How can anyone take discussions about "redemption through

File: 1487793697552.jpg (139KB, 570x783px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 570x783px

>>9313679
>flailing about in the infinitely large space of unfalsifiable ideas
Welome to philosophy, my mang.

>>9313679
>It's just flailing about in the infinitely large space of unfalsifiable ideas

You mean, kinda like life?

File: rdrr.gif (490KB, 500x200px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 500x200px

>>9313679
You sound like a 25 year old whose largest trial in life was not getting a double shot in your macchiato Freshman year.
In an of itself, 'suffering' is a neutral experience.
>Calm the fuck down, nancy
For example, the highest-tier of athletes suffer a great deal. These people seek out and self-inflict the suffering of their own volition in pursuit of a goal.
Likewise cancer patients taking treatment can experience tremendous suffering, yet seek it out eagerly and welcome it for the results it gives.
So - since suffering is neutral, why would anyone speak of 'redemption through suffering'?
Shame is what you *suffer* when you realize you have performed an immoral or foolish act.
Huh.
Well, that was easy.
By simply looking at the definitions of words we can easily see that 'redemption through suffering' makes perfectly logical sense to anyone with a basic education.

>>9313819

I completely agree with your logical approach. But i was referring to the practice of talking generally and flailing about in the unfalsifiable while trying to sound profound. The other topic talks about peasants suffering pointlessly. But even worse, the poster were making grand sweeping bullshitty statements.

>>9313825
AS my father told me
>"Everyone who makes broad generalizations is an idiot"
Problem is, your example
>How can anyone take discussions about "redemption through suffering" seriously?
is a poor one - as I showed, it is rather easy to grasp that a discussion on redemption through suffering is a 'serious discussion'.
The rest of the OP is likewise.... ill-informed.