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.

  • Steve
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • Steve
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

        • Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          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.