Quote:
Originally Posted by oats
@ Mael I think there is something to that concept, but the cornerstone is flawed - that opposition necessitates suffering, or vice versa. To me, that's just a single facet of suffering. Suffering can be an absence, rather than a force. For example, if a loved one dies, the suffering truly lies in their absence, not the force of death/act of dying(which I would contend isn't a force at all, but rather an absence of life). To use your example, the absence of an opponent could be the source of suffering for someone, too.
Your initial example, however, is very interesting to unpack (the absence of consequence being the end of suffering, and the connection between suffering and value). |
I agree, but I contend that the absence of X implies the
presence of Y (depression). And depression is as a force, like a heavy weight, that brings a person down through emotions. Although I'm speaking metaphorically, we're still talking about that which is 'opposing', and even if emotional, it has physical effects.
Consider as well that 'opposing' relates to the word
opposite. If I hold high expectations in meeting my opponent for battle, the opposite of this outcome (him not showing up, or as you simply put, his absence) would be in some sense a form of suffering, and thus, 'opposed' to what I consider, circumstantially, as a form of pleasure.
Hope you catch my drift? I'd say the only true absence is nonexistence.