Scholarlink

<p>How we relate to suffering shapes how much we ultimately suffer. Contemporary secular medicine and psychology tend to emphasize coping, control, and the reduction of distress, but a less examined, yet historically central, response is acceptance. This paper asks what it means to respond to suffering with acceptance, and why such a response might be wise rather than weak. Using a comparative conceptual analysis, we analyze acceptance of suffering in eight religious and philosophical traditions: Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Psychoanalysis, Stoicism, and Traditional African Religions. We describe the distinctiveness of each tradition’s view, as well as common ground. Across traditions, a shared paradox emerges: by accepting suffering, one can sometimes diminish its power, whereas reactive resistance can sometimes amplify it. We show that acceptance is not resignation or fatalism, but a cognitive-existential stance that clarifies agency, aligns the self with reality, can lead to growth, and can also coexist with protest, healing, and efforts to alleviate injustice. We identify recurring reasons for acceptance that fall into two broad categories: acceptance as alignment with basic truths about reality (e.g., divine providence, impermanence, <i>karma</i>, psychic structure) and acceptance as practically useful (e.g., reducing secondary suffering, cultivating virtue, deepening compassion, stabilizing the psyche). Finally, we propose a set of tradition-specific inventory items as a preliminary framework for future theoretical and empirical work on acceptance of suffering as a multidimensional construct.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Acceptance as a Response to Suffering: Insights from World Religious and Philosophical Traditions

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月26日

查看全文
  • Omar S. Haque,
  • Jennifer Wortham,
  • Brendan W. Case,
  • Richard G. Cowden,
  • David Goodman,
  • Timothy Lomas,
  • Tayyab Rashid,
  • David J. Wolpe,
  • Tyler J. Vander Weele

摘要

How we relate to suffering shapes how much we ultimately suffer. Contemporary secular medicine and psychology tend to emphasize coping, control, and the reduction of distress, but a less examined, yet historically central, response is acceptance. This paper asks what it means to respond to suffering with acceptance, and why such a response might be wise rather than weak. Using a comparative conceptual analysis, we analyze acceptance of suffering in eight religious and philosophical traditions: Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Psychoanalysis, Stoicism, and Traditional African Religions. We describe the distinctiveness of each tradition’s view, as well as common ground. Across traditions, a shared paradox emerges: by accepting suffering, one can sometimes diminish its power, whereas reactive resistance can sometimes amplify it. We show that acceptance is not resignation or fatalism, but a cognitive-existential stance that clarifies agency, aligns the self with reality, can lead to growth, and can also coexist with protest, healing, and efforts to alleviate injustice. We identify recurring reasons for acceptance that fall into two broad categories: acceptance as alignment with basic truths about reality (e.g., divine providence, impermanence, karma, psychic structure) and acceptance as practically useful (e.g., reducing secondary suffering, cultivating virtue, deepening compassion, stabilizing the psyche). Finally, we propose a set of tradition-specific inventory items as a preliminary framework for future theoretical and empirical work on acceptance of suffering as a multidimensional construct.