To Immanuel Can

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 10:48 pm There is no meaning in suffering. Unless one is masochist she/he cannot like suffering.
There's a difference between liking suffering (which nobody does but a masochist, as you say) and understanding the meaning in suffering.

The woman who gives birth, the triathlete in training, the man who strives to obtain a degree...all understand that there is suffering in achievement. What they know they will achieve by suffering puts the suffering in a meaningful context, and even makes it worthwhile for them.

It doesn't have to be pleasant; it just has to be worth it, for it to be meaningful.
What is right world? A world that there is meaning in everything.
Excellent. Quite right.
Otherwise life turns into Hell when you get used to thing no matter where you are and what you are doing.
Right. When you suffer and don't see any meaning to it, it's unbearable.

But I will ask you what I once asked a Hindu: is "absence of suffering" a sufficient description of "happy"? Is the negation of pain enough, or is some positive good required before one can say one is truly blessed?

What do you think about that?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 11:23 pm
bahman wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 10:48 pm There is no meaning in suffering. Unless one is masochist she/he cannot like suffering.
There's a difference between liking suffering (which nobody does but a masochist, as you say) and understanding the meaning in suffering.

The woman who gives birth, the triathlete in training, the man who strives to obtain a degree...all understand that there is suffering in achievement. What they know they will achieve by suffering puts the suffering in a meaningful context, and even makes it worthwhile for them.

It doesn't have to be pleasant; it just has to be worth it, for it to be meaningful.
There is a difference between positive (like suffering when you do physical exercise) and negative suffering (like diseases and natural disasters).
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 11:23 pm
What is right world? A world that there is meaning in everything.
Excellent. Quite right.
Otherwise, life turns into Hell when you get used to things no matter where you are and what you are doing.
Right. When you suffer and don't see any meaning to it, it's unbearable.

But I will ask you what I once asked a Hindu: is "absence of suffering" a sufficient description of "happy"? Is the negation of pain enough, or is some positive good required before one can say one is truly blessed?

What do you think about that?
We have three states, suffering, peace, and happiness. You get from suffering to peace with a certain amount of positive good. The same for getting from peace to happiness.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:30 pm There is a difference between positive (like suffering when you do physical exercise) and negative suffering (like diseases and natural disasters).
That's a good distinction, and an important one. Well done.

Susan Nieman, the Jewish scholar, refers to the two as "human" evils and "natural" evils. Either way, the distinction's important.

But I suggest that they are of a piece, in at least one respect: that both are consequences of man's alienation from God. Moreover, I would point out that the allowing of the first necessitates also the allowing of the second.

Let me give you one simple example: the triathlete. He chooses to punish his body, and cause himself suffering, for the greater good of potentially winning the race. For that good, he is willing to punish himself excessively, painfully, miserably, for a long time.

But how is he able to do so? It is because lactic acid is building up in his muscles, which he is tearing down to strengthen them again. But lactic acid is not a conscious thing. It makes no choices. Rather, considered by itself and outside of his muscles, it is a component of the natural world, a mere chemical.

But notice how the two things are united in the triathlete: the choice he makes to cause himself pain, and the fact that there is lactic acid to cause the pain. So both are involved in the experience of suffering which he is having. Both his choice (human) and lactic acid (natural) are components of the total experience (suffering).

But that again takes us back to the main question: is the suffering (whether from choice or lactic acid) meaningful? That's the only question that matters, really.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 11:23 pm But I will ask you what I once asked a Hindu: is "absence of suffering" a sufficient description of "happy"? Is the negation of pain enough, or is some positive good required before one can say one is truly blessed?

What do you think about that?
We have three states, suffering, peace, and happiness. You get from suffering to peace with a certain amount of positive good. The same for getting from peace to happiness.
Okay, good.

So contrary to things like Hinduism, we're saying that "happiness" or "blessedness", or whatever we want to call the state of the good, consists not merely in the end of suffering, the mere negation of badness, (in Buddhism, Nirvana, the big "snuffing out" of pain but also of existence), but also in the addition of some increase of well-being, the additon of some positive thing.

So far, so good?

Well, what is that positive good?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:51 pm
bahman wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:30 pm There is a difference between positive (like suffering when you do physical exercise) and negative suffering (like diseases and natural disasters).
That's a good distinction, and an important one. Well done.

Susan Nieman, the Jewish scholar, refers to the two as "human" evils and "natural" evils. Either way, the distinction's important.

But I suggest that they are of a piece, in at least one respect: that both are consequences of man's alienation from God. Moreover, I would point out that the allowing of the first necessitates also the allowing of the second.

Let me give you one simple example: the triathlete. He chooses to punish his body, and cause himself suffering, for the greater good of potentially winning the race. For that good, he is willing to punish himself excessively, painfully, miserably, for a long time.

But how is he able to do so? It is because lactic acid is building up in his muscles, which he is tearing down to strengthen them again. But lactic acid is not a conscious thing. It makes no choices. Rather, considered by itself and outside of his muscles, it is a component of the natural world, a mere chemical.

But notice how the two things are united in the triathlete: the choice he makes to cause himself pain, and the fact that there is lactic acid to cause the pain. So both are involved in the experience of suffering which he is having. Both his choice (human) and lactic acid (natural) are components of the total experience (suffering).
How about negative suffering?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:51 pm But that again takes us back to the main question: is the suffering (whether from choice or lactic acid) meaningful? That's the only question that matters, really.
I don't know if there is such a thing as meaning. Whatever it is, it is not in the category of thought or feeling.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 11:23 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 11:23 pm But I will ask you what I once asked a Hindu: is "absence of suffering" a sufficient description of "happy"? Is the negation of pain enough, or is some positive good required before one can say one is truly blessed?

What do you think about that?
We have three states, suffering, peace, and happiness. You get from suffering to peace with a certain amount of positive good. The same for getting from peace to happiness.
Okay, good.

So contrary to things like Hinduism, we're saying that "happiness" or "blessedness", or whatever we want to call the state of the good, consists not merely in the end of suffering, the mere negation of badness, (in Buddhism, Nirvana, the big "snuffing out" of pain but also of existence), but also in the addition of some increase of well-being, the additon of some positive thing.

So far, so good?

Well, what is that positive good?
I shouldn't use positive since good is positive. What is good? A pleasurable mental state.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:20 pm How about negative suffering?
I'm not sure what you mean.

All suffering feels negative. Whether it is actually negative or not depends on whether the meaning of the suffering is sufficient to counterbalance the temporary feeling.
I don't know if there is such a thing as meaning. Whatever it is, it is not in the category of thought or feeling.
Okay, meaning's not a "feeling." I agree.

But I'm not sure why you suppose it's not related to "thought"? It seems obvious that meaning has to be "thought about," doesn't it? But maybe you just mean that it can't consist of only thought...that would be true. Meaning has to come from the way things really are, not from some imagination unrelated to reality that one uses to reinterpret things. Fair enough, then.
What is good? A pleasurable mental state.
That would seem hard to reconcile with your previous claims that meaning isn't a "feeling" and can't be "thought." It would also raise questions about things that produce pleasurable mental states, but are not good...such as cocaine.

Are you sure you think that "good "means "a pleasurable mental state"?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:35 pm
bahman wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:20 pm How about negative suffering?
I'm not sure what you mean.

All suffering feels negative. Whether it is actually negative or not depends on whether the meaning of the suffering is sufficient to counterbalance the temporary feeling.
By negative suffering, I mean that you gain nothing while suffering (such as diseases or disasters) whereas in positive suffering you gain something while suffering (like physical and mental exercise).
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:35 pm
I don't know if there is such a thing as meaning. Whatever it is, it is not in the category of thought or feeling.
Okay, meaning's not a "feeling." I agree.

But I'm not sure why you suppose it's not related to "thought"? It seems obvious that meaning has to be "thought about," doesn't it? But maybe you just mean that it can't consist of only thought...that would be true. Meaning has to come from the way things really are, not from some imagination unrelated to reality that one uses to reinterpret things. Fair enough, then.
Ok. It is hard to explain something you have never experienced. It is however obvious that meaning is not in the category of thought since otherwise people would talk about it and would agree with what the meaning of life is. In fact, those who think more find life meaningless sooner.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:35 pm
What is good? A pleasurable mental state.
That would seem hard to reconcile with your previous claims that meaning isn't a "feeling" and can't be "thought."
Why?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:35 pm It would also raise questions about things that produce pleasurable mental states, but are not good...such as cocaine.
It is people's right to use any substance knowing the danger related to each drug. That is their life.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:35 pm Are you sure you think that "good "means "a pleasurable mental state"?
Yes.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 7:08 pm By negative suffering, I mean that you gain nothing while suffering (such as diseases or disasters) whereas in positive suffering you gain something while suffering (like physical and mental exercise).
Well, I can tell you what the Christian view of suffering is.

Suffering's not something to be sought out for its own sake. Nobody likes to suffer. But what Christians believe is that suffering has meaning. And there could be no greater symbol of the depth of their belief in that than the symbol of a cross. That tells you everything you need to know, really, about their understanding of suffering.

In Christian thought, suffering is not accidental or meaningless, just because we humans don't have the full picture of what's going on. As I recall, Leibniz described our perspective as if we were all standing with our noses up against a huge tapestry, and wondering why we don't see a pattern in the threads. We are too close to too short a part of the whole picture to be able to say what's really going on. But from the standing-back perspective that only God has, the pattern in the threads on the tapestry all make sense, and combine into a complex picture of what He is doing in the world, and how we fit into that.

It's a nice analogy. It's not Biblical, but it is descriptive of our situation, as being finite creatures with very little information about all that's going on. The best and smartest of us can't hope to understand the whole "picture." But we really don't need to, so long as God is there to see the full picture.

Suffering is purposeful, in Christian thought. Not only does it achieve some grand plan for the world (though it contributes to that, of course) but more importantly for us, it refines us and makes us better people -- so long as we let our struggles and trials do their designed work, and don't become nihilistic or despairing.

And that's not such a foreign thought, is it? Haven't you noticed that the best people in this world are people who have suffered; and that people who never have are almost invariably more shallow, self-confident and unsympathetic than people who have experienced suffering? I would certainly say I've seen that. So there's a potential transformation of each person who suffers, a work God is keen to do, but which we have to agree to let Him do.

But it makes a huge difference whether we think our suffering is possibly the wise overruling or even dispensation of a loving God, or merely the quirks of an indifferent fate, meaningless and tragic as that would be.
It is however obvious that meaning is not in the category of thought since otherwise people would talk about it and would agree with what the meaning of life is. In fact, those who think more find life meaningless sooner.
No, neither claim is obvious to me at all.

As for the second one, it's true that some people have thought their way into Nihilism like that. But it is equally true that some have thought their way into hope and happiness, in spite of difficult circumstances. The difference seems not so much to be the fact of thinking, but the content of it.

As for the first, there's no reason, it seems to me, that we should suppose that people are equally good at thinking and talking about it, or that thinking people always come to the same conclusions. In fact, the opposite seems obvious to me: people can think hard, but think differently at the end. What's more crucial is the suppositions from which they launch their thinking in the first place: their "first principles," if you will, the things so fundamental to thinking at all that one cannot think without already assuming some view of them.

One of these fundamentals is whether or not God exists. If He does not, one set of things seems logical. And that road can indeed lead to Nihilism, if a man pursues it far enough. If God does exist, it is simply not any longer possible to be Nihilistic. Some measure of optimism automatically returns to one's thinking: and what seemed unthinkable to the Atheist becomes quite understandable to the person of faith. The reasoning from first principles flows differently thereafter.

So here's the good news: thinking does not have to result in misery and despair. And here's the bad news: it can. But here's some more good news: the world looks different when you engage with God. Either way, thinking, all alone, will not force anyone to a singular conclusion. Much more depends on the premises from which one launches the thought.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:35 pm
What is good? A pleasurable mental state.
That would seem hard to reconcile with your previous claims that meaning isn't a "feeling" and can't be "thought."
Why?
Well "a pleasurable mental state" -- isn't that a feeling? Or is it a type of thought? Either way, you did say you didn' t think the good was either of those things.

Doesn't something have to be objectively good, if there is to be any good at all? Is just the "pleasurable" imagining of a good that does not exist the same as "being genuinely happy, or blessed, or whatever?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:35 pm It would also raise questions about things that produce pleasurable mental states, but are not good...such as cocaine.
It is people's right to use any substance knowing the danger related to each drug. That is their life.
Well, that's assumptive.

But even were it true, it would still be problematic. It might be their "right" to kill themselves; would you call it also "good"?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:24 pm
bahman wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 7:08 pm By negative suffering, I mean that you gain nothing while suffering (such as diseases or disasters) whereas in positive suffering you gain something while suffering (like physical and mental exercise).
Well, I can tell you what the Christian view of suffering is.

Suffering's not something to be sought out for its own sake. Nobody likes to suffer. But what Christians believe is that suffering has meaning. And there could be no greater symbol of the depth of their belief in that than the symbol of a cross. That tells you everything you need to know, really, about their understanding of suffering.
If the suffering has meaning then Hell is a better place to live.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:24 pm In Christian thought, suffering is not accidental or meaningless, just because we humans don't have the full picture of what's going on. As I recall, Leibniz described our perspective as if we were all standing with our noses up against a huge tapestry, and wondering why we don't see a pattern in the threads. We are too close to too short a part of the whole picture to be able to say what's really going on. But from the standing-back perspective that only God has, the pattern in the threads on the tapestry all make sense, and combine into a complex picture of what He is doing in the world, and how we fit into that.
Humans are rational beings. There is nothing that we cannot understand. There are however things that we don't know yet. Bigger picture? What it could be? The real picture is that we are here and suffering. There isn't any bigger picture.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:24 pm It's a nice analogy. It's not Biblical, but it is descriptive of our situation, as being finite creatures with very little information about all that's going on. The best and smartest of us can't hope to understand the whole "picture." But we really don't need to, so long as God is there to see the full picture.
The whole picture is simple. There are individuals who are suffering. What is the purpose?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:24 pm Suffering is purposeful, in Christian thought. Not only does it achieve some grand plan for the world (though it contributes to that, of course) but more importantly for us, it refines us and makes us better people -- so long as we let our struggles and trials do their designed work, and don't become nihilistic or despairing.
So according to you a person who has cancer is a better person than a person who has not!
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:24 pm And that's not such a foreign thought, is it? Haven't you noticed that the best people in this world are people who have suffered; and that people who never have are almost invariably more shallow, self-confident and unsympathetic than people who have experienced suffering?
That I am afraid does not follow logically. It is not supported by any scientific evidence too.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:24 pm I would certainly say I've seen that. So there's a potential transformation of each person who suffers, a work God is keen to do, but which we have to agree to let Him do.
Why don't you torture yourself?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:24 pm But it makes a huge difference whether we think our suffering is possibly the wise overruling or even dispensation of a loving God, or merely the quirks of an indifferent fate, meaningless and tragic as that would be.
Of course, life is tragic without any meaning.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:24 pm
It is however obvious that meaning is not in the category of thought since otherwise people would talk about it and would agree with what the meaning of life is. In fact, those who think more find life meaningless sooner.
No, neither claim is obvious to me at all.

As for the second one, it's true that some people have thought their way into Nihilism like that. But it is equally true that some have thought their way into hope and happiness, in spite of difficult circumstances. The difference seems not so much to be the fact of thinking, but the content of it.
Hope yes since we might one day find the meaning of life.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:24 pm As for the first, there's no reason, it seems to me, that we should suppose that people are equally good at thinking and talking about it, or that thinking people always come to the same conclusions. In fact, the opposite seems obvious to me: people can think hard, but think differently at the end. What's more crucial is the suppositions from which they launch their thinking in the first place: their "first principles," if you will, the things so fundamental to thinking at all that one cannot think without already assuming some view of them.

One of these fundamentals is whether or not God exists. If He does not, one set of things seems logical. And that road can indeed lead to Nihilism, if a man pursues it far enough. If God does exist, it is simply not any longer possible to be Nihilistic. Some measure of optimism automatically returns to one's thinking: and what seemed unthinkable to the Atheist becomes quite understandable to the person of faith. The reasoning from first principles flows differently thereafter.

So here's the good news: thinking does not have to result in misery and despair. And here's the bad news: it can. But here's some more good news: the world looks different when you engage with God. Either way, thinking, all alone, will not force anyone to a singular conclusion. Much more depends on the premises from which one launches the thought.
You will eventually feel miserable without meaning even if you are happy with your God.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:35 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:35 pm
That would seem hard to reconcile with your previous claims that meaning isn't a "feeling" and can't be "thought."
Why?
Well "a pleasurable mental state" -- isn't that a feeling?
Yes.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:35 pm Or is it a type of thought?
It is not thought.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:35 pm Either way, you did say you didn' t think the good was either of those things.
I said the meaning is neither and nor.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:35 pm Doesn't something have to be objectively good, if there is to be any good at all?
Pleasure is subjective so anything that is good is also subjective.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:35 pm Is just the "pleasurable" imagining of a good that does not exist the same as "being genuinely happy, or blessed, or whatever?
Feeling happy does not give any meaning to life.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:35 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:35 pm It would also raise questions about things that produce pleasurable mental states, but are not good...such as cocaine.
It is people's right to use any substance knowing the danger related to each drug. That is their life.
Well, that's assumptive.

But even were it true, it would still be problematic. It might be their "right" to kill themselves; would you call it also "good"?
Yes, indeed. Think of locked-in syndrome. The person in such a condition of course has the right to terminate his or her life.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 9:46 pm If the suffering has meaning then Hell is a better place to live.
No, because nobody learns or becomes any better in a place like that.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:24 pm In Christian thought, suffering is not accidental or meaningless, just because we humans don't have the full picture of what's going on. As I recall, Leibniz described our perspective as if we were all standing with our noses up against a huge tapestry, and wondering why we don't see a pattern in the threads. We are too close to too short a part of the whole picture to be able to say what's really going on. But from the standing-back perspective that only God has, the pattern in the threads on the tapestry all make sense, and combine into a complex picture of what He is doing in the world, and how we fit into that.
Humans are rational beings. There is nothing that we cannot understand.

Oh, there's a ton we can't understand, and a whole lot of things we never will. Each of us has only, say, 75 years and a brain the size of a softball. That only holds so much.
Bigger picture? What it could be? The real picture is that we are here and suffering. There isn't any bigger picture.
Leibniz's point is that we don't know that. We don't know what the bigger picture is. Only God could.

But neither are we in any position to say, "There isn't any bigger picture." That, too, is beyond our abillity.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:24 pm Suffering is purposeful, in Christian thought. Not only does it achieve some grand plan for the world (though it contributes to that, of course) but more importantly for us, it refines us and makes us better people -- so long as we let our struggles and trials do their designed work, and don't become nihilistic or despairing.
So according to you a person who has cancer is a better person than a person who has not!
Not necessarily. There are people who suffer, and choose to learn nothing from it, or people who become merely bitter and Nihilistic. They're not better; they're worse.

Suffering, if we react to it with spiritual wisdom, is an opportunity for learning and growth; but those are not guaranteed, if one is resistant to them, or if one insists on meaninglessness.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:24 pm And that's not such a foreign thought, is it? Haven't you noticed that the best people in this world are people who have suffered; and that people who never have are almost invariably more shallow, self-confident and unsympathetic than people who have experienced suffering?
That I am afraid does not follow logically. It is not supported by any scientific evidence too.
I was only speaking of common experience. But I think you'll find it's true.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:24 pm But it makes a huge difference whether we think our suffering is possibly the wise overruling or even dispensation of a loving God, or merely the quirks of an indifferent fate, meaningless and tragic as that would be.
Of course, life is tragic without any meaning.
If you insist that's what it will be, then that is what it will be. No doubt.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:24 pm
It is however obvious that meaning is not in the category of thought since otherwise people would talk about it and would agree with what the meaning of life is. In fact, those who think more find life meaningless sooner.
No, neither claim is obvious to me at all.

As for the second one, it's true that some people have thought their way into Nihilism like that. But it is equally true that some have thought their way into hope and happiness, in spite of difficult circumstances. The difference seems not so much to be the fact of thinking, but the content of it.
Hope yes since we might one day find the meaning of life.
But how do you propose to do that?
You will eventually feel miserable without meaning even if you are happy with your God.
That's your expectation, is it? Well, we'll see.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:35 pm Doesn't something have to be objectively good, if there is to be any good at all?
Pleasure is subjective so anything that is good is also subjective.
Well, that would only be logical if "good" means nothing but exactly the same as "pleasure."

But as we all known, not all "pleasures" are "good." Some are, in fact, rather evil and self-destructive.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:35 pm Is just the "pleasurable" imagining of a good that does not exist the same as "being genuinely happy, or blessed, or whatever?
Feeling happy does not give any meaning to life.
Yes. That's why I want to use a different word, if we can find one. Aristotle spoke of "blessedness," or of "a life approved by the gods." Christians speak of a life of "joy," and Jewish folks of "shalom," which entails an experience of peaceful relationship with God. There are lots of ways to try to frame the idea of a deeper, more abiding sense of well-being that transcends immediate circumstance. But all these traditions agree with what you're saying, that "happy" is too shallow an idea to capture what we're really looking for. And, I suggest, so is "pleasure."
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
bahman wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 9:46 pm If the suffering has meaning then Hell is a better place to live.
No, because nobody learns or becomes any better in a place like that.
How do you know? We are living in a semi-Hell on Earth.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:24 pm In Christian thought, suffering is not accidental or meaningless, just because we humans don't have the full picture of what's going on. As I recall, Leibniz described our perspective as if we were all standing with our noses up against a huge tapestry, and wondering why we don't see a pattern in the threads. We are too close to too short a part of the whole picture to be able to say what's really going on. But from the standing-back perspective that only God has, the pattern in the threads on the tapestry all make sense, and combine into a complex picture of what He is doing in the world, and how we fit into that.
Humans are rational beings. There is nothing that we cannot understand.

Oh, there's a ton we can't understand, and a whole lot of things we never will. Each of us has only, say, 75 years and a brain the size of a softball. That only holds so much.
I am talking about the fact that we have the capacity to understand the reason for suffering.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Bigger picture? What it could be? The real picture is that we are here and suffering. There isn't any bigger picture.
Leibniz's point is that we don't know that. We don't know what the bigger picture is. Only God could.
He made a wrong conjecture.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am But neither are we in any position to say, "There isn't any bigger picture." That, too, is beyond our abillity.
You are making a wrong conjecture.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:24 pm Suffering is purposeful, in Christian thought. Not only does it achieve some grand plan for the world (though it contributes to that, of course) but more importantly for us, it refines us and makes us better people -- so long as we let our struggles and trials do their designed work, and don't become nihilistic or despairing.
So according to you a person who has cancer is a better person than a person who has not!
Not necessarily. There are people who suffer, and choose to learn nothing from it, or people who become merely bitter and Nihilistic. They're not better; they're worse.

Suffering, if we react to it with spiritual wisdom, is an opportunity for learning and growth; but those are not guaranteed, if one is resistant to them, or if one insists on meaninglessness.
Negative suffering to me questions the wisdom and goodness of God. We don't punish our kids when they have not done anything wrong.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:24 pm And that's not such a foreign thought, is it? Haven't you noticed that the best people in this world are people who have suffered; and that people who never have are almost invariably more shallow, self-confident and unsympathetic than people who have experienced suffering?
That I am afraid does not follow logically. It is not supported by any scientific evidence too.
I was only speaking of common experience. But I think you'll find it's true.
Let's wait for the evidence.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:24 pm But it makes a huge difference whether we think our suffering is possibly the wise overruling or even dispensation of a loving God, or merely the quirks of an indifferent fate, meaningless and tragic as that would be.
Of course, life is tragic without any meaning.
If you insist that's what it will be, then that is what it will be. No doubt.
It is not a matter of me wanting it. It is a matter of the situation that I am within.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:24 pm
No, neither claim is obvious to me at all.

As for the second one, it's true that some people have thought their way into Nihilism like that. But it is equally true that some have thought their way into hope and happiness, in spite of difficult circumstances. The difference seems not so much to be the fact of thinking, but the content of it.
Hope yes since we might one day find the meaning of life.
But how do you propose to do that?
I don't know.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
You will eventually feel miserable without meaning even if you are happy with your God.
That's your expectation, is it? Well, we'll see.
You have never been bored of being in the same situation?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:35 pm Doesn't something have to be objectively good, if there is to be any good at all?
Pleasure is subjective so anything that is good is also subjective.
Well, that would only be logical if "good" means nothing but exactly the same as "pleasure."

But as we all known, not all "pleasures" are "good." Some are, in fact, rather evil and self-destructive.
How do you define good?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 5:35 pm Is just the "pleasurable" imagining of a good that does not exist the same as "being genuinely happy, or blessed, or whatever?
Feeling happy does not give any meaning to life.
Yes. That's why I want to use a different word, if we can find one. Aristotle spoke of "blessedness," or of "a life approved by the gods." Christians speak of a life of "joy," and Jewish folks of "shalom," which entails an experience of peaceful relationship with God. There are lots of ways to try to frame the idea of a deeper, more abiding sense of well-being that transcends immediate circumstance. But all these traditions agree with what you're saying, that "happy" is too shallow an idea to capture what we're really looking for. And, I suggest, so is "pleasure."
Cool.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 4:10 pm We are living in a semi-Hell on Earth.
What's a "semi-Hell"? :D What an amusing term.

No, Earth is not Hell. I know what you're trying to say, but it's unfortunate you are drawn to resort to such hyperbole. It muddies the truth. Earth has its mix of good and evil, pleasure and pain, joy and sorrow. It is not Heaven, but it is not Hell. That's the truth.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Humans are rational beings. There is nothing that we cannot understand.

Oh, there's a ton we can't understand, and a whole lot of things we never will. Each of us has only, say, 75 years and a brain the size of a softball. That only holds so much.
I am talking about the fact that we have the capacity to understand the reason for suffering.
So am I.

There may be some cases of suffering that are so small and local that you and I can say we understand the whole reason for it. Maybe. But we're going to remain unsure, even in those cases. As for the bigger cases, we're going to be stymied completely, no matter how long we look; because we just don't have enough information and perspective to put all the necessary pieces in place.

So we're going to have to accept that there is some suffering we don't understand. That's inevitable.

But it's not necessarily bad. Consider that maybe we aren't supposed to be the one with whole map in our hands. So long as we know there is a map, we need not worry so much about our lack of understanding of the whole. We can decide instead to exercise some faith, and say, "I don't know why this is happening, but there must be a reason, because God knows what's going on." That's not at all a bad position to hold.

In fact, it seems rather appropriate and humble, given who and what we are.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Bigger picture? What it could be? The real picture is that we are here and suffering. There isn't any bigger picture.
Leibniz's point is that we don't know that. We don't know what the bigger picture is. Only God could.
He made a wrong conjecture.
You may decide that, if you wish. And as smart as he was, Leibniz too was merely a man. He tried to make sense of things in the ways he could.

But I think that as a loose analogy, it's certainly helpful in thinking about the question.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am But neither are we in any position to say, "There isn't any bigger picture." That, too, is beyond our abillity.
You are making a wrong conjecture.
No, I'm actually verifiably right about that. It's not a conjecture. Neither of us knows there CANNOT be any bigger picture, anymore than a mere man can unilaterally decide there IS. Again, there we have to admit the limits of our knowledge.

God, assuming He exists, would not be so limited.
Negative suffering to me questions the wisdom and goodness of God.

We don't know what suffering is "negative" either. We don't know whether or not there is such a thing.

But if there is, then it would be a product of suffering without learning anything or without becoming the person the suffering was intended to shape one to be. But in that case, the "negativity" would be our choice, wouldn't it?
We don't punish our kids when they have not done anything wrong.
Neither does God.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Of course, life is tragic without any meaning.
If you insist that's what it will be, then that is what it will be. No doubt.
It is not a matter of me wanting it.
Actually, it is.

If you insist, that's what it will be...for you. It might have been intended as more, but you'll have no benefit from it, because you simply refuse.

Even God can't beat that strategy, because He doesn't force people to believe things.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Hope yes since we might one day find the meaning of life.
But how do you propose to do that?
I don't know.
So then, you should ask yourself this: is my lack of a sense of meaning a product of there being no meaning? Or is it actually a product of me having no way of recognizing meaning, even if such should appear?

In other words, is the problem in the world, or in me?
You have never been bored of being in the same situation?
I don't understand the point of the question: can you explain?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Pleasure is subjective so anything that is good is also subjective.
Well, that would only be logical if "good" means nothing but exactly the same as "pleasure."

But as we all known, not all "pleasures" are "good." Some are, in fact, rather evil and self-destructive.
How do you define good?
Me? I define it with reference to God.

But my strategy doesn't help somebody who doesn't believe in God. He's going to be just "at sea" about the good as he is about any number of other things.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Feeling happy does not give any meaning to life.
Yes. That's why I want to use a different word, if we can find one. Aristotle spoke of "blessedness," or of "a life approved by the gods." Christians speak of a life of "joy," and Jewish folks of "shalom," which entails an experience of peaceful relationship with God. There are lots of ways to try to frame the idea of a deeper, more abiding sense of well-being that transcends immediate circumstance. But all these traditions agree with what you're saying, that "happy" is too shallow an idea to capture what we're really looking for. And, I suggest, so is "pleasure."
Cool.
Good.

Well, if "happy" and "pleasurable" don't cover the case, maybe we can agree on a term we want to share. What if, in this conversation, we speak of temporary thrills or pleasures as "happiness," and a deeper sense of well-being as being "blessedness" or "joy" or "shalom." What do you think?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 4:40 pm
bahman wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 4:10 pm We are living in a semi-Hell on Earth.
What's a "semi-Hell"? :D What an amusing term.

No, Earth is not Hell. I know what you're trying to say, but it's unfortunate you are drawn to resort to such hyperbole. It muddies the truth. Earth has its mix of good and evil, pleasure and pain, joy and sorrow. It is not Heaven, but it is not Hell. That's the truth.
It is Hell for some individuals.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 4:40 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Oh, there's a ton we can't understand, and a whole lot of things we never will. Each of us has only, say, 75 years and a brain the size of a softball. That only holds so much.
I am talking about the fact that we have the capacity to understand the reason for suffering.
So am I.

There may be some cases of suffering that are so small and local that you and I can say we understand the whole reason for it. Maybe. But we're going to remain unsure, even in those cases. As for the bigger cases, we're going to be stymied completely, no matter how long we look; because we just don't have enough information and perspective to put all the necessary pieces in place.

So we're going to have to accept that there is some suffering we don't understand. That's inevitable.

But it's not necessarily bad. Consider that maybe we aren't supposed to be the one with whole map in our hands. So long as we know there is a map, we need not worry so much about our lack of understanding of the whole. We can decide instead to exercise some faith, and say, "I don't know why this is happening, but there must be a reason, because God knows what's going on." That's not at all a bad position to hold.

In fact, it seems rather appropriate and humble, given who and what we are.
He made a wrong conjecture.
You may decide that, if you wish. And as smart as he was, Leibniz too was merely a man. He tried to make sense of things in the ways he could.

But I think that as a loose analogy, it's certainly helpful in thinking about the question.
You are making a wrong conjecture.
No, I'm actually verifiably right about that. It's not a conjecture. Neither of us knows there CANNOT be any bigger picture, anymore than a mere man can unilaterally decide there IS. Again, there we have to admit the limits of our knowledge.

God, assuming He exists, would not be so limited.
Isn't Jesus's teaching complete? If yes, why He didn't provide a reason for our suffering? If not, why you don't believe in Mohamad who claimed that he completed the prophecy?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Negative suffering to me questions the wisdom and goodness of God.

We don't know what suffering is "negative" either. We don't know whether or not there is such a thing.

But if there is, then it would be a product of suffering without learning anything or without becoming the person the suffering was intended to shape one to be. But in that case, the "negativity" would be our choice, wouldn't it?

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Neither does God.
He does. He even causes suffering to innocents, children.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am So then, you should ask yourself this: is my lack of a sense of meaning a product of there being no meaning? Or is it actually a product of me having no way of recognizing meaning, even if such should appear?

In other words, is the problem in the world, or in me?
We might not have cognitively evolved enough to experience meaning.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
I don't understand the point of the question: can you explain?
Have you ever been bored?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Me? I define it with reference to God.

But my strategy doesn't help somebody who doesn't believe in God. He's going to be just "at sea" about the good as he is about any number of other things.
And God has reasons for why certain things are good and others are evil? If yes, why He didn't mention them in the Bible assuming that Jesus's prophecy is complete.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Good.

Well, if "happy" and "pleasurable" don't cover the case, maybe we can agree on a term we want to share. What if, in this conversation, we speak of temporary thrills or pleasures as "happiness," and a deeper sense of well-being as being "blessedness" or "joy" or "shalom." What do you think?
Meaning is the thing that is necessary.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 6:36 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 4:40 pm
bahman wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 4:10 pm We are living in a semi-Hell on Earth.
What's a "semi-Hell"? :D What an amusing term.

No, Earth is not Hell. I know what you're trying to say, but it's unfortunate you are drawn to resort to such hyperbole. It muddies the truth. Earth has its mix of good and evil, pleasure and pain, joy and sorrow. It is not Heaven, but it is not Hell. That's the truth.
It is Hell for some individuals.
If they think so, it's only because they don't really know what Hell is.
Isn't Jesus's teaching complete?

It depends what you mean by "complete."
If yes, why He didn't provide a reason for our suffering?

For whose suffering? Yours? Mine? Somebody else's? How many billions of others?

The reasons can be as many as there are people, and the combination of reasons one would need to explain would be, if not infinite, at least well beyond the level of complexity any human could ever comprehend. That's why Leibniz compared it to the tapestry: it's simply impossible for human beings to see enough of the factors in play to ever have the whole picture.

But if you mean, "Why didn't He provide some explanation for the phenomenon of human suffering generally," then the answer is much easier: He did.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Neither does God.
He does. He even causes suffering to innocents, children.
God doesn't. Man often does.

But again, you have to be careful with that word, "innocents," too. It's not so easy for we humans to say who is truly "innocent."
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am So then, you should ask yourself this: is my lack of a sense of meaning a product of there being no meaning? Or is it actually a product of me having no way of recognizing meaning, even if such should appear?

In other words, is the problem in the world, or in me?
We might not have cognitively evolved enough to experience meaning.
Well, that would be tragic for you and me, then, wouldn't it? And there'd be nothing at all we could do about it. So it wouldn't even be worth regretting...we couldn't get it if we tried.

But do you think that's how it is?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
I don't understand the point of the question: can you explain?
Have you ever been bored?
Bored of what?
And God has reasons for why certain things are good and others are evil? If yes, why He didn't mention them in the Bible

The answer's simple again: He did.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Good.

Well, if "happy" and "pleasurable" don't cover the case, maybe we can agree on a term we want to share. What if, in this conversation, we speak of temporary thrills or pleasures as "happiness," and a deeper sense of well-being as being "blessedness" or "joy" or "shalom." What do you think?
Meaning is the thing that is necessary.
So "meaning" is the same as "joy," you suppose? Or do you mean that having meaning is a means to joy?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 7:31 pm
bahman wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 6:36 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 4:40 pm
What's a "semi-Hell"? :D What an amusing term.

No, Earth is not Hell. I know what you're trying to say, but it's unfortunate you are drawn to resort to such hyperbole. It muddies the truth. Earth has its mix of good and evil, pleasure and pain, joy and sorrow. It is not Heaven, but it is not Hell. That's the truth.
It is Hell for some individuals.
If they think so, it's only because they don't really know what Hell is.
You have never experienced cancer, etc.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 7:31 pm
Isn't Jesus's teaching complete?

It depends what you mean by "complete."

By complete I mean it answers all necessary question, like we are suffering.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 7:31 pm
If yes, why He didn't provide a reason for our suffering?

For whose suffering? Yours? Mine? Somebody else's? How many billions of others?

For many many people.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 7:31 pm The reasons can be as many as there are people, and the combination of reasons one would need to explain would be, if not infinite, at least well beyond the level of complexity any human could ever comprehend. That's why Leibniz compared it to the tapestry: it's simply impossible for human beings to see enough of the factors in play to ever have the whole picture.

But if you mean, "Why didn't He provide some explanation for the phenomenon of human suffering generally," then the answer is much easier: He did.

What is that?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Neither does God.
He does. He even causes suffering to innocents, children.
God doesn't. Man often does.

But again, you have to be careful with that word, "innocents," too. It's not so easy for we humans to say who is truly "innocent."
A newborn baby who has cancer.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am So then, you should ask yourself this: is my lack of a sense of meaning a product of there being no meaning? Or is it actually a product of me having no way of recognizing meaning, even if such should appear?

In other words, is the problem in the world, or in me?
We might not have cognitively evolved enough to experience meaning.
Well, that would be tragic for you and me, then, wouldn't it? And there'd be nothing at all we could do about it. So it wouldn't even be worth regretting...we couldn't get it if we tried.

But do you think that's how it is?
I think so.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
I don't understand the point of the question: can you explain?
Have you ever been bored?
Bored of what?
Bored of doing a thing repeatedly
.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
And God has reasons for why certain things are good and others are evil? If yes, why He didn't mention them in the Bible

The answer's simple again: He did.
How does God define evil and what is the reason for evil to be prohibited?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: To Immanuel Can

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 8:00 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 7:31 pm
bahman wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 6:36 pm
It is Hell for some individuals.
If they think so, it's only because they don't really know what Hell is.
You have never experienced cancer, etc.
Well, I could point out that you don't know what I've experienced. People go through all kinds of things. But I won't speak of myself here.

But as bad as things can be here, Hell's worse.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 7:31 pm
Isn't Jesus's teaching complete?

It depends what you mean by "complete."

By complete I mean it answers all necessary question,

It does that.
like we are suffering.
What I'm suggesting is it's possible we couldn't understand the answer to that if it were given.
But if you mean, "Why didn't He provide some explanation for the phenomenon of human suffering generally," then the answer is much easier: He did.

What is that?
You mean, what is the reason for suffering in general, not in specific?

I've been giving you some of those.

In the large scheme of things, suffering is a product of being out of connection to the Source of life, health and well-being Himself, God. But in addition, some suffering is a judgment against sin. Some is a product of other people's sins, as when somebody victimizes somebody else. Some of it is the cost of freedom. Some is for our maturation and training. Some, to arrest us from some folly we've undertaken...

There are many reasons for suffering. But most people don't find a general knowledge of them helps with the question, "Why am I suffering?" Because it could be any or none of those. And the ultimate answer to that is known only to God.

However, it is not necessary for us to know why suffering happens, is it? I mean, what does such knowledge change for us?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am

He does. He even causes suffering to innocents, children.
God doesn't. Man often does.

But again, you have to be careful with that word, "innocents," too. It's not so easy for we humans to say who is truly "innocent."
A newborn baby who has cancer.
Did the mother smoke? Did some maker of plastic products put toxins in her food? Did she have a congenital condition that led to it?

It's a hypothetical case: and hypothetical cases of this kind are impossible to answer. The answer always depends on details we don't have.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
We might not have cognitively evolved enough to experience meaning.
Well, that would be tragic for you and me, then, wouldn't it? And there'd be nothing at all we could do about it. So it wouldn't even be worth regretting...we couldn't get it if we tried.

But do you think that's how it is?
I think so.
Well, I suppose you'll give up the expectation that there should be any meaning, then.

But somehow, I don't think you will.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am

Have you ever been bored?
Bored of what?
Bored of doing a thing repeatedly
Sure.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 1:42 am
And God has reasons for why certain things are good and others are evil? If yes, why He didn't mention them in the Bible

The answer's simple again: He did.
How does God define evil and what is the reason for evil to be prohibited?
"Evil" is anything not consonant with the character and intentions of God. And it's prohibited not merely because it's against the Lord of the Universe, but also because it's toxic to us. It leads to death.
Post Reply