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.

  • dysprosium@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    12 days 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.

    • naught101@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      12 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 days 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.

        • naught101@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 days ago

          Goodness in one aspect doesn’t cancel badness in another…

          It can be always bad AND sometimes good.

    • Cosmoooooooo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 days 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.