Suffering - and Kant!

The answer to your question, Rory, is not to ask Zoroastrianism, which is not particularly preoccupied with suffering, but to ask biology (science). And then the answer is that suffering exists to make us to do what we need to do but would otherwise not do (pain forces you to take action etc). And perhaps just to irritate us this does not include all suffering, there is also suffering which is absolutely meaningless. Seeing killer whales torturing a seal for hours in the Norwegian Sea before finally killing it has no meaning, it is just the suffering of the seal being the fun of the killer whale colony. That's just how the world works and as such also a part of asha.
Ushta
Alexander/does not hate Kant, loves his ethical rather than moral imperative, but sees Kant properly as inferior to Hume, Hegel, Nietzsche and Spinoza, and thereby as grossly overrated...

2009/8/9 roryyoung15



Dear Dino,

No, Catholic priests certainly can't explain suffering. Which is why they need "original sin" and the Devil, and the first temptation, etc. ad nauseum. However, these explanations are enough for them because they are based on "Revelation" by God and if they don't make sense then are "mysteries" beyond our capability to understand. Very neat but not based on reason.Suffering is only punishment.
The purpose of understanding suffering? As you say it may be in vain, if that is the truth then we should accept in regardless of the suffering it causes us to do so! I am reading Kant right now and will move onto Nietsche next. It seems that every time I visit this forum my reading list doubles! :-)
I really would like to know more about how Zoroastrianism and different Zoroastrians explain suffering? The reason I ask is because if one removes Dualism and accepts Monism then it NEEDS to be explained. It is the logical next question because if there is no "baddy" causing all the suffering, yet there is only "nothingness" other than Asha, then what is it? Why does it exist?
Ushta,
Rory

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Special Kain wrote:
>
> And I think that Catholic priests can't explain suffering. But what's really the purpose of explaining suffering, anyway? Suffering alone is still better than knowing that suffering doesn't pay off. Given that existence as such is contingent, suffering may very well be in vain. And this is what breaks most people's necks. Anyone who can cope with such purposeless and meaningless suffering is extraordinarily strong (see Nietzsche's "Übermensch").
>
> Ushta, Dino