Philosophical Cause Of Suffering and Injustice

When you adopt a certain way of making sense of reality, you stick to it as long as you can.  There may be several notions of truth about the self and life in general. But, you have chosen to believe in a certain notion of truth. Why? Because it is your need to believe that there is only one way of making sense of yourself and the world. It is comfortable. It protects you from certain beliefs that you can't get yourself to accept. They cause great discomfort when the world won't agree with your understanding of how the world should be.

This is your understanding of what reality is, what your place is in this world, how the other should relate to you, how you relate to your joys and fears. Seriously questioning your understanding is almost as good as giving up on life. For some, they decide to end their lives.

I think that the most destructive way of thinking about yourself and the world is to place yourself as the center of Reality. In this scenario, you are the arbiter of what is true and what is false, what is good and what is wrong. I am not just talking about being selfish. I am referring to a kind of thinking that runs so deep that it is very hard to notice that you have actually promoted yourself to being the center of reality.

Take for instance the philosophy of Rene Descartes. Descartes was looking for the truth. In fact he was yearning for something that was beyond absolute doubt. During his investigation, he doubted the senses and anything that the senses tell him about the world. He doubted God’s existence and morality (eventually, he was able to restore God in his philosophy). He doubted science. There was, however, one thing that he couldn’t doubt. And that was his existence. The fact that he is thinking, he exists. The fact that he exists, he is thinking. His existence and as a thinking thing were so intertwined, like inseparable Siamese twins, that neither of them could exist without the other. What sort of thinking did he believe defined his existence? It was reason. Or the way he understood reason: whatever rational arguments or conclusions he formed, they must first and foremost satisfy and comfort his self. They must keep him protected from further confusion, doubt, discomfort. That is, whatever he undertakes to understand, ‘it’ must make sense to him. If ‘it’ cannot acquiesce to his way of understanding things, then ‘it’ will be discarded. ‘It’ will be treated as though it is irrational, worse, false.

Let us step back from this scenario, and ask these important questions:

• Is it fair to force reality to make sense to you? 
• Just because something does not make sense to you, is it fair to say that it is false or morally wrong? 
• If you always want to see your partner not as he or she is, but as what he or she is for you, is that fair? 
• Just because it is logical for you, but not logical for the other, is it fair to judge him or her as being wrong and hard headed?