Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Suffering raises the problem of evil for each individual in a way that mere argument cannot.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Philosophical argument, when properly internalized, can produce existential disturbance indistinguishable in force from experiential suffering—as Kierkegaard's 'indirect communication' demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The distinction between propositional and experiential engagement with evil collapses when arguments are encountered at moments of personal vulnerability and existential investment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If argument can raise the problem of evil with equivalent personal force, then suffering has no unique epistemic privilege over rigorous philosophical confrontation with the claim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Stoic and Buddhist traditions demonstrate that suffering can be cognitively reframed such that it loses its capacity to undermine confidence in the world's goodness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If suffering's challenge to theodicy depends on a particular unreflective phenomenological response, then the problem it raises is contingent on philosophical immaturity rather than intrinsic to the experience itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theodicy that cannot address the reflective sufferer—who neither feels dismayed nor finds projects trivial—fails to engage the strongest version of the interlocutor it must persuade.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Experiences of suffering crowd all else out of our consciousness, making us feel dismayed, vulnerable and incomplete.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Suffering makes our projects appear trivial and our ambitions unreachable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The experience undermines our confidence in the essential goodness of the world and our hope that all will be well.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42