I cannot fully agree with your last statement. Goodness and happiness are NOT default states/modes of mind. The default state of mind is indifference. Happy is not the default.
Aside from that. I think we have come to an understanding. At least as well as it can be done through text alone. Thank you for engaging me in discussion. It was a pleasant exchange.
Then perhaps there was a misunderstanding. I assumed you meant actively letting go of attachment. Because I agree, doing so mentally allows for a certain numbing of sensations that are experienced. Our views on that might be very similar, but we just word them differently.
And when I mentioned a "perfect life" I was refering to a subjective perfection. Everyting going just how you want it to. And obviously, the drug dosage in the theoretical scenario would be adjusted accordingly to the body/brain developing resistance.
A "small" note/question. If happiness is just circumstances or chemistry, then so is suffering. In that case we don't need to let go of attachment, just the circumstances or chemistry that cause emotions in the first place. Would you agree with that statement? Although the complete removal of emotions could cause complete detachment from reality in a human being, so I guess it goes back around to attachment again.
I find that view slightly reductive. Not all emotions come from the outside. Yes, most of them are caused by external stimuli, but not all. For example, take the feeling of contentment. With enough overthinking and drugs, you can philosophize yourself into that feeling. Does it still come from the outside? Emotions are not external actors influncing the psyche, they are a part of the psyche just as much as the body.
And I would hold on on claiming if emotions have any metaphysical qualities, or any purpose/meaning in the grand scheme of things, as I simply do not have enough information to claim either. I do believe that emotions are entirely physical, biochemical reactions to what is happening to our bodies. But that doesn't necessarily mean they have no grander meaning. It's a bit like with life itself. The meaning is what you make of it. Or at least that's what I think, given the information I currently possess about the topic.
Also, a small note. Emotions have nothing to do with being socially evolved creatures. Almost all living creatures complex enough to have a brain feel emotions. Even if it's simply fear of danger, that is still an emotion.
Alright. Let me adress all your points. As well as I am able to.
I asked a philosophical question, expecting a philosophical answer. My general question was "what is suffering?" Your answer was basically "a reaction to negative stimuli.". Yes. Obviously it is a reaction with its reason and cause rooted in biology. That is not what I was asking.
Is watching your own life like a spectator not letting go of life itself? I never said suicide. I said letting go of attachment to life. Acceptance of life is not the same as letting go of one's attachment to it. You still want to live, don't you? That means you are attached to life. That attachment is needed for life itself to exist. And what is happines anyway? Is it a lack of suffering? Because in my perspective, you cannot achieve happines without accepting life with all the good and the bad it brings. It's a balancing act. The solution is not to stop playing, but to enjoy the game for what it is. I do not see that and "letting go of attachment" as the same thing.
And what are those coveted ways of avoiding suffering? Imagine a scenario in which from birth you are pumped full of drugs that make you happy, and hooked up to a simulation that makes you experience a perfect life. Do you suffer in that scenario? And I'm not saying THAT is the solution ot all suffering, it's just the first idea off the top of my head.
"You can’t avoid losing everything you call yours—including your loved ones. You can’t avoid sickness and death." No, you can't. But is that really the essence and cause of suffering? Once you accept that you will lose everything you gain, there is no loss. It's a zero-sum game. Therefore, you don't suffer. Not in the same way as someone who doesn't accept this reality. Pain is unavoidable. Wether it be physical, mental or emotional. But pain by itself is not "suffering". It's just pain.
I admit, my grasp on the concept of language is tenuous at best. I am asking you what it is to you. My example was my understanding of your perspective. I assume I was not correct in assessing on what your perspective is. Or perhaps the example was not clear. It is an example of direct logic. "Pain->Discomfort->Avoiding stimulus" would be equal to "Experience->Emotion->Action". Does that clarify my example, and is it anywhere near what your perspective on the matter is?
I am looking for the underlying cause of the emotions. I just want to understand your perspective. So do you see it as purely biological? A means to an end? Pain = Don't do that. Pleasure = Do that a lot. Suffering = Avoid. Ecstasy = Seek. Is that it?
I completely respect your perspective.
But I do believe there is a meaning to life itself. Not just what we assign it. Even if there was no initial goal in life becoming a thing, now that it exists, it is tefined by its attributes. Evolution. Progress. Concentration of energy and resources. Engines of anti-entropy. That is the meaning of life. To me. It is the universe calling out to save itself from certain doom. That is the goal now. Survival. On an ultimate scale. But that is just my philosophy. I do not claim that it is the objective truth. But I do believe that it is the truth.
This doesn't really explore the concept of suffering. Anyway, thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Are we mixing philosophy and biology? Because this way we can explain all emotional states we experience. I do not disagree with this perspective, but I do not believe it is the whole truth. If we let go of all attachments in this perspective, we let go of life itself. And that is not a valid solution in my view. Since there are other ways to avoid suffering, I do not see attachment as the main cause of it. Attachment can actually alleviate suffering in some cases.
Being upset about things not being how they ought to be isn't really "the essence of suffering". I agree, it's annoying, but what can you do?
I agree, suffering of itself is not bad or good. It builds character in certain situations, and it destroys people in other situations.
I'd say it's more about being able to change something, but not being able to do it. It's futility combined with self-imposed lack of action or idleness. Or at least it is to me. When you can see the right solution, it is right there in your grasp, but you don't grasp it, for whatever reason. Makes me uncomfortable just thinking about it. Like the concentration camp thing. Tou suffer because you can't bring yourself to help (not that I'm saying that you personally should go out there and help). But it's that nagging feeling at the back of your head that if you really tried you could do... something, anything. But you don't.
Or maybe this is just my personal interpretation based on my current situation as well as my past experiences. The world may never know.
You can't just say that the essence of suffering is "the big sad". These are all aspects.
And what is so depressing here? I really don't understand. Is it that talking about suffering makes people sad? Is that how empathy works? This is a genuine question. I do not feel uncomfortable or sad talking/hearing about tragedy or suffering. I understand the feelings, but I don't feel them. That's why I would never link the philosophical discussion of suffering and depression.
Unless your point is that depression and suffering are linked? If that is the case, then I fully agree. One can cause the other, both ways.
Yes, exactly, that is what I'm trying to find out here. Is it really just that? It can't be just that, because it is possible to be happy and fulfilled in a meaningless, futile pursuit. Let's remember that “one must imagine Sisyphus happy”.
That is a very bleak perspective. By this logic, we can say that everything ever is meaningless.
Life of itself is not meaningless. It exists to test, create, and replicate patterns at a faster time scale than the regular processes of the universe.
Meaning is usually assigned after the fact. Or at least that's my experience.
I guess that makes sense. But not even the corrupt elites should suffer. We should find a more humane way for seeing them off. But that's beside the point. Thank you for the explanation.
Physical pain is not caused by attachment. It could be caused, for example, by electricity, or perhaps a sharp object. No attachment needed.
And no, the physical body is not a form of attachment. It is a part of you just like the mind is. You literally cannot exist without some form of a body.
And what about suffering due to desease? Like having a very bad fever dream. Where's the attachment there?
That is a very vague description. I'm not asking for a definition. What does it mean to you personally? Is it simply a "state of mind". If so, is it equal to other states of mind, and if yes, in what ways?
I cannot fully agree with your last statement. Goodness and happiness are NOT default states/modes of mind. The default state of mind is indifference. Happy is not the default.
Aside from that. I think we have come to an understanding. At least as well as it can be done through text alone. Thank you for engaging me in discussion. It was a pleasant exchange.