The Glory of Teething: A Haiku

[e_c]

“Ow!” says the baby
Still unknowing in his pain
But mom learns patience

 

[Ruqx]

I love haikus (limericks even more, especially dirty ones ). Without any attempt to create something comparably artistic, I will just respond with a joke:

Q: Do you want this beautiful, new Cadillac?
A: Unfortunately I cannot afford it.
Q: And if we make your neighbor to pay for it?
A: In that case, of course I want it!

I hope you see the irony. The infant suffers, so that mom can benefit from it. Very unfair, in my opinion. (But, be as it may, thank you for your contribution.)

 

[e_c]

The baby is only kind of paying for it.

There is no rational awareness of the pain. There is no memory of the pain. Therefore, there really is no experience of the pain… in a human sense, at least. It’s like a brute animal’s experience, which is only informed by the sensitive soul.

No, it does not follow that one can hurt children at will. But it does mean that this kind of pain need not be able to be referred to the subject’s glory.

 

[Aloysium]

new tooth for baby,
as mother earns her patience,
suffering’s rewards

Ruqz can have no kids
thinking parents don’t suffer
pains of screaming child

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Haikus are nice.
But sometimes they make no sense.
Refrigerator.

 

[Ruqx]

The baby is only kind of paying for it.

“Kind of”? Wow. I thought I cannot be surprised any more, but I was very wrong.

There is no rational awareness of the pain. There is no memory of the pain. Therefore, there really is no experience of the pain… in a human sense, at least. It’s like a brute animal’s experience, which is only informed by the sensitive soul.

So it does not “REALLY” matter. Observing the suffering of animals (no rational soul) can be overlooked. There is no real experience of pain?

No, it does not follow that one can hurt children at will. But it does mean that this kind of pain need not be able to be referred to the subject’s glory.

Why not? You said that the mother learns patience, and the temporary pain of the child is thereby “justified”. Why not “teach” the mother the “virtue” of self-restraint and expose the child to some temporary pain, which will not be remembered? The mother can just sit there observing the process and simply shrug it off. I rather doubt that mothers are that heartless.

But here is a little limerick for you:

There was a mom in Oblong
Whose infant was teething too long
The poor kid was screaming
But it was not redeeming
Since she did not know that there was anything wrong.

 

[e_c]

“Kind of”? Wow. I thought I cannot be surprised any more, but I was very wrong.

So it does not “REALLY” matter. Observing the suffering of animals (no rational soul) can be overlooked. There is no real experience of pain?

Why not? You said that the mother learns patience, and the temporary pain of the child is thereby “justified”. Why not “teach” the mother the “virtue” of self-restraint and expose the child to some temporary pain, which will not be remembered? The mother can just sit there observing the process and simply shrug it off. I rather doubt that mothers are that heartless.

But here is a little limerick for you:

There was a mom in Oblong
Whose infant was teething too long
The poor kid was screaming
But it was not redeeming
Since she did not know that there was anything wrong.

I don’t know what point you want to make. Be direct.

 

[e_c]

Here’s a question for you R… do you support abortion?

Teething is meh. Try cancer, or some degenerative disease. Raise the stakes.

First there is the issue of remote causation.

Secondly, God is absolutely first, so there is no moral evaluation of what He does or doesn’t do.

Thirdly is all the other stuff I’ve mentioned. No, it is not a real experience. No, it doesn’t follow that one can torture another in such a case… The moral law depends on more than experience and intention, it also depends on office, object, and of course the general precept to keep good things in being insofar as possible.

I’d like to see an actual argument in response, not smh-ing.

 

[seagal]

I hope you see the irony. The infant suffers, so that mom can benefit from it. Very unfair, in my opinion. (But, be as it may, thank you for your contribution.)

Your post makes no sense. You think the infant goes through the pain of teething for the mother’s benefit? As if either one of them has a choice in the matter?

Growing brand new teeth
most painful for all concerned.
Try nursing teether.

 

[seagal]

Haikus are nice.
But sometimes they make no sense.
Refrigerator.

 

[Ruqx]

Your post makes no sense. You think the infant goes through the pain of teething for the mother’s benefit? As if either one of them has a choice in the matter?

You misunderstood. It was a sarcastic observation. You need to read the posts of e_c immediately before and after mine to see the whole picture. His little haiku asserted the “benefit” of the pain that the infant experiences… when he says: "But mom learns patience ". You know, patience is a “virtue”, and without the pain there would be no need for the virtue. A standard, though misbegotten “defense” for the suffering. Colloquially stated as: “No pain, no gain”. Of course there is no problem if one desires the “gain”, they just have to do with the “pain”. But if someone does not desire that “gain”, then to expose her to the “pain” against her wishes is simply cruel.

If you read his follow-up posts, he explicitly states that this pain “does not really matter”, because the infant’s rational mind is unaware of it.

e_c:

There is no rational awareness of the pain. There is no memory of the pain. Therefore, there really is no experience of the pain… in a human sense, at least. It’s like a brute animal’s experience, which is only informed by the sensitive soul.

Now to avoid any more possible misunderstanding, let me make a few bullet points.1) Suffering exists. Some may be necessary, some seems unnecessary.
2) Intuitively we question the reason for the “unnecessary” suffering.
3) One “explanation” is the “greater good defense” . (God allows the sufferings, because there will be some greater good coming out of it. If only we had the knowledge, we would see it.)
4) Another one is the “free will defense”. (God allows even the senseless sufferings, because “free will” is more important.)
5) Yet another one is the “let us learn from the pain”. When we touch a hot stove, we learn that it is detrimental, so we shall avoid it in the future.
6) There is the “let’s offer up our pain to Jesus”. (God allows the suffering, so we can grow “spiritually” and have the opportunity to get closer to Jesus.)
7) This is expressed sometimes as: “if there would be no suffering, there would be no inclination to seek God”. Which can also be asserted as: “The beatings will continue until the morale improves”.

That is why I chose the pain and suffering of the teething infant - in another thread; and e_c started this new one. There is no “free will” involved in the teething - so the free will defense is out. There is no greater good coming from the pain, the process of teething is NOT logically dependent on the pain. (God could have “designed” a painless process.) The infant will not “learn” anything from the pain. And finally, the infant is unable to “offer up” his suffering, for obvious reasons.

So the teething is an undeniable example of “unnecessary, gratuitous suffering”. And God’s alleged benevolence cannot be reconciled with unnecessary, gratuitous suffering. Other kinds of sufferings are a different issue. So we have a simple logical contradiction. How you solve it, is your business. My solution is simple: “If there is God, he is not benevolent.”

Looks like that e_c decided to attack the first premise, which said “Suffering exists”. That is a defense which is very rare. Most people would never try to “downplay” the existence of suffering. It was my mistake that I did not explicitly use the “quote” function, but since mine was the first response in the thread, I thought that it is obvious. Sorry for causing the confusion.

 

[_thaddeus]

You misunderstood. It was a sarcastic observation.
…
Now to avoid any more possible misunderstanding, let me make a few bullet points.
,
5) Yet another one is the “let us learn from the pain”. When we touch a hot stove, we learn that it is detrimental, so we shall avoid it in the future. …

Audit the Pentagon
Audit the Federal Reserve
Watch your back.

Almost a haiku.

 

[e_c]

You misunderstood. It was a sarcastic observation. You need to read the posts of e_c immediately before and after mine to see the whole picture. His little haiku asserted the “benefit” of the pain that the infant experiences… when he says: "But mom learns patience ". You know, patience is a “virtue”, and without the pain there would be no need for the virtue. A standard, though misbegotten “defense” for the suffering. Colloquially stated as: “No pain, no gain”. Of course there is no problem if one desires the “gain”, they just have to do with the “pain”. But if someone does not desire that “gain”, then to expose her to the “pain” against her wishes is simply cruel.

If you read his follow-up posts, he explicitly states that this pain “does not really matter”, because the infant’s rational mind is unaware of it.

Now to avoid any more possible misunderstanding, let me make a few bullet points.1) Suffering exists. Some may be necessary, some seems unnecessary.
2) Intuitively we question the reason for the “unnecessary” suffering.
3) One “explanation” is the “greater good defense” . (God allows the sufferings, because there will be some greater good coming out of it. If only we had the knowledge, we would see it.)
4) Another one is the “free will defense”. (God allows even the senseless sufferings, because “free will” is more important.)
5) Yet another one is the “let us learn from the pain”. When we touch a hot stove, we learn that it is detrimental, so we shall avoid it in the future.
6) There is the “let’s offer up our pain to Jesus”. (God allows the suffering, so we can grow “spiritually” and have the opportunity to get closer to Jesus.)
7) This is expressed sometimes as: “if there would be no suffering, there would be no inclination to seek God”. Which can also be asserted as: “The beatings will continue until the morale improves”.

That is why I chose the pain and suffering of the teething infant - in another thread; and e_c started this new one. There is no “free will” involved in the teething - so the free will defense is out. There is no greater good coming from the pain, the process of teething is NOT logically dependent on the pain. (God could have “designed” a painless process.) The infant will not “learn” anything from the pain. And finally, the infant is unable to “offer up” his suffering, for obvious reasons.

So the teething is an undeniable example of “unnecessary, gratuitous suffering”. And God’s alleged benevolence cannot be reconciled with unnecessary, gratuitous suffering. Other kinds of sufferings are a different issue. So we have a simple logical contradiction. How you solve it, is your business. My solution is simple: “If there is God, he is not benevolent.”

Looks like that e_c decided to attack the first premise, which said “Suffering exists”. That is a defense which is very rare. Most people would never try to “downplay” the existence of suffering. It was my mistake that I did not explicitly use the “quote” function, but since mine was the first response in the thread, I thought that it is obvious. Sorry for causing the confusion.

You have yet to address my previous post. Why? You spent a lot of time addressing this one, which didn’t need it… Primarily, can you explain how one experiences something in a human way without rational awareness or even memory?

The most important point is in line 2 of my poem…

 

[Ruqx]

You have yet to address my previous post. Why?

Because your question is a “meh”.

Primarily, can you explain how one experiences something in a human way without rational awareness or even memory?

Who cares about the purported “human way”, whatever that might be? Pain and suffering is the same even if someone does not “understand” or recall it. A puppy would not understand why some parasites cause serious pain. The same with a human infant suffering from colic. Or any other suffering which is unnecessary. Don’t you realize why the “problem of evil” was the most serious problem for the apologists, and not one of them was able to offer a rational explanation for it? Imagine: 2000+ years of trying without result. I would like to have a conversation with some capable apologists about the “teething”.

The most important point is in line 2 of my poem…

No. The only important line was the “punch line”.

 

[e_c]

11 sentences.

1. A dismissal, which is one thing when its force is not contradicted by then taking up what is dismissed.
2. See #1.
3. A claim, finally.
4. Understanding why something happens is irrelevant to whether that something is experienced. I don’t need to understand why women want what they want, but I can experience it nonetheless.
5. See #4.
6. See #4. And you begged the question of whether it is gratuitous.
7. My understanding is irrelevant. This having been a difficult question historically is relevant in only a qualified way.
8. The problem is older than that, first of all. Secondly, it has convinced plenty of people… You are making a claim about “results,” so it is not about an argument’s truth but its history.
9. An ad hominem.
10. An undefended assertion about a poem which is contradicted by that poem’s author. Bold.
11. See #10.

I will assert again that having no rational awareness nor memory of some pain fails to rise to the level of what we commonly call experience, which is necessary for pain to be gratuitous were there no benefits of any kind that flow from that pain. One would never complain or have complained about such pain rationally. It is therefore not really suffering, and because it is meaningless to the subject, it doesn’t require a meaning beyond the subject, and is therefore never gratuitous. It is either a simple fact, as a lunatic breaking a bone on a desert island would be, or redounds to the good of others, like providing the opportunity to learn patience, compassion, etc.

And again, none of this in itself allows for torturing such subjects, as experience is not an essential part of moral evaluation, though it may sometimes be relevant.