A Dialogue on Existence: Life, Suffering, and the Human Condition

Guest: Why do we live?

Host: One can choose to end their life; it’s a matter of maximizing the sensation of enjoyment. Most people decide it’s more enjoyable to live than to be dead. Being dead is really dreadful—the magnitude of emptiness that death represents can be overlooked if one does not think carefully. In death, one cannot even think, let alone feel anything. Life is simply better than being dead.

Guest: Never being born is quiet and peaceful. But to become a sensible being, burdened with the imperfections of human nature, plunges one into pain. It’s messy and worse than never being born. For example, once alive, one suffers from laziness because it takes tremendous effort to understand the world and find one’s place in it. Most cannot manage this and end up living against their nature. Another example is empathy, which can be painful because we know that living freely might hurt our loved ones, so we end up shackled by our obligations and relationships.

Host: To never exist is to never think or feel, but it’s hard to call that peaceful and quiet without the experience of being. The turmoil that a living being creates is mostly directed inward, rather than disturbing the peace of others or the world. In fact, the world remains as peaceful as it has always been, regardless of whether thinking beings exist. The most violent event I can imagine is a supernova—a star exploding when it can no longer bear its own weight. These events have always occurred; they are neither peaceful nor quiet, yet they continue regardless of human existence. However, the inner turmoil within oneself is real. A careless being may suffer endlessly through samsara. But this suffering doesn’t have to be a permanent state. One can move closer to enlightenment by understanding both the world and oneself, letting go of obsessions, accepting life as it is, learning to distinguish between distractions and what truly matters, and cultivating inner peace.

Guest: Is it fair to bring a child into the world if it means plunging them into suffering? Is it fair to create suffering just to fulfill one’s own desire?

Host: The problem of existence is a challenge for all thinking beings. A child knows nothing of non-existence; their world, life, and psyche are all they know. A child also knows nothing of pure peace; human weaknesses are part of the package. Since the problem of suffering is inseparable from the existence of a thinking being, it’s only fair to give both life and suffering to a new life. It’s also fair to withhold both. You and I are the descendants of a long lineage of beings who chose the former. Natural selection—both genetic and social—has ensured that populations of humans who embraced life, despite suffering, are the ones that survived.

Guest: If my child blames me for their suffering, what can I do?

Host: You should not blame yourself. You are not the creator of their suffering; suffering is innate in every thinking being. You are not even responsible for most of their circumstances—history and society play a significant role. The best you can do is be honest and help your child understand themselves and their circumstances. Make use of the tried-and-true psychological tools your tradition offers—whether it’s Christianity or another spiritual or social order—to help them live better with others and with themselves. The strength of life lies in its freedom: the freedom to be curious and discover the unknown, to change our circumstances and create new experiences, to overcome adversity, and to build our own sense of fulfillment.