RANK
“Smart, Brahma, Ekstrom, Stebbing, Stump, Job, Philip Hallie, Leguin, Dostoyevski meets around a roundtable. Will they solve the controversial topic of evil?”
For some time now my mind has been very busy thinking about the problem of evil. I know I was not the only one thinking about this problem. Surely everybody I know had a different view of this issue. These views were sometimes slightly different then each other, sometimes extremely opposite to each other. This was underlining the fact that problem of evil is very much a controversial topic.
I had a thesis in my mind about the problem of suffering, problem of evil and I wanted to discuss my thesis with several people that I know that they thought a lot about this issue and came up with different thesis in the past. I have crafted an invitation. Invitation indicated that a weekend brainstorming session would be organized in a little mountain cottage in Canmore, Alberta. I have indicated that I would like to discuss my thesis on problem of evil. Which is, “suffering” becomes suffering only if one’s capacity is not beyond seeing it differently and chooses to accept it as suffering. In my perception, suffering is a present. Different lives here on earth, seems like they live in the same environment or in the same platform. But my thesis says that this is an illusion. Imagine this platform as a computer game; even if the platform looks the same, the level that player functions at, determines the actual platform. Our levels here on earth are not physically differentiable ones. Different levels of this platform are only differentiable via spiritually. Our souls determine our levels, our rank on earth; and this is the furthest away from a materialistic hierarchy. Once you internally upgrade to a level up via “so called suffering”, it is only then possible to realize that it wasn’t a suffering but it was only a tool to upgrade your soul, your level on earth.
“Suffering” becomes suffering only if one’s capacity is not beyond seeing it differently and chooses to accept it as suffering. “
This invitation has reached to Smart, Brahma, Ekstrom, Stebbing, Stump, Job and Philip Hallie., Leguin and Dostoyevski. Some of you may think that this is not even possible because they are not all from the same era, but it is possible to get them together actually. It happened in the movie Midnight in Paris (W. Allen, 2011). Also it perfectly happened in several other articles of mine. Saving Pala was one of them. (Başıbüyük, 2015)
When the time of the gathering came, everybody who was invited was able to come. They only had short breaks for fresh mountain air but other than that they wanted to stay around the table almost all the time and discuss the problem of evil.
Başıbüyük started the discussions; “Thank you all for coming, as you all know, my desire was to speak about the problem of suffering or the problem of evil. I am curious about what would you all say about my thesis that suffering becomes suffering only if one’ capacity is not beyond seeing it differently and chooses to accept it as suffering. In my perception, suffering is a present. Different lives here on earth, seems like they live in the same environment or in the same platform. But my thesis says that this is an illusion. Imagine this platform as a computer game; even if the platform looks the same, the level that player functions at, determines the actual platform. Our levels here on earth are not physically differentiable ones. Different levels of this platform are only differentiable via spiritually. Our souls determine our levels on earth; and this is the furthest away from a materialistic hierarchy. Once you internally upgrade to a level up via “so called suffering”, it is only then possible to realize that it wasn’t a suffering but it was only a tool to upgrade your soul, your level on earth.
“Our souls determine our levels on earth; and this is the furthest away from a materialistic hierarchy. Once you internally upgrade to a level up via “so called suffering”
Brahma responded first; “Your thesis seemed so off to me. I don’t understand why we need to see or perceive suffering as if it is something else. Suffering has to be perceived as suffering, so that people can make the connection that they already deserved it in their past lives. (Sutra,The philosophy of spiritual life pg. 363-365).
I said “come on Brahma, if you are human in this life you might be a dolphin in your next life. You may suffer in this life if someone thrown you in a ocean and in your next life, you might be suffering because men tried to keep you in a dry place. You cannot even provide one mutual definition for all the species for what suffering is. Furthermore, are you suggesting that people should be suffering all the next lives, since you cannot provide an indication that there is a way to get out of karmic cycle?”
Smart: “I am afraid I have to make a comment for both of your thesis here. Everything should be able to explainable through physics. (Smart, 2004) I cannot see any way to explain neither of your theses through physics.” I couldn’t resist but jumped in the conversation to answer before then Brahma. I said, “But Smart, I believe your theses is lacking an important detail also. For example if we take the physical pain as an example, a pain is caused by a physically measurable source. There are two people in the same body measurements and they both stay under a falling stone of the same size. One suffers, one don’t or one suffers less and the other more, how your theory explains that difference. What is the invisible power inside a person that causes for different pain levels with the same cause?
Philip said; “Guys, we are a bit moving away from Deniz’s thesis. I agree with her from the perspective, people are operating on the same earth, but at different levels. Otherwise it would be hard to describe what makes people to have choices involving ethical behavior and the darkness of human cruelty versus the wonder of those who came to aid of strangers (Hallie, 1998). There must be a level difference, I repeat, there must be a level difference”
Ekstrom asked hesitantly, “Deniz are you saying that all good being giving you suffering so that we can be moved to great appreciation of goodness by exposure to evil? “ Jobs attempted to answer before than me. He said, “Yes, she must be saying that, because that is how it is. Believe me, it took such a long time of suffering for me to understand this.”
I replied, “No Jobs, I definitely didn’t say that. I was only attempting to differentiate people’s different perception through their own power, an internal power. The life of an ordinary person, stuck in the physical world. It is not easy to arrive or acknowledge different interpretations of our perceptions. Suffering is just a tool to get you to the next level understanding and perception in a quicker way. Once you change level, you understand that you have changed level. It would be very difficult to explain this thesis to people who are stuck in the base level but many who suffered and who could turn their suffering to a tool to see differently can pass the previous level up. Once they do, it becomes clear that even the definition of suffering changes. Despite you are still the same people in the physical world, you wouldn’t call the same thing suffering that you used to call suffering in your previous levels.
Leguin said, “You all know the utopic community I have created, Omelas. Imagine all the people in this world choose to live in Omelas, there is no suffering and there is no problem of evil. (Pg.135) I kind of vision that it would be a meaningless population.” I said, “Right on, I too believe that -suffering- is only a tool but it is obvious that through that tool, meaning is created easier. Lala Lands are not great environments for gaining depth of the soul.”
Dostoyevski said, “Don’t look at me I have already returned the ticket back to all that sorts of lala-lands. Where it is pretended that harmony is offered but actually ignorance rules those places” (Pg. 138)
They all laughed at Dostoyevsky’s conclusion and tone. Stebbing said I guess we are all here to proove that there is more to being human than the deterministic view presents. How about our desires manipulating our actions that we can have a control of them unless there is no mental illness. (Pg. 43)
I agree with Deniz that even the different desires that people have might be correlated with their level on earth. I may need to be convinced only that suffering would be to tool for those level advancements. I said Susan, the primary proof of my thesis so far can only be individual’s own life experience. Once you start looking at your life journey, with my thesis in your mind, you will see clear indications and correlation between suffering and level changes.
Everybody looked so tired of hours of argument so I suggested a break and opportunity to enjoy the mountains. Before concluding the session I told them, don’t worry you will be all be convinced with my thesis, since there is enough tool provided to everyone, to upgrade levels, a tool called “suffering” in our discussions. We will continue later as you wish. Essay for Philosophy Lecture, December 2016
References:
- Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris, movie 2011 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1605783/
- Fantl, Course Pack for Phil 201, University of Calgary Bookstore.
- Philip Hallie, Tales of Good and Evil, Help and Harm, 1998 , Harper Perennial; Harper Perennial education edition
- Sutra, the philosophy of spiritual life, 2011
- J.J.C. Smart, Sensations and Brain Processes, 2004, Philosophical Review Volume LXVIII
- Basibuyuk, Saving Pala, 2015, published online at LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/saving-pala-deniz-basibuyuk?trk=mp-reader-card
