Well, if it were good, we'd call it something else. House, though, has got it right. There's a certain amount of unpleasantness (?) that brings out the best in us. If we were never challenged, it'd be very unlikely that we'd ever produce our best. It's a spiritual lesson the Bible teaches as well. God allows human suffering but he also promises he won't put more on his children than they can bear. Too much stress and the burdens crush us. Just the right amount and we become stronger.
There'll be sufferin' tonight. Some idiot decided to review a 70-page proposal tomorrow morning while only giving it to us to format at 3PM today. I'll be here drawing charts all night while my wife sits home alone. Mild sufferin' in the grand scheme of things, of course. But it's mine!
Some of the younger WFers (or maybe those with kids that have gone to middle or high school in the past decade) may be familiar with that book "The Giver," about a boy that grew up in a community so sheltered from any pain or for that matter any decisions from what they wear to who they marry or even their own career that none of them know what true suffering or joy really is. It's what Ecky said upthread; good things can come from bad things. Pain gives people enough incentive to get off their asses and do something with their lives.
Primarily the latter. I think human beings have an innate capacity for morality. Although again I'll qualify it by saying that Dayton has a point, for once. I'm speaking of genuine physical or psychological suffering, not always getting what you want.
I didn't say anything about involuntary suffering caused, perhaps the very definition of a criminal act, except that you shouldn't cause it to begin with. You're making unfounded assumptions. If you'd like an elaboration in that area, you should ask for one.
This, I believe was my point in my previous post in thread about whether poor people always have an excuse. Suffering is necessary in order to find peace and prosperity. It is necessary in order to live. Fredrick Bastiat says quite correctly that life can not be maintained without constant labor, which is pain. The amount of our suffering gives us motivation to find ways minimize this pain and maximize output. In other words suffering motivates us to grow and innovate. Which is why welfare is such a horrible disaster when actually implemented. Without having the opportunity to suffer the full weight of your obligations and responsibilities you have no motivation for improvement.
Yep...the only way to evolve is meeting a challenge and adapting to it. Imagine: what if Adam + Eve had never messed up and got kicked out of The Garden? Everything would be easy......nothing would eat them, the fruit would always be there for the picking, nobody would try to invade their garden. Generations would come and go and nobody would invent anything, exercise their hunting/fighting skills, invent transportation methods (why would you want to leave a paradise?) etc. etc. But damn.....if some other tribe never "got the memo" and did start "sinning" and had a life of hardship + advanced.....that would be a very one-sided battle, and would not end well for the Eden dwellers!
Well, if you really want to believe the Garden of Eden story, your hypothetical tribe of sinners would have to get past the giant unkillable Angel, complete with flaming sword, that God Himself put outside as a guard. Unkillable, untiring angel with the power of the army of God > Chavs.
Okay, I'm asking for one because, from where I'm sitting, you're not making a lot of sense. You appear to be saying that causing someone a loss (i.e., making them suffer in some way) should be compensated by conferring on them an equivalent gain, which makes sense to me, but then you add and even emphasize that they have to agree that that gain is equivalent, which is where you lose me. In business transaction, sure, if they don't agree that the gain is equal to the loss they won't do it. But the subject of the thread is not business transactions; that was only your illustration. The subject of the thread is suffering, and the principle does not seem to apply to all suffering. The young girl mentioned upthread whose "life was ruined" by her mother not letting her go to a party would certainly say that her mother is causing her to lose something, but in her estimation she certainly wouldn't agree that there is an equivalent gain. That doesn't mean there isn't; a lot of the temporary pain that parents cause their children does much more good to them in the long run than what they lose in the short run, but the kids sure don't see it at the time, in many cases. So elaborate away. Your principle is either not clear, or wrong, or else not a general principle but merely a financial principle that has little to do with suffering in a general way.
And I said suffering is not inherently good or bad to be described in that way, offering an example of when it's good and how to keep it from being bad. I will not generalize to all suffering just because you don't like my lack of commitment to a moral judgement about something I simply don't believe to be an inherently moral issue. No shit? But the relationship between parents and children is not an equal one. The parent is theoretically and legally declared to be better able to judge what's best for their children until age 18 so the point is moot. Involuntary infliction of suffering is evil, and the suffering it causes bad, as are the ill-gotten gains, regardless of whether of a personal or financial nature. This subject to all my usual caveats, situational morality (self-defense vs. murder), etc., etc. Nothing particularly novel here, sorry. Suffering isn't a basis for criminal justice, it just looks like it because in most cases it's the involuntary infliction of suffering that's a criminal act. But that's not always the case; there are other crimes where no actual loss is suffered - squatters camping in a fallow field, for instance, are trespassing, even if they're gone without leaving any damage. Or stealing money from an interest-free bank account to go play in Vegas, winning, and putting it back again before the loss is noticed.
I myself don't like to cause suffering. Thus, if I ever have to physically defend myself I will just try to kill the person. I figure I would never fight (I'm 47 years old!) unless my life was threatened, so what choice would I have but to go "all out"? BTW my daughter is having problems with some boy harrassing her, and I may have to confront his father before I file a police report. Just running to the cops (blindsiding him) is chickenshit. I will "man up" and tell him the gravity of the situation and let the cops/school sort it out. If he loses his temper + attacks me (pretty big rough-looking dude with lots of tatoos) I will be forced to defend myself by any means neccessary. We'll find out soon enough. I don't really care - I've got free medical + vacation time for convalescence. Beat my ass? No problem - I'll lay up in the hospital enjoying my Morphine while he chills out in jail!
I don't like to cause suffering either. But posting on discussion boards is one of the few diversions I have during the day...
Suffering makes you stronger in a lot of ways: * It makes you more appreciative of the little things in life *It brings you closer to God *It forces you to take the time to see things differently from what you had been There are many other reasons as well. I forget who said this, but there is one quote that I thought was a really great one to remember. Of all the ways a person can die, there is none greater, than from a Broken Heart! I think Shakespere said this
Re: Is suffering bad? No. But if you want it from a chick in a rubber corset it can be expensive. Wait, did I just say that out loud?
I think suffering does create character. Show me a person who has never had a moment in which everything goes his way, and he'll be mentally a child of probably pre-school like maturity. He won't be able to delay gratification, he won't understand the concept of sharing, he expects good things to just happen for him, and he doesn't really have the ability to make plans. Everything is in the moment; there is no tommorow. There is no generousity, because he sees the world as revolving around himself. It would be a disaster, and should such a person escape from that guilded cage, he would have no chance to survive.
Just because you Irish couldn't have a religious disagreement without murdering each other in the streets doesn't mean that religion is a bad thing.
Sometimes I feel like I've had enough "character building" for five people. Suffering, while you are in it, seems to have a timeless quality that makes you feel like it's never going to end. Time seems to pass more slowly. Senses can be almost hyperaware. It's also opportunity. Everyone is different so it's hard to quantify what that might be for any individual person...but I have found with every event I must survive, endure and pass through I have learned a great deal...about myself, about people I know, about life in general. In some ways, despite having a life that on first glance absolutely no one would choose for themselves...I am extremely grateful for the opportunities that have taught me so much. Now...I could really, really use a break from the lessons for awhile...but I would actually be hesitant to wave a magic wand and change it if I could. Very hesitant....even with all this life has cost me, there are riches that are hard to find. A view I might never have seen otherwise. And even other lives my experiences have touched.
I've had an opportunity to do so as well. My boss here has tracked his family all the way back to 13th century Ireland. Personally, I think an end to the troubles was almost as big a surprise as the end of the Cold War.
