If someone holds false views about parts of a philosopher's thinking, they may be misled into believing that the system the philosopher built on those parts is self-contradictory or untenable. If we want to judge Adam Smith's philosophy as a whole we need to make sure we're properly understanding him in the details.

> I kind of agree with you that an ideal life is probably with the minimum suffering, but it is a slippery slope because without it, that could include also avoiding adversity. There is no growth and maturation for the individual and society if there is no adversity. It is as integral to life as happiness and pleasure. If there is no adversity, how could one know what the latter is, and vice versa?

You clearly stated that a life without adversity would be an impoverished one, resulting in no growth or maturity for the individual or society, and then stated it is as integral as happiness and pleasure.

Ergo a life insufficient in adversity is as affirmable as an unhappy life, and we ought to seek adversity in a similar manner to how we seek happiness when either is deficient.

I'm not "putting words into your mouth." I'm explaining what your position entails if we take it seriously.

If the good life requires adversity for maturity and and growth (and maturity and growth are goods) then anyone not enduring adversity, or enduring an insufficient amount of it, or enduring the wrong kinds of it, or in the wrong admixtures, will be lacking in those goods.

If we should be pursuing the good life (which we should, by definition) then we shall need to seek out adversity. And this is an incredible game of hazard, pregnant with all kinds of dangers that make the good life impossible.

> Some people think their answer to good and/or meaningful life is to have raise a family with children, others think they're happy being childless.

Then we have people who differ on what makes the ideal life objectively worth living. And if you're saying some people think the good life consists in raising a family for them, but they don't think doing so will result in the good life for others, we are talking about preferences, or something smaller than the good life, not the good life itself.

> philosophy in general teaches that whatever comes, be prepared for it with the knowledge and wisdom granted to us by experience and education.

This is a fine explanation of what philosophy is for (if we are to value it for its uses) but I'll note that it has nothing essentially to do with adversity.

Wisdom is also needed for correct judgment and action when dealing with boons and good fortune. If philosophy is for helping us deal with whatever comes it's primary importance cannot be in the managing of adversity.

I dont find absurdity of life to be suffering at all. Quite the opposite, I find it comforting and fun.

I believe self awareness is just a small part of the brain like a cog in a system and we aren’t a being or person but a small function in survival. And I believe I “die” each time I zone out. The part of the brain we exist in transfers information across the brain and we do not consciously exist until something stressful our mind cannot properly comprehend comes into play. And like a computer we can retrieve memories from our mind to help make choices and create scenarios. But ultimately it is all we can do before fading out. No matter how stressful something is, do it enough and u zone out. It is a”sad” reality but like the cat in the box, if u wait 100 years to accept the cat is dead, it won’t change the state of the cat. Feedback is appreciated, I’m just beginning my philosophical journey.

I've been having these questions about suffering and whether an absolutely horrible life should be lived lately these months. I believe that in some extreme cases where a good future is impossible, suicide is logical.

Suffering is something that is part of existence. Everyone will suffer. Now, suffering in an intense way for a long time without a perception of salvation is something that no one should go through, but some do. I don't believe that we should all cease to exist because of this minority. As it is inevitable that these people who suffer intensely will exist, I believe that the best solution is to seek the best option for them, that being trying to find some salvation that guarantees a better life or a peaceful death.

Perfection will never exist. Me, you, society, life and existence will always have problems, but the most logical decision I believe is that we should always live trying to be good, to learn and solve these problems. Two things that I believe help the existence, and perhaps even the growth, of suffering is the ignorance and selfishness that many people have. That's why I hate phrases like "ignorance is bliss" or "only seek happiness in your life because you only live once".

Exactly!

Funny how often the acts to promote races and genders only create larger barriers

> The idea that general well-being is subjective is itself kind of silly, given that we are talking about something that is universal, or at least adheres equally to every human being. There's no good reason for thinking that something which is true of 100% of human beings is subjective.

Some people think their answer to good and/or meaningful life is to have raise a family with children, others think they're happy being childless. I think we can both agree that either desires/goals are perfectly valid. It's complexity like this that rather makes defining arbitrarily what a good life is difficult. If we are to discuss universal human values, it's the mutual respect-- golden rule-- that is arguably the most enduring and arbitrary (but even morality is arguably a construct and therefore subjective but that is a discussion worthy of its own time).

>And to that I would say: this is not a philosophy by which a human being can actually live because we do not and can not know what kinds of adversity, and in what amounts, would actually benefit us except in hindsight (if at all).

You put words into my mouth and this is what I am trying to get across. We don't know what adversity will face, and philosophy in general teaches that whatever comes, be prepared for it with the knowledge and wisdom granted to us by experience and education. It's not seeking adversity for adversity’s sake, but rather learning to accept that the unpredictability of negative externalities is a fact of life and overcoming the challenges thrown at us. Humans could not possibly foresee all sufferings and prevent those from happening. The best example is technology. As much as mass, instant digital media have eased our communications, this also led to an entirely different set of problems for humans, especially with fake news and mental health.

I'm not talking about any specific religious belief, unless you believe that everything unprovable is a lie.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

> It's not necessarily objective nor subjective.

Then it's anything. What an empty sentence.

> But the approach on how to [achieve a good life that benefits everyone's well-being] is very much subjective.

I disagree. People can reasonably disagree about things that have objective value, and do so for a variety of reasons ranging from ignorance, to lack of clarity, to misplaced judgment, misunderstanding, or just plain disagreeing about philosophical priors.

The idea that general well-being is subjective is itself kind of silly, given that we are talking about something that is universal, or at least adheres equally to every human being. There's no good reason for thinking that something which is true of 100% of human beings is subjective.

And if it isn't true of 100% of human beings, well, we aren't really talking about a good life with a wide enough net that can describe benefiting everyone's well being, well are we?

> I kind of agree with you that an ideal life is probably with the minimum suffering, but it is a slippery slope because without it, that could include also avoiding adversity.

So, let's not define it that way. If we think that adversity is a necessary condition for the good life, then let's go from....

• The good life is the one with a minimum of suffering

To

• The good life is the one with a maximum amount of suffering that a given individual can overcome and be made useful to them.

And to that I would say: this is not a philosophy by which a human being can actually live because we do not and can not know what kinds of adversity, and in what amounts, would actually benefit us except in hindsight (if at all).

Which makes pursuing the good life an impossible task to do, short of seeking adversity for adversity's sake and hoping to not be overwhelmed.

This ends up defining the acquisition of that ultimate good, the good life, as something that can only happen by chance. And I disagree that the good life is basically equivalent to being lucky.

Even stranger, at least to my way of thinking: why are humans so concerned about the well-being of AI in the future, when they have such little concern for the well-being of most instances of biological intelligence in the present. Is this not highly counterintuitive, or maybe even paradoxical?

>It's only a matter of time before we figure out how to reverse-engineer that system to create feeling machines.

I think it is worth considering what we know about the origin of that fact.

> Sorry but both of these are material and physical and in this universe.

What device is used to measure them?

What is the unit of measure?

Where are they located, precisely (not approximately).

> Causes of what?

The end state of reality as it is, as opposed to some other end state (one that people would find more appealing, and perhaps complain about less).

>>> Also would you agree that religion should have no role in medicine because medicine is in the material physical world.

>> I would not, because the situation is not yet understood well enough to move to a conclusion forming stage.

> What part of medicine are you claiming is supernatural?

Primarily, the portions that contribute to causality (primarily: the mind)

For clarity (to avoid people accidentally using a colloquial meaning of the term):

supernatural: "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond [current] scientific understanding or the laws of nature"

>> This seems like a half decent example of the cartoonish conceptualization of the world I mention above.

> I am just trying to understand where you are coming from.

I suspect that is not the only thing that is going on (here I am referencing the "just" in your sentence).

> You are convinced there exists some thing that is not physical and material.

Correct. Perhaps you can release me from this potential delusion by answering my questions.

> I want to know what that is.

a) Causality.

b) Human delusion and hubris.

> Furthermore I want to know how you got convinced such a thing exists.

For "causality": People complain about the consequences of it, passionately and endlessly, but never the causes themselves (beyond cartoonishly simplistic misrepresentations, the contents of which are largely seeded into our minds from largely unknown sources).

For "Human delusion and hubris": People complain about the consequences of it [causality], passionately and endlessly, but never the causes themselves (beyond cartoonishly simplistic misrepresentations, the contents of which are largely seeded into our minds from largely unknown sources).

> Also now that we are on medicine what kinds of treatments this supernatural thing is good for and what diseases or ailments we should take away from doctors and hospitals because they can only treat the physical and the material.

For causality: treatments are a subset of causality, and are intimately entangled.

For "Human delusion and hubris": the placebo effect is well known and sometimes still used (I believe) in medicine.

I do not agree that we should be taking things away from doctors and hospitals, and I also do not believe that they can (or do) only treat the physical and the material. I believe they could do much more, but to their credit they at least try, if only somewhat (bureaucracy and delusion makes innovation and progress difficult - recall how controversial ideas like washing hands or having checklists was when they were first suggested).

> You made a series of claims. I just want to examine them in this philosphy subreddit..

Great, then let's proceed.

Can you cite a scientific source for these claims?

Science is a process of discovery. Why is it such a foreign thought to believe that someone could deduce their way towards religion? I started out as a nihilist. The more I studied quantum physics, the more I found scientists that go deep down that path turn to religion. I know this is shattering to your thesis but I didn't make your thesis.

Here's a few example for your thought, if you would stop engaging in bad faith.

-born with stage 4 bone cancer, died in agony at age 10, not a single day without pain.

-Entire family kidnapped, tortured, raped and murdered in front of them due to war, the cartel, ethnic cleansing, random psycho.

-born with genetic mental torture, the "happy" part of their brain are literally missing (as in no brain matter in that section), not a single day of their existence is not torture.

-millions of children live very short and torturous lives due to war, famine, natural disasters, poverty, genetic diseases, crime, random unpreventable bad luck, etc. What is the worth of their existence? Would you trade places with them?

"Not enjoying life" and "not happy" indeed, this is reality, actual nightmare is a thing for some people, friend.

Telling the victims of suffering to just kill themselves is the MOST deplorable thing another human being could do, extreme sociopathy by definition, not a justification for anything but pure sociopathy.

Its not your problem because you just dont care, you do you, but a lot us do care and are working hard to find a way to make existence worth it for the victims, unless you wanna physically stop us to uphold your "ideal" of narcissism, then why bother shouting about it from the top of your lungs?

>Causality.

>Human delusion and hubris.

Sorry but both of these are material and physical and in this universe.

>People complain about the consequences of it, passionately and endlessly, but never the causes themselves (beyond cartoonishly simplistic misrepresentations, the contents of which are largely seeded into our minds from largely unknown sources)

Causes of what?

>I would not, because the situation is not yet understood well enough to move to a conclusion forming stage.

What part of medicine are you claiming is supernatural?

>This seems like a half decent example of the cartoonish conceptualization of the world I mention above.

I am just trying to understand where you are coming from. You are convinced there exists some thing that is not physical and material. I want to know what that is. Furthermore I want to know how you got convinced such a thing exists. Also now that we are on medicine what kinds of treatments this supernatural thing is good for and what diseases or ailments we should take away from doctors and hospitals because they can only treat the physical and the material.

You made a series of claims. I just want to examine them in this philosphy subreddit.

[removed]

>I know that there are other dimensions beyond our own and that matter exists in them. I know this because dark matter and other elements "exist".

Dark matter is in our universe and definitely belongs to the material physical world.

Since you have based your belief in the other dimensions on this piece of evidence I presume you no longer believe those things right?

> Every single time science declares it has all of the answers though, another rabbit hole appears. Almost like a carrot

Science is a process of discovery. The universe is vast and complex. As we learn more we find there is more to learn.

Perhaps that's not by design at all. Perhaps you are just another religious person who sticks god into every gap because you are afraid of going to hell and your parents instilled that fear into you while you were young.

We do have robots with sensory components. Robotic arms that can sense pressure and texture for example. Presumably if you built a robot with more sensory inputs and greater AI some sort of feelings could emerge.

In some way, this is the default philosophy of humanity and the strongest counter argument against pessimistic philosophies, though I personally dont think its a strong argument.

"We keep going at the expense of the unlucky few because majority rule, has been and will always be." -- is their strongest argument, which is hard to challenge if they truly believe in it.

Personally, I think we need a better philosophy that gives the victims of existence more consideration that they deserve, because they most definitely have a vote in this human experiment, since they have paid the highest price for it, by suffering lives that are not worth living.

I hope we can develop such a philosophy soon, because many are giving up and flocking to pessimism.

If we want to be morally consistent, to not just shout slogans about individual well being and actually care for the victims, then we better do something about it soon. Majority rule is just not a good moral stance.

It is an issue if we want to be morally consistent and dont agree with "majority rule" when it comes to suffering.

We constantly shout about how moral we are because we care about individuals, but when it comes to extreme suffering of some unlucky victims, we swing back to moral collectivism, ignoring the victims for the many, this is morally questionable if not deplorable.

Possibility or inevitability? I'm pretty sure victims of terrible endless suffering still exist, friend.

Though I personally disagree that we should end the world due to the suffering of some people, it is also true that we still dont have any good philosophy that could convincingly argue for the existence of these victims.

The closest we get is "majority rule" and that's just not good enough of a justification, in my opinion.

Because religion is always right. /s

Philosophy teaches to be "better" in the sense of improving one's situation-- be it improving material conditions or well-being-- so long as it is within one's control. It teaches to be more pragmatic, which is where acknowledging reality comes in. One can recognise what is futile and what alternative options a person can take by being armed with both cognitive and meta-cognitive tools from what other philosophical thoughts can teach.

Achieving, or at least coming close to, a good life is paradoxical is what I am saying. It's not necessarily objective nor subjective. On the one hand, individuals have their own desires, understanding and definition of what a good life is. Then on the other hand, I think we can both agree that obsessing on social status and validation, chasing fleeting short-term pleasures, and not looking after the well-being of yourself and others do not constitute a good life. In my opinion, a good life needs to have wider net benefit for everyone's well-being-- that much is objective. But the approach on how to do so is very much subjective.

I kind of agree with you that an ideal life is probably with the minimum suffering, but it is a slippery slope because without it, that could include also avoiding adversity. There is no growth and maturation for the individual and society if there is no adversity. It is as integral to life as happiness and pleasure. If there is no adversity, how could one know what the latter is, and vice versa?