What if the most logical explanation as to why a concious mind exists—on any planet, is to suffer? Suffer, however, based off our more fortunate standards specifically: to suffer the—what we would consider—“pains” of things like inconvenience, discomfort, misfortune, and displeasure.
Its the incessant indulgence in these things that lead a concious mind to be completely blind to the woes of such, thus the compassion and ability to empathize that comes with the experience (or knowledge) of suffering. It’s hardly just an “eye for an eye”—the inherent need for ourselves to retaliate due to being concious of ourselves—that leads the world to be blind, it’s our sense organs reacting to our environment and any desire for ourselves conjured from this reaction that is the most blinding; it’s this that leads to the vanities we imagine in our heads, that we end up revolving our lives around, and make most important, that leads away from the “true life” a life of selflessness has to offer: a life most lived in the present, opposed to stuck in our heads, the images of what we consider the pain of our “past” and the thirst or fear for the “future” (our sense of time being yet another consequence of consciousness—like selfishness) dominating how we feel today.
It’s our sense organs reacting to the extent we’ve presently manipulated our environment that leads to an addiction to it, even happiness, to the point where we become convinced that it’s even lifes meaning: to become as happy as possible, but when we make our highest happiness the satisfaction of our greatest desires, we’re only lead to an inevitable, massive disappointment, due to all exploitation of desire only being temporary. This begs the question: out of all the desire, and vanity that’s bred from it, would there by any that don’t end in inevitable disappointment due to being temporary? Love—but not Disney World kind of love, no, the Gandhi, MLK, Leo Tolstoy kind: selflessness—is the only desire that not only holds the ability to potentially last as long as man does, but also doesn’t lead to inevitable disappointment. Dare I say: it’s what the idea of a God or creator of some kind (not any man made God, but the substance of them)—its will: selflessness, to even it’s extremes like self-sacrifice, that is the only desire worth seeking. But if you’re someone against the idea of a God or creator (good luck finding the will to be selfless to the extremes) then let the fact that we’re the only living things that have ever existed (on this planet, as far we know) that can even begin to consider abstaining from itself for any reason at all, be enough.
It’s this that would end all suffering, but not by ending it, but by normalizing it I suppose you could say; to suffer for the sake of selflessness. To take the empty, ultimately only disappointing desire of stimulating our sense organs and fulfilling our vanities—for the sake of ourselves, and replace it, with the logic and alternative perspectives and behaviors that our inherency to selflessness breeds, that comes from our inherent ability to logic and reason.
What if we’re designed to not be comforted or pleasured incessantly? Just look at the rich, most upper to lower middle class, even the poorest in a nation crippled by convenience; people of fortune (in life or in wealth) in general (like me): obese or crooked in some way or another, the idea of their temporary lifestyle they’ve become so attached to no longer being an avenue to being comforted and pleasured, saps or corrupts their concious mind, to the point where their willing to even kill to keep it—in some cases. Could a life of abstaining from your sense organs, and teaching yourself to thirst, desire and fantasize for the least, be what ultimately leads to a life of the most?
“Comfort is the worst addiction.” - Marcus Aurelius
I’m sorry. No I’m saying as a whole that the desire to be selfless, even to suffer for it, would be the most logical reason a concious mind exists—on any planet. Based more off the truth, in my opinion, that we’re the only living things to ever exist (as far as we know) with the most capacity for either ourselves, or everything else. And less because of the idea of a God(s) or creator of some kind for any reason. I added in that the extremes of selflessness like self-sacrifice or service (something for nothing), and especially to resist the inherent need to retaliate, are more difficult to truly live up to, sustainably, without the will that comes from the idea of a God(s) of some kind; which would ultimately be: selflessness.
But humans aren’t the only animals capable of selflessness. Most mammals have instinctive drives that encourage risky behavior in some circumstances (a momma bear defending her cubs from predators, for example). Some types of insects (like ants and bees) will sacrifice their own lives in defense of their community.
Just because humans are the most advanced intelligence (debatable) we are aware of doesn’t make them special. Some of the other intelligent animals on earth, like crows, primates, octopuses, dolphins, and whales all demonstrate human-like intelligence in one or more areas. Gorillas and bonobos can be taught language, crows use tools, octopuses are better problem solvers than most people, whales and dolphins have naturally developed their own proto-languages. All of those creatures demonstrate behavior that suggests they have some form of consciousness (though probably not as advanced as humans, except maybe the octopus). Much of our study of the animal kingdom has been from an anthropocentric perspective, but in the last 20 years or so science has been leaving that behind because the more we learn the less merit it has.
Existing to suffer discounts most of the human experience. If there was a logically grounded reason for consciousness a simpler explanation, based on the other animals we have to study, is that consciousness is a useful trait for social animals and provides a significant advantage for survival.
It’s also not reasonable to assume that a hypothetical god must be selfless. Almost all gods humans have worshiped have demanded sacrifice in one form or another. The Abrahamic God (which I am most familiar with) for example demands faith, love, and adherence to a code of conduct or be tortured for the remainder of existence with no possibility of forgiveness. Infinite punishment for finite infractions is not selfless, it is capricious and evil.
Suffering, be it physical or emotional pain, is the way our automatic systems (like breathing or the cardiovascular system) communicate with the decision making part of our brains. Almost all macroscopic creatures have some form of this behavior.
Humans happen to hold the most capacity for selflessness by a large margin—not only individually, but especially collectively, in contrast to any other living thing is what I’m saying. Not that we’re special or the most advanced because of it or for any other reason; show me the dissertation from Mr. Dolphin or Elephant. Everything else still shit where they eat.
The simple explanation for consciousness is to strive to be as selfless as possible, to even suffer for it.
It’s wrong of you to assume I’m referring to any man made God(s) that’s been held as unquestionably true in all its various forms throughout the centuries. I don’t see then therefore why a hypothetical God—with a big emphasis on to “never to take an oath at all,” based off the knowledge that comes from the perspective and actions of anythings ability to be selfless at all, so unreasonable. Especially considering the substance of the majority of these man made things can be accumulated to: selflessness, to even the most extreme degrees. To be used as an alternative means to respond to what we would consider as hate or evil; to potentially bring about a day where violence, at the very least, is no longer consider relavant.
We’re the only living things that can not only acknowledge our inherency to retaliate but to even strive, even suffer, to do the opposite; to potentially change the heart of the aggressor, by responding to it with love. It’s our ability to reason and logic that leads to these alternative, potential outcomes by doing so. Therefore I can’t help but to see love—selflessness, as logical. Because love used as a response to hate is an appeal to the reasonable, logical thinking side of a consciousness.
Dolphins and elephants don’t write dissertations because they can’t hold pens and don’t have the same values as humans. Just because an animal does not behave like a human, does not mean it’s less intelligent. I’ve never written a dissertation and I bet you haven’t either. They don’t shit where they eat in the wild, in captivity they do, but so would you or I if we were in jail. No other animal has all of the markers of intelligence we have defined, but many of them are close or equivalent to humans in one or more of those aspects.
But more than that, we don’t know how other creatures think and view the world. The blue whale, for example has a brain twice the size of a human’s, they have language (and individuals have names), social structures, and regularly set thier own interests aside for thier pod. They may not write dissertations, but they do engage in creative activities recreationally (singing).
Respectfully, that is not the simplest explanation, the shortest perhaps, but there is no evidence I am aware of that would even suggest that as an explanation. It also has the baked in assumption that humans are conscious on purpose. Intention implies some kind of intelligent hand guiding things, but nothing changes about the world if you accept a creator exists or doesn’t. All the evidence science has been able to collect though suggests natural processes and pseudo-random chance are why the world is the way it is.
I make no assumptions about the kind of god or creator you offer beyond what you’ve said about it. I used examples from history to point out that many people have dreamed up many gods, few of which are good. To me that brings into question your premise that your god must be the avatar of selflessness. If anything an inactive god who allows so much suffering to exist in the world is the opposite of that.
Never said anything about anything being less intelligent, only that we’re the most capable of our consciousness by a large margin in contrast. Again, I’m not arguing that we’re any better or worse, or a superior race.
Why? How is the evidence that we’re the only living things to even begin to consider being selfless to the extent a capable concious mind can—on any planet, not be more than enough evidence to prove that that is the most logical explanation for why even one, not to mention a collection of them, exists—on any planet. Wouldn’t this be just as subjective as suffering? But yet you say very plainly that this isn’t a simple explanation, and that there’s no evidence to support it, despite all the evidence that I gave to support my claim all the while. Where do I even begin to imply that we’re this concious on purpose? Now that we’re on the topic, I completely agree, everything is happening to happen, we’ve either stumbled upon conciousness or it was given to us by a creator of some kind; it’s the only logical explanation as to why some of the worst things imaginable happen to the most innocent of people.
It’s sounds like you haven’t much considered the idea of a God or creator of some kind. There was a time I didn’t either, I was an atheist when I was younger for idk maybe 14 ish years. And ironically, it was science that brought me back over to the idea and the legitimacy of a God or creator of some kind, and gave me a reason for all the random: love; selflessness, thus freedom from the evil that life becomes by looking at it that way. “An inactive god:” Miracles are contradictory because it could be Hitler believing in a God, something good from his perspective would happen (captured more Jews for example; something bad) and he would say the same thing anyone else would: “God be praised!” To me, It’s not that a God wants all the evil and suffering in the world, and of course it would want to do something about it and would want it to end, but that wouldn’t be free will. If a God forced us all to be good, then that wouldn’t be very loving would it? But especially we wouldn’t learn together as a species the importance of goodness and virtue if it was just handed over to us. This is what makes morality and the teaching of it so important, we as the dominatly capable concious mind on this planet are the makers of morality; any amount of love or hate, good or evil both begins and ENDS with us. This is why returning the evil you’re met with throughout your life, with love, so important.
There’s a great story in the Christian Bible hidden underneath all the distortion the dogma has created throughout the centuries, Jesus references it in the Gospels as “the sign of Jonah” - Matt 16:4, but it’s from the old testament: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah+1&version=NIV This end bit: "And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many animals?”
Hate, evil, iniquity—are an ignorance; a lack of knowledge. This is what warrants it infinite forgiveness, because some people (like autistic people or those without the education you and I have stumbled upon) can’t even tell from their right hand from their left. This is also what makes the transfer of knowledge (teaching) so important, but not just any knowledge, the value of virtue especially; Socrates said something very similar.
It’s taken me a few days to respond because my attention has been elsewhere.
We’ve gotten a little into the weeds, and I think we might be best served by trying to return the focus of the discussion to your original point.
To summarize my understanding of your argument you are saying that the pursuit of happiness or the desire to avoid suffering leads to more suffering. Therefor in order to eliminate suffering one should learn to accept it as the nature of existence and focus on selflessness as a way to cope.
I think I got sidetracked on the specifics of your argument because I thought you were offering your post as philosophic proof of your arguments rather than a more casual discussion. With that in mind, allow me to start over.
Many philosophies suggest something similar. The Buddhist believe that life is suffering and that trying to change things only creates more suffering. And that to attain enlightenment one should live in harmony with reality. The stoics believed that accepting reality as it is presented to you is how you attain happiness. Though the happiness the Greeks mean is actually what a contemporary philosopher might call contentment.
Camus, an existentialist and absurdist, wrote a book about Sisyphus and used it to explain a similar concept. Sisyphus is doomed to spend all of eternity rolling a boulder up a hill only for it to roll down once he reaches the top. It is grueling and pointless toil and should he ever stop he would be chained to the boulder and crows would peck out his eyes and organs; only for it all to start over the next day. Camus suggests that for Sisyphus to find solace in his existence he must not only accept that his life is meaningless but laugh at how absurd it is to exist at all and for existence to be so utterly awful.
In Christianity there is also Liberation Theology which is rooted in an idea almost exactly like yours. They view God more as a metaphorical ideal to aspire to than a real entity and that through helping others we are all helped.
I agree with you in a broad sense. Life is a bunch of bullsh!t and there isn’t much we can do about it. We’re better served focusing our energy on the things we can change and finding things that give our suffering meaning because we’ll never be rid of it.
I think we mostly disagree on the causes for the state of reality we live in and some of the conclusions and arguments you’ve made to support your position.
Just so you know, I’m not an atheist. I was raised American Southern Baptist and was very involved in the church. My uncle was a pastor and tried to push me into the ministry too, but around 16 I lost my faith. From there I explored skepticism and as many religions as I could, including, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Atheism, Satanism, Occultism, Zoroastrianism, and a bunch of post-medieval western philosophy. In my early 30’s I discussed Christianity at great length with something I dated for a few years that had their masters in Theology and was a former youth pastor (but had lost their faith prior to meeting me).
Today I would consider myself agnostic because I don’t see God as needed to explain anything about the nature of existence, but am willing to examine any evidence presented for the existence of a God.
Man I knew assuming so much was the wrong way to go but I went and did it anyway lol sorry about that. That’s so amazing you were a pastor by the way, I call them all the time and I praise they’re (not all obviously) warm, massive hearts of gold.
Id add: to see selflessness, including the extremes, as a path not only to begin to stop considering it as suffering at all, but almost as a pleasure; I think the idea of a God or creator of some kind, takes the knowledge that leads to the incentive to do good—set yourself aside and resist yourself, and gives a concious mind the will that’s necessary to live up to it the most. Especially regarding the extremes of it like anger, retaliation, self-sacrifice; in times when it’s the most difficult.
I think it’s love that renders a concious mind most open-minded, and I think it’s the idea of an infinitely forgiving—due to all hate, evil, iniquity being an absence of knowledge—creator or shared origin of everything and the appreciation that comes with seeing a God as having a parents kind of love for you, always cheering you on, opposed to something to fear you into being selfless; an appreciation and a respect for the God sized amount of peace and love it has waiting for you, regardless of anything—I think it’s things like these that lead to the knowledge of the value of virtue and selflessness being taught the most effectively; it being transfered with a concious mind most ready and wiling to consider any newfound influence. I believe this is what determines the extent of one’s ability to imagine, and I believe it’s this that determines one’s capacity for empathy and compassion. This is why I think, amoungst plenty of other reasons, never taking oaths—so to speak, as Jesus put it in my opinion, is so important. Oath taking (considering things as unquestionably true) only hinders the potential of new knowledge, thus a concious minds imagination, and subsequently the extent of its ability to empathize. Just a theory I like sharing due to its potential importance.
What do you think of interpreting what Jesus said regarding “the sign of Jonah,” as him saying that the knowledge to be selfless (the incentive) is an ignorance (a lack of knowledge) and needs to be taught; as well as ignorance (all hate and evil in this case) being infinitely forgiven as a result?
I completely agree regarding existence, even to the point that the nature of existence doesn’t even need explaining, and the need to do so only comes from our inherent sense of self; a worry, fear or need for ourselves; a selfishness; an “evil.” I think this is the level of selflessness Jesus was suggesting. Why even bother, when “we can’t even turn a speck of hair on our head from black to white?” (I think it makes more sense as: from black to white opposed to the opposite) With ultimately, selflessness being what’s most important. And only potentially—due to our uncredibility via our blindness, being men—drawing people away from the idea of a God or creator of some kind, thus a shared origin and a shared purpose: to strive to be as selfless as possible; to be able to acknowledge any of your potentially most barbaric desires, and abstain from them for a purpose other then yourself—God or not. Because it would make sense from any point of view; dare I say: it’s the truth. We absolutely are the most capable of either ourselves or everything else on this planet, so of course the lesser barbaric or more righteous way to live, would be to consider it as exactly what it is: a desire stemming from one amoungst an entire collection of concious beings on a planet—and even toil to resist it.
The extent of my experience as a “pastor” was spending a couple summers leading teen bible studies and acting as peer support for the other kids my age along with some (non-problematic) grooming for one day leading a sermon. The reason I lost my faith though is because I’m queer and could not accept that I would have to go to Hell because I was made “wrong”. In fact, at the time I was kicked out of church (both my uncle’s mission and the “normal” church that was supporting his effort) after I tried coming out to family and my uncle hasn’t spoken to me since (and that was over 20 years ago). No loving God would make someone transgender (I didn’t choose it, nor would I given the chance to) and condemn them to eternal torture for doing nothing more than accepting they are who He made them to be.
God as the source of inspiration for selflessness and morality is certainly a popular position among some Christians. Please don’t take this as an attempt to talk you out of your faith, but I would offer that many cultures have existed in the world who have never known a God and they have been just as selfless as those that have. The capacity for altruism and selflessness is an inherit trait of most animals. Humans may subjectively seem like the best, but even mice in a lab will go hungry to make sure a younger or injured mouse can eat. Old Elephants wander off to die alone so they won’t be a burden to the herd. These sorts of selfless actions are present throughout the animal kingdom and none of those creatures “know” any god at all. (Probably. For all we know, whale song is them preaching the gospel or singing hymns.) But a God is not needed to be selfless and I would offer that selflessness for it’s own sake, rather than for the hope of eternal reward or to emulate a role model, is more profound and precious.
Love (and hate) can blind someone to the truth because they might not be able to see the subject of their love as they are, but rather as what they imagine them to be in their heart. Curiosity however puts us in an open minded state because it forces you to shift how you evaluate the world around you from judging and assessing to observing and exploring. Love has lead people to do horrifyingly terrible things throughout history, take the crusades and inquisition as an example. Hundreds of thousands of lives were ended because the Christians loved their God and hated the non-believers.
The stories in the bible have many interpretations and the spiritual journey all Christians walk is best served by independent study of the text and arriving at their own conclusions. The sign of Jonah, at least the way my uncle taught it, is a sign of rebirth and renewal. Jonah spent three days in the belly of the whale only to reemerge with new found dedication to his faith. This foreshadows and predicts Jesus’ three days and nights in the tomb after the crucifixion and His return, reborn as His (fully) divine self. In both cases each character leaves behind their fears, anxieties, and sorrows to become a better version of themselves. I’m not sure I see how you’re arrived at the Sign of Jonah being a mandate to teach selflessness, but I also don’t think there is a wrong way to interpret the book (unless you use it to justify hate or cruelty, which many have and still do).
To me the story of Jonah has always been troubling. Jonah heard a voice in his head commanding him to go to Nineveh, but instead he boarded a ship traveling in a different direction. On their journey a storm ravaged the ship, the crew blamed Jonah and decided to throw him overboard. I was raised and taught that the bible was a literal historic account (which I no longer agree with) but through that lens the story of Jonah is tragic and appalling. Hearing voices in your head is mental illness. God offers no proof of His existence because proof denies faith. However hearing the voice of God would very much be proof, which to me means anyone who claims to hear it or know anything about His plan would either be lying, trying to fit in with their peers, or mentally ill. If you assume Jonah wasn’t lying or just trying to fit in, then he would have likely had something akin to schizophrenia. Being blamed for the storm and thrown to his death would be extremely traumatic for someone vulnerable like that and the story of the whale is better explained by a psychotic break triggered by the attempted murder when viewing the story this way. I take the story to be a cautionary tale about the dangers of superstition and careless action (and the importance of seeking help if you’re in distress).
I very strongly disagree that nature doesn’t need explaining. Science and empirical study is one of the greatest achievements of humankind and has lead to progress beyond anything those who have come before could understand. Our study and attempt to understand silicon is the reason we’re even able to have this conversation. Without understanding of our world we never would have created medicine, computers, or gone to the moon. Personally I’m of the opinion that is it our duty and responsibility to know and understand the world we live in because the more we know, the more opportunities there are to experience the wonders and mysteries of the universe. If there is such a thing as a God, I’m sure they’d want us to marvel at the complexity of their creation.
Hey just wanted to make sure I explain myself a little more clearly, especially considering it sounds like you may have been a man of a God or creator of some kind at one time or another.
The story of Jonah teaches that the knowledge of the value of virtue, selflessness and goodness needs to be taught; it’s a knowledge that needs to gained. Because like the story of Jonah teaches at the very end of the story: some people don’t even have the ability to tell from their left or right hand. Or in other words: ignorance (lack of knowledge) is an inevitability, nobody can know until they know. The now pejorative word is neither an insult, nor is it insulting; it’s nothing more than an adjective to explain my or someones lack of knowledge to anything in particular.
All hate and evil can be catorgorized as this inevitable lack of knowledge—thus warranting any degree of it infinite forgiveness, because again: you don’t know until you know, this would of course include the lack of knowledge that leads to hate, evil, and iniquity.
Jesus would always refer to God as “Father” because that’s how he was taught about what this God consists of, as having a parents kind of love for you—rememebe the very beginning of The Gospels, where he becomes lost and is found at a temple? And is taught of God as being his “Father;” if you had a child and they committed suicide, would you want them to burn eternally in a lake of fire for it? Of course not. And Jesus didn’t know who his real father was correct? Interesting right? Ultimately what I’m trying to say is that everything we know of God now has came from a collection of blind men, telling other blind men that what they have to say should be held as unquestionably true via the influences of the idea of a God and an afterlife (of a “heaven”). Everything ever since Jesus—Paul’s letters, The Nicene Creed, The Book of Revelation, the idea that a God of love unconditionally would bother with conditions like having to believe Jesus was divine or any of the seemingly infinite amount of external conditions that need to be met to call yourself a “true Christian.” Despite Jesus calling the Pharisees as hypocritical every chance he could get and when his disciples told him of some external thing that they needed (bread in the circumstance linked) he would dismiss it as completely unnecessary: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A5-20&version=NIV
Jesus calling out Pharisees: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+23&version=NIV 8"But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."
I’d like to end with my one of my favorite things Jesus said, on the the Sermon On the Mount (debately, the most publicized point of his teaching, thus, the most accurate) that lead to the connection between what Socrates had to say and Jesus: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=ESV
Oaths
33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.[g]
Anything more then yes or no regarding the influences that come from the idea of a heaven (God and an afterlife), or Earth (people and what their presently sharing in), only comes from a worry; a need; a fear for oneself: a selfishness. This is what I meant when I said it doesn’t matter what the meaning of existence is exactly, because questions like that only come from our sense of selfishness, and only lead to division, i.e., religion or more theoretical sciences and philosophy; they pale in comparison to the truth that is our capacity for selflessness not only individually, but especially collectively.
Oh and on the topic of suffering being subjective: love and hate are quantifiable; morality can be measured. War can easily be measured amongst some of the many terrible forms of hate and evil for example. So yes, the more smaller, mediocre, examples of suffering can by very subjective, but I think it’s safe to say we can agree to go to war is to suffer, and so on. Suffering isn’t as subjective as you think is what I’m saying, but ultimatley what I’m saying regarding the more mediocre examples like displeasure, discomfort, inconvenience, misfortune, these can be seen as not suffering at all, collectively, and to resist them is to stay off the path of eventually losing them, losing the ability to be pleasured, fortunate etc; saps and corrupts a concious mind. But when teaching yourself the opposite, you’re not setting yourself up for inevitable disappointment—because all desire except selflessness is temporary.
And you said a few comments back that no combination of words etc. For me, the right combination of words were simply: “We can’t beat out all the hate in the world, with more hate; only love has that ability.” - Martin Luther King Jr.
Couple that with the context of who said it and I couldn’t help but to start taking the words themselves, and the logic it connotates, very seriously, and considering it in a whole new, far bigger way.