Theodicy

I was posed a question by a Schopenhauerian today. When he refused to explain his Raison d’être -for such a thing needs no explanation-, I told him he shouldn’t use the word “Will”. Because it could not be explained. And the use of any word with any meaning, begs to be explained. However, the question was posed to me in response. What about my reason to live? I answered rather lamely that one should first keep the first truth in mind (of the buddhist tradition) “There is suffering”. When the though experiment was brought into the discussion of collective suicide, I was rather puzzled. Let us consider a probable, or at least possible, example.

An astroid is heading towards earth. It destroys all macro life on impact. To make matters ‘worse’ (this will become a problematic qualifier), the remainder of the planet heads towards the sun. All micro-life (bacteria) is incinerated. Because of a cosmic waste of space (and time) this turned out to be the only place (and again, time) in the universe capable of supporting life. There is now no more suffering in the cosmos. Is it ‘better’ off? The SMBC response could be “There is nobody to think of it in those terms, so it’s not worse off”. But that was not the question. If suffering is indeed such a horrible thing and we must “sacrifice the ego, before it is far too late” (Tool), why not collective suicide. Now, I know why I did not commit individual suicide (when first really contemplating the issue). It was because there is other suffering. And such an act would undoubtably increase the suffering of those near me. Or so they claimed, though after discussing the issue there was more understanding. As there should be, because there would be no just cases of euthanasia otherwise. Things have gotten better and through the use of reason (philosophy, science, truth, whatever you want to call it) I have decreased suffering immensely. My own and that of others (which in turn decreases my suffering, because I enjoy doing good). But what if we take away all suffering? What if we all dissolve our egos, being meditative or in a pleasure machine that provides for our basic needs in a matrix-like setting (the first matrix, where there was no suffering and lets assume our mind would be able to handle that bliss). What if we take away all sentient beings (and the chance that there will ever be sentience). It seems overkill. But is it?

I like to use reason. But it’s merely a tool. It would be perverse to want to use means instead of sticking to the goal when possible. The goal was to eliminate suffering. Suffering is a part of life. In the though experiment posed, life is gone. So what’s the problem? As I mentioned, it seems like overkill. But this seemingness doesn’t answer the basic question. Let’s see of buddhism can answer it. The second truth is that suffering comes from ignorance (lack of reason I would like to call it), which leads to craving, grasping and clinging. Merely surpassing this vain desire, would be enough to achieve happiness. But is it? Could we ever truly become gods? Knowing all and accepting reality. Simply being as a rock simply is. Not even a bacteria, attempting to be something else. Somewhere else. The Schopenhauerian had previously mentioned that a rock ‘wills’ to be one. It has a tendency to clump together. However, when asked to define this, it was a problematic issue. For this tendency results in things being flung apart too. If you reduce it to saying that things that stick together, stick together, you have a tautology. We concluded we should not discuss such mysterious thing, being reminded of what Wittgenstein said. But I do wish to discuss these things and therefor made an appeal not to bring Will into the matter if we cannot define it. I was posed with the problem of what defines what is my basis. That there is a foundation is of course an axiomatic answer to Agrippa’s trilemma. Applied to moral questions like this one, though I would argue morality is the basis for reason, not the other way around. Of course, for ethics we need both and perhaps this would allow for a circular argument. Though it would be difficult to see how this reaches the same appeal of (contextualism or) coherentism, as it does in epistemic inquiries. But this is becoming needlessly technical. Can we not get simple answers from a simple philosophy?

The third truth is that we can become free of suffering and achieve happiness. I have a lot of problems with this one. It gives a positive content to the question of suffering. This is what most people tend to argue when I pose that life is merely about eliminating suffering. I hold the first truth is such high regard, that I feel we can never* get away from it. We can merely lessen it. Buddhism goes on to tell you why you should follow buddhism. You should follow the Noble Eightfold Path. This sounds a little like a religious recruiting propaganda tool. The way (Tao) to Salvation is X, for it is the Light and the only path to divinity (knowing all, so one will never suffer again). Because we’re alive, I think this does have a lot of good things going for it (knowledge or ‘wisdom’, acting morally and meditation). But it doesn’t answer the basic question. Why have something, capable of suffering?

Theologians have answered this question in a number of ways. A popular one was free will. Indeed, a lot of people like the idea of autonomy. I feel freedom to set goals and attain them is merely a psychological tool to achieve happiness. Though you never truly achieve it. Or if you do, it’s only for a moment and as soon as you ask yourself if you’re happy, you’ve lost that moment. You’re analyzing the mystic experience. You’ve lost what positive psychology calls the ‘flow’. Therefor I would use utilitarianism as my meta-ethics. Furthermore, because you can never reach total ecstasy (dopamine would run out rather fast and you’d become depressed), I merely attempt to lessen suffering. But what if there’s no more suffering? The other thought experiment can also be posed and was mentioned. In theological terms, why would the gods and goddesses not simply create a life form that’s always having a good time? But of course, if you’re always having fun, you don’t know what it means not to have a good time and you’re not really having it. It’s why a pantheist God could never be happy (or sad), ‘he’ can only simply be. And, perhaps, not be. Because what would existence mean to such an entity? Some argue this entity would exist outside of existence, but this gets so nonsensical (being both rational and irrational), we ought not to discuss these things. We may as well assume such contradiction do not exist. We would be no more wrong in assuming such a thing as in assuming they do exist.

Back to the existence of suffering then. Because to me, this is the only relevant question. It’s why I’m reasonable, it’s why I renounced an almighty god (that is also completely good). To answer this question, I have used reason. It allows for no contradictions. It is a binary mode of thinking. I’m reticent do accept any paradox. Perhaps even more reluctant to quote Ayn Rand: “Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong”. Because her philosophy tends to promote a lot more suffering (and is based mostly on fiction, which I abhor), I’d rather not have to resort to such a thing again. To me, objective is inter-subjective. Meaning something we can all agree on (as reasonable people). I have no need for an ‘objectivist’ account of why the ego is such a good thing and would lessen suffering (and would increase the net balance of pleasure). I could be wrong and perhaps I’ll give some of her non-fiction works a chance some day. In the meanwhile, let’s just stick to universality as an important ethical framework. No contradictions. No limiting of ethical actions to one entity. Rather, extend it to all entities that can claim that identity (eg. a moral agent). But I notice I’m starting to contribute all suffering (since neoliberalism took power) to Ayn Rand, which is an unfair position to take. I’m also implicitly attacking her (lack of) theory of mind and because she says she got it all from Aristotle, I should refrain from making harsh judgements until I’ve read up on what he wrote too. Though that would take a lifetime.

So, as I’ve just established. I have little tolerance for logical fallacies. If less of A is good, surely no A is the best. I also have little respect for works of fiction. The only one I didn’t abhor is the unbearable lightness of being. The (bearable) gravity of being is that we’re only around for a moment. A brief moment. Our decisions matter. That is why it is so important to act ‘right’ (as the buddhist would say). I have no quarrel with there being a time when humanity did not exist, nor that there will one day be a time when it does not. But if an astrophysicist (such as Neil deGrasse Tyson) would claim we could stop the asteroid and we should, I would not feel inclined to say: “But Neil, we’ve finally found a way to eliminate all suffering!”. One reason is that we’ve got reason. Which I think is so awesome, we should try to hold on to it for as long as we can. It would also satisfy my personal curiosity to find some answers to life’s greatest mysteries. Though I’m sure I’ll never find out what they are. To me, the mysteries are:
There is existence (there could have been none)
There is life (which emerged from animate matter)
There is consciousness (hence there is suffering, my personal priority)
*As long as we have these three things (and I believe you merely need a big cosmos to get to the latter somewhere, some when), there will be suffering.
Even from a quantum flux of nothing, could a universe arise (Lawrence Krauss). So you wouldn’t even need existence for suffering to come into existence again.

That’s why we should use reason to try and alleviate it. If we didn’t realize we suffer, we wouldn’t try to fix it. So perhaps this is there reason (no pun intended) why there is suffering. Because suffering “wills” reason. Then again, I could have been talking to a Schopenhauerian too much.

I must expound a little more. This deals with some of the issues of non-dualism I’ve addressed elsewhere. Whenever I hear somebody say “I can’t explain it. It’s what I believe”. What I hear is ” I don’t want this belief to be scrutinized. It’ll entail suffering”. I happen to think if you want answers, if you’re truly on a search for truth, the truth shall set you free. It’ll comfort you. But that’s not what they’re saying. What they’re saying (or what I’m hearing) is “I’m not ready”. I feel awkward and am not inclined to press the issue. After all, suicide is a real issue. Perhaps, the first question of philosophy. Not why do I exist, but why should I exist? And if you can’t think of an answer, instead of looking for one, some avoid posing it ever again by ending the questioner rather abruptly. However, the most important reflection on suicide (in my opinion, so far) has been the one from an obscure footnote of a translator of Schopenhauer. It is not men who lack a desire of life that wish to end it, rather, it is of wanting too much from it. I won’t get into asceticism and the Will here, but let’s keep the blind passions (mentioned in the Hart Sutra) in mind here. It’s the things we cannot change, that we wish to change, that cause suffering. This is a vain attempt. Some respond to all (moral) idealism as though we cannot make any difference. This is a bit naieve, as living people clearly influence events all the time.

So what the horrible revolution of ideas that people are so unwilling to undergo (and I’ve only come to grips with in recent years myself and perhaps am projecting on humanity a bit much)? One does not want one’s core belief to be questioned. It’s the reason why one’s alive. If that’s taken away, there will be no more reason and the person will still be alive. Confronted with this void, one either makes values again (valuing life to begin with) or one perishes rather quickly (why eat, why breath if you can stop?). My core belief is the lessening of suffering, but an individual who’s dead, does not suffer. In buddhist terms, they return to the state of being unborn. For the sake of my unborn children, I’m not having any. That’ll avoid their suffering. An avoidable suffering. People are reproducing though, so I might have to adopt. The procedure is too hard, so I might have to be a foster parent. That might be too hard on me (making me a very poor parent) and I’ve found a way not to have to take care of any body from the next generation. But this conclusion is not a core belief, and I’m willing to question it. As I’m question my core belief “less suffering”.

I’ve read this all or nothing train of thought is symptomatic of a depressed mind. Perhaps there’s a neurological deficiency going on in my brain. Perhaps people who hold contradictory beliefs are simply suffering from cognitive dissonance. Either way, reason will guide me to an answer, I believe. Perhaps it won’t. But I’ll leave it up to reason to debate the issue. I’ve tried zen koans and found them to be intellectually not very satisfying. I admit, they’re not intended to be. They’re meant to lessen suffering, in which they failed too because I use reason for that. There’s nothing more satisfying than thinking about a problem to reach a conclusion. Because if all you have is a conclusion, than you have suffering as soon as you start thinking again. I believe the latter cannot be avoided, so we have to reason. But what if it can be avoided. What if the sentient life can end itself? Thus eliminating the problem. It’s this all or nothing attitude that we find in the Brothers Karamazov:”Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it’s beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing”. This haste to leave alone all that is given, is not in my nature. I’m a very patient person. I’m also very passive. Waiting, analyzing.

What is the price of harmony? How much injustice must there exist for there to be justice? How much evil for there to be good? I would claim, only a little. But this article is about the question whether there should be any at all. Because I only find matters of morality to be important (to ease suffering), I would argue that we must analyze what values (the basis of any morality) are. Value comes from being able to make a distinction. Good or bad, true or false. Not only from one of them. You must have at least one bad moment, to enjoy any other part of your life. To be in constant bliss makes it all meaningless. An eternity of joy would be rather boring and not very joyfull. Even in heaven, you’d have to remember the ‘birthpangs’ of mortal life as you entrance ticket and thinking about it would entail a minimum of suffering, for you to enjoy all else that follows. So there would have to be at least a little suffering for it to be a heaven of any meaning. We cannot conceive of one without the other. We need to have both to want either. You can’t want yin without the yang, or the other way around. To attain either is impossible. It would be death/nirvana. You can’t even desire to not desire anymore. Perhaps desiring not to suffer is more important than not suffering. It enables us to use reason. Perhaps reason is more important than not suffering.

But this seems like a perverse point of view. It would entail suffering because it builds character. Mother Theresa liked suffering because it brought people closer to Jesus Christ. This seems like a very dubious path indeed. Perhaps I feel that because we’re all going to die one day and be one with god/nature/everything, there’s no hurry. In the meanwhile, we should try to know the mind of god (as Einstein and Spinoza put it). It seems like a waste to return to a state of unborness in such a hurry. But as I’ve mentioned, that’s not a very deep philosophical grounding.

I will need to contemplate the matter further. If only to alleviate the suffering the question has posed on so many others. If it turns out we’d be ‘better’ off without a planet earth (full of these earthlings capable of suffering) and we’re the only ones in the cosmos, I’ll be sure to promote a CERN so it’ll make a black hole. Despite sensationalism, the chances of that happening are rather slim. But who knows, if we’re the only planet in this universe capable of sentience and we don’t end up in another universe -through a white hole on the other end- capable of sustaining us further and there is nowhere in the multiverse where there’s this problem of a theodicy which needs answering, maybe we should do that. But we’ll need reason to answer this question. Giving up (on reason) doesn’t seem like an answer (to eliminate all suffering everywhere and for all time). I’m afraid, no matter how you look at it, there is suffering. This seems like the first truth. Not sure about the other ones.

Advertisement