A Life without suffering..

[Rabukurafoto]

Depends on the circumstances. If there was nothing to suffer about - i.e., if the world in which we live became some kind of flawless paradise - that would be great. But if one were to simply lose the capacity to suffer, while the world at large didn't improve, that could be troublesome. There is a reason for which we evolved our capacity to suffer: it is a powerful motivating factor. If bad things happened to us or around us, and we had no capacity to react with concern (fear or anxiety or what-have-you), we would probably go extinct very rapidly.

[The New California Republic]

If there was nothing to suffer about - i.e., if the world in which we live became some kind of flawless paradise - that would be great. But if one were to simply lose the capacity to suffer, while the world at large didn't improve, that could be troublesome.

Wouldn't the two be exactly the same? As the end result would be exactly the same...

[Kyrinasaj]

It would be meaningless, it's the same with a fully automated life. If you have everything, you have no reason to struggle, no limits. It would be a meaningless and terribly long life.

We learn primarily through hurtful that sounds, we learn to avoid it, if it doesn't exist we become just oblivious to it.

[Chestaan]

I don't think I would like to be close to someone who doesn't even feel a pang of grief/anger when they are shown about, say Hurricane Katrina.

[Rabukurafoto]

If there was nothing to suffer about - i.e., if the world in which we live became some kind of flawless paradise - that would be great. But if one were to simply lose the capacity to suffer, while the world at large didn't improve, that could be troublesome.

Wouldn't the two be exactly the same? As the end result would be exactly the same...

Not the way I see it. In the first case, one could hypothetically retain the ability to suffer, but it would never be used, because the world would be exactly as one wants it. E.g., no one would ever run over your cat.

In the second case, the world wouldn't change, but one would lose the ability to suffer for things that previously would have made one suffer. E.g., someone would run over your cat, and you would be okay with that.

The end result would almost certainly differ in that in the first case, the person in question would live a happy life. In the second case, the person in question would probably die due to apathy toward sources of danger. They might not even care about things like hunger or tiredness. Either way there's no suffering, but I'd personally value a happy life more highly than none at all...

[The New California Republic]

I don't think I would like to be close to someone who doesn't even feel a pang of grief/anger when they are shown about, say Hurricane Katrina.

I'm not sure that is what is being talked about here. I think that it is more the fact that anything that could cause suffering has been eliminated.

[Nekokuni]

That's effectively the goal of my religion, to attain freedom from stress, craving, and pain.

Buddhism? I used to lean in that direction, but I eventually realized that it was unattainable, and would lead me towards despising the world rather than embracing it. Amor fati.

The goal of Buddhism is the exact opposite than despising the universe, instead to recognize the truth of dependent origination and not-self, and to cultivate loving-kindness and equanimity through the Brahmavihāras so that one might obtain freedom in the face of an eternally changing world. I don't necessarily disagree with the Nietzschean concept of “Amor fati,” but I think its rendered moot at the point that one has obtained total freedom and overcome the things that cause suffering.

[The New California Republic]

Wouldn't the two be exactly the same? As the end result would be exactly the same...

In the first case, one could hypothetically retain the ability to suffer, but it would never be used, because the world would be exactly as one wants it. E.g., no one would ever run over your cat.

In the second case, the world wouldn't change, but one would lose the ability to suffer for things that previously would have made one suffer. I.e., someone would run over your cat, and you would be okay with that.

I'm not sure which the OP is actually talking about. I assumed it was the former, that the world has become a veritable paradise whereby we have the capacity to suffer but it is never used.

And I do think that the result would be the same in both, that life would be boring in both instances.

[Great Minarchistan]

I have often heard the varying maxims of "Without suffering, we would never know happiness." and that pain and misery is a healthy counter-balance to human joy and contentment.

But imagine if you could live your life without pain, emotionally and physically. Where you are always serene and tranquil, no fear or regrets, anxiety, or any conflicting emotions and thoughts that constantly grate and stir discontent and keep you awake at night, none of the negative aspects of human nature to struggle with. Always unfazed or undaunted. In short, a life without suffering. Despite being mortal, you would be a god among men.

Would you willingly consign yourself to such a life? Or does the concept of such an unchanging and constant existence unnerve you?

No thanks. I'll take the red pill, Morpheus.

[Ethel mermania]

To avoid suffering one must not love. But thenone suffers from not loving. ... To be happy, then, is to suffer, but suffering makes one unhappy. Therefore, to be happy one must love or love tosuffer or suffer from too much happiness

[The New California Republic]

Buddhism? I used to lean in that direction, but I eventually realized that it was unattainable, and would lead me towards despising the world rather than embracing it. Amor fati.

The goal of Buddhism is the exact opposite than despising the universe, instead to recognize the truth of dependent origination and not-self, and to cultivate loving-kindness and equanimity through the Brahmavihāras so that one might obtain freedom in the face of an eternally changing world. I don't necessarily disagree with the Nietzschean concept of “Amor fati,” but I think its rendered moot at the point that one has obtained total freedom and overcome the things that cause suffering.

I do think that Buddhism is motivated by some sense of resenting the world though. Sure, it's goal is to negate everything, but it's origin is very much a ressentiment towards the world. The world is seen as something flawed, something to be transcended. Buddhism posits breaking from the cycle. It is fundamentally contradictory in that regard, as desire is prevalent throughout the process...

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Although not feeling physical pain sounds awesome, I don't know. A life without some strife seems monotonous and... mechanical to me.

[The New California Republic]

Although not feeling physical pain sounds awesome, I don't know. A life without some strife seems monotonous and... mechanical to me.

Come on, be a cyborg with us...

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Although not feeling physical pain sounds awesome, I don't know. A life without some strife seems monotonous and... mechanical to me.

Come on, be a cyborg with us...

Stay way from my mechanically enhanced ravioli hands.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

There is a real medical condition that makes people unable to feel physical pain, and it's dangerous because they don't realize when they're injured and need medical attention -- among other problems. I don't want that.

Having a life without emotional pain, where you can always be calm and mellow, would be wonderful.

When I was growing up a kid down the road had this condition. They called it "Angels Disease" although I have no idea if it is the actual name. The kid was also retarded so whenever anything percievably bad happened he would often not care or indeed cheer and clap or maybe even laugh a bit. He wasn't truly free of emotional pain but certainly unable to understand much of it.

I wouldn't trade places with him no matter what.

[Nekokuni]

The goal of Buddhism is the exact opposite than despising the universe, instead to recognize the truth of dependent origination and not-self, and to cultivate loving-kindness and equanimity through the Brahmavihāras so that one might obtain freedom in the face of an eternally changing world. I don't necessarily disagree with the Nietzschean concept of “Amor fati,” but I think its rendered moot at the point that one has obtained total freedom and overcome the things that cause suffering.

I do think that Buddhism is motivated by some sense of resenting the world though. Sure, it's goal is to negate everything, but it's origin is very much a ressentiment towards the world. The world is seen as something flawed, something to be transcended. Buddhism posits breaking from the cycle. It is fundamentally contradictory in that regard, as desire is prevalent throughout the process...

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but from my own viewpoint, I have no resentment toward the world. There is no transcendence, at least not in the Hindu or Gnostic sense, where there's a transcendent self which is trapped in the material world and has to be freed. Instead, actually similar to Nietzsche's superman, the arhat rejects the belief in a transcendent, and sees the world similar to Heraclitus (“Everything changes and nothing remains still”) and as a result, arhats don't cling to what is impermanent (intellect, senses, body, etc.)

There's a lot of confusion about desire and Buddhism that I think comes from different conceptions of desire. Instead of abstract “Desire,” there are various desires in Buddhism, and only the arhat has gotten rid of all of them. Even stream-enterers (someone who will become enlightened in seven lives) are still bound by some form of desire, such as attachment to meditative states.

[Xmara]

There is a real medical condition that makes people unable to feel physical pain, and it's dangerous because they don't realize when they're injured and need medical attention -- among other problems. I don't want that.

Having a life without emotional pain, where you can always be calm and mellow, would be wonderful.

When I was growing up a kid down the road had this condition. They called it "Angels Disease" although I have no idea if it is the actual name. The kid was also retarded so whenever anything percievably bad happened he would often not care or indeed cheer and clap or maybe even laugh a bit. He wasn't truly free of emotional pain but certainly unable to understand much of it.

I wouldn't trade places with him no matter what.

Angelman syndrome?

[The New California Republic]

I do think that Buddhism is motivated by some sense of resenting the world though. Sure, it's goal is to negate everything, but it's origin is very much a ressentiment towards the world. The world is seen as something flawed, something to be transcended. Buddhism posits breaking from the cycle. It is fundamentally contradictory in that regard, as desire is prevalent throughout the process...

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but from my own viewpoint, I have no resentment toward the world. There is no transcendence, at least not in the Hindu or Gnostic sense, where there's a transcendent self which is trapped in the material world and has to be freed. Instead, actually similar to Nietzsche's superman, the arhat rejects the belief in a transcendent, and sees the world similar to Heraclitus (“Everything changes and nothing remains still”) and as a result, arhats don't cling to what is impermanent (intellect, senses, body, etc.)

There's a lot of confusion about desire and Buddhism that I think comes from different conceptions of desire. Instead of abstract “Desire,” there are various desires in Buddhism, and only the arhat has gotten rid of all of them. Even stream-enterers (someone who will become enlightened in seven lives) are still bound by some form of desire, such as attachment to meditative states.

I dunno. I mean, I think to enter any religion that seeks to transcend the world "as it is" must have some reason for doing so, and the one that comes to mind is dissatisfaction with the world, developing into resentment. Nietzsche's superman is very much anchored in the world, amor fati is at the core of that, along with the concept of Eternal Return. The Eternal Return in Nietzsche has some redemptive and value-asserting quality to it. It focuses on this self same life. Buddhism, by contrast, sees the cycle as something to be escaped, and one never returns to this self same life.

[US-SSR]

Psychical suffering, like physical suffering, is our way of knowing that something is not all right with us. Leaving aside the idea that human beings might attain either kind of perfection then, suffering is necessary to human life. Without suffering we would have no motivation to improve our own lives and thereby improve human society.

The goal of Buddhism is the exact opposite than despising the universe, instead to recognize the truth of dependent origination and not-self, and to cultivate loving-kindness and equanimity through the Brahmavihāras so that one might obtain freedom in the face of an eternally changing world. I don't necessarily disagree with the Nietzschean concept of “Amor fati,” but I think its rendered moot at the point that one has obtained total freedom and overcome the things that cause suffering.

I do think that Buddhism is motivated by some sense of resenting the world though. Sure, it's goal is to negate everything, but it's origin is very much a ressentiment towards the world. The world is seen as something flawed, something to be transcended. Buddhism posits breaking from the cycle. It is fundamentally contradictory in that regard, as desire is prevalent throughout the process...

My understanding of this is that it is not that the world is flawed, but that human perceptions / conceptions about the world are flawed. "Right" in Buddhism (as in "right conduct," "right speech," "right concentration," etc.) does not mean "in accordance with some set of rules and guidelines" (teleology) but rather "in accordance with the actual state of the world." To apprehend the nature of reality and one's place in it is the challenge, not to transcend or escape from reality.

As for desire, here is a story I've heard. A young monk asked an older one, "how long will it take me to attain enlightenment?" The answer was, "ten years." "What if I dedicate myself to study and meditation, earnestly seeking my desired goal in everything I do?" "Then it will take you twenty years."

btw amor fati dates back at least to Epictitus and the Stoics. Latin y'know.

[Great Minarchistan]

Hot take, lack of perfection gives people stamina to act and solve it

[Nekokuni]

My understanding of this is that it is not that the world is flawed, but that human perceptions / conceptions about the world are flawed.

This is really well put, and I hope you won't mind me expanding on this.

The ultimate goal of Buddhism is the transformation of one's own mind, not the transformation of reality. Tantric Buddhism, for instance, seeks to do this through deity yoga (visualizing oneself as their tutelary deity) to realize the emptiness of existence and inculcate divine pride. Theravada, which is more conservative, is focused on bhavana (development of good qualities) instead, but the goal of both of these polar opposite schools remains the same.

[NeoOasis]

Going on OP's premise alone... hell yeah I'd go for eternal contentment, even if it would only be for a good night's rest.

[Geneviev]

I would do literally anything for a perfect life. Then I could be better in school, and maybe people would like me more. Who knows. And besides, without physical pain I could dance again.

[Ethel mermania]

I would do literally anything for a perfect life. Then I could be better in school, and maybe people would like me more. Who knows. And besides, without physical pain I could dance again.

dancing is good. the question becomes would you appreciate the dancing more because it was once so hard for you?

[Dogmeat]

But without suffering, there would be no Batman.