I would go so far as to say that with Zoroastrianism, the whole point with suffering et al being meaningless is that it is meaningless precisely to force US to INVENT meaning. There is no subjective meaning since meaning is not prophetically GIVEN but humanly PRODUCED. Meaning was never an issue for Zarathushtra. Not even not-meaning as it was for Nietzsche. Zarathushtra rather ENJOYED being a co-creator of existence, of manifesting Mazda within Ahura, precisely as to take the MAKING OF MEANING as an ENJOYABLE DUTY! Nietzsche deals with a rotten heritage and opposes it. But don't forget that Zarathushtra wrote an incorrupt philosophy before the whole process which Nietzsche is (rightly) reacting against had even started! In this, Zarathushtra is even more Spinozist than Nietzsche!
2009/8/9 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").
Betreff: [Ushta] Re: Pascal's wager and a book for Alexander
Datum: Sonntag, 9. August 2009, 12:45
Interesting. I was taught by Catholic priests as a kid that "Eastern Religions" cannot adequately explain suffering.
--- In Ushta@yahoogroups. com, Special Kain
> In folk Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda is benevolent only, but not almighty: since a wholly benevolent god can't cause any harm, that god can't be almighty.