DarkFriend.
Neverending Suffering
- May 1, 2022
- 65
I've seen a lot of posts on here recently about how life is meaningless and inherently valueless, and lots of people lamenting about their misery and suffering and some thoughts came to me this afternoon.
Despite how terrible life can be at times, I do believe that there is some value in existing in the first place. A few things come to mind when I think of this.
Firstly--I argue that what if, in order to see the value in nonexistence, we must first exist? This of course presupposes that there is a value in nonexistence (since you've now lived I think that you can agree with me on this part). But if we'd never existed in the first place, when and how could there be any sort of recognition of value at all?
These 'values' can be represented by the symbols 0, +, -
Let's say that the idea of existence being a negative thing is represented by -
Let's say that the idea of existence being a positive thing (meaning there is some redeeming quality to it from someone's perspective) is represented by +
And the base state, meaning the state of nonexistence (some would say the ideal state), is represented by 0
Type A)
0, -, + = 0 [You're born, which is a negative, then you die, which is a positive, ending in the original state.]
In this example we can argue that there was inherent value to existing, in that the ideal state couldn't be recognized without first existing. Also, there can at any point throughout this person's life be a change of perspective, to where the negative feeling toward life turns into a positive, or least the possibility of the acknowledgement of a redemptive quality.
Type B)
0, +, - = 0 [You're born, which is a positive, then you die, which is a negative, ending in the original state.]
Obviously we can argue that there was some value here, since, even though the original state was reached, and there was the experience of death which was perceived as as a negative, there at least was some time in which there was positive acknowledgement.
Type C)
0, +, + = 2 [You're born, which is a positive, then you die, which is embraced as a positive and part of the life-cycle.]
I think that this can be argued to be the most valuable type of existence, where there are redemptive qualities found in the first state of existence, and also the embracement of death which can also be seen (as it is in some cultures and schools of thought) as a positive.
Theoretical type; type D)
0, 0, 0 = 0 [You're born, which you're neutral on, then you die, which you're also neutral on.]
I think that theoretically this person exists, but practically speaking this is improbable, since we are sentient, emotional beings. I don't know of any person that can possibly remain neutral on any and everything throughout his or her life all the way through, and see neither redemptive qualities nor negative ones. Perhaps this can be represented only philosophically.
Perhaps the best representation of this type is non-sentient life, that which performs its basic functions and has neither the luxury nor the burden of withstanding opinion.
Impossible type; type E)
0, -, - = -2 [You're born, which is a negative, then you die, which is also a negative.]
This type cannot exist simply because if life is perceived as a negative, then death will always be issued as the escape. Meaning that death is, even if suffering in and of itself, a net positive, and a return to the ideal state.
Ultimately I think that life has no inherent meaning, but that at least there is a single redemptive aspect to it, because at the very least, even if someone is in category A (which is where I think many here are), that person could have never recognized the value of the state of nonexistence without first existing. We can of course say that not existing in the first place is preferable to all types--but since we do, in fact, exist, this is arguing for the impossible.
All of this leads me to the question in the title, and another question:
1. Do you believe there is any redemptive quality to life?
2. If not, do you want there to be value in life?
Despite how terrible life can be at times, I do believe that there is some value in existing in the first place. A few things come to mind when I think of this.
Firstly--I argue that what if, in order to see the value in nonexistence, we must first exist? This of course presupposes that there is a value in nonexistence (since you've now lived I think that you can agree with me on this part). But if we'd never existed in the first place, when and how could there be any sort of recognition of value at all?
These 'values' can be represented by the symbols 0, +, -
Let's say that the idea of existence being a negative thing is represented by -
Let's say that the idea of existence being a positive thing (meaning there is some redeeming quality to it from someone's perspective) is represented by +
And the base state, meaning the state of nonexistence (some would say the ideal state), is represented by 0
Type A)
0, -, + = 0 [You're born, which is a negative, then you die, which is a positive, ending in the original state.]
In this example we can argue that there was inherent value to existing, in that the ideal state couldn't be recognized without first existing. Also, there can at any point throughout this person's life be a change of perspective, to where the negative feeling toward life turns into a positive, or least the possibility of the acknowledgement of a redemptive quality.
Type B)
0, +, - = 0 [You're born, which is a positive, then you die, which is a negative, ending in the original state.]
Obviously we can argue that there was some value here, since, even though the original state was reached, and there was the experience of death which was perceived as as a negative, there at least was some time in which there was positive acknowledgement.
Type C)
0, +, + = 2 [You're born, which is a positive, then you die, which is embraced as a positive and part of the life-cycle.]
I think that this can be argued to be the most valuable type of existence, where there are redemptive qualities found in the first state of existence, and also the embracement of death which can also be seen (as it is in some cultures and schools of thought) as a positive.
Theoretical type; type D)
0, 0, 0 = 0 [You're born, which you're neutral on, then you die, which you're also neutral on.]
I think that theoretically this person exists, but practically speaking this is improbable, since we are sentient, emotional beings. I don't know of any person that can possibly remain neutral on any and everything throughout his or her life all the way through, and see neither redemptive qualities nor negative ones. Perhaps this can be represented only philosophically.
Perhaps the best representation of this type is non-sentient life, that which performs its basic functions and has neither the luxury nor the burden of withstanding opinion.
Impossible type; type E)
0, -, - = -2 [You're born, which is a negative, then you die, which is also a negative.]
This type cannot exist simply because if life is perceived as a negative, then death will always be issued as the escape. Meaning that death is, even if suffering in and of itself, a net positive, and a return to the ideal state.
Ultimately I think that life has no inherent meaning, but that at least there is a single redemptive aspect to it, because at the very least, even if someone is in category A (which is where I think many here are), that person could have never recognized the value of the state of nonexistence without first existing. We can of course say that not existing in the first place is preferable to all types--but since we do, in fact, exist, this is arguing for the impossible.
All of this leads me to the question in the title, and another question:
1. Do you believe there is any redemptive quality to life?
2. If not, do you want there to be value in life?
