just the only things that are objective. Not the category they're placed in.
a pain in ones stomach can be considered to be fairly objective, but the loss of a loved one is subjective, it depends on the case. As I said, if suffering was completely subjective, then doctors wouldn't take patients seriously.
You're playing around with the idea that a state of mental being is played around with as "sort of objective" or "sort of subjective." Whether you want to go that route or not, that is hardly the point. The point is that the only things that are objective about stomach pains is the actual stomach pains. some consider it suffering, others don't.
but PTSD can't be measured, the causes of stomach pain can.
PTSD is categorical, stomach pains are physically determined. Whether they're suffering or not is subjective.
no phenomena can be measured directly, therefore, do you believe no phenomena exist objectively?
No. You're acting like suffering would be measurable if we could measure it when someone is claiming it... but that's not how it works. You can measure the level of pain being shot into someone's nervous system if you can catch it in the act, but whether it's suffering is up to the individual, not the measurement. You know it's pain, and you may even know the cause of it, but whether it's suffering or not is purely subjective.
you clearly made statements indicating that a change in name is accompanied by a change in feeling
It can be.
as if changing the name "pain" to "happiness" and anytime anyone experiences what we now call pain -they will want to commit self harm or mutilation, that is what I disagreed with.
Disagreed with something I did not say.
You jumped to conclusions.
there is no such thing as pure objectivity, not even the fundamental axioms of mathematics are not purely objective.
That hardly matters in this argument. We might as well say "nothing is 100%, so really, why suggest that suffering CAN'T be the same as happiness?"
Once again, twood help you much to read Derrida, especially since you like to say stuff like that.
"No, they're just the only things that are objective. Not the category they're placed in."
So you agree that essence of objective phenomena is as unknowable as any subjective phenomena, i.e. the only thing that can be known of their essential character is that it is beyond the capacity of the human intellect to interpret
"The point is that the only things that are objective about stomach pains is the actual stomach pains. some consider it suffering, others don't. "
I'm simply saying is that the phenomenological categories "subjective" and "objective" are not always distinct in every sense of the word. admittedly lines need to be drawn, my dispute with you is on where exactly those lines should be drawn.
"PTSD is categorical, stomach pains are physically determined. Whether they're suffering or not is subjective. "
Why do you make such a clear cut distinction between mind and matter, do you not believe that one can influence the other?
"but that's not how it works. You can measure the level of pain being shot into someone's nervous system if you can catch it in the act, but whether it's suffering is up to the individual, not the measurement. You know it's pain, and you may even know the cause of it, but whether it's suffering or not is purely subjective."
I mostly agree, but I wouldn't be so flippant as to label suffering "purely subjective."
"It can be."
I already agreed, but the extent of that change is not significant and has severe limitations.
"Disagreed with something I did not say.
You jumped to conclusions. "
Maybe so, but based on what you had said I don't think they were ridiculous conclusions to jump to.
"Once again, twood help you much to read Derrida, especially since you like to say stuff like that."
Although the topic is somewhat related to "postmodernist" thinking, I don't believe I need to read Derrida in order to justify my position, in fact, I think reading him would probably only muddy my views in this regard, and possibly make me more uncertain of my position.
On the whole, the reconstructionists are not generally regarded as intellectually upright or worthy of respect, particularly people like Derrida, as I said, I will refrain from judgement until I check them out properly for myself.
So you agree that essence of objective phenomena is as unknowable as any subjective phenomena
Where did you get that from?
the only thing that can be known of their essential character is that it is beyond the capacity of the human intellect to interpret
To make that conclusion you require that same human intellect.
If something is unknowable, it's irrelevant.
Why do you make such a clear cut distinction between mind and matter, do you not believe that one can influence the other?
Mind is made of matter.
I don't believe I need to read Derrida in order to justify my position, in fact, I think reading him would probably only muddy my views in this regard, and possibly make me more uncertain of my position.
That's the point. The stuff you were saying made it seem that you are very unaware of what you're actually saying. Derrida can help show you why I contested your statement on something not being fully objective or subjective. How you speak is very similar to someone who might have only read 10% of Derrida's work but refused to read what Derrida had to say about binaries and language barriers. Removal of binaries (either objective or subjective) is truth, but it is also showing that objective and subjective do not even exist. As long as we use the terms, we are accepting them as different. If we go into Quantum Theory with language, an arbitrary mass of symbolism, we are basically saying "everything we discuss from this point won't matter."
Because it's extremely improbable that every creature that can feel pain never be put into an adverse situation due to the endless dislikes. In fact, it seems as if because we are so diversified that it's highly likely suffering will continue as a common occurrence.
Close. If everything was the same, there would be no suffering.
Or an alternative answer, if every creature able to feel pain or displeasure were in consensus of what caused them pain or displeasure, provided that thing could be changed or erased, then there would be no suffering.
Religion is a HUGE cause of division, and hate in the world and THAT is a fact. With Christianity, if you're homosexual, atheist, or believe in another religion, then they will go against you.
Different cultures, and ideology are also a reason.
But the main reason in my opinion is because we as a species, are naturally selfish, greedy, and corrupt. All of us mean to help each other, but there are so many things in our life styles such as different religions, ideals, cultures, government, and languages that divide us and make us hate one another.
There is suffering in the world because suffering is the main motivation to survive and reproduce. If animals did not suffer, they would quickly starve because they don't feel hunger, or accidentally break their body beyond repair because they can't feel pain. Suffering forces animals to make an effort to survive, as the key to survival is to avoid suffering.
