many have heard it said
that we are born to suffer,
but is this actually true?
From the vantage point of an overseer who cares truly and deeply about the course of life on Earth at this time, would it make any sense to say that we are a species of misfits, morons, muggles, and monsters?
Keep this question in mind as I engage the question that began this post.
I begin my engagement with a passage from “a dead white guy” by the name of Samuel Johnson, also known as Dr. Johnson. This passage is an excerpt from a selected essay from a collection of essays called The Miseries of Life. I took the liberty of breaking it down into four segments of three lines apiece, inserting commentary from yours truly after each segment.
I invite you to read what follows with care; this stuff is deep, deep, deep:
–
Samuel Johnson’s Essays
Excerpt from The Miseries of Life: No. 120
Dated December 29, 1753
Affliction is inseparable from our present state:
it adheres to all the inhabitants of this world, in different proportions indeed,
but with an allotment which seems very little regulated by our own conduct
Affliction: a condition of suffering or distress due to ill health (affliction is a feature of life for human beings); a state of great suffering and distress due to adversity (have we all not endured affliction?); and a cause of great suffering and distress (CRPS is a serious affliction).
My reading of the verse :
No one is immune to suffering and distress; another way of putting this is that everyone is immune to suffering and distress to one degree or another, some more so than others, but no one is perfectly immune; furthermore, it doesn’t seem to matter what we do to keep it away.
My response to the verse :
From a global perspective, it might seem that our conduct has little if anything to do with cultivating the fruits of our conduct, but perhaps it is better to assume that conduct does have a bearing on raising the quality of these fruits while erring on the side of more rather than less.
Few if any among us are immune to suffering and distress; that is, everyone is immune to suffering and distress to one degree or another, some more so than others, but few if any among us are perfectly immune; furthermore, we can only do so much to approach total immunity.
It has been the boast of some swelling moralists,
that every man’s fortune was in his own power, that prudence supplied the place of all other divinities,
and that happiness is the unfailing consequence of virtue
Prudent: discrete and circumspect in practical affairs; informed by sound judgment; careful and sensible; knowing when, where, and how to sidestep embarrassment or distress, e.g., it pays to be prudent, for is it not true that the virtue of prudence is central to good fortune?
My reading of the verse :
If a moralist, secular or religious, is someone who expects that exacting rules of conduct be met, a swelling moralist is someone who demands that said rules of conduct be met: “be prudent because you are responsible for everything that happens; if shit happens, it’s your fault.”
My response to the verse :
Moral righteousness has been the bane of humanity for as long as humanity has been morally conscious. Having said this, no one can deny this basic moral equation: to the extent to which we expect ourselves to be righteous is the extent to which we expect others to be righteous.
Consciously or unconsciously, awake or asleep, everyone grapples with these questions: Is my fortune in my power? Is prudence central to my virtue to reap the rewards of my virtue, however I wish to define my virtue? Is happiness not the unfailing consequence of my virtue? If yes, to what extent do I control and compel my virtue, my power, my fortune, my happiness, my fulfillment?
But, surely, the quiver of Omnipotence is stored with arrows,
against which the shield of human virtue, however adamantine it has been boasted, is held up in vain:
we do not always suffer by our crimes; we are not always protected by our innocence
Adamantine: having the hardness of a diamond, having the hardness of adamant (a very hard native crystalline carbon valued as a gem); impervious to pleas, persuasion, requests, or reason (which is to suggest that the shield of human virtue has great integrity, and yet …)
My reading of the verse :
The shield of human virtue is no match for the arrows that issue forth from the quiver of Omnipotence. Life carries this inherent risk: innocence made manifest by human virtue is not always protected by this shield, nor does it always go unpunished by those aligned or allied against it.
My response to the verse :
It must be admitted that there is a random element in the affairs of humanity. In service to self, one might ask: to what extent can I sidestep or bypass it? In service to other, one might ask: to what extent can I protect another, or others, from its undermining, overwhelming influence?
…
Nothing confers so much ability to resist the temptations that perpetually surround us,
as an habitual consideration of the shortness of life, and the uncertainty of those pleasures that solicit our pursuit; and this consideration can be inculcated only by affliction
My reading of the verse :
If we persist in giving memento mori its due, and if we persist in courting uncertainty around pleasures that give us the illusion of a lasting happiness, are we not better placed or positioned to resist the temptations of life that surround us and challenge us at almost every turn?
Such considerations can only be impressed upon us through affliction.
My response to the verse :
The allure of a pure being is strong, and the feeling of being at peace with bliss remains irresistible to those who have had more than a taste. It’s not that life is short, necessarily; it’s that this life could end at any moment. Do I now feel ready to cross the threshold of life and death?
Why make a habit of recalling the shortness of life when we can make a habit of recalling the blessings of breath? Why make a habit of recalling the uncertainty of those pleasures that solicit our pursuit when we can simply bypass or welcome said pleasures with a being made pure?
–
Here, I would invite a recall of the definitions of affliction: a condition of suffering or distress due to ill health; a state of great suffering and distress due to adversity (are we all destined to be afflicted?); and a cause of great suffering and distress (CRPS is a serious affliction).
Those who feel themselves afflicted seem hard-pressed to move beyond the afflictions; those who feel themselves to be immune to affliction are hard-pressed to be responsive to any affliction or, dare I say it, to even inquire into the nature, origins, roles, and meanings of affliction.
Energy flows where attention goes. If attention goes to affliction, is there not a risk of becoming afflicted? And yet, if one turns attention away from the afflictions of those loved or liked or from the afflictions of those most vulnerable, what does this say about those who so divert?
many have heard it said
that we are born to suffer,
but is this actually true?
Are we born to suffer? The response of saints, mystics, saviours, and philosophers throughout history has been to answer this question in the affirmative (“bear thy cross, life is suffering”), which is not to say that we must swing to the other side of the answer with a blunt negative.
Obviously, suffering is a reality for humanity, but must we allow it to persist?
I grant you, with prudence and respect, that these lives we live could end at any moment, but what is the essential relation to the pleasures that this life has to offer? Do we (a) indulge pleasure (on the left); (b) resist pleasure (on the right); or (c) moderate pleasure (in the middle)?
Does affliction not caution us against habitual indulgence?
Does affliction not compel resistance to extreme indulgence?
Does affliction not have us moderate sensible indulgence?
Is it actually true that we are born to suffer? Or is it more true that we are born to be students of affliction? In the midst of so much confusion about the essential relation between indulgence and affliction, have we not become a species of misfits, morons, muggles, and monsters?
The evidence that humanity has always been a species of misfits, morons, muggles, and monsters is too overwhelming to ignore. By our own admission, we face misfits, morons, muggles, and monsters every day, but do we not also face mirrors and see them staring back at us?
What does this say about our characters as individual authors, agents, and actors? What does this say about the character of human groups presuming to act as individual authors, agents, and actors? What does this say about humanity as a collective author, agent, and actor?
We are not born to suffer. We are born to pose questions about suffering, questions that go to the heart of the matter of suffering, with and through the essential relation between indulgence and affliction, even at the risk of being slapped with this epithet: swelling moralist!
I have written this post under the influence of affliction, for how could it be otherwise?
I have also written this post with a view towards clarity and harmony.
Life … and story: affliction … and … resolution?