Essay about Sufferings in Life

demonstrate about detriments in LifeThroughout the world al almost every(prenominal) living person on the planet depart witness slimy at least once in a a rattlingness time. Suffering as we know it is defined as the pain we experience payable to an injury, medical malpractice or even disruptions in ones family make lovelihood and etc. Although we subscribe damage, do we constantly smart? According to the German Philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer who proposed that life is exuberant of scurvy and that this ugly is directly caused by the will of the individual. I bid in this short paper to carry this claim further and drive to explain why Schopenhauer thinks that life is full of wo(e) and how he believes that this low can be overcome. I will also attempt to draw my perspective of why I dont agree to his rail lines.Schopenhauer proposed his pessimistic view on an individuals condition in this world by stating that life is filled with damage, and that this suffering th at we experience is directly caused by our will. We know Life tends to want, and because its wants are regularly unfulfilled, it largely exists unfulfilled and in a state of deprivation. By the lacking or expecting something, an individual is setting himself up to sufferuntil that objective is met. Then, upon fulfilment of the desire, a new aim is set forth, and thus the cycle of suffering begins again. When Schopenhauer puts that all life is suffering he means everything that breaks and strives, is filled with suffering, he puts it as It is absurd to look upon the enormous amount of pain that abounds over in the world.(Pg 63) Suffering is ultimately caused by the frustration and conflict that arises from disceptation between individual wills.For Schopenhauer suffering witnessms to be such a with child(p) cause that the world is subjected to, he feels rapture that we experience at greenback is non actually happiness in life. In fact, if an individual is to measure the jo y they experienced in the world it would have to be mensural finished Schopenhauers ways, as he states not by its joys and pleasures, further by the extent to which it has been free from suffering (pg 64) He goes even further to say that Suffering is the purifying process through which alone, in most cases, a person is consecrated.Schopenhauer claimed that more(prenominal) intense the willing, the more intense will be the suffering. So, now, the problem here is how to diminish the capability of ones willing such that we whitethorn get a relief from suffering? Schopenhauer dissolve is actually a very simple one, although harmonize to me not, by any means, easy to accomplish. The answer is being capable of denying what will wants. This practice is called Aestheticism or self-denial and, according to Schopenhauer, is the one adequate solution to the central life problem.Schopenhauer ideology of life filled with suffering is a total contradiction to want to rattling without wantin g to suffer. Of course that contradiction over here again is his metaphysics of Will. Thequestion, in truth is do we suffer all the time? I would go on to disagree with this lineage. Even if we do suffer, between periods of suffering, there is concise happiness as wants are fulfilled. Schopenhauer claims that this pleasure can never be more than liberation from pain, further suggesting that piece only experience happiness through the memory of suffering and pain. This view is opposite to the modern view of suffering and happiness. We dont necessarily experience happiness from suffering as a memory. If for case I have bad memories of being bullied in school, I would not attain pleasure by remembering those memories and therefore I break this argument unsound.Life to some extent has suffering, this fact is unavoidable. However, by realizing this, and by focusing on the positives, human beings can lead reasonably gratifying lives. Therefore, an individual should do exactly the opp osite of what Schopenhauer suggests, and experience each emotion, intimately or bad, as fully as practical. If we are to consider the roles compete by both the ordinary perception and aesthetic state, it seems that it is actually suitable that things are as they are. That is, we need to recognise that our suffering serves a broad good and that is the promotion of our own survival. I find Schopenhauer to be imitation we do not always suffer, as there are diminutive things that make life joyous.Furthermore, Schopenhauer compares our lives to animals, he states The lower animals appear to enjoy a happier destiny than men. (pg64) On the same side with Schopenhauer I believe that animals live better lives than us. The fact that animals dont construct memories from their past and replay it, they obviously live better lives than us. Take for example a gold fish most experiments claim they have a life span of three seconds, study that to a human life it can be said that we would suff er by recollecting old memories that brought us pain and suffering. Unlike us humans animals dont bother about the future or the past. They live in the present. So when it comes to animals I would agree that they live better lives than us and thus the argument is sound.Schopenhauer Aesthetic system according to me is a completely feeble. Even if it were possible to forget and give up all of our will, why would we ever do such a thing? I understand that our will at times is totally pointless and at times a hole of desires arise, and we are only capable of fulfilling some or none of them, but this does not mean we should practice aesthetics.The one problem that I see with the aesthetic system is that, Will, is the ultimate cause of our suffering. And we can be freed from our suffering through practising aesthetic. This idea seems to be contradictory, how can we be free of suffering by losing our individualism and perceiving the will objectively when the will is evil in nature? As Sch openhauer puts is.What is believed is that it is essential for us to see the world subjectively and not objectively, using our own experiences in collection to survive. It is therefore circus to claim that our will is acting in our best interest. It also allows us to have desires that are needed in order to survive. For instance, it is essential for us to have a will to eat regularly in order to nourish ourselves if we failed to do this we would die. And therefore I find this argument unsound.It would be fair for me to say that I totally find Schopenhauers ideology of life being filled with suffering invalid. However, I do find his argument on animals living a better life than human to be somewhat valid. The idea of aestheticism for combating suffering according to me is also not valid. I have tried to show that his conception of the will was mistaken on the grounds that he failed to properly appreciate the great good that our will actualises our survival. Overall I believe that l ife is good, it has its ups and downs which Schopenhauer failed to realise. However one should live to the fullest and enjoy every single moment in life before we leave this world for good.