[bloodorange]

If you want to go down that line of thought, you would still have to concede that without adequate sleep, you will be ineffective. In either case, lying in bed, unable to sleep, thinking about those things doesn't lead to anything positive (in my view). Even Gandhi had to sleep.

Feeling guilty and the victim mindset are different sides of the same coin here. Neither is productive.

[Layke1123]

Neither is not thinking about these things. If you only ever think of yourself, how is that an any more justifiable position than "over thinking" these things? I don't think feeling guilty and the victim mindset are different side of the same coin. It is much easier to feel guilty for not having suffered through something like rape than the actual victims of rape.

I'm often reminding of the saying, "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."

Clearly there are two sides and somewhere in the middle is ideal. Question is, where do you feel that middle is?

[bloodorange]

Rather than an individual thought, consider the "line of reasoning" or "train of thought" and then consider again where it leads.

From two comments, it is hard to see whether your usage of "you" is rhetorical or whether you mean me in particular.

The easy case is the latter and for that I'll say that, I would be rather surprised if you had an accurate idea of what kind of a life I led and how much suffering is in my day-to-day life.

Let's go to the other instance, where you are speaking in general using the rhetorical "you". Here, I agree that there is a lot of suffering in this world. I'll take a specific case of it - hunger. There are a lot of hungry people in this world: even children dying of starvation. We have only considered humans so far. Imagine a little kitten somewhere abandoned by his mother (or just lost) and crying out in hunger (I've found a few like this). The question then arises: How can you eat any meal in peace? Does anyone have a right to eat in peace as long as involuntary hunger exists? Are they "permitted" to eat without guilt or shame? What if one eats a sandwich? What if it is rice? What if it is rice and chicken? What if it's an ice-cream? What if it's chocolate fondue? What if it's a king's feast?

I was unable to see any other natural end to that line of reasoning except a monastic life. Does that mean that when a butcher buys ice-cream for his little daughter, this act should in fact give them both guilt and shame instead of joy? This is not a simple matter if you were to think about how to thresh it out by taking both sides and pitting them against each other in your mind.

I have lived among people of very "opposing" cultures (different countries). Guilt features prominently in one of them. In my view, it is a kind of abuse to foist such a mindset on a young mind and teach a child that one has to look at an activity so natural and important as eating (or sleeping) and feel guilt or shame because of it. How does this not increase suffering? If one's ideal is to work towards diminishing suffering in this world, is causing more of it (to others or to oneself) the right method? In either case, why? And then follows the rationalists question to the idealist: "Will that work?"

If I were to be entirely honest, I do not think this medium can serve well to settle this matter. If we had met in person, I'd have been happy to share a meal with you and learn where each of us is headed. Not that that would settle it of course but it is much easier to debate such matters in those circumstances. I wish you luck and hope that you find a path to what you seek.

[Layke1123]

There is a very clear difference i think in suffering when you make someone aware of others suffering versus those people living through suffering. The idea isn't that one must suffer in order to live. The idea is that once aware of said suffering, are you not compelled to help? I elect leaders who support ending human suffering through aid.

What I dont do is pretend it is an issue that I need not take any part in resolving. Nor do I advocate a monastic lifestyle. I simply say there is a middle that is ideal, and if so, why are we not compelled to take that position less we be hypocrites?

[bloodorange]

I'm afraid I have to disagree. There are innumerable issues which cause suffering and everyone chooses which ones they will concern themselves with (if at all) and to what degree. Even the leaders you elect probably fall on the wrong side of the line as per others who disagree with his/her policies. This is just life. Not everyone will be bothered by the same things as you and to the same degree.

As for me, I can go to bed in peace without worrying about world peace and world hunger. I never claimed otherwise. If one were to accuse me of hypocrisy in this matter, I'd expect some evidence before I consider the possibility that there may be a point to it.

[Layke1123]

So how do you decide which issues bother you and which don't? How do you decide personally which suffering you can tolerate and which suffering you cannot? What compels to you help others and what doesn't?

I guess in the end, if you can go to bed in peace, does that mean nothing bothers you? Is there nothing in the world which keeps you up or night or makes you wish you could change for the better? Or are you perfectly happy with the way things are?

[bloodorange]

I'm afraid we are talking past each other. I can not answer endless questions on this medium as it doesn't seem to take us forward. I'll leave you with a question though: Why does it bother you so, that others aren't bothered by the same things (or similar) and to the same degree (or similar) and that they do not react in the same (or similar) way? Why is what you see "the one right way"?

I took the liberty to make a few assumptions in my questions but you may also note that it is likewise with your line of questioning.

Cheers,