Life Is Hard

Life Is Hard Plot Summary

Introduction

Adversity comes in many forms - physical pain, loneliness, grief, failure, injustice, and the feeling that life lacks meaning. These hardships aren't just inconvenient interruptions to an otherwise smooth existence; they are fundamental aspects of the human condition that everyone will face. Traditional philosophical approaches often emphasize pursuing an ideal life or finding happiness, but this perspective misses a crucial insight: the value of acknowledging and living well with suffering rather than trying to overcome or ignore it. This philosophical exploration of human suffering rejects both naive optimism and nihilistic despair. Through rigorous analysis and personal reflection, we discover that meaning emerges not from avoiding hardship but through engaging with it honestly. Each form of adversity - from chronic pain to social disconnection, from personal loss to systemic injustice - provides unique opportunities for understanding ourselves and our connection to others. By examining these universal experiences, we gain insight into how to find meaning not despite our suffering, but sometimes through it, developing a more nuanced and compassionate understanding of what it means to live well.

Chapter 1: Embracing the Reality of Human Suffering

Life is hard, and philosophy should begin by acknowledging this fundamental truth. The dominant philosophical tradition has often focused on achieving an ideal life or perfect happiness, creating a gap between theoretical aspirations and lived reality. This gap leaves us ill-equipped to face inevitable suffering. When philosophers like Aristotle speak of eudaimonia (human flourishing), they envision a life "lacking in nothing" rather than acknowledging the inescapable limitations and hardships of human existence. This tendency to turn away from hardship extends beyond academic philosophy into contemporary culture. The "power of positive thinking" movement encourages us to focus exclusively on our aspirations rather than acknowledging our struggles. Even ancient Stoics, despite their reputation for facing adversity, ultimately aimed to transcend suffering through mental discipline, believing that well-being is entirely within our control. These approaches, while appealing, ultimately misrepresent the human condition. When facing difficulties, what we often need most is not reassurance that everything will be fine or advice about how to fix our problems, but simple acknowledgment of our suffering. Denial of hardship only compounds our pain. We see this clearly in the Book of Job, where Job's friends insist his suffering must serve some purpose or be deserved punishment. Their theodicy—attempt to justify suffering within a divine plan—only adds to Job's misery. True compassion begins with recognition of suffering as real and often undeserved. This recognition doesn't require religious belief. Whether or not one believes in God, the impulse to justify suffering rather than simply acknowledge it persists in secular thinking. The key insight is that we can face suffering directly without needing to explain it away. When we stop trying to justify hardship or pretend it doesn't exist, we open ourselves to genuine consolation. Philosophy can serve as a guide through suffering rather than a means of avoiding it. Life changes us, and suffering transforms our perspective. Rather than treating happiness as the ultimate goal, we might instead focus on living well amidst difficulties. Happiness is a subjective state that could exist even in illusion, but living well requires engagement with reality, however painful. As Nietzsche observed, "Humanity does not strive for happiness, only the English do." Our task is not to eliminate suffering but to face adversity as we should—with truth as our guide rather than wishful thinking.

Chapter 2: Physical Pain and the Embodied Self

Physical pain fundamentally changes our relationship with our bodies and the world. When healthy, we experience our bodies as transparent vehicles for engaging with life—we see through them rather than focusing on them. Pain reverses this relationship, making the body itself the center of awareness. This shift from experiencing the world through our bodies to experiencing our bodies as obstacles creates a profound disruption in our lives. The harm of physical disability is often misunderstood. While disability studies scholars like Elizabeth Barnes argue that "to be physically disabled is not to have a defective body, but simply to have a minority body," many philosophers and laypeople assume disability inevitably makes life worse. This assumption relies on two questionable premises: that a good life requires access to all valuable experiences, and that disability prevents access to too many of these experiences. Both ideas are mistaken. No human life can encompass all valuable experiences—we are all necessarily limited in what we can do and experience. Consider the lives of remarkable individuals like Bill Veeck, the baseball executive who transformed American sports while living with a prosthetic leg, or disability activist Harriet McBryde Johnson, who lived with muscular dystrophy yet described her life as rich and fulfilling. Their experiences reveal that physical difference, even when it closes off certain possibilities, need not diminish overall well-being. What makes disability challenging is not inherent limitation but social barriers—prejudice and poor accommodations that unnecessarily restrict life possibilities. Pain presents a different challenge than disability. Unlike disability, chronic pain actively interferes with our ability to engage in valuable activities by constantly drawing attention to the body. When in pain, the body becomes "that to which one attends" rather than that through which one experiences the world. Even philosopher René Descartes, who championed the separation of mind and body, acknowledged that pain demonstrates our embodied nature: "I am not merely present in my body as a sailor is present in a ship." The solace philosophy offers for pain is not relief but understanding. There is a profound loneliness to pain, particularly chronic pain that others cannot see. By articulating the experience of pain—its temporality, its impact on attention, its transformation of our relationship with our bodies—philosophy bears witness to suffering that might otherwise remain invisible. It reminds those in pain that they are not alone in their experience, even when that experience isolates them from others. Pain can even serve as a source of compassion, both for oneself and for others. The person in pain develops an intimate understanding of suffering that can extend beyond personal experience to encompass the suffering of others. As Anne Boyer writes in her memoir of breast cancer, pain creates "shared vistas of the terribly felt," breaking down the barriers between self and other that philosophical theories often emphasize. In this way, even as pain isolates, it can paradoxically connect us through mutual recognition of vulnerability.

Chapter 3: Loneliness and Our Need for Connection

Loneliness represents a distinctively painful form of social disconnection that reveals fundamental truths about human nature. It's crucial to distinguish loneliness from merely being alone—one can experience profound loneliness in a crowd while finding solitude peaceful. What defines loneliness is not physical isolation but the subjective experience of disconnection from others, a feeling that one's social needs remain unfulfilled. The physical and psychological effects of social isolation are surprisingly severe. Studies have quantified these impacts, finding that "social isolation has an impact on health comparable to the effect of high blood pressure, lack of exercise, obesity, or smoking." These effects stem not merely from behavioral correlates of loneliness like poor diet or substance abuse, but from the physiological stress response that loneliness triggers. The body treats social isolation as an existential threat, activating inflammatory responses that accelerate aging and increase vulnerability to disease. This biological response reflects our nature as social animals. Human evolution has shaped us for interdependence—we survived not through individual strength but through cooperation and communication. Experiments with rhesus monkeys and observations of institutionalized children demonstrate that early social deprivation causes lasting developmental harm. At the extreme, solitary confinement in prisons produces psychological damage akin to physical torture: perceptual distortions, depression, apathy, and self-harm. These reactions aren't merely cultural; they reflect our species' fundamental need for social connection. The philosopher David Velleman helps us understand why friendship matters so deeply. While Aristotle saw friendship as based on mutual appreciation of virtue, Velleman argues that love and friendship recognize something more basic: the unconditional value of the person. True friendship isn't earned through admirable qualities but acknowledges the irreplaceable worth of each human being. When we are friendless, this worth goes unrecognized, creating the sensation of disappearing from the human world. Breaking free from chronic loneliness presents a painful paradox—connecting with others requires vulnerability, yet loneliness induces fear and social anxiety that make vulnerability terrifying. Research shows lonely people become hypervigilant to social threats, more negative in their perceptions of others, and less trusting—creating a self-reinforcing cycle of isolation. The path out requires courage to extend oneself despite fear, often beginning with small, low-risk social interactions that gradually build confidence. Paradoxically, overcoming loneliness often requires shifting attention away from one's own social needs toward genuine concern for others. Psychologist John Cacioppo found that altruistic volunteers often find relief from loneliness not by directly seeking connection but by focusing outward. This reflects the continuity between respect, compassion, and love—all ways of affirming that someone matters. When we truly attend to others, we create the conditions for authentic connection, even if that attention begins with structured interactions that help manage social anxiety.

Chapter 4: Grief, Loss, and the Persistence of Love

Grief defies simple categorization as a single emotion. People experiencing grief report not just sorrow but anger, guilt, fear, and even moments of unexpected humor. The emotional landscape of grief shifts continuously, with different feelings emerging at different times. This complexity helps explain why stage theories of grief—moving linearly from denial to acceptance—fail to capture the lived experience. Grief comes not in stages but in waves, oscillating between intensity and relative calm in a pattern that persists over time. This oscillation appears clearly in written accounts of grief. Roland Barthes's Mourning Diary, composed on quartered sheets of typing paper after his mother's death, moves unpredictably between analytical distance and raw emotion. B.S. Johnson's experimental novel The Unfortunates captures grief's non-linear nature through its physical form—a book in a box with chapters to be read in any order. These works reflect grief's resistance to narrative coherence, its tendency to circle back unexpectedly to moments of intense feeling long after the initial loss. Ancient philosophical schools generally viewed grief as a pathology to be overcome. The Stoic philosopher Epictetus advised preemptively detaching from loved ones, reminding oneself of their mortality: "If you kiss your child or your wife, say to yourself that it is a human being that you're kissing; and then, if one of them should die, you won't be upset." This advice reflects the Stoic principle that we should extinguish desire for anything outside our control. While this approach might prevent suffering, it does so by compromising our capacity for love. The Stoic mistake lies in treating detachment as wisdom rather than acknowledging that grief is inextricable from love. Grief takes multiple forms, each revealing a different aspect of our relationships. "Relational grief" mourns the fracture in a relationship, whether through death or separation. When someone dies, we also grieve for what they have lost—the life they can no longer live. And finally, we grieve the sheer fact of their nonexistence. These forms of grief often coexist, but they respond to different aspects of loss. Understanding this complexity helps counter the charge that grief is self-indulgent—we grieve not only for ourselves but for those we've lost and for what they have lost. When someone dies, our relationship with them changes but does not end. As Julian Barnes wrote after his wife's death, "the fact that someone is dead may mean that they are not alive, but doesn't mean that they do not exist." Grieving well means navigating between desperate clinging to the relationship as it was and attempting to forget it entirely. The relationship must transform, accommodating the reality of death without betraying the continuing bond. This transformation is what practices of mourning help us accomplish. This raises a philosophical puzzle about grief's duration. If the reason for grief is that someone we love is dead, and that fact never changes, should we grieve forever? Most people don't, recovering from acute grief within months or a few years. Does this recovery mean we've stopped caring? The key insight is that grief, like love, is an emotional process that evolves over time, not a static response to unchanging facts. Grief's waning doesn't reflect diminished love but the natural movement of human emotion through time, aided by social practices that give structure to mourning when reason alone cannot.

Chapter 5: Failure and Narrative: Beyond Success and Achievement

Failure permeates human experience, from minor disappointments to life-defining setbacks. Perhaps nowhere is failure more starkly defined than in sports, where success and defeat are clearly delineated. Consider Ralph Branca, who gave up "the Shot Heard 'Round the World," Bobby Thomson's home run that determined the 1951 National League pennant race. For fifty years, Branca lived with this defining moment of failure, his name forever linked to a single pitch that went wrong. This connection between identity and failure reflects a broader cultural tendency to narrate our lives as coherent stories with clear trajectories. Philosophers call this "Life as Narrative"—the idea that we naturally and necessarily construct our identities through storytelling. According to Charles Taylor, "a basic condition of making sense of ourselves is that we grasp our lives in a narrative." Daniel Dennett claims, "We are all virtuoso novelists, who find ourselves engaged in all sorts of behaviour... and we always try to put the best 'faces' on it we can." However, philosopher Galen Strawson challenges this view, arguing that many people experience their lives without narrative continuity. Examining the lives of notable figures like Iris Murdoch—who moved from classics to civil service to philosophy to novel-writing without a clear overarching pattern—suggests that good lives need not form coherent, linear stories. The problem with the narrative view is that it encourages us to squeeze our experiences into a single dramatic arc, making us vulnerable to definitive failure. When life becomes a quest toward a climactic achievement, failure in that quest threatens our entire identity. This explains how projects fail but people become failures—a usage that entered English only in the mid-1800s as industrialization and credit reporting quantified human worth. As historian Scott Sandage documents, the ideology of "personal responsibility" emerged alongside capitalism, attributing economic outcomes to individual character rather than social circumstances. Frederick Douglass captured this ethos: "I do not think much of the accident or good luck theory of self-made men... if he lives, well. If he dies, equally well. If he cannot stand up, let him fall down." A more liberating approach distinguishes between two kinds of activities. Telic activities aim at completion—building a house, writing a book, winning a championship—while atelic activities have no endpoint—walking (with no particular destination), spending time with friends, or appreciating music. When we value only telic activities, satisfaction always lies in the future or past, never the present. But by valuing atelic engagement, we insure ourselves against failure. The dignity of Gerrard Winstanley's failed communist experiment in 1650s England lay not just in its aspirations but in the process of protest itself. This shift in orientation from outcome to process has ancient roots. Fyodor Dostoevsky's Prince Myshkin lives beautifully despite frequent failures because he values the struggle to do right as much as its results. As another character in The Idiot observes: "Columbus was happy not when he had discovered America, but when he was discovering it... The point is in life, in life alone—in discovering it, constantly and eternally, and not at all in the discovery itself!" This insight doesn't eliminate the importance of goals or achievements but places them alongside the value of engagement itself. Culturally, we must recognize how economic pressures distort our understanding of worth. When human value is measured by productivity and wealth, some will inevitably be branded "failures" regardless of their character or contributions. The ideology of personal responsibility masks structural inequalities that determine life outcomes. Understanding failure requires acknowledging both personal agency and social context—we can take responsibility for our actions without accepting the myth that success is purely meritocratic or that failure reflects personal deficiency.

Chapter 6: Injustice and Our Responsibility to Act

Injustice confronts us daily through headlines describing inequality, violence, environmental destruction, and democratic decay. This awareness often triggers a paradoxical response—the more deeply we care about injustice, the more powerless we may feel to address it. Philosopher Theodor Adorno captured this sentiment: "What would happiness be that was not measured by the immeasurable grief at what is? For the world is deeply ailing." Yet acknowledging global suffering raises uncomfortable questions about whether ignorance might be preferable to painful awareness. This tension appears in Plato's Republic, where Glaucon asks why anyone would choose justice when injustice often brings greater personal advantage. He tells the story of a shepherd who finds a ring granting invisibility and promptly uses it to seduce the queen, murder the king, and seize power. According to Glaucon, anyone with such power would act similarly—we care about justice only because we fear punishment. This cynical view ignores an important distinction: while pursuing justice may sometimes conflict with happiness (as a subjective feeling), it remains essential to living well. Simone Weil exemplifies unflinching moral commitment to justice. Born in Paris in 1909, Weil was known for extraordinary acts of solidarity—refusing to eat more than those in occupied France during World War II, giving her teaching salary to needy workers, and performing exhausting factory labor despite her frail physique. Though her self-sacrifice seems extreme, her reasoning followed a clear logic: if others suffer while we prosper, justice demands we acknowledge their suffering in our actions. Traditional philosophical approaches attempt to prove why we should care about injustice through elaborate arguments. Kant claimed that treating others merely as means contradicts true freedom; Plato argued that injustice creates internal psychological discord. Yet these proofs fail to persuade those who don't already value justice. As Weil sardonically noted, "A man who is tempted to keep a deposit for himself will not keep from doing it simply because he has read [Kant's] Critique of Practical Reason." What changes our orientation toward justice isn't abstract reasoning but attention—a disciplined form of perception that Iris Murdoch called "a refinement of seeing what is really the case." This moral vision involves recognizing the full humanity of others, what Murdoch described as "the extremely difficult realization that something other than oneself is real." When we truly perceive the reality of other people's suffering, compassion naturally follows. As researcher Kristen Monroe found in studying altruists who risked their lives for strangers, "Altruists see the world differently... their behavior results from the recognition that the needy person is human and therefore entitled to certain treatment." Responsibility for justice extends beyond direct wrongdoing to include participation in unjust structures. Philosopher Iris Marion Young developed a "social connection model" of responsibility that distinguishes between blame for past actions and obligation to create change. When we participate in or benefit from unjust systems—like segregated education or fossil fuel consumption that disproportionately harms vulnerable populations—we acquire responsibility to work for reform. This responsibility isn't primarily backward-looking but focuses on collective action for structural change. The challenge is finding effective ways to meet this responsibility without becoming paralyzed by its magnitude. Young acknowledges that sharing responsibility for every structural injustice to which we contribute is overwhelming. The solution isn't inaction but targeted engagement: identifying specific issues where we can join with others to create meaningful change. Even small steps matter—not because they're sufficient, but because they lead to further action and inspire others. Justice requires not perfection but persistent effort toward a more equitable world.

Chapter 7: Finding Meaning in an Absurd World

The sense that life might be absurd often begins with a feeling of dislocation—the sudden awareness of existence as contingent, without obvious purpose or meaning. Jean-Paul Sartre called this sensation "nausea": alarm at the sheer facticity of things, their blank resistance to reason. This disorienting perspective appears when we pull back from everyday concerns to contemplate existence as a whole—the vastness of the universe, the brevity of human history, the apparent indifference of reality to human values and aspirations. When philosophers ask about "the meaning of life," this question has a curious history. It doesn't appear in Plato or Aristotle, Augustine or Aquinas, Descartes, Hume, or Kant. The phrase originates in 1834 with Thomas Carlyle's satirical novel Sartor Resartus, emerging alongside existential despair: "To me the Universe was all void of Life, of Purpose, of Volition, even of Hostility: it was one huge, dead, immeasurable Steam-engine, rolling on, in its dead indifference, to grind me limb from limb." The question arises precisely when traditional religious frameworks began to lose their authority. What exactly are we asking when we inquire about life's meaning? Not about linguistic meaning—life isn't a sentence to be decoded. Nor are we simply asking about function or purpose within some larger system—being cogs in a cosmic machine wouldn't give our lives meaning. Rather, we seek significance—a truth about existence that tells us how to feel about it, especially in the face of suffering and loss. We want to know if there's a perspective from which life's hardships make sense. Religions traditionally offered such perspectives through metaphysical frameworks that transcend ordinary experience. But meaning needn't depend on God or immortality. To explore what secular meaning might look like, we can consider thought experiments about human extinction. In P.D. James's novel Children of Men, humanity has become sterile—no child has been conceived for eighteen years. As extinction approaches, society collapses into nihilism. The protagonist observes: "Without the hope of posterity, for our race if not for ourselves, without the assurance that we being dead yet live, all pleasures of the mind and senses sometimes seem to me no more than pathetic and crumbling defences shored up against our ruins." This scenario reveals how much meaning depends on humanity's future. Our activities derive significance partly from their continuation beyond our individual lives—art and science lose purpose without future audiences, cultural traditions become pointless without inheritors. Yet extinction needn't render life completely meaningless. If humanity had achieved justice before its end—coming as close to fairness and compassion as human frailty permits—we might face extinction with dignity rather than despair. Justice emerges as central to meaning. For human existence to have significance, it must involve progress toward greater justice, not merely repetition of past patterns of oppression and inequality. This doesn't mean justice redeems past suffering—nothing can erase historical injustice—but it gives direction and purpose to human history. As philosopher Walter Benjamin wrote, the "angel of history" sees the past as "a single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage," but our task is to "interrupt the storm" of this so-called progress. Climate change threatens this potential meaning, not only through physical devastation but by undermining the conditions for social progress. If environmental collapse leads to resource wars and authoritarian control, the arc of justice bends backward. The meaning of life thus depends on our collective response to present crises. Life could have meaning—as a halting movement toward justice that repairs, insofar as possible, past wrongs. Whether it achieves this meaning remains uncertain, dependent on actions we have yet to take.

Chapter 8: Hope Without Illusion

Hope occupies an ambiguous position in human experience. The Greek myth of Pandora depicts hope as one of the evils released into the world—or perhaps as the one consolation that remained in the jar. This ambivalence persists in philosophical approaches to hope, which recognize both its sustaining power and its potential for delusion. When Diogenes the Cynic called hope "most precious in life," was he celebrating hope's value or warning against its temptations? Hope combines desire with belief in possibility. To hope for something means both wanting it and seeing it as attainable, though not inevitable. Importantly, hope involves scenarios not entirely within our control—we don't hope for what we can simply bring about ourselves. This surrender to contingency explains hope's emotional complexity: it makes us vulnerable to disappointment while potentially sustaining us through difficulty. The case against hope is straightforward. Hope can resemble wishful thinking, leading us to expect outcomes that are extremely unlikely. It creates emotional investment in possibilities that may never materialize, setting us up for greater suffering when they don't. As Hesiod wrote in Works and Days, "The dope who's idle and awaits an empty hope gripes in his soul, lacking a livelihood." Hope becomes problematic when it substitutes for action or blinds us to reality. Yet hope serves essential functions in human life. Activist Rebecca Solnit argues that "hope just means another world might be possible, not promised, not guaranteed." This minimal conception of hope—recognizing possibility without certainty—enables meaningful action despite overwhelming odds. Without some confidence that change is possible, we have no motivation to pursue it. Hope functions as a precondition for engagement with worthy causes, even when success remains uncertain. Following Saint Thomas Aquinas, we can distinguish between hope as passive emotion and hope as active virtue. Hope becomes virtuous when it navigates between extremes—neither inflating possibilities through wishful thinking nor dismissing them through excessive pessimism. Virtuous hope maintains openness to positive outcomes without denying reality, finding possibility where it genuinely exists. This discernment requires courage, especially when hoping brings vulnerability to disappointment. The appropriate objects of hope vary with circumstance. When cure is impossible, we might hope instead for meaningful adaptation. When justice seems distant, we can hope for incremental progress. Even facing climate change, where complete prevention is no longer possible, we can hope to mitigate its worst effects. As Shakespeare wrote, "The worst is not so long as we can say 'This is the worst.'" Hope never requires certainty—only possibility combined with commitment to act on that possibility. The philosopher Jonathan Lear identified a form of "radical hope" that emerges when familiar possibilities collapse. Writing about the Crow Nation after the destruction of their traditional way of life, Lear described hope "directed toward a future goodness that transcends the current ability to understand what it is." This form of hope acknowledges devastation while refusing to surrender to despair, maintaining openness to unimagined forms of meaning and value that might yet emerge. Hope thus exists in productive tension with acknowledgment of suffering. It doesn't deny hardship but finds possibility within it. Like love, which persists in grief; like dignity, which survives failure; like justice, which responds to injustice—hope completes our human capacity to face adversity with resilience. As Seamus Heaney wrote in The Cure at Troy: "History says, don't hope on this side of the grave. But then, once in a lifetime the longed-for tidal wave of justice can rise up, and hope and history rhyme." The poet knows that "hope" and "history" don't actually rhyme—but one day, in some undreamt-of harmony, they might.

Summary

The exploration of adversity reveals a profound paradox: meaning emerges not from avoiding suffering but from engaging with it authentically. Physical pain teaches us about embodiment and compassion; loneliness illuminates our social nature; grief expresses continuing love; failure redirects us from achievement to process; injustice calls us to responsibility; and absurdity opens space for creating meaning through justice. Throughout these varied hardships, philosophy offers not escape but understanding—a way to acknowledge reality while finding value within it. The path through adversity requires rejecting both naive optimism and nihilistic despair. Optimism denies suffering's reality; nihilism denies life's value despite suffering. Instead, we must develop what might be called "tragic hope"—clear-sighted recognition of hardship combined with commitment to creating meaning within its constraints. This perspective doesn't promise happiness or an ideal life, but it offers something more valuable: the possibility of living well amid difficulty, transforming adversity from mere obstacle into source of insight. For those willing to face life's hardships without flinching, this philosophical approach provides not comfort but courage—the courage to see clearly, feel deeply, and continue forward with integrity and purpose.

About Author

Loading...

Kieran Setiya

Read more