How the hell can Dostoyevsky say that we can achieve redemption

Jesus suffered

>>9307640
You gotta think about the cultural context in which he lived, anon.

>>9307640
This was Dostoevsky trying to be deep, he was very bad at it. His best books are satirical.

>>9307758
The Possessed is both, point in case

>>9307640
That's not romanticizing suffering.

What the fuck do you want him to do for a sufferer? What do you want anyone to do for someone who suffers? What CAN you do for someone who suffers? You want him to bake you a cake or some shit?

The idea that there is a certain redemption in suffering is an extremely powerful one. It occupies an important spot in western cultural history. Why not fucking think about it for a little bit? >>9307675
>>9307758
y'all too, clearly

>>9307640
>>9307790
Life's a comedy, friend. All the greats knew it.

File: resurrection-icon.jpg (295KB, 1259x1600px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 1259x1600px

>>9307646
This. You have to keep in mind, OP, that Dosto is a sincere Christian. He believes that in the end, both after we die and at the end of the world, there will be a true end to suffering, and we'll find genuine joy and bliss. There's no point in romanticizing suffering if this life is all there is, but that's not what Dostoevsky believes.

>>9307792
>>9307790
>>9307640
Im gonna continue because OP's sensibilities are so upsetting to me

You sound like a wallower. It seems like Dostoevsky had the sort of insight to entertain the possibility that maybe wallowing isnt the end of suffering, and suffering isnt the end of experience.

This question is fucking central to experience, I recommend you stop overlooking it just for the sake of indulging in self-pity

>>9307640
>I think it's shitty to try and romanticize suffering.

Agreed.

>>9307801
Yeah, I can understand where Dostoyevsky is coming from, but I just can't apply this to reality. When i see shitty things happen to people, how can it be a good thing? How can you look someone that's, like, paralyzed from birth, or suffering from a terminal illness about to die in a couple of months, and be like, "Hey, man, suffering brings us closer to God :^)"

>achieving anything through suffering

Slaves of the Demiurge.

>>9307640
Suffering is the flame, reality is the kiln, and we are the material. Enough suffering tempers us and expells impurities, too much makes us brittle and lowers our potential.

Why is this hard?

File: DEMIURGE.png (107KB, 766x996px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 766x996px

>>9308407

NO

slavic culture of gulag
you arent understand

>>9308525
Upon inspection, I don't believe I subscribe to any of the strawmen from your image. Glad to provide a tenuous point from which you can springboard your laboured views, I guess.

Imagine being so cucked by reality you invent a whole metaphysical system to rationalise your shitty life. Dostoyevski should've taken some zinc + fish oil + vitamin D.

>>9307875

Read Seneca or other stoics to understand the logic. I don't agree with them, but I understand the cultural context and essential reasoning behind the view

>>9307640
>someone managed to misread a famous Russian novelist from over a hundred years a go
Imagine that, you failed to extract subtle and complex meaning from a context largely alien to your own.

>>9307640
>How the hell can Dostoyevsky say that we can achieve redemption through our suffering?
That's literally the point of life senpai. So we can be more like God through our suffering.

>>9307640
That's Christianity 101, the world is full of suffering but redemption is available through Jesus.

It is a psychological tool to make people accept suffering.

Especially in such a shit hole as Russia.

"I can say, SUFFERING GIVES REDEMPTION" and continue living in misery and inaction instead of actually fucking doing something.

Tacking it on to the Bible makes it even more powerful mind control against population that's christian.

>>9308593
+

>>9308734
>continue living in misery and inaction
Confirmed for not ever having read Dostoevsky.

>>9308740
I have read him twice over and he is fucking shit. Gogol and Šolohov are great.

>>9308755
His work in no way hinges on perpetual inaction.

If you read that in his work, it might have been something in your acquired worldview that makes it seem that way. Probably related to the element(s) that caused such a visceral reaction to his work.

I like Gogol, Sholokhov less so. Do you like Pushkin, Nabokov, Artsybashev?

>>9308734
bloody idealists

>>9308734
>fucking doing something.

if you do something the suffering just change his form to another kind of suffering.

>>9308778
Not all suffering is equal in all ways.

>>9308778
that is what im trying to say. with actions you normally change the most superficial trait of suffering. the people who "do something" not overcome suffering.
and im not saying there is a pure form to overcome suffering.

File: cheekybreeky.jpg (48KB, 600x544px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x544px

>>9307646
fpbp

>>9307640
suffering is the glory of man. it is what keeps us alive. that suffering should be properly adored in a work of art should not come as a surprise.

>>9308791 this is for >>9308780

>>9308791
what you are saying is "ablooabloo".

imagine someone shitting over you. physically.
you wont change this because you wont change the fact that you die anyway, analogically death shitting on you.
so you sit in a shit shower all your life.

congfuckignratluzlations

>>9308589

Start by refuting something.

>>9308805
I am saying that not all suffering is equal in all ways. You can choose between unequal sufferings to find what is best.

>>9308812
if you really accept someone shitting over you, then, the result of ending of suffering is the same that if you go back and do something about it. and then maybe someone shit over you again.
anyway, this kind of examples are weak.

File: yaldabaposting.jpg (188KB, 1305x913px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1305x913px

>>9308795

>>9308828
what exactly are you trying to say?. im sorry i dont understand you.

>>9308825
Since I hold none of those views in the first place, refutations thereof have no value to me. There is nothing to salvage for me in the image, since the image is refuting a position with no relation to mine.

>>9308825

Not him but, "I disagree"

I don't know why people assert their weird thoughts as some sort of scientific fact and then expect others to entertain it, to validate it by "offering counter-arguments." They don't recognize howobnoxious that is.

SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES

>>9307758
I sometimes wonder if his Christian books aren't a sort of satire as well.

>>9308839
It's only obnoxious when there's little or no substance to their thought.

File: lit.jpg (82KB, 615x394px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 615x394px

>>9307640
This pic will help you understand

We're talking about a man who got mock executed and then sent to Siberia for 6 years, I think he knows more about suffering than the average white middle clays boi you probably are

>>9308837

What is your position and its relation to that in the image?

>>9308839

>i could refute it if i wanted to i just DON'T XDDDD

>>9307790
But Dostoyevsky clearly romanticized suffering in TBK, this isn't even an argument. Just look at Dmitri's character for example and how at the end of the book he's talking about how he wants to suffer.

I'll put this here because there's no other Dosto topic.

I finished his 1848 novelette/novella White Nights, one of his early writings before his exile. It's recognisably Dostoevsky, what with being an anxious first person account with lots of page lengthy, feverish dialogue exchanges. It's also about the pitfalls of dreaming too much, and isolating yourself from others by living too much of an imaginary life.

However, it's also more sentimental than his other writings, and has many aspects of a modern day romantic film or chick flick (there is a chad), and in this way it still feels very contemporary.

I enjoyed it, and so it has made me more receptive towards reading more of his early writing.

Maybe his idea is to feel so much suffering so that you become immune to suffering and the trivial problems in life don't bother you anymore? Like since there's no way out of suffering maybe one should embrace it instead of trying in vain to run away from it?

File: Prismatic-Ornate-Dharma-Wheel-2.png (2MB, 2294x2292px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2294x2292px

Any idea how Dostos idea of suffering would contrast with the buddhist conception of it>?

>>9309330
I think the Buddhist conception is similar to Schopenhauer's -- that suffering arises from attachment to desires.
Dostoevsky is quite different in that he believes suffering is required to achieve atonement for our sins.

Buddhists believe you can rid yourself of suffering by ridding yourself of desire.
Dostoevsky believes suffering is necessary (on earth).

>on our earth we can only love with suffering and through suffering. We cannot love otherwise, and we know if no other sort of love.

File: nietzsche.jpg (79KB, 480x635px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 480x635px

>>9307875
>That from which we suffer most profoundly and personally is almost incomprehensible and inaccessible to every one else: in this matter we are hidden from our neighbour even when he eats at the same table with us. Everywhere, however, where we are noticed as sufferers, our suffering is interpreted in a shallow way; it belongs to the nature of the emotion of pity to divest unfamiliar suffering of its properly personal character: our “benefactors” lower our value and volition more than our enemies. In most benefits which are conferred on the unfortunate there is something shocking in the intellectual levity with which the compassionate person plays the role of fate: he knows nothing of all the inner consequences and complications which are called misfortune for me or for you! The entire economy of my soul and its adjustment by “misfortune,” the uprising of new sources and needs, the closing up of old wounds, the repudiation of whole periods of the past none of these things which may be connected with misfortune preoccupy the dear sympathiser. He wishes to succour, and does not reflect that there is a personal necessity for misfortune; that terror, want, impoverishment, midnight watches, adventures, hazards and mistakes are as necessary to me and to you as their opposites, yea, that, to speak mystically, the path to one’s own heaven always leads through the voluptuousness of one’s own hell. No, he knows nothing thereof. The “religion of compassion ” (or “the heart ”) bids him help, and he thinks he has helped best when he has helped most speedily! If you adherents of this religion actually have the same sentiments towards yourselves which you have towards your fellows, if you are unwilling to endure your own suffering even for an hour, and continually forestall all possible misfortune, if you regard suffering and pain generally as evil, as detestable, as deserving of annihilation, and as blots on existence, well, you have then, besides your religion of compassion, yet another religion in your heart (and this is perhaps the mother of the former) the religion of smug ease.
Have you read about his life? Suffering "transfigured" the world for him. Also: >>9308878

Dusty is bluepilled.

>>9309684
>the path to one’s own heaven always leads through the voluptuousness of one’s own hell.

NEETzsche had no experience with suffering past occasional diarrhea.

>>9309839
If this is bait I will bite.
Besides diarrhea, Nietzsche had a brain cancer that disturbed an optical nerve and was almost blind in later years of his life. Some days he wasn't even able to sleep without drugs, because of headaches, which were chronic. There's a letter in which he said everytime he closed his eyes he saw "flowers", and that there was not a single moment in his life in which he could be at peace.

>>9309905
Why didn't he just kill himself if he was such a genetic untermensch?

>>9309905
Way to prove the point that this whole "suffering is beneficial to mankind" bullshit is just a cheap way of coping with the fact that your life is garbage. Much like Neetshits hated Christianity in that respect.

>>9307640
It means you need to accept suffering.

>>9309994
It's not like you can reject it in the first place anyway.

>>9309956
>>9309962

Not me, by the way. >>9309839


>>9309905

So where was his triumph, his glory, his payoff? He died soaked in piss and barely verbal. Did he conclude that he had suffered enough to experience his metaphysical redemption or at the very least a proportional part of one? Do you?

>>9308525

>>9309956
You've showed you're not interested in knowing Nietzsche and probably have a poor grasp in philosophy in general. So talking with you will be a waste of time.

>>9309962
Suffering is a means of transcendence. Happiness is in overcoming, so there can be no happiness without suffering. Nietzsche's philosophy would be a cheap excuse if he were a lazy fuck, if rationalising his suffering were the only thing he did, but on the contrary he was pretty active for a gravely sick person.

>>9310021
>So where was his triumph, his glory, his payoff? He died soaked in piss and barely verbal. Did he conclude that he had suffered enough to experience his metaphysical redemption or at the very least a proportional part of one? Do you?
The problem is you can only conceive of glory in a slavish way, as some kind of public recognition. A "triumph" in the Nietzschean sense would be living your live according to his idea of eternal return. But I don't really get your point, you think he choose to become an invalid? He had no control over his brain cancer, it was a fatality.

>>9310054

Not at all, I was asking about transcendence, the Spiritual, etc. YOU (and Nietzsche) seem to be conceiving of it in a vulgar way what with eternal return and its implication of simply spinning the hamster wheel forever.

>>9308525
Scientism is a shadow of Christianity. Definitely different. Recently I've been comparing it to what Sadducees were to early Christianity.

>>9310070
Could elaborate? I don't understand what you're trying to say.

>>9310082

What is the point of suffering according to Nietzsche? Returning to the Material world forever so you can suffer again, forever?

>>9310092
There's no point. His earlier philosophy talks about the "aesthetical redemption" of the world through tragedy, though. His later philosophy is more about how far can you go in a meaningless void. He conceives will as a creative force, not as something that desires something that it lacks (like a "redemption"); "will to power" is an expression of his, but a bit misleading as it gives the idea of a will that is a desire something lacking instead of a will that express itself as power. So, basically, redemption and the "meaning" of suffering is irrelevant to such a will, and removing every meaningfulness of the universe is a way of "purifying" will's expression. Eternal return is a way of testing the way you're living, but I find some flaws in it, like, what if the person simply doesn't care? Also, it's pretty difficult to imagine your life returning for eternity, so it's hard to make the idea have any effect.

File: mfw the phenomenon of nietzsche was a great success.jpg (9KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 480x360px

>>9310120

I can't help but hear the Archons' laughter reading this. It's too much...

>>9310210
Wait, I was talking with the gnosticfag? If only I knew it earlier...

>the philosophical message of Dostoyevsky's magnum opus literally boils down to 'God works in mysterious ways'
Holy....I want more.....

>>9307640
Git gud.

>>9307640
"...suffering deciphers the sublime language through which the poor victim addresses God." Suffering is the only way to scorch false belief from your being. To suffer is be attached to false belief. A life without suffering does not exist, it is an integral part of being. Suffering is absolutely essential to life, and to deny it its importance is both futile and foolish.

>>9310248

Like clockwork.

>>9308525

>>9310260
Pretending to be right is suffering in disguise.

File: helperpepe.png (30KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 657x527px

>>9310248
You're only saying that because suffering exists, though. Isn't this just a shitty excuse to rationalize your suffering? You're only able to say this because a life with suffering is the only life you know.

>>9310260
So instead of overcoming suffering we should rage against the universe? That's pretty pathetic. If I misunderstood your idea, enlighten me, show me your gnosticism isn't just resentment.

>>9310274

How would you overcome (your) suffering?

>>9308525
>The material world is not good, it's cursed
>The subject damns itself - often, but is also cursed
>Suffering is a process that started when we got consciousness, my guess is 'too early in development'
>Active love - you don't and can't reactively love your enemies
>proactive love won't prevent suffering
>suffering is not wholly redemptive unless you walk out of hell by standing still

>>9307640

>have life-long medical ailments causing me to experience seizures literally nonstop
>be sentenced to death for reading forbidden lit
>make peace with God
>face the firing squad
>get pardoned literally seconds before getting shot
>go to hard labor in Siberia
>console other prisoners with my iron convictions regarding christendom
>even convince one dude to not kill himself
>suffer for years of hard labor in Siberia with chronic fevers and seizures
>be release from prison
>spend several years creating art that accurately captures how redemption can come about through suffering, drawing on my own extensive experience
>150 years later
>some NEET who can't get laid because he spends all his free time laughing at frog memes claims that my ideas of redemption through suffering are misguided

>>9310271
Point me to someone who experiences no suffering. Just one.

>>9310281
The process is too subtle and personal, and as there are varieties of suffering, there are varieties of overcoming it; but a general way of overcoming it is through meditation and analysis.

>>9310271
Also, there is no need to rationalize my suffering. You suffer from being incapable of accepting suffering as an essential component to your life. I've rid myself of that unnecessary component of suffering by accepting it.

>>9310308
Not an argument.

>>9310314
I'm not saying that there are people in life that don't suffer, I'm saying that a world with suffering is the only life that's known, there is no alternative for us. So Dostoyevsky's argument just feels like he's justifying being in a shitty situation by saying how you can redeem yourself through it.

>>9310314

Not him but yeah that's the point. Just because something is given does not mean it is good, true, valuable, etc. Claiming suffering is good is literally Materialist dialectic.

>>9310333
>>9310335

This is Materialist Darwinian dialectic, transcendence of the smartest and such.

>>9310350
You can see it as an excuse, but it's also possible to see it as an advice of using suffering as a means of transcendence/overcoming.

>Beatitude through suffering is an illusion, since it requires a reconciliation to the fatality of pain in order to avoid total annihilation.
E.M. Cioran

>>9310385
???

>>9310358
Well suffering is good in the way discipline is good. Discipline being a form of suffering. There are many benefits derived from the experiences brought upon by suffering. Growth as an individual can only be accomplished through suffering.
>>9310350
What is wrong with that argument? Suffering is the process which helps one transcend limitations.

>>9307640
dost went through hell and back.
if there's anyone worth listening to, it's him and solzhenitsyn.

>>9310401

Would you say suffering exerts a kind of selective pressure on Humans' Spirits?

>>9310397
!!!
>>9308525

>>9310413
Yes, and like when pressure is applied to an object, that object will break at its weakest point, so to will an individual. The opportunity for growth is ever present within failure. An excess of suffering can be destructive. However, the lack of suffering can be just as destructive. Just as bacteria and sickness improve your immune functions, and a lack of interaction with bacteria and sickness leads to a weak immune system.

>>9310434

Both Christianity and Scientism claim there is no ultimate thing to do or to attain in this world so "an excess" of suffering does not exist by your own logic.

>>9310469
Im not defending christianity nor scientism. An excess of suffering would be you get sick, fired, wife dies, get an eviction notice, slips on ice etc. An excess of suffering may lead to debilitating mental and physical illnesses.

>>9310477

There are so many questions then on why you believe any suffering is necessary at all.

Are you sure you're not just a Stoic/Roganposter?

>>9310549
How could suffering be unnecessary? Do you realize how much suffering encompasses? How can you imagine a life without pain, sickness, death, rejection, failure etc? Are you under 25? Youth is the only explanation I can think of for an individual who seeks a life devoid of suffering.

Suffering is inherent to being due to the limitations of human existance. Everyone therefore is "cursed" to deal with suffering due to humanities conscious apprehension of our inherent limitations. If we acknowledge our own suffering is a necessary part of existence and carry that burden, rather than wallow in it or become bitter at the word, we have the opportunity to lessen the collective suffering of humanity by working to make things better rather than being a self-pitying faggot. In that way, we redeem our own suffering by making life a bit more bearable.

File: slaves of the demiurge.jpg (93KB, 629x900px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 629x900px

>>9310595

Ask yourself who or what benefits when you take the given of suffering.

>>9310638
You benefit, how that isn't clear to you just reveals your own ignorance.

>>9310629
>>9310663

How would you say that attending your master's banquet would affect your status as a slave? Would it make you less of a slave or more of a slave?

>>9310695
What? Master's banquet? You have to be younger then 25 to pull such an exaggeration out of your ass to seem like you know what your talking about.

>>9310709

There isn't even that much analogy in there. You readily admit to accepting suffering - Suffering - as your master. That makes you its slave. Enjoying that which your master gives you makes you even more of a slave.

Stop posting and casually reflect on that for a while.

File: 1490719742814.jpg (145KB, 416x544px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 416x544px

>>9310638

Ironically, you can only learn the traits of kindness, generosity, and self-sacrifice in the context of scarcity and suffering.

If no one ever needs any help, then how can you ever learn to help/be helpful?

It's also puts you to the test, where in a given moment you actually have to show exactly which you may enjoy more- your own selfish pleasure, or the suffering of others. It's not always an either or choice (there's nothing wrong with enjoying life) but some choices are literally a contrast and choice between selfish "good" (ie good for you) at the expense of others (selling people into slavery, murder, fraud, corruption, etc).

>>9310732
oh the hubris of youth! How can suffering, which is an extension of me, be my master? My master is redundant as there is no separation from me and the experience of suffering. I can only be both slave and master is you have the delusion of duality. That little ego chirping away in your head really has itself convinced it is somehow both separate and above the experience of suffering.

>>9310638
Endurance. Certainty. My love and strength have been tested. What do I gain if they hold?

>>9310757
>How can suffering, which is an extension of me, be my master?

Chains of Phenomenal givens.

>>9310790

Why do they have to be tested?

>>9309330
>>9309627
Dostoevsky's view is similar in observation to the Asceticism of ancient Buddhists, but opposite in approach.

>>9310829
Sorry thats not how that works. The experience of suffering, is an experience of my own self. It can not control me because it is not a separate thing from me. Have fun trying to run from you own shadow though. A fool who persists in his folly will become wise, and you are quite the fool. I know your attempt at denying your own suffering out of existence seems like a plausible alternative then facing it directly, but understand that it is as effective as denial with any other problem you face. Suffering is a mechanism which guides you towards your innermost being, stripping away all youthful delusions brought upon by the manifestations of ego. The problem is suffering lays the blame at your own feet, and you arent mature enough to fully understand let alone except this reality.

>>9310874
>tfw not smart enough to be a slave

>>9310890
You can only be a slave to your ignorance, which you seem bound to fight tooth and nail to protect. Life has plenty of suffering in store for you, just you wait little one.

>>9310836
A thing only becomes true through testing.

Question to the gnosticfag: how do YOU deal with suffering? You've just criticised the idea of overcoming it, but haven't said a thing about how to deal with it.

>>9311323
Moreover, you either overcome suffering or undergo resentment. And probably your alternative to being a "slave of suffering" is that, instead of embracing and overcoming suffering, we should curse the universe and resent its creator, that is, we should be slaves of resentment.

>>9310908
>Life has plenty of suffering in store for yo

I don't think I've ever denied this here or ever.

>>9307646
yall don't understand Christianity Jesus died FOR OUR SINS so that we wouldn't have to deal with this bullshit

>>9310998

No.

>>9311393

It is impossible to be a slave of resentment if you are the one initiating and maintaining the resentment, especially resentment for this word and its creator, which is not given, not sanctioned, and has always been in short supply. Disregarding your tripping over your own arguments - and that "heroic" types prove my point whenever they are not lucky enough to die suddenly and degenerate into helpless receivers of futile care and more resentment for this world than most Gnostics, both of which will make them suffer even more - it seems like like you have no direct property of words, let alone direct experience with suffering past running out of weed.

>>9310908
>>9312961

Say, what is your experience with suffering?

>>9309839
Apart from suffering severe illness his entire life, he was a medical orderly in the Franco-Prussian war, and contracted diptheria and dysentery during his service.

>>9310021
He had dignity, and lived his life trying not to hate any of it, for it was the only one he had.

>>9307640
You're confusing being redeemed through suffering and suffering being "good."

>>9313034

The idea of dignity is an integral part of Archonic dialectic. It is extensively used by Human masters as part of the narrative to justify technical and functional slavery.

>>9313020
>No.
Charming refutation.

>>9313083

Truth is immanent, it is not a label that can be given or taken by any authority.

>>9313092
Existence itself is an act of being which constitutes a test.

>>9309627
Thank you for your response, that is one of the big things I saw as being different in Buddhist thought compared to my understanding of Western Suffering. That and the idea of being able to end it from within and without an external savior figure.

>>9310866
>but opposite in approach.

What do you mean by this part?
>>9310866

>>9313128
Active seeking vs wallowing, probably.

>>9313130
>Active seeking vs wallowing, probably.
Ive only read C&P wasnt Dosto against wallowing?

>>9313126

Yes?

>>9313140
Does he espouse actively seeking suffering, then? If you mean languish, wallow actually has a rather different meaning.

>>9313171
Blimey Ive always thought those two words were synonymous. Thanks for the help anon

>>9313256
You can wallow in something negative by enjoying languishment in a perverse self-pitying sense. This has become the most memetic use of the word, unfortunately or not as the case might be.

You are in the majority here, and I fear that in the near future "wallow" will be one of those words where everyone insists that because usage informs meaning they're not wrong and that the dictionary should be updated to not only allow their usage as a non-colloquialism, but that the old meaning should be labeled archaic due to hardly being known or used.

>>9313069

By the way, if the master-slave framework is too loaded for you to refer to then think about the bull-cuckold framework instead and read all my replies again.

>>9313020
Resentment is resentment, something that consumes you needlessly, whether you "initiate" it or not. As for the heroic type, what are you talking about? If they give up to resentment and become whiny fags they're not being heroic. Isn't your assertion about it rather an expression of your desire of what it should be (namely, a type even more pathetic than the gnostic)?

>>9313403
We can do something about human masters through pressure, revolutions etc. But we can't do anything about the universe besides cursing it like a child. Nietzsche's philosophy isn't only about passively accepting life, it's more like: whenever you can act, act, and whenever you can't act, accept your fate.

>>9307640
...........? fiction though

>>9313477
>>9313491

Let's retreat from dialectics and talk about experience. How has this thinking affected your life? More specifically, what is your experience with suffering?

>>9313601
Honestly, I've not suffered very much, I will only say that my "suffering" is more about my constitution and worries about other persons, my family specifically, my future and the future in general. Months ago, however, I was very active and productive, doing exercises and walks everyday, studying languages and math, and talking with people sometimes. Now I'm completely at loss, but I refuse to see a therapist or use drugs, I believe I can get out of this crisis by myself, like I did months ago.

>>9313698

I take it that asking you how one can talk about something one knows nothing about is all but futile at this point.

>>9313723
And what about Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky? You're trying to discret him, who was pretty experienced with suffering, because of an unexperienced anon? That's a dirty tactic. And how about you? How has your cosmic resentment helped you cope with suffering?

>>9313728
>discret him
discredit them*

>>9308525
Why the fuck would you think posting that image is a suitable rebuttal?

>>9307640
Accepting that overcoming difficulty and thua growing from this as a person is not romanticizing anything. Yes, suffering is bad, but dwelling in suffering is worse.

Redemption is by definition arduous; you are changing yourself through intentful action. This is is hard for everyone.

>>9313601
Besides, experience isn't really necessary here. When you face suffering, you either overcome it or you suffer even more because of resentment; that should be an obvious truth. Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche preached overcoming it, you're preaching being a resentful fag that at most can only curse the world.

>>9313728
>>9313755

Will reply when I get home shhh.

>>9313728
>>9313755

My question was why preach anything about suffering if you have not experienced it or even witnessed any by the sound of it? The matter of me discrediting what Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky said has no relevance to you since you have no idea what it is that they said past abstract models with no bearing on your felt experience, akin to D&D musings. And I hope to God that it never will.

I hate to toot my own horn since I hate all suffering and know it has no value of any kind in this word or any other, but yes, to address you second point, I have both experienced it and seen it first hand. As to how my Gnostic model, not as prescribed ideology but as felt experience, has helped me - I know that spending 30 hours in heat stroke-induced delirium and kidney failure is an absurd abomination whose only teaching is that this world is Evil. I know that someone over 100 who is rotting while still alive and getting hit in the face with a plastic bottle for "being a handful" is perfectly innocent and has ended up in this state of affairs due to pure Archonic monstrosity. And I know that NOT being up to cosmic scratch is the only redemptive Moral duty.

>>9314532
But how getting angry at the world is any help? You're just adding a useless suffering to one that is already happening. And why do you discredit them? Tell me, why? I still can't see how yours is a good alternative, nothing in the world will change, it doesn't matter how much you curse or resent it. And isn't your gnostic model a way of explaining suffering away? It doesn't clarify anything about suffering's nature, it only posits "Archons" and them blames them, how is that not explaining away?

>>9314598

How am I supposed to give you a tour of the Gnostic structure if you can't even walk through the door?

>>9312978
Repentance and faith are required for this "exchange". And repentance requires suffering.

>>9314618
I can't walk through the door because I've already abandoned the prejudice that the world owns anything to me. Your Gnosticism simply sounds like an apotheosis of resentment. Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky suffered way more than you, by the likes of what you've said, so I'll take their word over yours.

>>9314618
Also, your Gnosticism is pleb-tier, a babby's first existential revolt. Take a look on Neoplatonism and Buddhism and their idea that one is born because one desires to be and the only one you can blame for your suffering is yourself (more specifically, your desire and your ignorance that keeps it). This a view way more deep than any structure you may have built. I don't know if you believe in an after life: if you don't or if you think it will necessarily be way better than this world, why don't you kill yourself? Moreover, if death is invariably a liberation, suffering and dying should not be viewed as bad things: suffering delivers us from being attached to this existence and dying finally delivers us from existence.

>>9314698

Neoplatonism and Buddhism are miserable synthesis-based ideas whose ultimate goal is to paint an aesthetically pleasing picture of things and to reconcile opposite in the hope that astute and "deep" ideological Formalism will do anything to mitigate felt misery. Attempting to do so by invoking pseudo-Mathematical harmony and twee irony about the Ouroboros or whatever is just as abject a mockery as attempting to invoke the sun exploding in a billion years or the mysterious ways of "God" as consolation for ANYTHING.

Also, suffering is not required for dying, it is required for living. Bodily destruction, binding torment, total humiliation, abjection of Humanity - none of these are required for dying, they are required for living. As for delivering us from attachment, this doesn't seem to be the case, at least not from this thread.

>>9313150
Truth is functional, not immanent, and is drawn out by testing.

>>9314858

I dread to think what your answer will be if I ask you what is immanent then.

Speaking of suffering, I've suffered fools enough for today.

>>9307640

Hey, OP, are you still here? Pick up the slack, will you? It's your thread.

File: 1486343319700.jpg (27KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 300x300px

I suffer, therefore I am.

File: subject and object.jpg (267KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 960x1280px

>>9314881
>asks for an exemplar of an attribute that doesn't exist
No, I will not make your argument for you.

You'd better learn to suffer fools, or you will never countenance yourself long enough to improve.

>>9314783
What do you mean by "synthesis-based ideas"?
>paint an aesthetically pleasing picture of things
Buddhist texts are always talking about suffering, disease, decay and death. How is that a pleasing picture of things? That could only apply to Neoplatonists with their ideas like "the harmony of the spheres", "Providence" etc., but I think they're bullshit too. The difference is: Gnostics blame the Demiurge and his Archons, Buddhists recognise that we suffer because of desire, that is, actually each one is the true Demiurge and each one's desires are the true Archons, and ignorance is the true prison. Gnosticism is just avoiding responsibility.
>Also, suffering is not required for dying
I never said it was. Suffering de-absolutises the body and our conditions, so it operates in us some detachment (unless we persist in being attached and then suffer from resentment), but it does not deliver us absolutely from attachment, it only makes it less naïve.
Also you avoided answering me: why don't you kill yourself? What's keeping you in this world?

>>9314783
And doesn't condemning the world because of BODILY suffering mean that you are attached to your body? Maybe you're not so above the world as you think.

Accepting suffering and believing that it brings redemtion is a very effective way, I think, to find inner peace and not despair when life is fucking you in the ass.
Rejecting it is always more beneficial to the world, but it's only more beneficial to you if you actually can achieve something that will ease the pain. If you can't, you'll struggle forever with your own demons.
Dostoyevski's way is more akin to the pre-modern way of thinking, while Nietzsche's is more modern like. The former will guarantee peace, and the latter may or may not give peace and change the world for the better.

>>9314954
Not them, but your logic isn't as sound as you make it out to be. It is easy to condemn bodily suffering for the mental suffering that it parallels.

>>9314881
OP here. I've read all the arguments in this thread and I still can't say I agree with Dosto.

>attempting to rationalize suffering

It exists, it is inevitable, and it can help or hurt you. You're all trying to draw water from a rock.

>>9315925
Yeah, but my main problem with Dosto is that he romanticizes it and heralds it as something that's a good thing for our benefit. Dmitri even goes out at the end of the book in The Brothers Karamazov, talking about how much he wants to suffer. I think that's terrible. I can understand how suffering can be helpful, but there is some suffering that is terrible no matter what way you look at it, and attempting to romanticize it is just an insult to the person that's actually suffering. Some sufferings are just to much to bear for some people, and while Dosto's ideas sound pretty nice in the book, the reality of it doesn't work out for me.

File: 35buddha1.jpg (434KB, 900x1203px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 900x1203px

>>9310314
All of the Buddhas and Arhats

>>9315946
First of all, everything that every character says and thinks does not necessarily reflect the sensibilities of the author.

Secondly, your intentions are obviously noble and humanistic, but you're overplaying your hand a bit. Both Dostoevsky's alleged romanticizing of suffering and your apparent deference to suffering are only external judgments. Both profess to make a commentary on suffering at the expense of those who actually suffer. Your perspective falls in on itself. What you ask - to comment on suffering in a way that ultimately respects and defers to the suffer in all things - is utterly impossible an end to reach.

This is true for all modes of experience. You have object and subject, observer and observed, etc. We are essentially faced with two options - make something out of what we perceive as experience (Dostoevsky's liberties with suffering) or do nothing out of deference - to sacrifice our faculties as observers at the altar of the observed.

I personally far prefer the former. It's more critical, and fair, and redemptive. Some people prefer the latter, like you, clearly. Kind of a dead end though, no?

>>9315946
If something can help or hurt you, it makes sense to formulate ideas on how to avoid being hurt, and cultivate being helped.

I'm not even a fan of D, but deriding his general approach is not as useful as identifying what exactly doesn't work for you.

>>9310308
What did he even need redeeming for though
He doesn't sound like he did anything wrong

There is a difference between hedonic wellbeing and eudaimonic wellbeing. I've not read all of Dostoevsky's work, but from what I remember his most tragic characters are those who pursue pure sensory pleasure, which inevitably leads them to destruction. In contrast, other characters suffer greatly as they strive for a purposeful existence, and this is their redeeming feature that allows them to achieve true happiness in spite of pain.

>>9309956
If you still think genetics has anything to do with the Ubermensch/Last Man dichotomy you're a retard

File: 1475672196530.gif (2MB, 504x279px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 504x279px

>>9316015
>Being this room-temperature IQ

I'm out.

>>9316162
No anon
You must suffer my presence
Only then will you be redeemed

>>9307790

agreed. but even if he were romanticizing suffering, in terms of pure results? might be a good way to deal with suffering that you can't escape. and by "good", I don't mean true or morally sound.

>>9307875

I agree the someone invalidating another's suffering is fucking shitty. internally, If someone can truly embrace a concept, on their own terms, that allows them to better deal with their suffering? sounds alright to me.

and trying to relate to your pain by viewing it as redemptive or transformative actually has evidence that it reduces pain. people can relate to the pains of working out as kind of delicious, and related to self-empowerment. scarification and rituals of initiation in most tribal societies, too. (after writing this, I I realize this is a pretty poor analogy to say, having MS or being born without skin.)

>>9308593

yeah Nietzsche was probably onto something when he referred to Christianity as a slave morality

>>9309956
Nietzsche's suffering and illness allowed him to become supremely wise and cope with such a miserable existence.