is life one big tragedy or just series of small unfortunate events?

Answer 1

Its big tragedy when we comprehend while we die ....
small unfortunate events when we comprehend while we are living.

Answer 2

Whether life is a tragedy or a comedy has not yet been decided. But I have a theory: Messiness and unpredictability are inherent in life, and the Cosmic Recipe for existence includes suffering as one of its ingredients. Kinda like this: if life were a bowl of chili, suffering would be the chili power. You can't have chili without chili powder – it is the spice that gives the whole pot its distinctive flavor. There are lots of other essential ingredients, but my point is that suffering is one of the essential ones, so the only way to completely avoid all possibility of suffering is to not-exist.

This doesn't mean we are all domed to utter torment. There are lots of other more enjoyable ingredients as well, but all of the ingredients are intermixed. Each ingredient is-what-it-is because of its connection to the others. This is what the Buddhists call emptiness. To exist is to be empty, which means that to exist is to be part of a web in which the essential nature of each thing depends on the existence of other things – thus there is no thing that is "substantial" or "self-dependent" in existence. In other words, the Buddhist concept of 'emptiness' refers to the lack of SUBSTANTIALITY in anything that can be said to exist. Our notion of substance as some sort of "stuff" that just is-what-it-is independently of other things is an illusion. We know that suffering exists, so by this way of thinking, we also know that the very nature of suffering is derived from the nature of everything else that exists, and everything else that exists, in turn, depends on the existence of suffering.

Philosophers make a distinction between "necessary" and "contingent" properties. A contingent property is one that a thing might or might not have, but either way it does not affect the identity of the thing itself. It is necessary that I am human (I would not be what I am if I did not have the property of being human) but it is only contingent that I am sitting here typing on my computer. I can move to a different location and still be the same being because my physical location is only contingent to my identity. In western philosophy we generally think in terms of substances, and for a substantial thing, the existence of other things is just contingent. I would still be the same being even if there were no suffering in the world. In fact, according to the notion of substance, I would still be the same being even if the whole world suddenly disappeared. But in Buddhist philosophy there are no substances, so the bottom line is that I could not be what I am without the possibility of suffering (or the possibility of joy, contentment, love, etc.) The being of everything is NECESSARY to the being of everything else, thus every thing is empty, meaning, nothing has substance. There are no truly contingent relationships in the world. It SEEMS like there are substances, but this is just an illusion.

I suspect that the Buddhists are basically right about this. We can and should do whatever we can to prevent and alleviate suffering for ourselves and others, but at this moment what-we-are depends on the possibility of suffering (and joy, and love, and lust, and gratitude, and things that smell funny…)

Answer 3

a series of unfortunate events

Answer 4

I would say that it's a series of unfortunate events.

Answer 5

ahh! its just a series of small unfortunate events.

Answer 6

one big tragedy

Answer 7

one big tragedy.

Answer 8

Life is whatever you make of it. For instance, mine is a romantic comedy!