Wikipedia will tell you that it is pain and unpleasantness. But that is too shallow. That isn't true suffering. To me, suffering is when thoughts start causing physical pain. When the prospect of death seems like the only escape. But sometimes not even death can stop suffering.
I've been thinking about this a lot. What is the nature, the purpose of suffering. And then, it hit me. Maybe the lack of a purpose is the problem? It is easier to take pain when we know when it will end, or when we know that it is a pain of healing. But when it is a destructive pain, or suffering without a purpose, then it is true suffering. Pain for the sake of pain, where nothing is gained and everything is lost. Is that the nature of suffering? I don't know. I can't say that I experienced true suffering on that level. I don't think anyone has. Or at least they haven't lived long enough to tell the tale.
Is being stuck upside down in a cave until you slowly die, knowing nobody will come to rescue you true suffering? Is being a victim of a terrible crime and not being able to ever get justice for it true suffering? Or is it something simpler?
I was never good with words. So please don't blame me if I can't fully define it. That is exactly why I ask this question. I invite you all to discuss the essence and the nature of suffering with me. I wish to understand.
DISCLAIMER: This is a philosophical question. Nothing more, nothing less.
It's just like happy, angry, sad, bored, content, nervous.
Suffering is an emotion. Nothing more complex than that.
So, do you not understand your emotions? Are they just "things that happen" to you?
I'm not trying to be mean. And I'm sorry if I came off that way. I just want to understand.
Maybe I don't know what you're trying to understand.
Emotions do happen. Not sure what alternative you're thinking of.
Calling them things is only a convenient short hand. They aren't tangible objects in any way. They're patterns of neuron firing.
Reading your OP again. Some emotions may have a functional purpose, to guide useful behaviour, others may simply side-effects of having emotions at all. I'm not sure suffering would be one of the former. Sometimes people choose to make good of their suffering. Building character or what not. But that's far from automatic. Often people gain nothing from suffering.
I am looking for the underlying cause of the emotions. I just want to understand your perspective. So do you see it as purely biological? A means to an end? Pain = Don't do that. Pleasure = Do that a lot. Suffering = Avoid. Ecstasy = Seek. Is that it?
You ask about their cause, then give examples of their effects? It doesn't seem you have a clear understanding of you're curiosity. Of course that is another emotion, so it may make sense.
I admit, my grasp on the concept of language is tenuous at best. I am asking you what it is to you. My example was my understanding of your perspective. I assume I was not correct in assessing on what your perspective is. Or perhaps the example was not clear. It is an example of direct logic. "Pain->Discomfort->Avoiding stimulus" would be equal to "Experience->Emotion->Action". Does that clarify my example, and is it anywhere near what your perspective on the matter is?
In the simplest of situations, yes, they work that way. But emotions aren't driven solely by single experiences. In any moment there many things collectively acting on our emotions. Not all are external either. Memories of past events and surrounding contexts also effect emotions. We can also experience multiple emotions at once. All of those possibilities get woven together into a complex pattern that is our current Emotional State.
Suffering as an emotion is not purely a result of pain. In some context at some times, pain can be an important part of good emotions. And even pleasure can be source of suffering. I have a current example of the later right now. My mother died 11 months ago. I inherited a bunch of money, and no longer need to worry about my retirement. On the face of it, that's a good thing I should be happy about. But it's also a reminder that she's gone. So mostly I'm sad about it. Two conflicting simultaneous emotions from a single stimulus, because of it's complicated context.
“Experience->Emotion->Action” isn't wrong. Just simple. Simple things layered and interacting with each other can become very complex very quickly.
Yes. I completely agree with your statement. So, is that it, or is there something more to it in your view?
Also, thank you for taking your time and explaining. Many people get frustrated with me. Thank you for not doing that.
As far as I can tell that's all there is to our emotions in a moment by moment basis. Nothing metaphysical. No cosmic purpose or meaning. Just a function of being socially evolved creatures.
I find that view slightly reductive. Not all emotions come from the outside. Yes, most of them are caused by external stimuli, but not all. For example, take the feeling of contentment. With enough overthinking and drugs, you can philosophize yourself into that feeling. Does it still come from the outside? Emotions are not external actors influncing the psyche, they are a part of the psyche just as much as the body.
And I would hold on on claiming if emotions have any metaphysical qualities, or any purpose/meaning in the grand scheme of things, as I simply do not have enough information to claim either. I do believe that emotions are entirely physical, biochemical reactions to what is happening to our bodies. But that doesn't necessarily mean they have no grander meaning. It's a bit like with life itself. The meaning is what you make of it. Or at least that's what I think, given the information I currently possess about the topic.
Also, a small note. Emotions have nothing to do with being socially evolved creatures. Almost all living creatures complex enough to have a brain feel emotions. Even if it's simply fear of danger, that is still an emotion.
Thank you for explaining your point of view.