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.

  • Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.worldOP
    1·
    17 hours ago

    Then perhaps there was a misunderstanding. I assumed you meant actively letting go of attachment. Because I agree, doing so mentally allows for a certain numbing of sensations that are experienced. Our views on that might be very similar, but we just word them differently.

    And when I mentioned a “perfect life” I was refering to a subjective perfection. Everyting going just how you want it to. And obviously, the drug dosage in the theoretical scenario would be adjusted accordingly to the body/brain developing resistance.

    A “small” note/question. If happiness is just circumstances or chemistry, then so is suffering. In that case we don’t need to let go of attachment, just the circumstances or chemistry that cause emotions in the first place. Would you agree with that statement? Although the complete removal of emotions could cause complete detachment from reality in a human being, so I guess it goes back around to attachment again.

    • ash@piefed.caEnglish
      1·
      9 hours ago

      Our views on that might be very similar, but we just word them differently

      Yes it does seem so! letting go means you neither want it nor don’t want it because both are some forms of attachment. When you let go of it, you become perfectly accepting of everything around you. So they are related at least if not the same.

      Everyting going just how you want it to

      Interesting. If we can enter and live in such a world perhaps there’s no need for mental training and philosophy.

      If happiness is just circumstances or chemistry, then so is suffering. In that case we don’t need to let go of attachment, just the circumstances or chemistry that cause emotions in the first place.

      There is some assymetry here. I believe fundamental goodness and happiness is the default mode of a mind. And suffering arises when your circumstances conflict with your attachments—basically when life gives you or takes away something against your wishes.

      So yes you can attack this both angles. By training your mind to let go and accept everything or gaining full control over everything.

      I find the latter very hard or impossible.