Hi! I will be giving my response to this video that was shared to me.
My notes from the video
2 ways to move through a world that includes suffering
belief --> feeling --> behavior
easy path
belief - some suffering is deserved
true based on eg. when you see someone struggling, what is the first thing that your mind reaches for? "How did they end up there?"
this is the belief -> looking for the flaw in them that caused their suffering -> why?
could it be the type of suffering that could happen to oneself?
question becomes "do they really deserve it?"
if you find reason in which it could NOT happen to you, i.e. a flaw in them, this makes you feel safe.
if suffering is deserved, then the suffering says something about you. i.e. you did something wrong.
therefore when suffer, feel shame
when ashamed, you hide and judge. judging is hiding turned outwards.
looking at other suffering and finding the flaw, is a way for you to say that your suffering would never be avoidable or deserved.
gives a locus of control in which suffering has rules and following the rules will mean you are okay.
the cost is that you cannot selectively numb. You made this bed, and must now lay in it.
hard path
belief -> suffering is never deserved.
denies the concept of finding fault in them in response to their unfortunate situation
let go of illusion of control
accept what is/has happened
this is the road to self-love and compassion
dont need to find the flaw in others pain.
My refined thoughts:
Easy Path
There are only 2 ways to approach a world that includes suffering. To so strongly propose this idea without offering rationale as to why these 2 are the sole existent ideas is just wrong. that's like me saying there are only men and women. Just because it is the norm, or even the majority, does not mean it is true universally. An alternative to "some suffering is deserved" and "suffering is never deserved" could be "suffering is always deserved". Another could be "suffering is necessary". this abstracts the self from the equation, making it more of a choice and less of a action/situation done unto another. The very premise of saying only 2 is just bad taste. for sake of argument tho, this is pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, so i will move on.
the easy path can be summarized as: I believe that some suffering is deserved. This deserved suffering is shameful and thus allows anyone to judge any other person based on their suffering/shame and improve to avoid this suffering/shame.
I disagree with this concept, but agree with the message being a common belief. To believe that some suffering is deserved, means that any person is capable of influencing the natural order and thus bring about suffering to oneself/others. I.e. the locus of control lies with the individual. This is true to some extent. eg. If i drive a car without headlights at night, I will probably get into an accident. However, as I said previously, this is only true to some extent. Suffering is not WHOLLY deserved. I.e. Getting into a car crash and killing the parents of a now orphaned child based on the previous scenario, causes suffering for both parties. Of which, the second party had no reason to be suffering based only on what information I have provided. This is where the conditional part of the belief is used to say "haha yeah this is to account for such situations!🤓" To me this feels like an answer to cover one's ass when shit goes awry. Just escape with the "aha but i only said sometimes!" which is a cop-out when trying to apply universality to situations.
So, the emphasis of the suffering being influenced/controlled by one's own actions (partially 🤓) can be rewritten as "sometimes what I do has intentional and unintentional negative consequences. Sometimes I don't have control over negative consequences, they just happen. Regardless of source, these are deserved." To me this, is a more refined and proper way to describe the belief. This is more along the lines of ancient philosophers describing the basics of ethics/morals. This perspective is only focused on the negative, since the premise of suffering is inherently negative. There is no benefit or positive view of suffering. Suffering is not supposed to be in any way positive, such is the definition of the word.
Continuing further, controlling the outcome of suffering (at least partially 🤓) and obtaining this status of suffering is indicative of feeling shame, as per the video. More refined, to suffer means to be ashamed. There is no direct connection between what the situation/circumstance does to cause this feeling of shame.
Shame has several definitions, but I will choose two:
- a painful emotion caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety.
- a condition of humiliating disgrace or disrepute. By combining these both, I believe we can accurately describe the type of shame that she proposes in the video, which is a painful emotion caused by consciousness of guilt, humiliating disgrace, disrepute, or shortcoming. I.e. to feel humiliated/disgraced by the situation, or some form of action taken (which is basically a restatement of the belief).
So with this combined definition of shame, i believe their connection between shame and suffering can work. It abstracts the self when needed (🤓) and applies the sentiment when it was an action/causable/avoidable situation/circumstance. now my problem is that you can't have your cake and eat it too.
You can't just cop out whenever you CHOOSE to believe that it was not your fault. This is because you have no way of ever knowing whether it was or not at least partially your fault. The cascading butterfly effect, may not affect you now, but it may in 10 years. It may never happen. The idea of obtaining shame whenever you feel that it does, is just a way to feel bad about yourself.
But the behavior is where you avoid this negative consequence! In fact, it makes you feel GOOD. This is because you can find fault in OTHER people, and thus externalize one's strengths making one feel good about themself. By reducing a person to their actions in the past, and judging them based on such actions, you obtain the final piece of where this ideology becomes "good". By finding flaws in others, especially those with which you do NOT have, you feel good because you are not in their shoes, and won't be. The opposite is also true, so if someone is not suffering and you are able to identify what is the flaw in yourself and this non-suffering person, then you are should feel the opposite of good (in this case shame).
In essence, it's a cycle of: suffering --> shame --> judge (if other person is better off) --> suffering ... OR suffering --> shame --> judge (if other person NOT is better off) --> joy --> non-suffering --> non-shame --> judge ...
where JUDGEMENT is the focus of what is going on. Judgement is what rules whether you believe it was fair/unfair, deserved/undeserved, and so forth.
But see, that is the very problem. This is all subjective. So a person can go down the rabbit hole and repeat this cycle of negative thinking should they identify a flaw (real or perceived) in themself.
The other end of this is also that one could NEVER acknowledge the fault within themself, and thus judge others as deserving of their suffering while they would never be deserving of such suffering.
I do agree that this is a commonly held belief, however. I find it negative and self-serving without doing any work to actually improve oneself. It finds fault, and only works as a way to prevent suffering. To me this is akin to the argument of relying on religion to avoid participating in sin. If you require the idea of punishment to be conscientous, compassionate, or humble, then so be it. But I find that a rather sad way to go about it personally. Regardless, this perspective is one possible rationalization of suffering in this world.
Hard Path
In this belief, suffering is never deserved. Regardless of source.
My thoughts are that this is amongst those ideas of agape where it transcends what a vast majority of people are capable of. This is that boundless and unconditional love that Jesus preaches. I think this is the highest form of achivement in terms of morality. Do I hold this belief? No. I am selfish, and acknowledge that I believe some people deserve suffering. This is an ethical and moral question, but I believe that should anyone truly hold this position, then I gladly tip my hat to them for being much closer to the truest form of love and compassion that exists.
To abstract oneself from the idea of "deserving" to suffer, means that you acknowledge it is an unfortunate circumstance. I agree with this stance. It is not something to be judged, or looked at fondly for. It is simply what it is. Suffering. This allows us all to show compassion for one another, since there is no judgement. We help when needed. We work when needed. It is not to point out a flaw, but to find comfort in one's own skin.
To me this is a much more agreeable stance. (I still diverge but again, I acknlowedge this).