Argumentative Essay…Pain and Loss…
The Knowing and Knowledge tutorial subject in week seven was as follows, “Life inevitably brings pain and loss. One will need to grieve for loved ones who are gone. All that is normal. What is abnormal is the increasingly common attitude that there is a ‘cure’ or ‘pill’ for every ‘problem’ that all suffering is somehow unnatural and not to be tolerated.”
This is a very broad and diverse issue, with two main sides to the argument, as well as many different opinions and ‘but’ questions and statements in the middle. The statement made by this person clearly defines their stance. Their opinion is that suffering over personal loss is normal, and it is unnatural to be using medications to cure ourselves of this particular affliction. The other side to this particular argument could be described in the question, ‘Why suffer when we don’t have to?’ My personal opinion is somewhere in the middle. I will be discussing all three views in the following essay.
It is a given that the majority of human beings will experience the loss of at least one loved one in their lives; more likely several. Unquestionably, this causes pain and grief for the individual suffering the loss. Up until the enlightenment, this pain was basically unavoidable. The strong point put forth in the tutorial topic is the point that this type of pain and suffering is completely normal. It is a natural reaction by the body and mind.
This reaction not only applies to the emotional pain of losing loved ones, but all types of pain. For example, a divorce, losing a job, not having enough money, and so on. It is all feelings of loss that cause grief; but feelings of physical pain also hurt. Using medication to ‘cure’ physical pain is much more widely accepted than using it for grief and mental pain. The tutorial statement says that the writer feels it to be unnatural to use ‘pills’ and ‘medical cures’ to mask or fix a natural course. They seem to be more against the fact that using these products of modern medicine to diffuse anguish is the fact that idea and usage is being so widely accepted by society.
The author seems to be of the belief that grief is essential and natural and should not be interfered with, using modern medicine. I find I agree to a certain extent, but I see there is always room for extraneous circumstances. For example, if someone was to lose a family member then develop depression, is this still seen as natural and normal? Can it be defined what is grief or a mental disease or illness? I think one of the major problems with using pills and modern medicine to ‘cure’ grief, is the fact that there is no proof that you are ‘cured’. In fact, it is more like you are masking the problem, not banishing or fixing it.
I think another point that can be made in relation to this opinion, can be a sentence from Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland The Red Queen tells Alice,
“Now here you see it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place.”
This brings up the question of ‘are we advancing?’ For example, many people see modern medicine as an advancement, but is it really? We may be improving the quality of life for those that are ill, but even that can be seen as obscure. So, possibly, we are advancing, to stay where we are.
Another argument that is related to this point is improving versus suffering.
The people who are advocating the advancement of modern medicine, are basically trying to improve or sustain our quality of life. Nobody seems to be able to directly deny the fact cures and medicine help in the aid of physical ails, but with emotional pains, the line is fuzzier. The very simple argument of this is as I mentioned before. Why suffer at all when it is unnecessary? This is a fantastic string point, which is difficult to argue against. The author of the tutorial statement makes use of the fact that it is normal and natural to grieve, but they are swimming against the modern tide of improvement and advancement.
It has become increasingly easier for people to access pills to cure their emotional pain, whether permanent or not. To the individual, this is a very good thing. Another fuzzy line is alternative methods versus modern medicine. For example, would the tutorial subject author be opposed to people using herbal remedies to help treat their grief over the loss of a loved one? This is another difficult, grey area of the argument.
So, as you can see, as always there are two sides to the argument. Neither can be proved right or wrong, neither can it be proved whether we are truly advancing or not. People like the tutorial subject author and myself can express our opinions and even back up our arguments with evidence, but it will always be a difficult argument to conclude. Suffering versus improving is a long standing debate that may never be resolved.
Much love, Melissa xo