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...
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?
--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Special Kain
> 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