JP2

I think it's quite clear that desire can be the cause of suffering a lot of the time. Perhaps, if you were particularly good at argumentation, you may even be able to get away with the statement that all suffering is caused by desire. But it's a bit of a non-sequitor to go on and suggest that as all suffering may be caused by desire, all desire must therefore cause suffering.

Desire may be the cause of our greatest sufferings, but without the "will" that this desire stimulates, I doubt we would ever have the happiness that we do either. As Neitzsche said (though I can't remember his exact wording) if you kill off desire, there is nothing left. What more does a man have to live for if he desires nothing?

Also, I don't quite understand why what appears to be a defense of stoicism is headed with "Original Sin"? What's the link between the misguided desire you speak of and anything resembling original sin? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Vesica

Quote:

: But we can make up for our original sinfulness by terminating our desires.

I can't really fault this statement but I feel I have to point out that terminating all our desires would probably be concurrent with terminating our existence...At least on this plane. So Yes, being dead would make it a whole lot easier to desire nothing.....

I seem to be missing your point...Was there a question or topic for discussion hidden somewhere in there???

Laurentius

Quote: The cause of all suffering is caused by desiring, wanting, etc. And since suffering is not desirable or desired, the cause of suffering is bad. And since nothing bad is desired, suffering, caused by desire and wanting, is morally incorrect. The stronger the desire, therefore, the more incorrect it is morally. When a desire is not or cannot be satisfied, we suffer. The cause of this suffering (in most cases) is the desire of someone or something else. (Or, to be less vague, I mean this in two ways: the cause of suffering is the desire of other people, whether collectively or individually--the desires that conflict with our own desires; and our desire for other people and other things.) For example, a criminal prisoner suffers because he desires to be free, and the cause of his suffering is the justified desire of the people to imprison criminals. Since the end justifies the means, anything that is the result of something bad is necessarily bad (otherwise it would not be bad to begin with, because its result would be something good). And since a child is the result of desire, which is the cause of suffering and therefore bad and morally incorrect, and since whatever is the result of something bad is bad, all children are bad, ie., sinful. Edit: But we can make up for our original sinfulness by terminating our desires.


Either this post is highly confusing or it needs a genius to grasp its meaning.

And since nothing bad is desired, suffering, caused by desire and wanting, is morally incorrect.

In my opinion the sentence is the most obscure of the initial post.

Nothing bad is desired?
How come?

Suffering is morally incorect?
To whom?

When a sin is committed a law is broken.
Breaking a law is the incorrect thing to do.
While punishing the evil doer is the correct thing to do.
Morally speaking, suffering is the means through which the correct thing to do is enforced in the society.

Last but not least, Arthur Schopenhauer pointed out how essential suffering is to the making of a genius.


AVE

dostf

Lady Anoteros:

- Wanting or desiring does not cause suffering. Only the idea or belief that fulfillment of that desire will allow one to be "happy" or "fulfilled"
- desire for better life, better things, better health etc. is useful and reasonable, as long as one recognizes them for what they are in relation of importance to one's "humaness"
- your post reminded me why i do not like Buddhism and its inherent pessimism

Be seeing you...

AtlanticCitySlave

I am in the middle of moving, but wanted to respond quickly. My apologies ahead of time if it sucks. You’ll think it sucks anyway probably, but still…


“Good point. Perhaps this will be better: All mental pain is caused by desire; some physical pain is caused by desire.”

-This admission alone destroys your whole argument, unless you want to reformulate it. All mental pain is not caused by desire. Physical pain produces mental pain, you admit some physical pain is caused by desire, but what sense does it make to say one is in physical pain if they aren’t in mental pain as well? Am I in pain if I don’t feel it mentally? Do you not think the mental and physical are the same or at least united in some way?


“First: Tell me why a person would not desire to walk or drive a vehicle when walking or driving a vehicle. I ask this because there must be some end that he is attracted by.”


-(1) A person may be sleepwalking from their room out into the street, which has happened. Another person may have fallen asleep at the wheel. Bingo Bango, they hit, without a desire getting in the way (note: someone falling asleep doesn’t mean they desired to fall asleep). (2) This begs the question. You will just call the “end” a “desire”, so asserting there “must be some end that he is attracted by” is simply assuming your own stance.


“I consider it self evident. It is a universal truth that no man desires to suffer.”

-I consider it self evident that it’s not, so we have a double extraordinaire here.


“Tell me exactly how they desire to suffer. Again, there must be some desirable end that makes up for the suffering (for the end always justifies the means).”


-Many people have expressed a desire to be punished/suffer for doing a wrong (like killing a young girl). Other’s, such as the existentialists in us, desire to suffer because we realize through suffering we find life and grow. Etc. Just because they may desire an ultimate end (finding life and growing), to do so they desire to suffer (in order to get there), and thus they desire to suffer. Again, your statement begs the question. “The ends always justifies the means” is not something we all agree on (or at least not me) and you simply saying it without justifying it doesn’t convince me to accept it. Killing a million children to become President doesn’t make the end (becoming President) justifiable for the means (of killing babies).


“The man rapes does not suffer, or at least does not desire to suffer. The man who desires to rape causes the person he rapes to suffer. As in all cases of suffering among men, the cause of this suffering is desire.”


-I don’t see how this makes any sense. You said nothing that is bad is desired, and my two points were that obviously things most of us consider “bad” (although you apparently do not) are desired. Do you not consider rape “bad”? Many men desire to rape, so yes, people do desire to do bad.


“Oh, you mention such trivial examples. All intense desires, I should say, cause suffering within us if while the object of the person's desire is unfeasible to attain, or so long as it is desired.”

-And once again you have to modify your argument. My examples aren’t “trivial”, they are just showing your stance doesn’t make much sense (at least to me). Who decides what is an “intense desire”? Trust me, I have a very intense desire to sleep with Christina Aguilera, but I would hardly say I’m suffering by not being able to do so.

“Then the end did in fact justify the means.”

-How does the woman coming to love her baby justify the man raping her?


Being that you have backed off of your overall position twice now, I think it would help if you would reformulate your overall argument. I’m not even sure what your conclusion is (something with children I suppose). It’s written in a way that is confusing, and the best way for us (and by us I mean everyone reading) to get through the confusion is if you try to write it in a somewhat understandable manner.

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: AtlanticCitySlave ]

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: AtlanticCitySlave ]</p>

Totalitarianist

This is not even finish, but I will not be using my computer for 24 hours, so I will post it (reply to above person):

1)All members of class "desire" are anterior in manistation to all members of class "suffering".

(We must assume, therefore, that the cause of suffering is desire, for we associate like powers with like effects.)

2)All members of class "desire" are the sufficient and necessary condition of class "suffering". (See number 7: that which does not negate "badness" is likewise bad, if and only if it is expected to be cognizant of goodness and badness. Desire is bad.)

3)Suffering is a member of class "bad".

4)No sentient object of class "human" desires to be a member of class "suffering".

5)All members of class "bad" are not members of class "desired" if and only if class "suffering" is anterior to it from the perspective of the sentient object specified above as class "human".

6)Members of class "bad" can vary in quantity of badness. (Infected by more units, or more members, of class "bad".)

7)All that does not negate any member of class "bad" is likewise bad, if and only if it is expected to be cognizant of goodness and badness.

8)All sentient objects that are a member of class "bad" cannot cause anything contrary to their nature.

We can say that a parent who is a sentient object that is a member of class "bad" cannot be the cause of something good.

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Lady Anoteros ]</p>

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Why should 'suffering' be viewed as any sort of moral standard?

Keith.

Totalitarianist

He desires it in his sleep.

That is a good example. I am sure a few could be allowed without destroying the entire idea. Perhaps if we replaced desire with the Will?

They do not desire the suffering itself or punishment itself. They desire honour and/or the termination of their guilt.

I still cannot understand how they desire suffering-in-itself.

It is only bad if the rape has an undesirable affect upon the rapist. For example, if he become guilty or depressed. Otherwise it is good for the rapist. I do not believe that badness is objective. All suffering that we as individuals experience is almost invariably caused by either our own, unsatisfied desires or the desire of someone else. It is always bad.

Maybe you can get that desire temporarily satisfied by sexual fantasies or sexual contact with someone other than yourself. And I do believe that want of sex or love is suffering.

Arvel Joffi

If you desire suffering, are you truly suffering when you attain it? I think it's a bit of a paradox. It's like, "If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?"

Keith Russell

Lady:

Why should 'suffering' be viewed as any kind of moral 'standard'?

Keith.