No, you can define "better" in pretty much any way and still be able to imagine possible worlds that are better than the one we live in. In fact, pretty much the only way you can define "better" that does not admit better possible worlds is to define this world as the best possible one. But that's a vacuous definition.
BTW, you do know that Romeo and Juliet are fictional characters, yes? They cannot prefer anything because they didn't actually exist.
I am aware of that, yes. I was making an analogy. The point of the analogy is that, even though Romeo and Juliet would likely not have considered their world "the best of all possible worlds," we (the readers) do consider their world to be much better than they do (albeit not "the best").
In other words, the reason Romeo and Juliet do not consider their world to be "the best" is because they are only experiencing their localized part of the story, not the story as a whole. Likewise, even though individual humans suffer, that does not preclude the possibility that this is still the best possible story for us to be collectively experiencing.
> [W]e (the readers) do consider their world to be much better than they do (albeit not "the best").
What??? I think you've completely missed the point of tragic fiction. R&Js world totally sucks (or it would totally suck if it were real). That's the whole point. We tell the story of R&J so that we can learn its lessons without actually putting real people through that wringer. The point of tragic fiction is to say: the world would suck if it were like this, so let's try not to make it like this.
> Likewise, even though individual humans suffer, that does not preclude the possibility that this is still the best possible story for us to be collectively experiencing.
"Best" by what quality metric? By what would make the best screenplay? That's a pretty horrific way of looking at the world. The best stories are often driven by the worst experiences. All fiction, both tragedy and comedy, is driven by conflict. Again, that's the whole point: humans invented story-telling so that we could engage in shared contemplation of possible worlds that we did not want to bring into reality in addition to those we do. Just because something makes a good story doesn't mean you would actually want it to happen.
> The point of tragic fiction is to say: the world would suck if it were like this, so let's try not to make it like this.
I think that is a narrow interpretation. Many tragic plays are catalyzed by sheer misfortune rather than anything we could draw a practical lesson from. Stories don't have to be educational to be deeply moving.
I don't know what metric to use for "best," but I think "makes a good story" is preferable to "minimizes human suffering." You may find that horrific, but it's only horrific if you view suffering as meaningless and unnecessary. On the contrary, suffering is the engine of the world! Every achievement was motivated by a feeling of lack, and every happiness we enjoy is derived from our equal capacity for suffering.
If you accept that, then the question is: "why, then, do we observe events of suffering that do not serve any discernible purpose?" That is, if this really is "the best of all worlds," then how can it contain meaningless suffering?
That's a much better question. If you're in my camp, and you do believe that this is the best world, then the only option is to argue that there is no meaningless suffering. You can only declare something meaningless if you know its complete and total effect on the future. Since we don't know the future, we can't know for sure whether anything is truly meaningless. Now, we can't know the opposite either -- we can't know for sure if all suffering will eventually turn out to have been meaningful. That's where you either lean on your faith (if you have it), or take the agnostic position and declare the whole thing moot.
> Many tragic plays are catalyzed by sheer misfortune rather than anything we could draw a practical lesson from.
Like for example?
> If you're in my camp, and you do believe that this is the best world, then the only option is to argue that there is no meaningless suffering.
Have you read the news lately? Are you really going to tell me that the world we live in is better than a hypothetical one where Bashar Al Assad did not attack civilians with chemical weapons yesterday?
BTW, I agree that not all suffering is meaningless and unnecessary, that suffering can motivate achievement. It does not follow that all suffering is meaningful and necessary.
In fact, rejecting the idea that we live in the best possible world is necessary if suffering is to motivate achievement, because if you believe that we already live in the best possible world then there can be no point in doing anything to try to change it.
Titanic (1997) is a pretty well-known example. There isn't much of a lesson to draw from that movie that would have averted the disaster. It simply uses the disaster as a plot element to tell a story about love.
>rejecting the idea that we live in the best possible world is necessary if suffering is to motivate achievement
This is a very important point. I think the key is to accept that our nature is to be motivated by suffering, and not try to transcend that. I suppose this is what Camus was talking about when he described Sisyphus as being happy. Essentially, you can't use the belief that the world is perfect as a justification for anything, because nothing you do (or refrain from doing) can alter the perfection of the world. And that means you can't look at civilians dying and just shrug your shoulders because hey, it's all perfect, right? It's not something that can be used to justify inaction. It doesn't offer any moral guidance at all. It's just a different way of thinking about the world.
Camus says we must imagine Sisyphus is happy because he realizes the absurdity of his condition and finds a contented acceptance in recognizing this truth--thus, robbing the absurdity of his suffering of power to actually lead to misery. Camus does not suggest Sisyphus--or the absurd man, for that matter--is motivated by suffering and the thought of transcending it. We are doomed to suffer through the absurdity of reality because of our need for finding meaning in a world that contains none, our desire for reason in an unreasonable world. Life, this world, and our attempts to make it mean something are all meaningless except for that meaning with which we imbue them. We are the source of the meaning we seek, yet we absurdly look elsewhere for meaning to be found, realized, given to us by that which lies outside us. By recognizing this, we are able to push on and neutralize suffering and absurdity. This is not, however, through some motivation to conquer it. Allowing ourselves to be motivated by suffering toward some vainglorious goal of transcending it only fools us into remaining trapped within and overpowered by the absurdity of our condition. It is inescapable by means of any action to contradict it. We aren't to strive to negate it or overpower it, for then we arrive at conclusions of thought and action that contradict the absurdity of suffering, which means contradicting reality itself.
Simply recognize life and its suffering are absurd. Then cease being consumed by it. However, for Camus at least, this does not mean accept the absurd itself--we should always confront it, always revolt against it. But again, not by way of fooling ourselves into thinking we can conquer it. It is recognizing this that gives one reason to imagine Sisyphus is happy.
Sisyphus is a bit like Gandalf facing the Balrog, already sure of what is to come. You shall not pass!, he says to the absurdity of his suffering. Then he makes the long walk to the bottom of the mountain and sets his hands against the stone anew.
Your analysis is much better than my gross simplification. What I meant is that in both situations, the solution is acceptance, not escapism (masquerading as transcendence).
I agree with Camus' conclusion that we must create our own meaning, but that also seems to be at odds with our psychology: it's much easier to believe in external sources of meaning. (Perhaps there's an evolutionary bias here, because an external source of meaning can unify a group, whereas an internal source only empowers the individual.) You can reconcile these with a neat trick found in Eastern religion: identifying the subject with the object. Pantheism, Advaita vedanta, Taoism, and Zen all have this at their core. If you erase the distinction between yourself and the higher power/monad/Absolute/Tao, then you erase the distinction between deriving meaning internally and deriving meaning externally. So far, this is the best approach I've found for staving off nihilism once you've rejected traditional Abrahamic religion.
> Titanic ... simply uses the disaster as a plot element to tell a story about love.
It does a lot more than that. It has quite a lot to say about the social class system of the early 20th century.
> I think the key is to accept that our nature is to be motivated by suffering, and not try to transcend that.
Why not? Our nature is to be angry and jealous and violent some times too. Transcending those qualities is generally considered progress (it's called "growing up") so why not strive to transcend our need to be motivated by suffering?
> I suppose this is what Camus was talking about when he described Sisyphus as being happy.
>why not strive to transcend our need to be motivated by suffering?
If you can do so in a way that does not lead to stagnation, I am willing to hear you out. The only people I'm aware of who have transcended suffering are Buddhist monks, and... well, they are exactly models of trans-human progress. They mostly just sit quietly and keep to themselves.
The buddhists have the wrong idea. Their attitude is that suffering is inevitable and so we should just accept it. (They go on to say that when you accept suffering it stops being suffering. Yeah, right. Tell that to the kids in Syria who were gassed by Assad a few days ago.)
I'm not talking about accepting suffering, I'm talking about eliminating it, or at least striving to eliminate it even if complete eliminate is not actually possible (c.f. Sisyphus) or desirable. It might be that the optimal level of suffering is not zero, or that the optimal level is lower than the lowest attainable level. But it is clear that both of those are significantly lower than what have now. I don't think any reasonable person can look at what is going on in Syria or South Sudan or Bangladesh and not believe that we can do better without violating the laws of physics.
Is it unnecessary? Can you invent a tale of "star-crossed lovers" in a world that is "best" for the characters? I think their suffering is essential to the narrative. If so, perhaps their world is indeed "best" toward serving that purpose, at least for the audience.
How can you judge whether someone's suffering is unnecessary? Only the author of the story knows that, because only the author knows how the story ends and how the individual arcs tie together.
No, you can define "better" in pretty much any way and still be able to imagine possible worlds that are better than the one we live in. In fact, pretty much the only way you can define "better" that does not admit better possible worlds is to define this world as the best possible one. But that's a vacuous definition.
BTW, you do know that Romeo and Juliet are fictional characters, yes? They cannot prefer anything because they didn't actually exist.