i hate the attitude that you need to go through hardship or suffering before you can be happy, or live a worthwhile life. it creates the narrative that that you need to be ill to some extent before you deserve anything good, but it leaves ambiguous what 'ill' means, leading to the question: when are we 'ill enough' to recover?
from my perspective, recovery is not something to earn. there is no suffering 'enough', since things could always, always, always be worse, and if anything this proves that there is some inherent good to our world, proves we should give more thanks that things aren't so bad. often we say that suffering has value because it teaches us, but i have two problems with this. firstly, that a lot of suffering is self-indulgent, meaning we prolong illness for it's own sake, and not for anything it gives us. this means we aren't suffering as a means to an end, but are suffering because it gives us a sort of power.
this attitude towards suffering creates the idea that only negative emotions can teach us- which is the second discrepancy i see. self-indulgence, in and of itself, is contrary to progress, since it doesn't leave room for change or other perspectives. this means that the way we suffer often prohibits what we claim cannot be acheived without it: suffering itself doesn't teach us, but the attitude that we take when we decide we cannot suffer anymore does. yet because of the power suffering gives us, we are less likely to reach this point.

'Look at your wrists. There- at any time- lies freedom.' is not an incentive, but a reassurance. death will wait, suffering can easily be returned to, but what difference does it make? what have you gained from suffering? how much of your sadness goes towards reflection and how much of it goes towards punishing yourself? 'All that blood was never once beautiful. It was always just red.'