All suffering does not yield to sensemaking. A Centre of Excellence funded by the Research Council of Finland seeks an ethically more sustainable approach to adversity
Suffering in its various forms is an inevitable part of life, emphasising our capacity to face affliction and setbacks. A new Centre of Excellence examines suffering as a phenomenon and, most importantly, our attitudes towards suffering and the meanings we assign to it.
"We wish to gain a better understanding of suffering and develop our ethical attitudes towards it," says Professor of Philosophy of Religion .
Pihlström heads the under the Research Council of Finland's Centre of Excellence programme. Running for eight years from 2026 to 2033, the multidisciplinary project has secured several million euros in funding.
The extensive project aims to investigate how we can improve both our own lives and the world around us by making our attitudes to suffering more responsible.
Not all suffering has a purpose
We humans have a need to justify suffering, often seeking comfort and meaning by thinking that suffering has a purpose that can lead to a greater good. The idea of justified suffering is strongly present in our everyday lives.
"In politics, for instance, measures that cause suffering to some are justified on the grounds that they generate greater benefits in the grand scheme of things. We are unlikely to eliminate such mindsets entirely from everyday thinking or public discourse," says Pihlström.
In the context of the philosophy of religion, such sensemaking for suffering is known as a theodicy: how can there be so much meaningless suffering and evil in the world if there is a benevolent and omnipotent god?
The current research project is based on its antithesis, antitheodicy. It accepts the possibility that suffering may not be assigned any meaning or justified in any way.
"There is naturally a lot of useful suffering, including painful therapeutic procedures, but also suffering that cannot be justified rationally or ethically."
While sensemaking may bring comfort, it can also be ethically problematic for those who are suffering. When the experience is subordinated to the greater good, the person experiencing the suffering becomes culpable, unless their experience results in greater good or spiritual growth. As an extreme example of the absurdity of making sense of suffering, Pihlström mentions the Holocaust:
"What greater good can be said to have resulted from the Holocaust? We should somehow be able to accept the existence of suffering that is entirely senseless and meaningless."
In fact, one of the ideas underpinning the project is that making sense of all adversity is wrong. This is why we should find better alternatives to this fixed way of thinking.
Meliorism, or better thinking
Suffering often leads our minds towards extremes, in the case of both personal setbacks and societal problems. Looking at today's world, pessimists come to the conclusion that nothing can be done about it. Optimists are profoundly convinced that, in the end, everything will turn out well.
"Optimism and pessimism are not only false but even deluded viewpoints. They arrive at an untruthful understanding of what human thinking and actions based on it really are," Pihlström says.
A common thread running through the project is meliorism, which is offered as an alternative. Situated between optimism and pessimism, meliorism is best grasped through these two ideas. According to the concept, positive outcomes are neither inevitable (optimism) nor impossible (pessimism). It originates in the Latin word 'melior', which means better. Coined by the British author George Eliot in the 19th century, the concept is not that new, although it is probably unknown to most people.
Meliorism emphasises that the future is genuinely open and uncertain. The world can and must be gradually improved through human effort, which is why we have to do everything in our power to do so without any guarantee of positive or negative outcomes.
"In their purest form, optimism and pessimism are passive ways of thinking that do not motivate anyone into action. It's not worth it for pessimists to do anything, and optimists don't have to do anything, since things will turn out well in any case. In contrast, meliorism is the philosophy of agency."
Multidimensional research
In the research project, suffering is examined through meliorism. Instead of applying it as a ready-made doctrine, the researchers also seek to develop the concept itself and learn more about its application.
The Centre of Excellence employs approximately 20 researchers and comprises five work packages, of which four are located at the Faculty of Theology. This way, the problem of suffering is examined from several perspectives.
Pihlström himself leads a work package focused on antitheodicy, the definition of suffering and meliorism as objects of philosophical study, as well as relevant research methods. heads a group that investigates the relationship of lived religion and non-religious beliefs with suffering. In practice, they investigate, among other topics, the viewpoints of people involved in the care of dying patients on suffering.
The history of ideas is represented by a work package headed by , which examines the history of ethics and law in responding to suffering. This package also investigates people's attitudes towards breaking ethical or legal norms in times of extreme distress, such as war and famine.
heads a group focused on the philosophy of religion, examining the relationship between religious and non-religious beliefs, and suffering, death, hope and the meaning of life.
In addition, a group headed by Sari Kivistö at Tampere University investigates the status of suffering in literature and the philosophy of literature.
