Suffering For A Unsubstantiated Improvement.

Why do people go suffering in their lives?

Many people say for the better good , but how does that put millions of peoples lives at peace when such a conception of moral goodness is un-substantiated?

The truth is there is no definate answer as to why millions should suffer and all one finds is mass insanity of a species obsessed with a imaginary better world.

Is it possible to avoid suffering with anything but death? My knowledge of buddhism is limited, but isn’t one of the basic premises that life (or existence) is suffering. I think as we become emotionally involved in our world suffering is inevitable.

Why do people suffer, because the only other option is death… and people find the absolute more frightening than existence is painful.

Who says people suffer for the greater good? I say people suffer because the greater good isn’t good enough. How does it help those people who are suffering? It doesn’t, but then again everyone suffers so the point seems to be moot… some people merely suffer more than others.

Mass insanity? Might want to define the definition of that given your complete disregard for psychology. Would defining the mass as insane not be an ought to a perfect person, thus arise as a moot point? Or would the fact that the mass is ‘insane’ indicate that the traditional concept of ‘insane’ is now ‘sane’ based on majority.

And I am not sure how many people are obsessed with an imaginary better world, or merely a better place within the current poor world.

The question is, how much more would the world suffer if those people just gave up helping?

If we gave up on all vice there would be nothing to hold us back beyond that of nature.

I am only concerned about mental suffering as physical suffering is unavoidable.

The greater good is an illusion or a figment of imagination.

Civilization,science,rationality,society and the quest for a utopia is all a form of idiosyncrasy to me.

Look up the term.

We create our own suffering and poor world.

Without all human vices or obsessions this world holds every necessity that we need in order to live or survive in full abundance.

We create our own hell.

Indeed and its been human nature to absorb everything around it and kill each other. So it seems a good idea to me that we are trying to resist this fate of destruction. Pointless? mabey. But you never succeed unless you try

If anybody has listened to me I have repeatedly tried to show that such a thing is not a innate feature of human nature but instead is a destructive acquisition.

It occurs in all cultures and societies all over the world. It doesnt matter what it is, its still going to happen again, and even more so if there is nothing to restrain it

And yet still don’t establish how it differs. Me suffering because I am starving or me suffering because my mother starved to death can be both be evaluated as the same problem, yet clearly different forms of suffering. I think that both are unavoidable for humans. My mother will die, as long as it doesn’t happen before I die I will suffer when it does: unavoidable.

The greater good is an illusion or a figment of imagination.

Yes, the term is very clear as is your useage of it assuming you are limiting the discussion to humans as having these characteristics peculiar to animals as a whole.

Those all are idiosyncrasities for humans as a whole but represent the status quo within humans.

But would you say that this would alleviate suffering or remove the capacity of suffering?

And on to the nature of the argument, rather than saying we are all screwed, propose how we should attempt to alleviate suffering. It is merely a poor answer to accuse every human of being flawed and that they wouldn’t suffer if they where a squirrel, because a) no one can be a squirrel and b) squirrels may, in fact, suffer.

All you have done here is identify that people do suffer. You have not proven that this suffering would be more or less than if humans did not have their vices or obsessions. Some would propose suffering has been alleviated with the progress of humanity, and while there is still work to be done we are still on an incline.

Define hell. I can imagine things far worse than how I live now. I am, in fact quite happy.

Murder is natural.

What I meant to say was that absorption is not necessarily natural to that of man.

Nature is only concerned with physical survival. Mental cognitive thinking is insignificant in survivalism apart from that which is physicalism.

[code]Yes, the term is very clear as is your useage of it assuming you are limiting the discussion to humans as having these characteristics peculiar to animals as a whole.

Those all are idiosyncrasities for humans as a whole but represent the status quo within humans. [/code]

The status quo is idiosyncrasy.

No.

The more complexities you add the more vices one creates.

To alleviate the problem we would have to give up alot of the very acquisitions we have come to hoard upon the last couple thousand years but since you and I know that will never happen that is why we are screwed.

I was using the term as a mythological metaphor for suffering. :slight_smile:

No your right, its natural for Life the world over. Everything absorbs something below it in the food chain, wether thats simply a complex cabohydrate, bacteria, plant life etc or even in our case resources, ie for shelter tools etc. What is not natural is the huge difference in superiority with regards to human survival and the huge amount we need to consume as our race grows expenentially. As humans are naturally cleaver and able to adapt their environments to better suit them, it is natural that we will absorb more than any other depending on advancement of our species. The only thing that can stop the enevitable would be to restrain ourselves somehow. Good thing we can look outwardly at our environment is all i can say.