Wow, can't believe I didn't notice this post for a year and a half. These are some heavily loaded questions to be honest, and you're a fake account so you're not expecting an answer. But let's try anyway.
Is suffering a necessary part of the human condition? What would people who never suffered be like?
Well, I think so. Suffering is something that is fundamentally tied to our existence as a human. I can't imagine a proper "human" experience without it. So people without suffering in a sense are not human. But that doesn't mean I consider it a good thing. There is the thing that "Without suffering one can't appreciate the good things" or "Without darkness there is no light" but technically it's not true. If you don't have a sense for what suffering is, then it means they don't have the need for something to contrast it, like good experiences. This might be off putting for us, but it's because we know what suffering is. For those who don't every experience is as novel as every other. Giving a purpose to suffering for increasing the value of good experiences is pretty irrational if you think of it that way. But that is all theoretical. In reality there is suffering, and there is a need for purpose in life. So it's helpful to find it even in suffering.
Does hardship make a person stronger? If so, under what conditions and at what point is it too much hardship? If not, what makes a person stronger?
Every experience in life effects us in some way, whether we want it or not. Hardships are experiences that can have long lasting effects. Whether those effects are worth it for the strong person it turns you into depends on a lot of things. In the end, everyone has limits. What makes a person stronger lies in what they are willing to do to overcome their limits.
Would things get better or worse if humans focused on what was going well rather than what’s going wrong?
I think the mix of both is the best of both worlds. There are a lot of things we are doing well for a specific reason, but there are other things we are doing wrong for a different set of reasons. I think the issue is too complicated for there to be a singular right path.
What benefits does art provide society? Does art hurt society in any way?
Art is the result of human expressionism. It can be a very diverse and beautiful thing. It's a medium that has the ability to transfer information's, ideas, feelings, memories etc to peoples mind with all kinds of expressions. (I am thinking of art in a broad sense here. In that sense, this post is also a work of art
.) It can give a physical form to a abstract collection of human thought. So it's a very powerful tool to be able to do that. And in the same way in can be used to invoke powerful emotions or convey deep and meaningful messages, it can also be used to manipulate, misdirect and confuse people. So it's not that art itself can harm society, but art can be used to do so.
is humanity headed in the right or wrong direction?
Again, it's too much of a complicated issue to have a singular answer. In one side, countries are constantly threatening to eradicate each other, the majority of
the world's wealth is in possession of the minority of people while people die because of the lack of resources there is an abundance of, race, class, gender, sex and ideology based segregation and suppression is still a thing, the serious damage to the environment is still going and so much more. But on the other side, there has been an unprecedented of peace from a historical context, we have technologically advanced so far to communicate my ideas to foreign nations I never might physically visit in my lifetime, the eradication of small-pox, the moon landing and the mars rovers etc. So humanity is going in the direction where it is going. It may not be the best at times, but it's something.
Does the study of philosophy ever lead to answers or simply more questions?
Well, it's pretty easy to have an answer to something. Just say whatever you want, and think of it as the correct answer! There is nothing stopping anyone from doing that. So how do we get to the actual correct answers? In a sense, we can't. But philosophy and the practitioners try to get as close as they can using logic. Sure, it can be too loaded at times, but most of the time it's to get the most accurate version of the correct answer, or to say if there is any. Same can be said for science.
What is the best way for a person to attain happiness?
To get out of a self-centric worldview would be my answer. The universe exists independently from you. You are not the main character of a story written for you. Things and people do not exist to satisfy your feelings. There is little control you have over the circumstances around you. It makes accepting hardships easier, though I have yet to exercise this mindset properly.
If you had to guess, what do you think would be the most likely way you’ll die?
Well according to probability and statistics, there must be a most likely numerical answer. But without going that way, if I had to make a guess, probably by some accident due to negligence from my part
Is it better for a person to have a broad knowledge base or a deep knowledge base?
A deep knowledge base in a particular field is a must in my opinion. Not in an academic sense, but in general it is applicable to any skill and any knowledge base. But one should also have at least a general overview in some fields such as science, mathematics, finance, critical thinking etc since any person would need them in life.
Damn, that was a lot to unpack. I don't know why I did it, but here we go.