Compelling suffering and "brokenness"- help!

[epsteinian]

So I am grappling with questions that disturb me and wanted some perspectives. I hope you all can help me with this one.  

Why do people find suffering so compelling?  I was watching The Lord of the Rings the other day and was surprised by how moved I was for Frodo's suffering- that he had achieved some sense of purpose because of his troubles and the struggle made the story meaningful.  I realized he is a christ-like figure and that got me to thinking about the Christian views on suffering.  

Christians love to suffer- it is a part of "redemption".  It think it is a deeper human expression than simply feeling "fallen" though.  People like to have a great hero that has gone through all these trials because if "he" did all of this, they can get through their lives just fine and not have to worry about their smaller sufferings and uncertainties.

Which brings me to my question(s).  What do you think of the Christian movement to be "sweetly broken before God"?  Is the brokenness of a human spirit some dark fascination or really something "beautiful" (ie Christian "beautiful brokenness")?  Do we feel that suffering gives us purpose or strength?  Is this an innately human theme that christians hijacked?  Is there a point of suffering at which someone is "broken", the harm done irreversible and the only hope relief from suffering?   Are tears cathartic for a wide range of emotions- ie we like to see suffering to excise our own and we cry to express deep happiness?  Are these two feelings related because of their depth, or am I full of shit?

Any and all thoughts greatly appreciated, especially any references to this topic outside christianity.

[Wilson]

Suffering is compelling because we empathize with the sufferer.  We imagine ourselves in his position.  It's kind of exciting to feel that powerful emotion without personally having to suffer the consequences.  I think we enjoy powerful emotions of any kind.  We enjoy the fear on a roller coaster; we enjoy being frightened by a horror movie.  I think all strong emotions hit our pleasure centers.  That's why young people engage in risky behavior.  Looking at it from an evolutionary standpoint, it may have been beneficial for our strong young men to be our warriors - to be brave in the face of death without being incapacitated by the fear of getting killed.  As we get older, our sense of self preservation gets stronger, and as we become less capable of defending the tribe, we become more cautious - and that caution among the elders may have been a good thing for the hunter-gatherer tribes.  But the pleasure of identifying with a sufferer or an action hero remains.

[Sophus]

It depends, perhaps, on what kind of suffering. Physical suffering is probably much more difficult to fall "in love" with. On the other hand the emotional drama most likely tends to make life more purposeful for most folks. It was Edgar Allan Poe who had noted that joy was the mother of that breed of suffering, because it is in those times we dwell on what joys were or could have been.

[Davin]

I agree with Wilson and Sophus... and Edgar Allan Poe, also I'd like to add that trying to get someone to feel suffering by either bringing up past experiences or appealing to the situation of someone who's suffering is a tool used by religions to offer up a rescue (albeit vacuous) from that suffering. The promise of salvation from suffering is compelling for most people, even if there is no reasonable evidence that the promise can be fulfilled. This is a method (appealing to suffering then promising salvation from it), that works for brain washing.

For me, the suffering of a character isn't what is compelling, it's the triumph over the suffering. While the triumph may require the suffering, the suffering does not require the triumph.

[Inevitable Droid]

Personally I hate to suffer, I hate that anyone else has to suffer, and I hate to watch anyone suffer.  I don't find anything sublime, transcendent, or beautiful in any of that, ever.  Given three wishes, my first would be to live forever, but my second would be to eliminate suffering from the universe forever.  My third would be three more wishes.

But there's more that can be said.  Victor Frankl, founder of the Viennese school of psychotherapy known as Logotherapy, posits the will to meaning as central, even primary, for humans.  His research led him to further posit three broad categories of meaning, namely, accomplishment, (positive) experience, and (positive) attitudinal response to suffering.  The third is what we fall back on when the first two are unavailable and our suffering has come to dominate our existence.  During the course of a severe round of chemotherapy, the third category of meaning can be therapeutic.  If it gets a person through the ordeal, far be it from me to denigrate or even question it.  Rather, I encourage it.  That which helps, helps.  'Nuff said.

No one sane, least of all Frankl, suggests that we go out looking for opportunities to experience the third category.  Given a healthy and strong body and mind, the sensible things to pursue are accomplishment and positive experience.

That Christians would hold up the third category as glorious to their God is grotesque and vile.

[The Magic Pudding]

Any and all thoughts greatly appreciated, especially any references to this topic outside christianity.

Nelson Mandela seems to have gained a lot of cred from suffering for years, but retaining and developing an approach to life that shamed his jailers.
His was a hero story, surviving an ordeal and winning without moral compromise, jeez he even forgave his oppressors.
Such a story has to be inspirational.
You don't here the Free Nelson Mandela song much since he was freed though, shame that.

[epsteinian]

Thanks very much!  You all just help me put several nagging questions to rest in less than a day.  Really, every answer was fantastic and I actually took notes.  

Any ideas on what makes a "strong" person, particularly as it relates to going through suffering/trials and why this is so highly valued?  I would say individualism and the idea of the rugged outsider that can survive on his own but "strength" of character, etc is valued in every culture.

[Inevitable Droid]

Any ideas on what makes a "strong" person, particularly as it relates to going through suffering/trials and why this is so highly valued?

Nietzsche famously said, "He who has a strong enough why can bear almost any how."  If it turns out I don't have a why, or my why is too weak to counter the how, I surrender.  And rightly so.  It is common sense to weigh why against how and plot my course in accordance with the result.  This is what is known as cost/benefit analysis.

In addition, with respect to suffering, one person's major trauma can be another person's moderate distress - and one person's moderate distress can be another person's minor discomfort.

Furthermore, even if you had my why, it might be a stronger why for you than it is for me.

I hope you'll forgive me a brief digression.  A notion tangentially but not directly relevant occurred to me.  If I wanted society to take on some why, call it X, but X was beset with difficulties A, B, and C, my strategy would be fivefold:

1. Demonstrate that X isn't alien to human nature.
2. Glorify X.
3. Trivialize A, B, and C.
4. Suggest ways to avoid A, B, and C.
5. Suggest ways to soften the impact of A, B, and C.
 
Strengthen why while making how more bearable.

In addtion, if X could bring rewards Y and Z, I would add this fourfold strategy to the previous fivefold one:

6. Demonstrate that valuing Y and Z aren't alien to human nature.
7. Glorify Y and Z.
8. Argue that X brings about Y and Z.
9. Suggest ways to make Y and Z even more probable.

Now we'd really be getting somewhere, as why would be getting quite muscular!

I would say individualism and the idea of the rugged outsider that can survive on his own but "strength" of character, etc is valued in every culture.

Hmm.  Maybe my above digression wasn't as irrelevant as I thought.  Cultures engage in propaganda.  You'll see them employing all nine techniques described above.  Cultures also have this brilliant strategy of making a why, an X, out of the very act of persevering through suffering!  Thus the first two items from my (apparent) digression above will look like this:

1. Demonstrate that the act of persevering through suffering isn't alien to human nature.
2. Glorify the act of persevering through suffering.

The power of this new why is that it tends to support any other why by making any how more bearable.  

The next step would be to associate rewards Y and Z with our new X.  The joys of heaven and God's favor here on Earth are the typical Y and Z employed here.  Thus we go back to my second strategy above, the fourfold one at the bottom of my (apparent) digression, like so:

6. Demonstrate that valuing heaven and God's favor here on Earth aren't alien to human nature.
7. Glorify heaven and God's favor here on Earth.
8. Argue that the act of persevering through suffering will bring about entry to heaven and the experience of God's favor here on Earth.
9. Suggest ways to make entry to heaven and the experience of God's favor here on Earth even more probable.

What a potent propaganda technique!

[Sophus]

If you're looking for some reading on this subject may I suggest Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl? Frankl was an Austrian psychiatrist/neurologist who survived a concentration camp. This book reflects on his experiences there and naturally has to address the struggle of finding purpose under such horrid suffering. One interesting bit he wrote:

I understood how a man who has nothing left in the world still may know bliss, be it only for a brief moment, in the contemplation of his beloved.

Although he writes about "knowing bliss" here Frankl wasn't actually a Hedonist. He argued that man seeks meaning more than pleasure and joy. Man's Search for Meaning suggests we can see meaning in life while suffering but also that suffering is not a prerequisite in order to find purpose because his theory is that the search for meaning is what drives all of us most fundamentally, regardless of our background or past experiences.

I think suffering simply forces us to question our meaning more harshly than other living conditions.

[Wilson]

Although he writes about "knowing bliss" here Frankl wasn't actually a Hedonist. He argued that man seeks meaning more than pleasure and joy. Man's Search for Meaning suggests we can see meaning in life while suffering but also that suffering is not a prerequisite in order to find purpose because his theory is that the search for meaning is what drives all of us most fundamentally, regardless of our background or past experiences.

I think suffering simply forces us to question our meaning more harshly than other living conditions.

Of course a lot depends on your definition of happiness, but isn't it true that if you find meaning in your life, you feel happy, and if you don't, you feel bad?  I think most of us have an instinctive wish to leave a mark on the world, which I guess would be giving meaning to your life, and that drive has obvious evolutionary advantages to the species.  Satisfaction or dissatisfaction with how you do in life, maybe all of that ends up in the pleasure or happiness centers.

[Asmodean]

I was watching The Lord of the Rings the other day and was surprised by how moved I was for Frodo's suffering- that he had achieved some sense of purpose because of his troubles and the struggle made the story meaningful.  I realized he is a christ-like figure and that got me to thinking about the Christian views on suffering.

You know, despite liking the movies, I found that particular aspect of it rather disgusting. Not the suffering in itself, but... I don't really know how to explain... the boo-f*cking-hoo-factor of it. So I spent most Frodo scenes in the second and third movie pretty much thinking "Oh, get ON with it already..!    "

[The Magic Pudding]

You know, despite liking the movies, I found that particular aspect of it rather disgusting. Not the suffering in itself, but... I don't really know how to explain... the boo-f*cking-hoo-factor of it. So I spent most Frodo scenes in the second and third movie pretty much thinking "Oh, get ON with it already..!    "

The books are much more gruelling, much more dedication required to get to Mount Doom.

[Asmodean]

The books are much more gruelling, much more dedication required to get to Mount Doom.

Tell me about it!

I don't know if I'm a sociopath, but things like that provoke the exact opposite of empathy in me more often than not. I mean, if I were there, I'd slaughter the hobbit and give the ring to the cool bad guy just for the look on his face.  

[Cecilie]

Is this thread turning into a thread about LOTR?

[Wilson]

The books are much more gruelling, much more dedication required to get to Mount Doom.

Tell me about it!

I don't know if I'm a sociopath, but things like that provoke the exact opposite of empathy in me more often than not. I mean, if I were there, I'd slaughter the hobbit and give the ring to the cool bad guy just for the look on his face.  

I don't know if you're a sociopath or not.  Tell us, do you feel empathy for anybody?