Suffering as Feedback, Not Fate

Schopenhauer, the Buddha, the Greeks — and the Procedural Error They All Shared

By Bodhangkur

I. The Common Discovery: Suffering Is Structural

Few philosophical insights are as widely shared—and as widely misinterpreted—as the recognition that suffering is not accidental.

Across radically different cultures and metaphysical commitments, three traditions converge on the same empirical observation:

· Schopenhauer: life is pervaded by dissatisfaction

· Early Theravāda Buddhism: all conditioned existence is dukkha

· Greek philosophy (Epicurean, Stoic, Skeptical): disturbance (tarachē) is endemic to human life

This convergence is not trivial. It indicates that suffering is not merely cultural, moral, or psychological, but structural—arising from the way finite, embodied, temporally extended systems operate in the world.

Where the traditions diverge is not in what they see, but in how they interpret the signal.

This essay argues that all three traditions correctly identified suffering as structural, yet all three misdiagnosed its function. They treated suffering as a verdict, a bondage, or an error—rather than what it actually is:

A feedback signal generated by constrained, adaptive systems attempting to maintain operational stability.

II. The Minimal Procedural Frame

Before comparing solutions, we need a minimal model.

Any living or cognising system is:

1. Bounded (it has limits)

2. Constrained (by energy, time, entropy, environment)

3. Adaptive (it must adjust to survive)

4. Temporal (it exists in flux, not stasis)

Such a system must generate internal signals to detect:

· mismatch,

· error,

· threat,

· loss of equilibrium.

These signals are experienced phenomenologically as:

· pain,

· anxiety,

· frustration,

· dissatisfaction.

In short:

Suffering is the subjective manifestation of error correction.

A system without negative feedback is not liberated—it is nonfunctional.

III. Schopenhauer: Feedback Absolutised into Metaphysics

1. Diagnosis

Schopenhauer’s brilliance lies in his refusal of sentimental optimism. He sees clearly that:

· Desire is endless

· Satisfaction is transient

· Life oscillates between pain and boredom

Unlike the Greeks, he does not soften this with moderation. Unlike Christianity, he does not redeem it with meaning. He draws the hard conclusion:

If suffering is structural, existence itself must be a mistake.

To ground this, he identifies the thing-in-itself as Will—a blind, aimless, insatiable striving that objectifies itself in all phenomena.

2. Procedural Error

From a procedural standpoint, this is a category mistake.

What Schopenhauer calls Will is not ontological ground. It is system pressure.

· Desire is not the cause of structure

· Desire is the output of structure under constraint

Schopenhauer mistakes persistent feedback for cosmic essence. He promotes the alarm to the status of the building.

3. Solution

Given his diagnosis, Schopenhauer’s solution is internally consistent:

· Deny the will

· Withdraw from striving

· Silence desire

· Approach nothingness

Procedurally, this is system shutdown. Suffering is eliminated not by resolution, but by lowering activity until feedback ceases.

This is not transcendence. It is terminal equilibrium.

IV. Early Theravāda Buddhism: Feedback Contextualised but Finally Escaped

1. Diagnosis

The early Buddha advances beyond Schopenhauer in one decisive way:
he does not condemn existence itself.

In the Pāli Canon:

· Dukkha arises from clinging

· Everything conditioned is impermanent (anicca)

· No phenomenon can serve as a stable self (anattā)

Suffering is not metaphysical evil, but predictable friction when attachment meets transience.

2. Procedural Advance

This is a major correction.

From a procedural view:

· Craving = over-binding to unstable states

· Suffering increases when feedback is interpreted as threat rather than information

The Buddha correctly localises suffering in maladaptive engagement, not in reality as such.

3. Limitation

Yet the final solution—nibbāna as cessation of craving—still trends toward exit.

While Buddhism does not switch the system off, it:

· Minimises engagement (eventually stopping rebirth = life)

· Dampens reactivity

· Reduces participation in generative loops

Procedurally, this is stable low-reactivity mode.
It is elegant. It is effective.
But it is not generative completion.

V. Greek Ataraxia: Feedback Cognitively Dampened

1. Diagnosis

Greek philosophy—especially Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Skepticism—takes a different tack.

Here, suffering is not cosmic or existential, but largely cognitive:

· False beliefs amplify fear

· Excessive desires destabilise the mind

· Judgment overshoots necessity

The universe is not hostile; humans are poor interpreters.

2. Solution

The Greek solution is ataraxia—untroubledness.

Methods vary:

· Epicurus trims desires to what is natural and necessary

· Stoics align judgment with necessity

· Skeptics suspend belief (epochē)

All aim to reduce signal amplification.

3. Limitation

This works well at the cognitive level, but it underestimates:

· biological pain,

· aging,

· illness,

· loss.

Procedurally, ataraxia is signal dampening, not signal integration.

VI. Structural Comparison

Dimension	Schopenhauer	Early Buddhism	Greek Ataraxia
Status of suffering	Ontological verdict	Conditional friction	Cognitive disturbance
Status of desire	Cosmic curse	Dangerous attachment	To be moderated
Primary strategy	Shutdown	Disengagement	Reinterpretation
Final state	Denial / nothingness	Cessation	Tranquillity
Procedural error	Absolutisation	Exit bias	Underestimation

VII. The Shared Procedural Mistake

All three traditions ask:

How do we get rid of suffering?

None ask the generative question:

What is suffering for?

This is the decisive oversight.

VIII. Procedural Synthesis: Suffering as Feedback

From a generative / Procedure Monism perspective:

Suffering is the internal signal by which constrained systems detect misalignment and attempt correction.

It is:

· Not fate

· Not punishment

· Not metaphysical truth

· Not illusion

It is information with a cost.

Example 1: Biological Pain

Pain in the hand touching fire is not tragic metaphysics.
It is rapid error correction.

Example 2: Psychological Frustration

Repeated failure produces distress not to condemn effort, but to force strategy revision.

Example 3: Existential Anxiety

Anxiety (Angst) signals mismatch between internal models and external reality—not that reality should be negated.

IX. Why Suffering Cannot Be Eliminated

Any (dynamic) system that:

· learns,

· adapts,

· evolves,

· survives,

must experience:

· error,

· loss,

· instability.

A world without suffering would be:

· static,

· non-informative,

· non-generative.

In short: dead.

X. The Proper Aim: Adaptive Equilibrium

The true alternative to pessimism, asceticism, or tranquillisation is:

Adaptive equilibrium — not silence, but calibrated responsiveness.

An optimal system:

· does not glorify suffering,

· does not eliminate suffering,

· does not deny suffering,

but uses it.

XI. Final Integration

· Schopenhauer heard the alarm and concluded the building was cursed.

· The Buddha heard the alarm and learned how to stop touching the fire.

· The Greeks heard the alarm and learned not to panic.

The procedural synthesis says:

Listen to the alarm, learn what it signals, and redesign the system, or simply

“Get the finger out!”

XII. Final Law

Suffering is not the meaning of existence nor its condemnation, but the cost of adaptive intelligence operating under constraint; to abolish suffering is to abolish learning, and to ignore it is to repeat error.

Schopenhauer: The Philosopher who tried to shut off the Universe

Why Schopenhauer found the will but missed the procedure

Wellness Culture

Indian fantasies of a dukkha free system

Home