Or is this just one of those things you’re not supposed to think too hard about?

(Edit) lmao, people who’ve never heard this mantra whenever you say that maybe there should be less suffering in the world… I envy you.

  • TheFogan@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Suffering isn’t good, but good can come from suffering, but certainly doesn’t always.

    A harsh breakup can lead to personal growth.

    A loss of a job could lead to a better job and possibly better money management strategies.

    But a kid born into abject poverty in an undeveloped villiage, spends his whole life scraping by in suffering always hungry until succumbing to a slow painful death – no good, no meaning.

    Mostly the idea that suffering is good is more common in religious ideologies that need an excuse to explain why their powerful god doesn’t step in and fix things.

    • dysprosium@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is basically saying too much suffering is bad (succumbing to hunger). But a little (harsh breakup) can be good.

      So this doesn’t suggest suffering is bad after all. If good can come from suffering, then suffering cannot be necessary bad.

      • Cosmoooooooo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Fuck you. Suffering is objectively bad, even if you 'make something good out of it".

        What the fuck is wrong with you to defend suffering? YOU suffer. Enjoy your own suffering. YOU learn from it. Don’t sit here and pretend suffering is good in any way, you fucking psychopath.

      • naught101@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        No, it’s not. It’s saying that any amount of suffering is bad, but a tolerable amount of suffering can have good secondary effects (but this is not guaranteed, it’s circumstantial). The secondary good doesn’t mean that the bad part didn’t happen.

        • dysprosium@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          So we agree. Suffering has both good and bad parts.
          So you can’t say suffering is (always) bad, because it can have good (secondary) effects.

    • TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Throwing money on lottery can make you rich. Or it might not. Honestly, the odds are stacked against you.

      What doesn’t kill you, may make you stronger… unless it maims you for life. People who have survived wars aren’t necessarily stronger. Quite the contrary actually.