Suffering. What a terrible thing. Pain, grief, heartbreak, humiliation—they’re the worst. If there’s one thing we can all agree on, it’s that suffering is bad, and we don’t want it. Right? Wrong. Suffering is good. We want it. We feed and nurture our suffering, because it is our friend. The idea that suffering is awful—that we’re all trying as hard as we can to avoid it—is bullshit. It’s contradicted by almost everything we do.
Because of this fundamental base reality, gnostic Christians concluded that material reality is in some core sense flawed and that it is controlled by a malevolent Demiurge, who seeks to torture and destroy the souls it has trapped within this reality. Under this perspective, suffering is ultimately about letting go of attachments (much like the Buddhists believe) in order to achieve spiritual communion with God.
Are you familiar with the theory of constructed emotion? This description of suffering seems to parallel a description of one end of one axis on the interoceptive "plane" pleasant-unpleasant. So, of course, the question of removing suffering, or what could possibly be described as interoceptive "unpleasant", would effectively reduce our emotional processing. This seems likely to reduce our ability to do well in the world, as the interoceptive system is considered to be tightly tied to our survival. Of course the contention that we are now over-selected for the world we inhabit - I could be persuaded, but that's difficult to answer, posed as a question.
If I could take the pill you suggested, I would. Interestingly, there's someone who essentially "took the pill" due to a rare genetic mutation. Her name is Joe Cameron. At a glance, it doesn't appear that this condition has stripped away her humanity or deprived her of anything she holds dear. You can view this short segment on her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp0y78VLwcQ&ab_channel=CBSMornings
I don't argue that all suffering is pointless; indeed, much of it has value. However, much of the suffering we endure is needless, stemming from our evolution in a far more dangerous environment. Our brains often present us with redundant suffering, such as the fight or flight response during an exam or anxiety when speaking in front of an audience. Many instances of pain and suffering are truly unnecessary. It's reminiscent of the arguments you highlighted that were used to oppose anesthesia in the mid-19th century, with some even asserting that pain was a crucial part of the healing process.
Another issue with this topic is that many of the examples of self-inflicted suffering you provided aren't conscious decisions. For instance, experiencing nightmares, regret, or grief isn't something people choose, any more than one chooses to feel hunger when not fed or pain when injured.
Some other examples you mentioned are also problematic. In the case of infidelity, one might endure greater anguish from doubting the paternity of their child. With the electric shocks, some individuals might find the company of their own thoughts and the grip of boredom more tormenting. It's not about willingly choosing suffering, but rather opting for the lesser of two pains in a situation where both options involve discomfort.
Sep 19, 2023·edited Sep 19, 2023Liked by David Pinsof
The fact that you simultaneously maintain that
a) we want to suffer, and
b) we don't want to be happy
says to me that you're equivocating on what you mean by 'want'. If you treat happiness and suffering as two sides of the same prediction-error coin (which I'm pretty okay with, for the record), it seems that, holding what we mean by 'want' fixed, either we don't want either (because they're *only* prediction-error cues vis-à-vis things that matter to us) or we want both (*because* they're very useful prediction-error cues).
Now, I suppose you might charge the common platitude – that what we really want is to be happy, and to avoid suffering – with the same equivocation. And that would be fair enough, except that this platitude doesn't come packaged with your particular prediction-error theory of motivation, emotions, happiness, etc., and so you don't get the equivocation, and least not immediately.
Also: I would resist your 'teachable moment'. You have a very nice discussion about the functionality of bullshitting about suffering. But if that's right, then all this bullshit around suffering *serves a purpose* – especially a variety of social ones. You wouldn't get a teachable moment until you have an argument that these purposes are somehow bad, or better served by something else, say, more stoic ideals.
Really interesting. This piece seems like a good argument for not trying to make your Substack more optimistic, as perhaps people aren't really looking for jolly ideas anyway - quite the reverse.
Wow, you may have nailed human nature (especially the art of BS, humble-bragging, and virtue-signaling) better than anyone. Especially in the workplace, this is spot on.
“There might be cases where you want to avoid chronic pain when there’s nothing’s wrong with you, or chronic anxiety when everything’s fine. But these dysfunctional cases are pretty rare.”
These are rare? Pretty sure chronic pain is all too common and chronic anxiety and worry ubiquitous. Maybe it’s just me.
I enjoyed this post, thanks for writing it. Sure, suffering can be and is used as a tool of learning, but I share Schopenhauer's philosophical pessimism on a more fundamental level: everything in this universe is predation, i.e. anything living must consume other living creatures in order to survive. Even a plant is sentient and seeks to fulfill its will to power: https://munewsarchives.missouri.edu/news-releases/2014/0701-plants-respond-to-leaf-vibrations-caused-by-insects%E2%80%99-chewing-mu-study-finds/
Because of this fundamental base reality, gnostic Christians concluded that material reality is in some core sense flawed and that it is controlled by a malevolent Demiurge, who seeks to torture and destroy the souls it has trapped within this reality. Under this perspective, suffering is ultimately about letting go of attachments (much like the Buddhists believe) in order to achieve spiritual communion with God.
Are you familiar with the theory of constructed emotion? This description of suffering seems to parallel a description of one end of one axis on the interoceptive "plane" pleasant-unpleasant. So, of course, the question of removing suffering, or what could possibly be described as interoceptive "unpleasant", would effectively reduce our emotional processing. This seems likely to reduce our ability to do well in the world, as the interoceptive system is considered to be tightly tied to our survival. Of course the contention that we are now over-selected for the world we inhabit - I could be persuaded, but that's difficult to answer, posed as a question.
If I could take the pill you suggested, I would. Interestingly, there's someone who essentially "took the pill" due to a rare genetic mutation. Her name is Joe Cameron. At a glance, it doesn't appear that this condition has stripped away her humanity or deprived her of anything she holds dear. You can view this short segment on her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp0y78VLwcQ&ab_channel=CBSMornings
I don't argue that all suffering is pointless; indeed, much of it has value. However, much of the suffering we endure is needless, stemming from our evolution in a far more dangerous environment. Our brains often present us with redundant suffering, such as the fight or flight response during an exam or anxiety when speaking in front of an audience. Many instances of pain and suffering are truly unnecessary. It's reminiscent of the arguments you highlighted that were used to oppose anesthesia in the mid-19th century, with some even asserting that pain was a crucial part of the healing process.
Another issue with this topic is that many of the examples of self-inflicted suffering you provided aren't conscious decisions. For instance, experiencing nightmares, regret, or grief isn't something people choose, any more than one chooses to feel hunger when not fed or pain when injured.
Some other examples you mentioned are also problematic. In the case of infidelity, one might endure greater anguish from doubting the paternity of their child. With the electric shocks, some individuals might find the company of their own thoughts and the grip of boredom more tormenting. It's not about willingly choosing suffering, but rather opting for the lesser of two pains in a situation where both options involve discomfort.
The fact that you simultaneously maintain that
a) we want to suffer, and
b) we don't want to be happy
says to me that you're equivocating on what you mean by 'want'. If you treat happiness and suffering as two sides of the same prediction-error coin (which I'm pretty okay with, for the record), it seems that, holding what we mean by 'want' fixed, either we don't want either (because they're *only* prediction-error cues vis-à-vis things that matter to us) or we want both (*because* they're very useful prediction-error cues).
Now, I suppose you might charge the common platitude – that what we really want is to be happy, and to avoid suffering – with the same equivocation. And that would be fair enough, except that this platitude doesn't come packaged with your particular prediction-error theory of motivation, emotions, happiness, etc., and so you don't get the equivocation, and least not immediately.
Also: I would resist your 'teachable moment'. You have a very nice discussion about the functionality of bullshitting about suffering. But if that's right, then all this bullshit around suffering *serves a purpose* – especially a variety of social ones. You wouldn't get a teachable moment until you have an argument that these purposes are somehow bad, or better served by something else, say, more stoic ideals.
Really interesting. This piece seems like a good argument for not trying to make your Substack more optimistic, as perhaps people aren't really looking for jolly ideas anyway - quite the reverse.
Wow, you may have nailed human nature (especially the art of BS, humble-bragging, and virtue-signaling) better than anyone. Especially in the workplace, this is spot on.
“There might be cases where you want to avoid chronic pain when there’s nothing’s wrong with you, or chronic anxiety when everything’s fine. But these dysfunctional cases are pretty rare.”
These are rare? Pretty sure chronic pain is all too common and chronic anxiety and worry ubiquitous. Maybe it’s just me.
“But it’s also good to avoid being a burden on others—itself a form of compassion. “ 🎯
There is a proverb that says "if there is pleasure there is pain".