To live is to suffer...

[Mael]

To exist would have been more appropriate, imo.

Pain and pleasure are two sides of the same coin, inextricably linked by the presence of an observer (the coin's center). If I decided to start smoking tomorrow, along with a diet that consisted of nothing but junk food for the rest of the year, a life devoid of suffering would mean a lack of consequence. That would be absurd, and thus value is negated (being healthy would have no specific meaning).

However, there is greater significance in an act whereby the opposing force is greater than yourself. It would be more impressive to see an old man with a sprained ankle complete a marathon, rather than a young, fit guy.

So what we end up with is a pursuit to find both states of the highest value and significance. And this must come through suffering (the inherent opposing force).

[oats]

Originally Posted by Mael

To exist would have been more appropriate, imo.

Pain and pleasure are two sides of the same coin, inextricably linked by the presence of an observer (the coin's center). If I decided to start smoking tomorrow, along with a diet that consisted of nothing but junk food for the rest of the year, a life devoid of suffering would mean a lack of consequence. That would be absurd, and thus value is negated (being healthy would have no specific meaning).

However, there is greater significance in an act whereby the opposing force is greater than yourself. It would be more impressive to see an old man with a sprained ankle complete a marathon, rather than a young, fit guy.

So what we end up with is a pursuit to find both states of the highest value and significance. And this must come through suffering (the inherent opposing force).

I came in here to redeem my previous stupidity with a Henrich Ibsen quote:

("To live it to do battle with trolls
in the vaults of the heart and brain.
To write: that is to sit
in judgement over one's self.")

but this caught my attention. elaborate.

[Mael]

Originally Posted by oats

I came in here to redeem my previous stupidity with a Henrich Ibsen quote:

("To live it to do battle with trolls
in the vaults of the heart and brain.
To write: that is to sit
in judgement over one's self.")

but this caught my attention. elaborate.

Well, firstly, you can't win a battle without an opponent (an opposing force). I suppose you can, but no-show wins aren't really wins at all. This represents suffering (rather, suffering represents opposition), and depending on the type of battle, it could be physical (i.e. MMA, Boxing, contact sports). Significance increases by the relation between opposing forces. It'd be more impressive for me to beat Beyond in his prime then R!canTheoryz. To be the best you got to beat the beat.

Aesthetics, however, seems to be an exception to this. Sort of an effortless, minimalistic beauty. Art, I suppose, represents this abstraction. Artists don't really have to "battle" other artists in order for others to be impressed by their work. This is a plane of existence where subjectivity makes the calls.

So I guess it's objectivity vs. subjectivity.