To live is to suffer...

[Frank Metts]

... To survive is to find meaning in the suffering

That's Nietzsche btw not DMX


Discuss

[NYCSPITZ]

meaning in the suffering...

Nietzsche is oft quoted and more often misinterpreted. He viewed himself first and foremost as an artist, his philosophical books have an artistic cadence and rhythm to them something akin to a musical score. My favorite piece by him is thus spoke zarathustra, hilarious and filled with pithy dialogue

lol @ dmx

[Mr. J]

Good man....sad for DMX though

[Nahhh]

Mind fucked

[oats]

"That's what you get for hatin, FUCK YOU FAGGOT
I NEVER DID TRUST YOU FAGGOT, I BUST YOU FAGGOT"

That's DMX btw, not Nietzsche

[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.

[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).

[Mael]

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.

[Mael]

@oats

In fact, consider people who battle depression.

[veritas]

CONSIDER WHO YOUR TRUE OPPONENT IS.

[Frank Metts]

Your true opponent is yourself ...

[veritas]

Originally Posted by Frank Metts

Your true opponent is yourself ...

EXACTLY!

[Ghost1]

Originally Posted by oats

"That's what you get for hatin, FUCK YOU FAGGOT
I NEVER DID TRUST YOU FAGGOT, I BUST YOU FAGGOT"

That's DMX btw, not Nietzsche

Lold

[Rawn MD]

This is the basis behind Buddhism

And when @Frank Metts leg is fully healed and he descends from his mountain top Atheninian temple and ventures into the next closest village the people shall call him zarathrustra while throwing stones at him for blasphemy

Where he will prove that they like in more a constant state of bad faith that would make Jean Paul Sarte jealous

At which point he will draft a second edition to the Tibetian book of the dead and continue his mission in a Zen-like state, which accompanied with his past contributions, would ultimately inspire David Carradine to undergo his autoerrotic asphyxiation ordeal

[veritas]

^this seems legit.

[veritas]

I also like the idea of Rawn studying philosophy lol.

[Rawn MD]

I almost got a minor in Philo but i decided it would ultimately be pointless, but one of the coolest classes I took in college was exisistentialism

Ended up getting a minor in Health Science instead, made more sense given my major

[veritas]

Frankl and may go hard.