PHILOSOPHIES OF SUFFERING AND HEALING
Dr. WARREN MATTHEWS
In recent years there has been a stir in the
wide field of philosophy among some philosophers who have been concerned with
particular areas of humans making decisions. One of the earlier areas of
concern, shared with other disciplines as well, was that of the human
experience of death and dying. Developing during the same period, although
somewhat later, was the whole field of biomedical ethics. These areas of investigation
have taken on a spirit of urgency in as much as new technologies and techniques
have been making possible many procedures of initiating, prolonging, or
terminating human life which go beyond the possibilities recognized by
traditional laws. The whole field of applied ethics has been stimulated to
explore what ought to be done to bring laws and policies up-to-date so that new
technical developments can be related properly to new perceptions of human
beings about their continued being and well-being.
A third area of concern is beginning to
emerge alongside of the first two. It is the area of
philosophies of suffering and healing. It arises out of the realization of
health professionals and philosophers that suffering and healing are open to
more philosophical approaches than might have been commonly employed in this
century. The internist, the surgeon, and the psychiatrist each has had a
slightly different way of analyzing and understanding suffering and healing.
But each has assumed that his way is scientific, opposed to the ancient and
medieval attempts which were likely to incorporate a vast amount of unproven
authority and even spiritual or mythological concepts. A kind of rigid materialism
has often been seen as the only reliable philosophy to be used in the
understanding of pain, suffering, and healing. On the other hand, medical
language continues to carry in some of its examples a kind of Cartesian dualism
of body and mind. Without disparaging in any way the remarkable progress which
has been achieved, I would simply point out that other philosophies of
suffering and healing are now being explored, and that through them additional
benefits might be extended to humans!
The analytic, function
of philosophy has a considerable contribution to make in clarifying some of
the traditional concepts in suffering and healing. For example, what is pain
and what is suffering? Is suffering always present when there is pain or is
pain always present in suffering? If pain is not always beneficial, are there
conditions where suffering has a positive role to play? My explorations with
Dr. Frank Marsh have only scratched the surface, but we have found that the
questions are much more complicated than tradition has supposed. It is a field
of terms ripe for exploration by philosophers in language analysis.
While the questions of what pain and
suffering are and what means are available for healing human suffering remain,
there is also a very important question of whether human suffering can be
understood. For the question which nearly every human being asks when one
suffers is, “Why is this happening to me?” The question may have a clear answer
in terms of empirical analysis. The sufferer may hear the answer from the
scientifically trained medical professional and still continue to ask a
question which the medical professional probably will not venture to answer, at
least not as a medical professional. Why must I suffer? What is the purpose of
suffering? What have I done to deserve? What is happening to me?
The healing function of medicine, in
scientific medicine, has traditionally been separated from spiritual or
religious philosophies of life that have been traditionally employed to answer
these questions, While retaining the serpentine symbols of Aesculapius,
modern health professionals have separated their healing procedures from the
ancient temples. And yet, when it comes to providing suffering human beings
with the answers they seek as to the meaning of their suffering, answers which
patients want in addition to the traditional scientific medical explanation,
the health professionals have most often been eager to pass along the problem
of answering to the religious professionals. The problem of explaining the
meaning of suffering, meaning beyond a materialistic, empirical answer, has
been left, even until today, to the various religious philosophies of the
world.
In these religious philosophies one finds a
wealth of resources. Rather than one answer, one finds a whole spectrum of
answers, not only among the several major religions of the world but also among
the rich variety of views within each of those religions. These systems of
thought have been analysed seriously for centuries,
and especially in the last century and a half. Yet, there is an opportunity at
this time for a fresh analysis of these spiritual systems to examine the
resources they can provide in answering questions pertaining to the ways human
suffering can be understood.
In such a brief time it is not possible to do
justice to the richness and variety of answers offered by the religious
philosophies of the world. But it may be possible to give a few general
observations, which, although the, bear a strong stamp of subjectivism, may
stimulate other investigations of their possible contributions to this field.
It is my purpose in this outline to stimulate appreciation and discussion of
what these religious philosophies may have to contribute, and my purpose is not
at any time to slight, denigrate, or malign any of them.
Speaking of the tradition with which I am
most familiar, that of the Judaa-Christian, it seems
to me that one striking feature in the explanation of human suffering is
spiritual-moral. In ideal form, separation from God is the underlying
explanation of human suffering. But this ideal form is often lost by general
practice which explains suffering more in the specific terms of moral offence.
To be more clear, the common answer for sufferers is
one advanced by the visitors to the classic man of suffering, Job. A person
suffers because that person has made a choice of action which violates a law,
which carries a penalty. One has exercised one’s power of choice in such a way
as to offend God by violating a law which God has made to prescribe or
proscribe human conduct. Of course, in this philosophy, one is responsible for
one’s own suffering, even though one may not be sure what offense one has
committed. Although I am much less familiar with Hindu philosophy, it appears
to me possible for one to see part of the meaning of the law of Karma in this
moralistic interpretation what one gets in life is determined by one’s moral
choice in this or some prior life. Perhaps this moralistic view of suffering is
not entirely absent from any religious philosophy; at least, that is an idea to
be explored.
The moral interpretation of suffering is not,
however, the only one offered in Judaa-Christian
thought. Job, for example, challenged the simple moral explanation of his
suffering offered by his visitors. Christians challenged the explanation of the
suffering of Jesus as being due to his moral faults, or sin. In both accounts,
of Job and of Jesus, other explanations of the meaning of their sufferings are
preferred. Job’s answer in the poetry section of the book is that God’s
reasons, in his depths of wisdom, are past human discovery on understanding.
Human wisdom would seem to lead to the conclusion that suffering is to be borne
by human in humility, assuming that although their
pains and suffering make no sense to them, their pains and suffering do have a
purpose to God’s deeper understanding of his purposes. Early Christians saw the
suffering of Jesus as necessary, not due to his moral defect, but in order to
bring healing to other sufferers. His suffering helped them because his
perfection did not deserve the suffering which he voluntarily took upon himself
from other humans.
Two other Christian writings from the
earliest centuries present the explanation that suffering, although not desired
by human beings, serves to benefit them. The writer of Hebrews argues that
suffering is a kina of discipline sent by God to train his children. Far from
showing God’s disregard for human welfare, it is the discipline which every
father who loves his son will administer. The church father Irenaeus
similarly concluded that God’s purpose is not simply to provide a comfortable
cage for pets but to educate his children so that they grow in knowledge.
Suffering, then, is explained as a part of a discipline in education which
prepares the sufferer for the greater things that God has in store for him.
It seems to me that from what I understand
about the Buddhist he had an explanation for the meaning of suffering which is
somewhat different from the spiritual or moral ones already presented. His
view, which is so attractive to man, people of the world, located the
explanation of suffering in the desires of the individual.
In terms of personal experience, I am much
less familiar with the various kinds of practice today in Confucianism and
Taoism. And yet in the general impressions which I have of their early
teachers, I find still different philosophies to explain the suffering of human
beings.
My impression is that Confucius understood
the meaning of human suffering in terms of social relationships. Somehow, if
social relationships were kept in proper priority order, much of the suffering
which afflicts mankind could be avoided. If subjects were in proper
relationship with the ruler, if husbands and wives were properly related,
parents and children as well as siblings, all properly related, then human
suffering would be reduced considerably. Perhaps that understanding can be
treated as a kind of spiritualism or a kind of morality, but it seems to me to
be a different philosophy, although a priority in relationships is not entirely
absent from Judaism or Hinduism. There is much in psychiatry to suggest that
disorganization in groups contributes to much
suffering, both psychical and physical.
The concern that many peoples of the world
have today about the human suffering which is caused by environmental pollution
may well increase interest in the early teachings of the philosophy of Taoism.
The theme which I find there that is stimulating to pursue is that suffering
comes about due to man’s being out of harmony with nature. If the human body
were brought into tune, into harmony with nature, then much suffering which is
now experienced could be avoided. The renewed enthusiasm today in the practice
of holistic health seems to operate on a philosophy of suffering which is akin
to this early form of Taoism.
Time does not permit the mention of every existing religious philosophy. Nevertheless, I should like to mention one more which seems to me to offer an insight which ought to be included. One impression I have of Shinto is that it offers, among other views, the one that pain and suffering are not necessarily the greatest evils that can befall a human. Physical suffering is less dreadful, for example, than breaking faith with one’s ancestors, or breaking faith with one’s family or country. Shinto is a reminder that pleasure and pain cannot be labels simply equated with desirable and undesirable.
In this discussion of understanding the
meaning of human suffering I have mentioned primarily religious philosophies
which offer explanations. In my culture, and perhaps in most others, even the
healing professionals with scientific training are usually relieved to delegate
to others the explanation of the meaning of suffering, when it comes to trying
to comfort a suffering patient.
On the other hand, philosophers who like to
operate outside of religion are aware that other philosophies which are
essentially non-religious have also come to grips with the meaning of
suffering.
Epicurus, 341-270 B. C., I believe, has
suffered from a bad press. His own pain with kidney stones gave him adequate
reason to develop a philosophy of suffering. He is well-known for his advice to
avoid pain and seek pleasure. But he saw pain and suffering in naturalistic
terms, aside from any question about the existence of gods. Pain and suffering
are conditions which exist in conscious persons. Consciousness goes with a
certain configuration of atoms falling and swerving in the void. As long as
one is conscious, or alive, one tries to live so as to avoid pain. But there is
no reason to have great fear or worry about suffering, for it does not continue
once the atoms disintegrate and go their separate ways. Pain and suffering are
human experiences of conscious persons. Death is the end of that kind of
experience, as it is the end of consciousness.
The atom today is no longer considered indivisible. It is not a crude mechanical component that would fit the mechanistic materialism of Descartes, who thought he had to place a ghost or non-physical mind in a body to move the mechanism. My own conversations with physicists about matter gives me the impression that their concept of matter contains dimensions which are closer to the nature of ideas than to the physics of Descartes. In other words, the concepts of physical matter today, although they have a physical side in that an atom of uranium can be “seen” in a microscope, and particles do leave tracings on photographic plates, the nature of parts of atoms functioning in electro-magnetism may be as close to the idealism of Berkeley or of Royce as to the materialism of philosophers who, after the writings of Darwin, rejected metaphysics for empirical inquiries alone.
What I am suggesting is that it is now
possible to develop a revised concept of naturalism which incorporates both the
world seen by the traditional materialists and by the traditional idealists.
The world of appearances is the empirical world, and the real world is a
world of concepts and ideas, not directly empirical, yet ultimately subject to
empirical or pragmatic tests for truth.
The revised naturalism would be of
considerable help in medicine, for it would allow a metaphysics that would
permit the overcoming of separation between physical illnesses and mental
illnesses. Illnesses would be human illnesses, in that there is where they are
experienced. On the other hand, human beings would be seen as a part of the
total environment, not different in basic material from any other materials in
the universe.
Pain and suffering would be interpreted in a
frame of reference of revised naturalism. Since matter would
include those dimensions that traditionally have been considered “mental” or
“spiritual” the health professional could legitimately deal with questions on
the meaning of suffering. The health professional would not necessarily
have to separate physical, mental, or spiritual concerns into isolated
compartments but would be able to present them all part of one whole picture bearing
on the total health of one whole person in one whole environment.
As one example of the implications of my
hypothesis, I would cite the article “A Systems Approach to Suffering and
Healing,” by Howard Brody, M. D., Ph. D., of
Dr. Brody does not rule out biophysical
medicine. Neither do I rule out traditional spiritual or religious answers to
the meaning of suffering any more than I would the psychological. I do not
imply that the physician, the surgeon, or the psychiatrist or the theologian or
nurse is expendable. On the contrary, all of these
have a place in a patient’s understanding the meaning of his suffering and,
also in his healing. Indeed, family, fellow employees, the community, and the
natural environment also have a place.
What I am suggesting is that with a revised materlaism, a revised naturalism, which it seems to me is not out of line with contemporary physics on the nature of the atomic structure of the universe there is a new basis for co-operation, a common understanding of the nature of universe. Philosophy and religion are not, then, excluded from scientific medicine, but philosophy, religion, and medicine can pool their insights to help the suffering person understand his suffering, and, perhaps, ultimately overcome it.
[Full text of the lecture delivered at the
conference of Neo-Platonism held at