It seems to me that the contemporary view of suffering differs greatly from the view of some of the world’s great philosophical/spiritual traditions.

In Buddhism for example, one of the four noble truths is that “Life is suffering.” And while one might say that the goal of enlightenment is the cessation of suffering, it is not the case that Buddhism advocates that we alter the physical circumstances such that we no longer feel pain—rather it advocates that we be aware of our mental processes (which are the true causes of our suffering).

Likewise, Christ proposed that his followers “take up [their] cross” in order to be united with God in heaven. Not exactly a call to hedonism.
Plato and Aristotle rejected hedonism outright, as physical pleasure was seen as a lesser good to the goods of truth, wisdom, courage, and justice.

Let’s compare that to contemporary trends, which seem to be moving towards a total removal of the physical sensation of pain. This happens from two sides—from altering the physical environment around us (air conditioning, heating, running water, cars, pre-packaged food), and from altering our biological sensations within (pain-killers, surgery, medicine in general).

Now, I am no ascetic. I do not think that physical comfort and pleasure in and of themselves are evil or necessarily detrimental to our development as human beings. And yet it also seems that a certain amount of discomfort, and in fact outright suffering, does have its own place in the human experience.

Is it the case that thinkers of the ancient world, living without the resources we have now, sought to develop psychological/philosophical ways of resigning themselves to the discomforts that they inevitably faced? Or is it the case that there is a wisdom in those teachings that we may be prematurely discarding?

To what extent should we avoid suffering, and to what extent should we accept it?

I don't think avoiding suffering is the issue.

I think that ceasing it is the issue. I feel that certain kinds of suffering diminish not only the person experiencing the suffering, but also the entire human race. That suffering on a massive scale is allowed to happen and is conscienced by individuals who have the power to stop it is wrong. I feel that brings down everyone.

With that being said however, I have found, at least in some of my own moments of intense suffering a crystalization happens. I become refined, or hardened. I would not be the same person that I am if I had not experienced some of the more severe periods of suffering in my life. There is some inherent beauty in pain, in that it reminds me that I AM alive in that moment that I tend to embrace that sense of being, I accept the pain as part of myself and accept that I can not change it.

I think that an important difficulty with this issue is the subjectivity of the word suffering.

Buddhism, as you mentioned, has an ultimate goal of ending all personal suffering by detaching oneself from the material world. Some methods that it advocates, for example, becoming a celibate, propertiless monk, would to many people seem like a great suffering to undertake. However, it could be good for them to do so; so in this case, perhaps the suffering should be accepted.

If you are addicted to nicotine, then ridding yourself of the addiction entails some suffering on your part, but after the suffering, you will be in a better position, and happier, than before it you were.

This same logic can be (and, by Buddhism, is) taken for all forms of material craving. So an answer to your question could be that, in order to escape a form of suffering, it may often be necessary to accept more personal suffering first.

The problem comes with deciding which sufferings actually are these 'positive,' temporary sufferings, and which are simply bad for you. The hardest part is realising that something which you believe you enjoy, is actually a suffering.

In the ancient world, suffering had a completely different, and perhaps a much more accurate, definition.

Having difficulty in life, in ancient times, was the norm. A comparison in the life, say, of Aristotle versus you or I today could yield much understanding. Is there a point of equality between those two days, reflectively?

I think that there is, but it would take a lot of work to get there. That we suffer (then, and now) is not the issue. I think that the purpose of both Philosophical and Theological examination is to help us understand how to exist in our suffering, and what should come as a result of it.

And, I believe that the answer then, and now, is the same.

Interesting thoughts. I'd like to focus the conversation a bit on physical pain and physical discomfort.

Is it the case that contemporary culture advocates the elimination of feeling pain and/or physical discomfort? Whether it is seeking this or not, should it? Should we work towards the elimination of physical discomfort and pain?