Harmony or Intensity? Process Philosophy and Suffering
Greater complexity of experience overcomes triviality, but it does not guarantee bliss…
Recently Tripp Fuller from Homebrewed Christianity chatted with Leon Niemoczynski, a philosopher and nature lover who teaches Philosophy and Theology at Immaculata University and East Stroudsburg University. It’s a great interview. I like Leon quite a bit and read his blog, After Nature, frequently.
Toward the end of the interview Tripp and Leon get talking about the problem of evil in relation to process philosophy. They both share some great thoughts. Leon in particular makes mention of a critique of process-thought that is out there which claims because of process philosophy’s take on creativity as an ultimate category there may be a tendency for process thinkers to minimize or “sugar coat” suffering in the world. Leon says in the interview that, “we have to be careful about saying whatever occurs, necessarily, is of positive moral value.”
I think he’s got a great point there.
The problem of evil is the big one for me as well. I often tell people that I sympathize with Bart Ehrman’s feelings on this subject, and that if anything could have pushed me into non-theism it would be this question of evil and suffering in the world.
But it is here where I must say that, from my perspective, I don’t see process thought “sugar coating” suffering (human or otherwise) at all. What I think does happen—and what I think people are reacting to—is that because of process philosophy’s anthroDEcentric ontology, it seems like human suffering gets “sugar coated” because in process thought humans are no longer the center of the universe. In other words, unlike existentialism or absurdism, process-relational philosophy doesn’t affirm the individuality of an individual as the end and beginning of everything…
Humans really aren’t so special.
Now call this “sugar coating” or deemphasizing if you like, but I haven’t lost my urge to live, my sense of purpose, or my sense that things aren’t quite right in the world simply because I now understand that human experience is just one type of experience present in a universe that is itself experiential at its root. In fact, what has really helped me in coping with the suffering I see in the world (human or otherwise) is process-relational’s very Eastern/Buddhist claim that instead of denying suffering or making up ways to “get God off the hook,” we should instead accept that life is simply ingrained with suffering. Period. We can’t change that. As John Cobb prophetically writes, the “increased complexity that makes greater enjoyment possible also makes greater suffering possible.”
Humans are complex organisms and, in turn, we have the capacity for complex, intense experience. Sometimes this is good (e.g. love, sex, finally peeing after holding it for a long time). Sometimes it sucks (e.g. arthritis, cancer, being shot in the stomach or having to live through a loved one being shot in the stomach). Cobb again:
“Greater complexity of experience overcomes triviality, but it does not guarantee bliss, for it may open the door to discord so great that the positive enjoyment of experience will be virtually eliminated. The reason is that the condition for great enjoyment is the capacity to receive the feelings of others into oneself. This is good if the feelings the others contribute are by and large harmonious. But if they are not–if one’s body is wracked with pain, if loved ones are mutilated–then the sympathetic appropriation of their feelings becomes the source of great suffering. In fact, the suffering can be so great that sympathetic appropriation can seem more a curse than a blessing, and practices can be undertaken to seek to eliminate or at least minimize this capacity. One can choose harmony over intensity, thus reverting to a more trivial existence in order to advert discord.”
Harmony or intensity? Both and? I don’t know. If we choose intensity though, living a life of abundance—or “eternal life” as Jesus puts it—we will inevitably face intensity from both avenues: joy and suffering.
Personally though, as I’ve written before, I have come to hold a very naturalistic understanding of reality, and there is no “evil” in the world for me. Understanding the nuances and complexities of suffering, and accepting suffering as part of life—not denying it, not running from it, not sugar coating it—has put me in a better position, I would argue, to show an active “cognitive empathy,” or as Buddhists say a “great compassion,” with which to better help therapeutically heal the world.
…
Painting above: Frida Kahlo, Without Hope (1945)
Hi Jesse,
Thanks for the post regarding the interview with HBC. I haven't heard the critique you made in quite some time so I had to go digging for my response, but I have one. Here is the link: http://afterxnature.blogspot.com/2014/06/peter-gratton-on-pain-of-rocks.html In many ways it seems as if we are stating closely related if not similar theses.
Thanks again for the interesting post,
Leon
Hi Leon,
Thank for reading, man. Yeah your interview with Tripp really got me thinking! Mission accomplished professor ;-)
But yeah, your post is pertinent; thanks for sending it. We are saying similar things here. I especially resonate with this passage:
"I realize the trend is to de-humanize nature as much as possible, but really, human beings are part and parcel of nature, and so we can expect that what we experience is continuous from the outside in rather than assuming it is always the case we project our experience (onto others) from the inside out."
I realize how anthropomorphizing Nature can be a problematic, but on the other hand I don't deny the fact that I personify Nature. Giving a reverential name to all of or some aspects of reality (and like you say, acknowledge that experience is continuous) is one way humans historically have, and still can, come to know reality as a “Thou” to be related to—to be revered and sometimes feared. I teach my son that the Mother Earth, Sister Moon and Brother Sun talk to us if we just have ears to listen.
As for the problem of suffering, and the criticism of process thought you mentioned in the interview, do you think what I wrote about suffering makes sense? That is to say, do you think because of process philosophy's anthroDEcentrism, emphasizing that humans and their experiences are indeed part of nature, that this tends to give the impression that process philosophy "sugar coats" human suffering?