cameron_valeWhy can't I argue against claims of suffering?
MrJameGumbI don’t know that I understand the question. Whose claims of suffering are we talking about?
Ok here’s an example.
Bob : “When I put on a dress people look at me funny, which is hurtful.”
Rob : “Meh, you don’t look very hurt to me.”
BAM. Rob has argued against Bob’s suffering, which is a sin. And now everybody will justifiably hate on you. Granted.
But why, exactly? What’s the logic here? Why does suffering get excepted from analysis?
The logic is that you don’t get to decide how other people feel. It’s not hard.
You can logically say these things (l although it would still make you an asshole):
I don’t care that you suffer
I believe you are exaggerating your suffering to gain an advantage
You deserve your suffering
Etc.
But you can not tell people how or what they feel since that’s inherently subjective.
It’s really not hard.
Also, if you get into these conversation often, you really ought to look in the mirror. It’s a sure sign of MAJOR assholery.
So don’t trust your eyes, trust the words instead, because the price of misjudgment is too great to risk.
Interesting. We could generate axioms that way.
What? No?
Dude, you are a huge dick.
And now I feel bad.
You don’t look like you feel bad to me
Well I can’t argue with that.
valaramechThis misunderstands the premise. You cannot intuit someone's subjective experience of reality because it is impossible for you to experience their experience of reality. You have only what they're able to explain to you.
To come at this from the other direction, if a friend says to you "I'm having a good day" and does not appear obviously distressed, how could you judge the relative goodness of their day or if it was actually good at all?
It’s a good point. But it does create a special class of information. Claims of suffering become axioms. Axioms are very powerful.