khaled

Exactly. I think the two are unrelated. How much you want something and how big of a problem it is not to have are different things.

Buddhism doesn't proclaim detachment as a goal. The four noble truths: There is suffering, there is a cause of the suffering (attachment), there is a ...

Agreed. I'm nowhere close to a point where I could start to consider severing all attachments so I'll answer if that's possible when I get there. If I...

You have an element that is literally defined as not-any-element. Of course weird things will happen. N is not an element. So this doesn't hold.

I would say that the main point of Zen, Buddhism and gang is that it is very possible and that how much you want something doesn't have much to do wit...

Does "Want" work better? I'm basically asking: "Is it not possible to want something without it being a problem not to have it?"

Is it not possible to care about something without being attached to it (without it being a problem to lose it)? Otherwise agreed.

Any size at all. It's not a binary thing like "You're attached" or "You're not" it's a spectrum. I'm way more attached to my family (would be troubled...

Then how do you explain this? Where do you get the idea that you're supposed to become attached to the eightfold path and the community? You keep asse...

Thanks for clarifying. I'll look up the rest. It just seems odd that whatever he planned to use this concept of "self" for would accept both definitio...

And those are? What is the "I" in "I think therefore I am"? If it is not the source of thoughts then what? The receiver? Similar to a radio? Guess tha...

That's really been the whole crux of the disagreement with literally everyone here. For them we should live, and we make morality to live better. For ...

No offence but it doesn't seem new in any way. Seems like your standard argument. "Having kids makes people that could hate life so don't have kids". ...

How is "the self is the source of thought" different from "the self thinks"?

Then you're not attached. That's the difference. For me I NEED it to work, it is a PROBLEM if it doesn't work. I act as if it is guaranteed to work de...

:up: I would add that in Buddhist doctrine, it's not so much that we "adjust" to suffering it's more like we get rid of maladjustments. Our expectatio...

:ok: Not suffering when losing things doesn't mean you don't care about the things (or people).

What the Buddha was saying. You're not supposed to become attached to the eight fold path, or the community.

Then it's a very blurry line. When ball A hits ball B did ball A cause ball B to move or did ball B cause ball A to move? Which was the cause and whic...

I don't see it that way at all. The way you defined it I don't see a hard line between what counts as a "desire" and what counts as an "attachment", t...

Then they misunderstand. "In Zen you don't find answers, you lose questions" -Saying Zen isn't about finding "The One Mindset/Worldview to Rule Them A...

There is a difference between being indifferent about something or someone, and not caring if you lose it or them. I don’t buy the idea that desire is...

I was asking for a source on where it was said that you should “find refuge” in the eight fold path. I’m interested in the exact wording. I thought I ...

You mean: Revulsion with the idea that the sweet spot should be sought after in every circumstance. That it exists was all I was trying to establish, ...

Really? When was this said. I don’t read much about Buddhism in particular but more about Zen and other offshoots. I doubt the words used were “attach...

At not caring if your kid dies. Similar to some stoics. Then again, Buddhism is not about finding the sweet spot in everything, it is the observation ...

I don't have any major addictions but sometimes I notice that I feel the need to get something I don't even really want. If you've been on a losing st...

That is exactly what I'm saying does not seem like the case for me. They seem qualitatively different. If desiring to win and failing to do so is disa...

I don't think those two things are the same at all. Attachment is different from desire. This would mean that you would be put down by a bad performan...

It is. But the key distinction is that they are qualitatively different. Not quantitatively. You can want something really really badly and still not ...

Well what is the purpose of attachment? You agree that it is harmful, but you haven't given any use for it. Also while in traditional Buddhism attachm...

But then 90% of moral theories cease to be moral theories, because they have never been tested to prove that they would allow us to co-exist better or...

What’s “human morality” if not codes of conduct you personally subscribe to? All you’ve said here is that it is Impossible to have an antinatalist cul...

If you were to also propose some moral duty to undo 10mm nuts, then yes that would be a moral claim. Otherwise it is instructions. Ah so that's where ...

If they are about how you should act. So I guess "ethical egoism" is not about morals then? And neither was whatever Kant was doing. I think your clai...

So unpopular moral theories are no longer moral theories? I'm confused here. What "evolved characterisitc" is antinatalism missing that other moral th...

Agreed. Though I'd add that the "shared" experiences are not shared by everybody (maybe not even shared by any majority) It leaves me in the position ...

Correct. We also have a drive to take what we want. So it is not the mere fact THAT we have a drive to do X that makes X moral. Sure, we would need so...

I was oversimplifying. I meant to say that we decide that acting on the drive to steal is wrong. But that that statement cannot be concluded from the ...

Sort of disappointed with Banno’s reply. He didn’t address what it means for a child or a cat to “believe” that the mouse ran behind the tree. To insi...

You would probably agree that malicious genetic engineering (like making someone blind through genetic engineering) is wrong. If that’s the case what ...

We also have a natural drive to take what we want. Yet we pronounced one drive good and one drive bad. All I’m trying to get at is that the mere fact ...

If we all decide not to have kids tomorrow, no one will have to. You’re not addressing the actual question of whether or not procreation is moral

"People will be born therefore procreation is ethical" is a bad argument. The former says nothing about the latter. It's like saying "theft will occur...

That's not the kind of why I'm tacking on. I'm not asking for exactly why we ended up with a desire not to harm others or whatever, that is irrelevant...

I don't know why but I really like speculating about this specifically so I'm going to chime in. To start, our experience is always, and immediately f...

Don't know about you but I have a hard time conceiving of 45690837450968374509683460987345069384509867350968309763245609872450692746487346508374648937...

I think the standards are arbitrary. Moral objectivists think they're not. Also there is no job called "ethicist" for this reason. There is never "bet...

Sounds like a question for a psychology forum.

Arbitrary standards, again. I never denied that there is a naturalistic explanation behind our choices. I denied that that gives any choice legitimacy...