reply to post by arpgme
I agree, at least objectively, with each of those examples.
Take this one for instance, though. Suppose someone gets assaulted. In the moment that they're being assaulted, assume that their psychological state
is such that they are literally incapable of finding any modicum of objectivity or peace of mind, and can only experience terror or the physical pain
of the assault. Assume that as the result of physical injury incurred in the assault, the person then goes into a deep coma with no level of
awareness, and has no further consciousness of which they are aware beyond that point.
Of course, externally people can learn from that experience and benefit from those lessons. But what about the individual person during the event
itself, and thereafter where they no longer possess meaningful consciousness?
That's an extreme example, of course. For a slightly more mundane one, suppose someone witnesses a loved one die and spirals into a deep depressive
state. They can learn from their sorrow in many ways, as well as from the loss, objectively. But suppose the subjective state of their psychology
prohibits the learning of those lessons because their thinking and judgment are impaired, and they cannot through will, medication, or other treatment
avenues, escape from these limitations to their ability to cope with their pain.
Assume furthermore that they never recover for whatever reason and, at no point during their decline following that death, become objective and
capable of deriving those lessons from the tragedy. Then, not thinking rationally and having impaired judgment, they commit suicide without ever
having learned those lessons. Again, others can learn from this, but what of the individual experiencing it first hand subjectively and in the moment,
who is trapped by impaired judgment and loss of reason to the extent that they cannot exercise or even fathom this philosophical application to their
Those are just two scenarios off the top of my head where I would argue that the experience did not make them stronger, and that the failure of it to
do so was not a result of conscious choice on their part necessarily. To say otherwise assumes that there will always, in every instance, be the
option for non-impaired, cogent, rational judgment, and thus the ability to apply this philosophy. In my opinion that assumption is not always
consistent with reality.
I can also envision scenarios where lessons learned, while positive, might be overwhelmed by suffering or dysfunction to the extent that for all
practical intents and purposes, said lessons become essentially moot. That doesn't mean they aren't learned necessarily though, of course
(Again, just playing the devil's advocate. I really do think this is a beautiful philosophy people can potentially improve their level of contentment
and fulfillment in life by successfully employing if they are so inclined and capable of maintaining it.)
edit on 1/14/2013 by AceWombat04 because: Typo