!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
So there are two flavors of Republicans..
Is the selfish narcissistic egomaniac who will destroy his own country to fulfill his own desires.
Are the people you described, pain is good. Hurting people makes them stronger or dead, either way it's a good outcome.
Guys, 'suffering is good' is literally a Christian thing. Mother Theresa used it as an excuse not to treat people because 'suffering brings you closer to God'.
It's bullshit, of course. It was made up as an excuse for treating people badly and (surprise!) making more money that way.
But that's where OP gets the idea from. Religious indoctrination.
It’s bullshit, of course. It was made up as an excuse for treating people badly and (surprise!) making more money that way.
Must be why Mother Theresa was so rich.
Net worth over $100m when she died according to a quick search
Yup. Because she didn't use the money she got to treat people properly.
Can I get a source on that?
https://www.thelist.com/345292/mother-teresas-net-worth-at-the-time-of-her-death-may-surprise-you/ Not the most reliable sources but saw a few others like it making the claim
Suffering isn't good, but good can come from suffering, but certainly doesn't always.
A harsh breakup can lead to personal growth.
A loss of a job could lead to a better job and possibly better money management strategies.
But a kid born into abject poverty in an undeveloped villiage, spends his whole life scraping by in suffering always hungry until succumbing to a slow painful death -- no good, no meaning.
Mostly the idea that suffering is good is more common in religious ideologies that need an excuse to explain why their powerful god doesn't step in and fix things.
But a kid born into abject poverty in an undeveloped villiage, spends his whole life scraping by in suffering always hungry until succumbing to a slow painful death -- no good, no meaning.
But what about if they grow up to become a mob boss or billionaire or supervillian as a result? 😅
Throwing money on lottery can make you rich. Or it might not. Honestly, the odds are stacked against you.
What doesn’t kill you, may make you stronger… unless it maims you for life. People who have survived wars aren’t necessarily stronger. Quite the contrary actually.
How the hell thinks suffering is good? That's cult level thinking.
Some asshole tried to tell me yesterday that Palestinians think suffering is good because they believe they'll be rewarded in the afterlife for it.
What a cunt.
A lot of evangelical conservatives think pain and suffering brings people closer to God. This is why they knowingly support harmful policies. This is why many of them seemingly fight for things that make their own lives harder (along with everyone else's of course). Look at Mike Johnson for example. That fucker KNOWS his ideas are harmful and he KNOWS he's dragging society into the ground and thinks he's doing the LORDS work.
Does anyone actually believe that suffering gives life meaning? I'm sceptical.
Tbh I did, in my early youth. Films and art often depict suffering that way and being happy was generally just not on my agenda as a goal, because of my career and academically fixated parents.
In the context of the premise, absolutely not, because there is plenty of suffering to go around already.
I mean yeah, I would answer your statement as "yes". But I would prefer to challenge a fundamental assumption within your question, "suffering is good". Suffering is neither bad nor good, it simply is. Without the experience of suffering, experiences of non-suffering would lose some or all of their meaning. Without winter we cannot appreciate summer, and vice versa.
I reject the premise, and I doubly reject the conclusion.
Some humans feel that it adds to life like: "It builds character" or "pain makes him a real man". Or that Suffering could enable people to appreciate the good but no, hurting people in general is unessessary because the world does that daily. Actively harming humans is actually counter productive because too much suffering can turn them evil or into living husks/zombies due to too much loss.
Now there are select humans that would benefit from this as they seem have not been exposed to any hardships of the masses. Still the pain didnt give meaning. all it was is a catalyst to give a person empathy. Even then physical pain is not the solution it needs to be a series of emotional experiences/trials that can be overcome.
The only people I know where suffering is the meaning/point would relate to something like karma or something like a slaanesh cultist who couldn't live without pain because without it they have no life.
Suffering isn't good. The growth that can be achieved through suffering can be good. There is a very big difference. Suffering doesn't guarantee growth. Experience gained through suffering might not always be good (we may become jaded or cynical, or worn down).
Putting that aside for now, hurting others is bad. Inflicting suffering on others is not good, and doing so to try and force "personal growth" in a direction you desire is absolutely not good. That's strange, cruel, controlling behaviour. That's sort of like playing god.
When people say that suffering builds character, or reference bible passages like Romans 5:3 (And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also, knowing that tribulation worketh patience;) (apologies, I don't know similar teachings from other faiths although I'm sure most faiths have a similar concept to this somewhere in them), they are typically talking about a sort of impersonal "suffering". The death of a parent, sickness, poverty, that kind of thing -- and crucially this idea is often separated from "blame" and is instead a sort of "faceless" suffering. It could be set up like this so that people can focus inwards or on something spiritually, rather than getting stuck in a cycle of blame or revenge, but other times the suffering in question is literally blameless, such as a parent dying of old age.
Either way, the key part in your question is that experiencing suffering is an unfortunate but inevitable rite of passage, and hopefully a person will learn and grow as a result, but that intentionally causing suffering is a choice to hurt another human and is bad. It's sort of two separate things, really.
I'm aware that I answered a slightly different question, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say suffering is good because it "gives life meaning"?
Schopenhauer’s Theory of Human Suffering and Lack of Meaning: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/history-of-nihilism-in-the-nineteenth-century/schopenhauers-theory-of-human-suffering-and-lack-of-meaning/E64B94DBB5CC35F61046073595377F25
He seems like a happy chappy.
Your premise is wrong but you should watch Bojack Horseman and pay attention to Diane's arc, specifically the episode Good Damage
Post-traumatic growth is a thing. No need to cause more suffering, it's locally available and plentiful in most parts of the world.
Agreed. There's plenty of suffering that happens in life just because. Purposeful suffering doesn't seem like a good thing in most cases.
But there's also the issue of the definition of suffering. Minor suffering like tolerating a colder thermostat setting in the winter, it saves money and energy, seems rather subjective on where the line could be drawn on bad vs good.
I disagree with the premise, but I’d wager that people who say “suffering is good” are probably talking about things like lifting heavy at the gym or working long hours - not spitting blood in a ditch.
If and only if suffering is good. I'd argue it's not.
Occasionally experiencing suffering will lead to character growth, but mostly in dealing with future suffering of yourself or someone else. Not ever suffering and not needing the growth would be better.
But there is suffering in the world and occasional small doses is dealt out to everyone without anyone of us actively trying.
Yes, that's what a lot of rich people think. They're helping people build character by acting like monsters.
The idea would be that the existence of suffering gives life meaning. By knowing that the risk of suffering is always there, we strive to avoid it and value our pleasures more because we can compare them to an unpleasant alternative.
How true "an existence without suffering would be meaningless" is open to debate, but there's at least some day to day support. If you've ever been really hungry and demolished some fairly average meal while finding it delicious, or had the best glass of ice water after walking in the heat, you get that. And if we think of rich, entitled people, who appear to have no conception of how fortunate they are, instead getting upset about minor inconveniences, it gives you some indication of what life with less suffering might be like.
It's not good and doesn't give life meaning.
It can be used as a way to see what you can let go of. Painful, but like, therapy-painful. Still hard to call it "good", but responding that way makes it least bad and can make it go away. Face it and process it.
Piling it on, yourself or somebody else, is still dumb and always will be.
Calm down, Loviatar.
False premise.
There's nothing good about suffering, we just expect it.
“Your Honor, I was only trying to make his life more meaningful” doesn’t really hold up well in court.
I would argue that challenges are a part of what give life meaning rather than suffering because they can teach us resourcefulness, resilience, gratitude, and provide a sense of accomplishment after completion. But challenges don’t have to include suffering, and the meaning isn’t always a positive thing.
Ultimately it’s up to each individual to decide what gives their life meaning. Who’s to say everything needs to have a meaning anyway? .
Hurting people is not generally good.
It is also not as directly related to suffering as your text suggests.
The original (and still valid) meaning of “to suffer” is “to tolerate”.
Is it possible that whoever told you that “suffering is good” had that definition in mind?
If you're a masochist or sadist, then yes, suffering (either your own or the suffering of others) gives your life purpose...
Or you could go Buddhist and consider "good" sensations to also be suffering and make it your goal to escape from all of it entirely. I'm kind of an inverse gnostic these days. I'm hyped to be a rock again someday. Or maybe a nice pile of dirt.