The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

That is fascinating Patrice - thanks! One of the links I gave earlier mentioned the difference between Jewish and Christian interpretations of this story. And it is true that one of the advances - leaps - that the Abrahamic religions made over earlier ones was in not using human beings as 'sacrifical lambs'. In her History of God Karen Armstrong writes this:-

'Human sacrifice was common in the pagan world. It was cruel but had a logic and rationale. The first child was often believed to be the offspring of a god, who had impregnated the mother in an act of droit de seigneur. In begetting the child, the god's energy had been depleted. so to replenish this and to ensure the circulation of all the available mana, the first born was returned to its divine parent. The case of Isaac was quite different, however, Isaac had been a gift of God but not his natural son. There was no reason for the sacrifice, no need to replenish the divine energy. Indeed, the sacrifice would make a nonsense of Abraham's entire life, which had been based on the promise that he would be the father of a great nation.'

I don't think it's a misunderstanding. If Abraham was struggling with himself because of a misunderstanding, God would have known and resolved it. For instance, when Abraham was distressed over sending away Hagar and Ishmael (Gen 21:12), God set him at ease. OTOH, If Abraham had thought that God's demand was unjust, he would have interceded and "bargained" with God, as he did for Sodom and Gomorrah (where his nephew Lot lived) when God was going to destroy the cities. There was friendship and trust developed between God and Abraham, so Abraham knew that God had not given the command lightly.

The Canaanites were sacrificing to idols, and God did not approve any of their sacrifices (human or animal).

Shall we move on to The Sickness Unto Death or The Concept of Anxiety, and look into the universal problem of anxiety and despair?

Too near the bone for me Nemo:(.

MadgeUK wrote: "Too near the bone for me Nemo:(."

Yeah, for all of us. Kierkegaard's ideas are intensely personal and incisive, which is why he has become one of my favorites. As you said, "Philosophical ideas are not worth the paper they are written on unless we apply them to real life situations."

Patrice wrote: "Nemo, I brought up the same issues, Hagar and Sodom. What he told me was that Abraham argued on behalf of others, not himself. If we define morality as caring about "the other" and not yourself, ..."

Justice should be administered to all. Abraham argued for justice, and so he could argue both for himself and for others. (When he interceded for Sodom, he was also doing it for his nephew Lot, so strictly speaking, he wasn't arguing for "others").

"Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25)

IOW, Abraham is saying that mere mortals have a sense of what is right, surely God cannot fall below the socially accepted standards of justice?

Nemo wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Too near the bone for me Nemo:(."

Yeah, for all of us. Kierkegaard's ideas are intensely personal and incisive, which is why he has become one of my favorites. As you said, "Philos..."

Not for all of us.

Nemo: I don't know where to post this but I remembered our discussion on the 'happiness' of Down's syndrome children when we discussed abortion/euthanasia etc when I read this post by someone with a Down's syndrome brother. It illustrates what I posted about the difficulties such people have as they grew older. I don't want to start this conversation again but thought you might be interested in this p.o.v. by someone directly affected by such a tragedy.:-

'My brother G***** (the one with Down's Syndrome) has just turned 58. Over the last year his behavior deteriorated to the point where he could no longer live at the facility he has been living at for some twenty years. Basically 100% of all Down's people who don't die of something else, younger, progress to Alzheimers, you see. Only they start out at the mental age of maybe four or five, and the progression of the disease is quite rapid, regressing them to three, two, one -- they end their life in a bed they cannot get out of, completely unresponsive, soiling themselves, unable to eat -- once they are fortunate enough to contract pneumonia or something else that will kill them if untreated....

So sure -- while I don't quite support the "killing of unborn babies", I certainly have no more of a problem with the elimination of unborn fetuses than God does, as directly evidenced by the number He eliminates. In fact, I'm better than God, because I am willing to draw a line somewhere in the general ballpark of "birth" -- I strongly oppose the pointless killing of born babies, right up to the point when those born babies are full grown adults. God, of course, is perfectly happy to kill adults with his cruel and capricious acts as readily as children. And while I certainly don't support the "killing of people whose quality of life doesn't meet my criterion", suggesting that I'm out there trying to find and excuse to murder my aged mother-in-law just because she's getting a bit ditzy, I, and my mother-in-law (and my mother, and my father, and my wife, and myself, and pretty much everybody I know, for that matter) have no interest in prolonging life, either our own or that of our loved ones, once that life has deteriorated to where it sucks!

So no, we're not going to perform extraordinary measures to bring Gordon back to health if he mercifully gets pneumonia and starts to crump. My mother-in-law, recognizing that she is starting to fade away, was kidding about when it would be time for the cyanide -- only half kidding, I should point out. My wife and I have long since worked out an absolute prohibition on maintaining life in our bodies once our minds are gone or our health is shattered irreparably.

What irritates me is that members of the Catholic Church, have the gall to try to tell us how to live our own lives, to try to make it illegal for us to control our own demise or allow it to proceed according to our clearly expressed will. Bear in mind that I see absolutely nothing noble about suffering and have no intention of doing so if by acting I can avoid it, when my number is up (as it inevitably will be).'

MadgeUK wrote: "Nemo: I don't know where to post this but I remembered our discussion on the 'happiness' of Down's syndrome children when we discussed abortion/euthanasia etc when I read this post by someone with..."

He sounds like a spoiled child who tramples his Christmas gift underfoot just because it's not what he wanted. :)

The issue, to me, is not abortion/euthanasia, but one's attitude toward suffering and the value of life. Having lived a rather sheltered life, I'm not qualified to discuss suffering. But, there is someone who is. The following is an excerpt from Viktor Frankl's book Man's Search for Meaning.

"I shall never forget how I was roused one night by the groans of a fellow prisoner, who threw himself about in his sleep, obviously having a horrible nightmare. ... I wanted to wake the poor man. Suddenly I drew back the hand which was ready to shake him, ... At that moment, I became intensely conscious of the fact that no dream, no matter how horrible, could be as bad as the reality of the camp which surrounded us, and to which I was about to recall him."

Under the dire circumstances of the concentration camps, Frankl became fully convinced that if life is to have meaning, there must be meaning in sufferings also, and that every day, every moment, in every situation, no matter how dreadful and seemingly hopeless, a human being still can live with dignity and meaning, he always has the freedom to choose to be responsible for his life, to love, to experience life in its fullness even through sufferings.

The person who wrote the above is a university professor and very caring individual who looked after his sick brother for many years and has seen at first hand the suffering he has experienced and the suffering it caused to his parents and the wider family. To describe him as a 'spoilt child' is, I feel very unkind.

I do not believe in the 'value' of suffering and even less in the idea that it is sent by a God to improve humankind in some way. Suffering happens and it is horrible wherever and whenever it takes place. I think our job as humane human beings is to do what we can to alleviate it in every ethical way that we can.

I also agree with the blurb for Frank'ls book that 'We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life-daily and hourly. Our answer must consist not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual.'

But I do not see that it has anything whatsoever to do with a belief in God.

I get the sense that his post is emotionally charged, and tried to lighten the tone a little. My "spoiled child" comment was directed as his post, not his person. If he doesn't believe in God, why the whole tirade against Him? If God doesn't exist, surely He is not the cause of his sufferings. If God does exist, it is God who gives life to all men, including his own and his brother's. How can he claim "I'm better than God"? Has he created life in the first place?

(to be continued...)

Some people wouldn't know what to do with themselves, Nemo, if they weren't issuing a tirade against something they didn't believe in.

Nemo wrote: "I get the sense that his post is emotionally charged, and tried to lighten the tone a little. My "spoiled child" comment was directed as his post, not his person. If he doesn't believe in God, why ..."

I think he feels pretty emotional about his sick brother Nemo because his condition is seriously detiorating at the present time. He was answering a post by a catholic who was defending God's supposed attitude towards suffering/abortion/euthanasia etc. - that suffering is good but abortion/euthanasia is bad.
'
Don't lets continue - I only posted his comments because it was relevant to our earlier discussion and I thought you might be interested in his p.o.v. I'll butt out now. Perhaps I shyould have PMd you instead.

A group of people has been given the "right" to kill.

Which group of people in the US have been given the right to kill? Who has such motives? I don't understand you here. Nor am I sure what you (or Frankel) mean by saying that suffering can be borne if there is a reason 'why'. If this means a belief in God then that means that atheists cannot endure suffering and this plainly is not true as many people without beliefs have so endured. One of the strongest reasons must be that we hope to get better, even hope for the invention of a miracle cure.

What about the 'rights' of someone in pain who wishes to end their own life? No-one takes such issues lightly but there are rights on both sides.

Medicine has long played a role in alleviating suffering of all kinds. That is surely a goal which we have willingly embraced for centuries. Our great-grandparents did not have paracetamol to aid their toothache but we do. Why is that frightening? It would only be frightening if the paracetamol (or cyanide) was administered against our will or to poison us. I find it more frightening that there are some people who, for religious reasons which are quite contrary to my own, wish to force certain views about these things upon me and prevent me from arranging my own euthanasia or (formerly) from having an abortion.

The pressure to kill ourselves if we feel we are a burden, or otherwise a nuisance, existed long before modern ideas about euthanasia. Such feelings are not necessarily the result of actual pressure but often of supposed, imagined pressure. Now that I am elderly, every time I am ill I worry that I might become a burden to my children but that is nothing to do with them and they would be alarmed if I confessed to this. Sick and elderly people often have thoughts about being a 'burden to others' or fears of losing their independence. They say things like 'I would rather die than go in a home', for instance. I have had extensive experience of this sort of thing too - at the age of 78 I tend to come across quite a few elderly, sick people who say things like this.

Living to great old age is not all it is cracked up to be. I am absolutely appalled by the idea that I might live until I am 100, as was announced by our government this week! People can also be 'burdened' by being under an obligation to go on living because others do not want them to die. Children sometimes cling onto a parent even though they are in severe distress but should they do so, is that ethical? Too much store can be put on life if it is an ongoing painful or unhappy one. We give euthanasia to animals in pain or distress but we do not afford the same mercy to humans. This too is unethical if it means condemning someone to long term pain and misery - not the misery of depression of toothache but to the unrelievable pain of cancer for instance. I do not see that it is ethical to force others to live with pain because of our own ethics or religion. Yes, each situation is individual and that, to me, means respecting the rights of those who wish to die at a terminal stage of an illness or respecting the right of a mother who wishes to abort a foetus for sound medical reasons.

(continued from message 113)

Suffering may not have intrinsic value, but if it produces perseverance, character and hope, then it is valuable to the individual who endures it. Many people are willing to suffer for a cause since it serves a purpose. For example, athletes who endure extreme physical pain to compete for the prize; women who go through birth pangs to give birth to their children; artists who turn their own sufferings into inspiration for their arts, etc. A suffering life can be a meaningful and valuable life.

Suffering is important in the Christian teaching, because Christ was made "perfect through sufferings". He suffered and died on the cross, through which he has provided a Way for those who believe in Him to have access to Life. God has turned two horrible things, suffering and death, into instruments for salvation unto eternal life. He did not cause evil, but He is able to use evil for good.

I think that's why Catholics believe that "suffering is good but abortion/euthanasia is bad", because the former can lead to Life but the latter can't. Having said that, however, I think it's hypocritical to request others to endure suffering without providing the necessary and sufficient support. How to deal with suffering is still a matter of individual choice and capability. We can try to escape it, alleviate it, or use it for our own good. The choice is ours and so is the consequence.

I agree that there are some who suffer pain for a cause although I don't think that many women do it willingly and are happier to have pain relief!:) I don't agree, of course, with the Christian notion of Christ being made perfect through suffering etc or that God has turned suffering and death into instruments for salvation, using evil for good etc. I find those ideas rather repugnant and think that if there was a merciful and kind God he/she would have long ago dispensed with suffering, just as humankind keeps trying to do. But I understand your p.o.v. on this and of course would not condone any medical practice or law which imposed abortion/euthanasia on someone. However, if I want to die or abort I do not think any religious person should prevent humane/ethical laws being made to aid me. What I do with my body is my own affair.

I think one of the political problems the West is going to face within the next 50 years is how to deal with millions of non-earning, non-tax paying old people. Voluntary euthanasia for those like me who don't want to live into great old age may be something future generations will have to face. One thing the Bible got right I think is that man/woman should live only three score years and ten, or so! :). By eighty I will be happy to shuffle off my mortal coil, whether I am ill or not. I am almost ready now, only I have a lot of tidying up to do first:). My mother left her house in extremely good order before she had a speedy heart attack - I hope I can learn to be as sensible.

Oh dear we have hijacked this thread again!:(

I'm glad that you understand my p.o.v. as I do yours.:)

We aren't off topic here, since Kierkegaard also wrote about suffering. I suspect his view is similar to (though more profound than) what I wrote above. Needless to say, you can't blame God for sufferings when it is man himself who has caused them.

Personally, I don't think old people are a burden, not any more than all the non-earning, non-tax paying infants. Why should they feel bad about being dependent upon others?

P.S. From Kierkegaard's Purity of Heart:

“Let us first of all distinguish between what it is to will in the sense of inclination, and what it is to will in the noble sense of freedom.
…
Is patience not precisely that courage which voluntarily accepts unavoidable suffering? The unavoidable is just the thing which will shatter courage. There is a treacherous opposition in the sufferer himself that is in league with the dread of inevitability, and together they wish to crush him. But in spite of this, patience submits to suffering and by just this submission finds itself free in the midst of unavoidable suffering. … Courage voluntarily chooses suffering that may be avoided; but patience achieves freedom in unavoidable suffering.”

I don't think it is a question of old people feeling bad but about their wish to remain independent. It is also true that too many infants can be a burden, because the world is overpopulated, but infants are better regarded than the elderly in our culture as they carry the promise of better things to come, fertility, new life etc.

Thanks for the Kierkegaard although you know I am not big on submission and submission linked with suffering is definitely a No No! I am not a very patient person either. There is no doubt about it, I am headed straight to Hell:O.

There's a lot of food for thought here. I'll try hard not to offend anyone; please remember that a disagreement with a person's ideas is not either a denial of that person's right to hold those ideas, nor is it a denigration of the person's intelligence, compassion, or moral worth. It's simply a disagreement over ideas.

I believe that each person should have autonomy regarding end of life issues (obviously, I'm not discussing abortion here; I'm still far too divided myself on that issue to say anything.) If a person chooses to endure suffering, for whatever reason, that should be his/her own decision. If a different person doesn't want to continue on, why is that a sin, or worse, a crime? One would think that the most fundamental of human rights would be the decision to live or die.

I read the Kierkegaard citation carefully. If we accept the idea of the "noble sense of freedom", are we not denying freedom if we deny someone the right to end his/her life? Isn't that imposing our "inclination" on their freedom?

And the infants with multiple health problems who must endure extremely painful health procedures, often without benefit of anesthesia should be considered as well. Where is their freedom of choice?

These are difficult, painful issues for most individuals and families. I would prefer to suspend my judgement and leave these things to those directly involved. I may say this: my husband's father, at age 78, was assaulted by a robber (robber's net gain: $37 US), and was brain dead, being kept alive by machine. He was a devoted family man, an excellent citizen, etc. But there was no hope; they had experts in from everywhere in the U.S. Finally the family, taking into consideration the father's fiercely independent nature, made the decision to "pull the plug". As oldest son, my husband had to make the final decision. Although he truly believes they made the correct choice, he's never gotten over it...35 years later, he still grieves. So there's suffering there, even if not by the one who was in the physical state.

Who am I to say what is in another's heart?

Gail wrote: "There's a lot of food for thought here. I'll try hard not to offend anyone; please remember that a disagreement with a person's ideas is not either a denial of that person's right to hold those ide..."

Wonderful, thoughtful post Gail. So sorry to hear about your father-in-law and your husband's bravery and agony.

I think that Patrice is right, 'there is no real answer', and we just have to do our best in whatever circumstances we find ourselves. I too would prefer to leave such decisions to the professionals wherever possible. They are trained in such matters. we are not and as you say the heart is not a good decision maker.

I do not disagree with preference being given to the young because they carry our future. If such decisions have to be made because of the shortage of resources then so be it. Not so long ago old people would be left alone to die and no resources would be wasted on them. Now we have the resources and more compassion than our forebears. But as the population ages these are decisions many more of us are going to have to face. I've told my children to refuse a life support machine for me or to 'pull the plug' and I hope they will be brave enough to do so.

Reading your unhappy experiences I feel very fortunate that both my parents died quickly, in hospital, following heart attacks in their own home when in their early 80s. I hope that I will be as lucky.

Gail wrote: "I read the Kierkegaard citation carefully. If we accept the idea of the "noble sense of freedom", are we not denying freedom if we deny someone the right to end his/her life? Isn't that imposing our "inclination" on their freedom?..."

As I see it, both "the sense of inclination" and "the noble sense of freedom" are about the individual himself, not someone else. In the face of suffering, the inclination of an individual is to fear, leading to either fight or flight; The noble sense of freedom overcomes fear and enables the individual to live with suffering and use it for his own good.

(to be continued...)

Patrice wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "A group of people has been given the "right" to kill.

Which group of people in the US have been given the right to kill? Who has such motives? I don't understand you here. Nor ..."

I realise that your take on this is coloured by your unhappy experiences with your parents Patrice but as an elderly person myself I think it is sensible for doctors and nurses to be trained to deal with death in the elderly. Elderly people entering hospitals for operations are more likely to die than the rest of the population, it is the natural order of things. Being trained to deal with death and dying is quite different to killing people. Hospices, for instance, are now there specifically to deal with dying patients, which is a new idea for which the medical profession has had to be trained. Nor do I see that it is wrong to ask patients if they want to be recussitated - I would want to be asked this and can't think of anything worse than being kept alive on a machine unless there was a very good chance of my living healthily afterwards.

If, because of costs, hospital authorities have to make choices between treating the young and the old I think it is sensible to choose the young. And in nature this has always been so. It is only in comparatively recent years that we have become used to the idea of be able to prolong life well beyond three score years and ten. Life expectancy at the beginning of the 20thC was around 50, now it is around 75 and will be 100 in another 25 years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/eld...

In Europe it is generally considered that it is the success of our national health systems which have brought about this longevity and now it is those very systems which are under strain because of it. If any society has an imbalance between the young and the old, it will begin to die out or get diseased. We are just seeing the natural order of things being played out in hospitals because more elderly people are being treated there - many hospitals wards are now full of elderly people who not so many years ago would have been dying, untreated, in their beds. We only have to look at what happens to the elderly in the developing world to see this. If religion can do anything, it can help elderly to face the possibility of dying with both dignity and equanimity, which I think the medical profession tries to do in the face of what are becoming overwhelming odds.

I do hope you soon get over these sad feelings Patrice and that you have had some bereavement counselling. I send you a Hug.

(continued from message 126)

Gail wrote: "I believe that each person should have autonomy regarding end of life issues ... If a different person doesn't want to continue on, why is that a sin, or worse, a crime? One would think that the most fundamental of human rights would be the decision to live or die. "

This might be the fundamental difference between the Christian and the atheist p.o.v. I'd be interested in other religious viewpoints as well.

According to the Christian teaching, God created man and all creatures on earth, and all souls/lives belong to God. Man neither created his own life nor bought it with his own money, so he doesn't have ownership of his life. What he has is stewardship. Like any other stewardship, in the end, he has to give an account to God, the rightful owner, for what he's done with his life.

If a man commits murder, he sins against God, because man was made in the Image of God. The same applies to suicide, referred to by some as self-murder. Suicide often results from despair. In The Sickness Unto Death, Kierkegaard states that despair is sin because he who despairs rejects God, for whom all things are possible.

The decision to end one's own life may be based on two things, as I gathered from our discussions. One is a value judgment, whether a life is worth living or continuing; the other is personal strength, whether the person has the will and strength to endure in the case of extreme suffering.

My contention is with the value judgment that it is better not to live than to suffer. I believe a life of suffering can be meaningful and valuable. We all endure sufferings to various degrees, and many, if not all, the great men in history have overcome extreme adversities and sufferings to achieve greatness.

MadgeUK wrote: " Not so long ago old people would be left alone to die and no resources would be wasted on them...."

In some ancient customs, sick people would be left out to die too, and people would eat the flesh of their deceased elders. It doesn't mean we should follow their example now.

If, because of costs, hospital authorities have to make choices between treating the young and the old I think it is sensible to choose the young. And in nature this has always been so.

It may have been that way in nature, but we are not barbaric animals any more. "Survival of the fittest" may be the order of things in nature, but should it be applied to civilizations too?

I tend to disagree with value judgments based on mental and physical traits and other factors not under the individual's own control. Why should the life of a disabled, sick or old person be valued any less than others?

Nemo wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: " Not so long ago old people would be left alone to die and no resources would be wasted on them...."

In some ancient customs, sick people would be left out to die too, and people w..."

No we are not barbaric but nature still takes its course. It isn't survival of the fittest but survival of those best able to carry life forward. Young people still represent the future and the life that is ahead. Societies and nations depend on them so this is their value. We acknowledge this value when we send young people into war or to the frontiers of the moon etc. I really cannot see that the life of an elderly person at the end of life is equal to that of a young person with all before them. Philosophically it is but in reality it isn't. I certainly do not value my life as equal to that of any of my grandchildren, or of other people's grandchildren for that matter. Any one of them might accomplish great things as my bodily and mental strength diminishes. So what should the authorities base their choices on faced with such decisions?

Some criteria has to be used to decide what treatments/operations to fund etc and whatever it is, it will 'devalue' someone. Do we put money into a baby unit or into a recussitation equipment for the elderly? It should of course be both but people are not willing to pay taxes/insurance to fund perfect medical systems so hard choices have to be made by the medical authorities, and governments. As citizens we need to keep an eye on the ethics of their decisions but we also need to support them in this difficult work, not suggest that they are monsters of some kind.

The decision to end one's own life can simply be based on choice, not whether one can 'endure' suffering bravely etc. Kierkegaard's premise is both flawed and biased because as many 'believers' suffer from depression/despair or choose to commit suicide as atheists, more so in earlier times when all believed. That faith in a god somehow prevents suicide is a fallacy and it is one fostered by Christians and other faiths with similar philosophies. It is yet one more sin to load onto believers, yet one more 'guilt trip' for the faithful to endure.

It is also a value judgement to say that such decisions are based on 'personal strength' or 'will' etc. and far more ordinary people have endured suffering and adversity than the great men we hear about - in the Holocaust for instance. Did the Holocaust make life better for those involved or for those still living with its consequences? Were those emaciated people we saw in the films of Belsen, Auschwitz etc made 'greater' by suffering? Some perhaps were but the vast majority certainly were not and IMO it is cruel to think otherwise.

I do not believe for one minute that suffering enhances a person; there are other factors which create endurance etc., like upbringing, good general health, even a belief in a god and/or afterlife. I find it absolutely abhorrent to look at suffering in this way and to say that those who wish to end their lives because they do not wish to suffer are lesser people. If I choose (as I one day may do since I belong to a Euthanasia society) to end my life at some point because I personally think it is valueless and because I want to make a space in the world for another person, to lessen the burden to my children then I resent the idea that I am incapable of enduring suffering. It is a choice like any other, like choosing to take insulin or not, or having an epidural when you give birth. My life is my own and I make many choices about it every day - some people choose to smoke and drink themselves to death and that is a form of suffering too. Why is actually taking cyanide or some other such substance to end your own life quickly, worse than smoking or drinking yourself to death? There seems to be a lot of skewed thinking about this subject and a lot of it is down to religious ideas about supposed god-given life. My parents gave me life and they put no restrictions upon me, gave me no guilt to live with, did not tell me I was sinful if I did such and such things. I am my own person and my life is mine to do as I wish with. The only people I would consider if I chose to die would be my children and they agree with euthanasia and wish it for themselves if and when necessary. And they don't have much to inherit so have nothing to gain by my death!

We will never agree on this Nemo because we each consider each other's position to be 'sinful'. So be it.

For Kierkegaard, faith in God is not an empty intellectual concept, but a moment to moment, living relationship with God. A believer can always turn to Him for help and guidance, and have hope in Him. Because for God all things are possible, a believer is never without hope even when the circumstances may seem hopeless. For example, God can bring a person out of coma just as Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. Why give up hope?

I don't think we should submit to hospital authorities if we believe their decisions are unethical. Governments and authorities have the tendency to abuse power if left unchecked, which is why we have all the civil rights and watchdog groups. The Nazis came into power partly because people had made many concessions to their unethical value judgments and policies along the way.

Sufferings can build a person's character and perseverance, just as resistance training can build up muscles and strengths for athletes. You may also think of it as pruning that helps the plants grow better. The Holocaust was a horrible crime against the Jewish people. The Nazis tried to exterminate them, but the Jewish people didn't succumb to their enemies, fate and sufferings, they didn't roll over and die, they endured and strove to survive, and as a result they have become a stronger, more tight-knit people.

Societies and nations depend on the old people and past generations who have built them. They should be rewarded not punished for the fruits of their labor. Without them the young would have nothing to carry forward. The old people also have more experience, knowledge and wisdom to contribute to societies, and this is their value. Personally I value your input in these discussions, as well as your person, and would miss you if you decide to depart this life. I do hope you never come to the point where you think your life is valueless. Never, ever, give up!

Bill wrote: "Regarding suffering, so often commented in this thread, isn't it true that suffering is necessary for sentience? Isn't sentience based on pain and pleasure? Isn't pleasure always alleviation from..."

You raised a good point. Sentience is necessary for suffering, but not vice versa. It's possible to live without suffering, but it's impossible to suffer without being alive.

I think sentience, which we have in common with animals, is based on changes, and changes can cause pleasure or pain, which in turn serve as a messenger of the change. There are changes for the better, and there are changes for the worse.

For example, a disease is a change in the body for the worse, an aberration from health, and the resulting pain is a signal of danger. The ultimate goal of the physician is to restore health to the patient, and pain relief is the byproduct of healing. Destroying a life to relieve pain is contrary to the "First do no harm" rule and throwing the baby out with the bathwater, imo.

Pain can also be a signal of changes for the better. For example, women go thorough birthpangs when giving birth, athletes experience muscle soreness after training, and sometimes painful procedures are necessary to remove malignant tumors and restore health, etc. From a Christian pov, because man is in a fallen, corrupt state, it is necessary through suffering to restore him to spiritual health.

As Kierkegaard put it, suffering is schooling.

Bill wrote: "What you and I are disagreeing on is I am saying that those changes always cause either pleasure or pain..no matter how mild. ..."

To me, changes can be felt but not necessarily cause pleasure or pain, e.g., simple movements such as turning your eyes. There can be an intermediate between pleasure or pain, something neutral.

"And it seems to me that pain is always first."

As the saying goes, we only realize how precious something is after we lose it. We feel the pain of loss more than the pleasure of possession. When we get sick, the pain can be insufferable. However, it is possible to remain in good health and never feel any pain.

Suffering is good (although I do my personal best to avoid it in all its forms)---because it is necessary for sentience.

How can suffering be good to you if you avoid it in all its forms?

Bill wrote: "I'm saying that our sentience derives from pain or pleasure. ..."

Our sentience includes our sense of the position and movement of our own body, which is not derived from pain or pleasure. We feel and observe many things that don't originate from or result in pain and pleasure.

Kierkegaard definitely backs me up on this with his repeated emphasis on the fact that everyone suffers

Everyone suffers, but not everyone learns from suffering. Kierkegaard wrote that man learns about himself and his relationship to God through suffering. If we avoid suffering, we would not learn.

Excerpts from Upbuilding Discourses in Various Spirits:

"a human being can achieve amazing things, encompass a multifariousness of knowledge without, however, understanding himself. Suffering, on the other hand, turns a person inward. If this happens, a person will not in despair mount a resistance, seek to drown himself and forget the suffering in the world's distractions, in amazing enterprises, in extensive indifferent knowledge; if this happens, the schooling begins."

"When a person suffers and wills to learn from what he suffers, he continually comes to know only something about himself and about his relationship to God; this is the sign that he is being educated for eternity."

Bill wrote: "i'm not arguing what sentience is aware of--I'm arguing where it derives from. ..."

We're aware of pain or pleasure, among other things, because we're sentient beings. I failed to see how you can argue that sentience derive from pain and pleasure.

Bill wrote: "You're saying we're sentient therefore we feel pain and pleasure, among other things.

I am saying we feel pain and pleasure, and from this arises the sentience which allows us to be aware of many ..."

Sounds like the chicken or the egg problem. Maybe not. Without sentience, we cannot feel pain or pleasure. Therefore, sentience comes first.

It seems to me you're essentially arguing for Freud's pleasure principle. I'm not going there just yet.

Bill wrote: "Sentience does not exist without being sentient of something."

Sentience is the capacity for feelings and sensations, so it does exist in the absence of sensations, just as the capacity to see (sight) exists even when we see nothing.

The perception has some significance for the perceiver, yes, but it does not necessarily induce positive or negative feelings.

Imagine yourself viewing a series of photos in fast succession. When we see some obscure and unknown objects, we'd be like the plants, i.e., we receive light but nothing more; When we see places or people we know, we'd recognize them, i.e., we're sentient of something significant to us; When we see faces of our friends or enemies, we'd experience feelings of pleasure or pain.

Animals can also recognize places they've frequented. They are also sentient beings not limited to feeling only pain and pleasure.

P.S. I'd prefer to keep this thread focused on Kierkegaard as much as possible. If you like, we can continue the discussion on sentience in the Philosophy group, if it hasn't been beaten to death already.