you can highlight a portion of a comment and press “quote” to quote it. Also if you click the three dots at the bottom of each comment and click the arrow you should be able to reply. It’s easier than just putting things in quotation marks and it sends a notification.

“ Preventing suffering takes precedence over the creation of pleasure, especially when not creating 'good lives' does not harm the unborn. It's an unjustifiable risk to create life where it needn't have existed in the first place.“

This is your opinion. That’s what makes it a political issue, and why you have to honor the voices of those already living who say that preventing suffering does not take precedence over the creation of pleasure, and it is not an unjustified risk to create life. They are speaking from their own experience , just as you are. Why are you a better proxy for those not yet born than these other voices? Especially if they are the majority? Maybe your unhappy life gives you a skewed perspective. — Joshs

"They are the majority therefore they are right, you're just sad". Has to be the worst thing I've read in recent memory. I know it isn't directed at me but it is still pretty pathetic.

Though I do agree that it is an opinion and that it is possible to hold a different one.

They could choose preventing further suffering over the creation of pleasure , but they don’t. Why? Perhaps because even the suffering has meaning and value to them. If they feel this way about their own lives, maybe you can see why they feel the same about conceiving children. — Joshs

So if I find purpose in your suffering I get to cause you to suffer? If I for some reason derive an immense amount of pleasure and purpose by torturing people I can just go around torturing people?

I don't think anyone in their right mind believes that if they find pupose in some suffering or other that that gives them permission to inflict it on others.

As Inyenzi said

Is it that the people who regret having been born are essentially collateral damage justified by the majority who don't? — Inyenzi

I think the lesson here is you can try to quash life in the aim of preventing suffering, but life will
always re-emerge one way or another anyway, so really the only ethical direction is embracing and improving life. — Joshs

"I predict your moral premise cannot be enforced therefore you shouldn't have it". Is a close second in terms of worst things I read in recent memory. "You will never be able to prevent theft entirely therefore theft is okay".

Also note that "embracing and improving life" doesn't contradict antinatalism.

See what percentage of the population thinks it would have been better if they hadn’t been born — Joshs

We agreed the question makes no sense so I'm not sure what the poll is supposed to accomplish.

So if you’re trying to make a proxy decision for the yet to be born, that poll should tell you that the odds are 70% you are not doing the yet to be born any favors. — Joshs

Again, we agreed that you don't do the not-yet-to-be-born favors at all, period, because they don't exist. I think you mean "there is a 70% chance that your next child will find their life worthwhile".

Let's say I have a drug that has a 70% chance of immunizing people to COVID and a 30% chance of giving them COVID. Am I within my rights to go around putting it in people's food without telling them?

Meanwhile, you as the anti-natalist are very much alive, and while the decision you make not to bring a life into the world is designed to ‘prevent causing pain’ in another, it has a paradoxical effect. Because it at the same time is relieving your pain. That is , your decision on behalf of the yet to be born resolves a dilemma, problem or dissatisfaction within you. It eliminates or reduces your pain (felt on behalf of others). So your voting for ‘non-being’ enhances and
furthers the functioning of your cognitive system. One could say your decision against another’s birth is a kind of fecundity. You are after all a self-organizing complex system , and your vote on behalf of ‘non-being’ does what all personal choices do , it increases the complexity of your living system by resolving interruptions in its functioning and therefore transforming and strengthening itself further. Your vote for the other’s non-being was at the same time a vote for the affirmation and enhancement of your own life vector. This is why I think that the motive of not wanting to CAUSE suffering in others cannot be separated from the ELIMINATION of suffering in yourself. Not just because you would not be motivated
to do the former if it didnt also achieve the latter. But because the two are really one motivation.

My point isn’t that all supposedly altruistic acts are
really selfish. Benefiting others benefits ourselves because our personal and social welfare are inextricably intertwined. It’s that not wanting to cause suffering is in the service of life enhancement, even when couched in the confused terms of anti-natalism.

So while anti-natalists think the terms of the debate are about being versus non-being, they’re really about how best to move forward in life. — Joshs

Mostly agreed but none of this is a rebuttal. For the 100th time, I NEVER claimed that "not having children" is altruistic. I don't know why everyone here thinks ANs think that. No one has claimed that not having children is altruistic, on the other had having them is bad.

The problem is I don't see how "do not cause pain" can possibly be a reasonable goal in isolation. In the abstract, pain is just a fact of the universe. It's a bit like making a rule not to strengthen magnetic fields. — Echarmion

But I'm sure we can agree there is a difference caused between the pain that you experience when you stub your toe and when I punch you in the face. The difference being that I am directly reponsible for one. The goal of antinatalism is to cause as little of the latter as possible while ensuring you yourself survive. With having kids you are responsible for every pain and pleasure they go through. Because none of it would have happened without you. And you didn't need it to survive.

And making a rule not to strengthen magnetic fields is fine, it's just dumb.

“A better future for ourselves and the world” was my original query. — Brett

You'd need to define better.

But regardless your question wins. "What is the perfect question", if it has an answer, will lead us to the perfect question which by definition will lead us to the best future for ourselves and the world. Good job!

pursuing some perfect and excellent way of understanding the world — Garth

have fun with each other while having our discussion. In my experience, the discussion is a lot more fun when we all don't know what we are talking about and make many unfounded assertions. — Garth

We do both here.

What makes you think these is a best? Best by what standard? Securing the best future? If so I have no idea.

In this context, what would it mean to wish to have never been born? — Joshs

Nothing. Agreed.

we dream about how nice it would be not to ever have been born — Joshs

No one is doing this in this thread. We are instead predicting how likely it is that it would suck to be born. And the chance is greater than 0. So don't take it with someone else, because you're not the one paying the consequences.

that our freedom of choice has been taken away by being born. ? — Joshs

No one has claimed this in this thread.

You don’t take away MY pain by not having me be born in the first place. You only take away MY pain by giving me the choice of removing an obstacle that is interrupting my ongoing self-functioning. If I choose suicide, I havent chosen ‘non-being ‘ , since that notion has no meaning in itself. I have only chosen that way of thinking which reduces pain, provides a sense of relief , and so ENHANCES my functioning. — Joshs

Agreed.

However by choosing to have a child you take a non zero risk of them having a shit life despite your best efforts. The act risks harming someone. Normally we would need some justification to take such an act then, but that is not present here. That is the argument.

Antinatalism isn't about helping non existent people. An antinatalist does NOT claim that not having children is good. On the other hand he claims having them is bad. Similar to how "not shooting people" is not a good act, but shooting them is bad. Because shooting people has a significant risk of causing unjustified harm. And having children has a slight risk of causing unjustified harm, so it gets the same treatment.

This seems a very obvious point, but it's not one that the anti-natalists here accept, so there must be some fundamental disagreement about the basics of the argument involved. — Echarmion

I think it is that you guys think we consider "not having children" as a good act. It isn't. Having children is a bad act. That doesn't make the opposite good. The opposite (not having children) is not good or bad, because it doesn't harm or benefit anyone.

Put simply, the goal of antinatalism was never the elimination of pain, as that would require the existence of someone whose pain you're eliminating. The goal was not to cause pain. So the fact that the elimination of pain is not the same as absence of being is irrelevant.

Beliefs have no spatiotemporal location, because it would need to cover the entire area between internal and external content. I have not claimed that beliefs are in the mind. — creativesoul

?
I didn’t say you did. I said you try to dismantle that.

I think at this point creativesoul and Banno are saying the exact same thing with different words. They don't really seem to disagree. When Banno said "All beliefs have propositional content" Creativeoul (and I suspect most people) heard "All beliefs are statements in our minds" so Creativesoul tries to dismantle that. But it's more like "All beliefs can be put into a statement". Seems defnitional to me, not much you can disagree with there. Like "Bachelors are not married".

you can't have one without the other. — Janus

Of course it's theoretically (as in logically) possible to want things without being affected by losing, or not getting them — Janus

Which is it? And I’m sure you can think of examples where you wanted things without not having them being a problem and vice versa.

The downside is that nothing would be more important to a person without any attachment than anything else. — Janus

I though we were past the point of using desire and attachment interchangeably. The way you use “care” makes it sound like if you are not saddened by the loss of the thing you don’t care about it. I don’t think that’s fair. Things are made important by how much we want them AND how much we see it as a problem not to have them or to lose them. Either works for making one thing more important than another.

The evidence for me is that I have never met anyone I could say was free of attachment. The accounts of the lives of so-called gurus I have read attest to the same conclusion. So, I think freedom from all attachment is more likely a fantasized ideal; — Janus

Reasonable.

If Buddhists say yes, that is because it is an article of their faith. — Janus

But on the other hand you have evidence to show it isn’t possible? Even though we know it can be approached. What is that evidence?

If it isn't desirable that would be because it has downsides. — Janus

And you say it isn’t desirable. So what are the downsides?

Yes, that one. Where are you getting this definition from? — Isaac

You make it sound like there is some set definition of the word. Where do you get yours from? Silly question.

So I don’t think we can expect healthy communities and interpersonal relationships without attachments. — Brett

I think you can.

I’m not sure what your point is about the dying man. — Brett

“Grief is the price we pay for love.” — Brett

So therefore if someone doesn't grieve does that mean they didn't love the person who just died? I don't think so. That's why I don't think attachments are necessary. Same with the Notre-Dame. If you are not devastated by the news of it burning down are you "less of a christian" than someone who is?

On what basis are you making this claim? — Isaac

That it's stupid? No basis. But I'm sure we can agree that a moral commandment to undo 10mm nuts is stupid.

To clarify before you conflate them again: No basis =/= No natrualistic explanation for why I think so. If you are asking me to provide an account of the neural activity that led to me thinking that a moral commandment to undo 10mm nuts is stupid then I can't do that (if such a thing even makes sense).

That it can be a moral commandment? Because it is talking about what you should do, and is done for its own sake.

I wanted to revisit the word “care”. To “want” something is different than to “care” about something. So I’m going back to the idea of “caring” for something. — Brett

Yea I think it's a source of a lot of confusion. People are using words that I define sharply differently interchangeably so I keep getting confused.

"Caring" seems to encompass both attachment and wanting. If I want something I "care about it" and if I see it as a problem that I don't have the thing that's also "caring about it". For example, we sometimes think of people who don't mourn the death of someone close to them as "not caring" but I don't think that's fair.

We seem to form attachments without much thought. We all do it in different ways, we find different things to be important or valuable. So attachments seem to be part of human nature, even though different cultures might have different attachments, though there are consistent attachments across all cultures, — Brett

Agreed.

like the care for children or family. — Brett

Until here. Sure we often form attachments to our children and family but I don't think those are necessary for us to love them. If someone's dad passes away at 80 years old peacefully in his bed and the person in question is at peace with the fact (doesn't mourn or cry) does that mean he didn't care about his dad? I don't think that's fair.

So these attachments contribute towards a healthy strong community. — Brett

Yes, and also towards all our suffeirng. The question that I'm interested in that I keep asking everyone: Can you still keep the advantages (strong healthy community, interpersonal relationships, etc) without attachments?

Some Buddhists would say yes. Some would say no, but it's always worth it to sever the attachment anyway. I'm not so sure. I think I agree most with "yes".

you keep loosing the thread of the argument and so it's become very tiresome. — Isaac

I was just about to say the same to you.

as now you're defining a rule as moral that is only followed for the sake of undoing a 10mm nut, not for it's own sake. — Isaac

But undoing 10mm nuts can be a moral commandment, though a very stupid one. And in that case it would be getting followed for its own sake. If you believe that undoing 10mm nuts is a moral duty for some reason then it follows from that that using 10mm spanner is a moral duty, as it is the way to undo 10mm nuts.

Descriptive morality isn't about that. — Isaac

That is exactly what it’s about. If you think otherwise then can you tell me exactly what the proportion of the population is that makes something a “descriptive morality”? Does the moral premise have to be shared by 20%? 30? Are all age groups counted?

Otherwise, again, every single thought counts as a moral one and the term becomes useless. — Isaac

“I like pizza” can’t be a moral claim. Even if literally everyone thinks it. Because it’s not about how you should act.

agree that moral premises are not arbitrary — Isaac

I do. For the 100th time. But just because they’re not arbitrary doesn’t mean they’re justified.To say that the mere fact that there is a natrualistic explanation behind why I'm an antinatalist IS justification for antinatalism is textbook natrualistic fallacy. Same with saying that the mere fact that there is a natrualistic explanation behind why you're not an antinatalist IS justification for natalism is textbook naturalistic fallacy. How many times do I have to say this?

That one should use a 10mm spanner (or indeed that one should undo 10mm nuts) cannot be reasonably shown to fit either. — Isaac

It is impossible for anyone to think that you have a moral duty to undo 10mm nuts? I’ve seen people think crazier things on this site.

The point is that I don't believe there is a person on the planet who is totally free of desire or attachment; and I don't think that to be totally free of desire and attachment is even a desirable ideal. — Janus

Sure. But the question isn’t whether or not it’s possible or whether or not it’s desirable (at least that’s not what I’m interested in). The question is: does it have downsides? Is it theoretically possible to want things just as much without being affected at losing them. Buddhists would say yes, I’m not so sure.

The point is that Buddhism is as much a form of attachment as any other pursuit. — Janus

No. It becomes so for most people. That is not to say it is inherently supposed to be so or that you cannot do it properly.

I don't see any reason to think that caring about anything would not involve some degree of attachment. — Janus

Have you never wanted something yet at the same time had it not be an issue not to have that thing? I have.

it does not follow that Buddhism advocates violence. — Janus

I didn’t say it did.

From the fact that some people, who lived in a country where Buddhism (along with Shinto) was a predominant religion, practiced violence — Janus

It was a bit more than that. Some of the most famous samurai were buddhists and Taoists. And what about the whole “warrior monk” thing?

In Buddhist and Hindu religious texts the opposite concept is expressed as upādāna, translated as "attachment". — Janus

Note how it’s not translated as “desire”. Again, assuming the Buddha wasn’t failing to do the thing he was asking everyone else to do, how come he got out of bed to eat without any desire? Makes me think that maybe desire and attachment aren’t the same thing. Moreover that they’re qualitatively, not quantitatively different.

Nowhere in your quote or in the Wikipedia article is attachment and desire used interchangeably. And for good reason.

Or do you think I could desire to drink, even if I’m not attached to being hydrated, etc.? — Pinprick

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.

philosophies which simply proclaim detached as a hollow goal. — Jack Cummins

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 way to get rid of the suffering, and it is the eightfold path (roughly). Nowhere is there the instruction to follow it. If you wanna keep your attachments and your suffering go right ahead.

I think it's really hard to evaluate to what extent it's possible. — Judaka

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 get there. The real question (and the one in the OP) is does approaching that point have downsides? Whether or not it's possible is another matter.

Truly being able to overcome attachment in any context would mean overcoming a lot of what makes us human. — Judaka

If you want to consider mourning and grief "part of what makes us human" then sure. I don't think it's significant. I don't think people who are at peace with their parents passing away are any "less human" than people who are devastated by it for example.

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.

the complement of a set can't contain an element that's in that set — TheMadFool

I think It's possible but only in certain contexts, the more you care, the more impossible this is. — Judaka

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 with attachment. I agree with them. I can think of extremes such as smoking, where not doing it is a problem and doing it isn't even rewarding (attachment without desire). And vice versa.

The word “care” is a bit of a problem for me. I’m not sure what exactly it means. — Brett

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

All it takes to become attached to something is to care,
and caring is worth more than the pitfalls of attachment by itself. — Judaka

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

Otherwise agreed.

How big enough of a problem does it take to qualify as attachment? — Pinprick

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 at their loss) than my laptop for example.

I was disappointed my burger had onions on it, does that mean I’m attached to onion-free burgers? — Pinprick

More like you're attached to getting your order as expected.

On the other hand, I’m never disappointed if I get Coke, even though I prefer Pepsi; but if I’m dying of thirst, not having either is a very big problem. Does that mean I’m only attached to Coke/Pepsi sometimes, but not others? — Pinprick

No it means you're attached to having enough liquids to live. A reasonable expectation in the moden age.

You are supposed to attach yourself to the eightfold path and the community — Janus

Then how do you explain this?

Buddha says that Buddhism itself is like a raft, used for 'crossing over' the river of suffering, but to be let go of once it's served its purpose. 'Dhammas should be abandoned, to say nothing of adhammas'. That is specifically about not becoming attached to Buddhism. — Wayfarer

Where do you get the idea that you're supposed to become attached to the eightfold path and the community? You keep asserting it.

So, the upshot is that Buddhism becomes, in practice of not in theory, just another of the myriad forms of attachment that people attempt to find solace and security in — Janus

Agreed. But I thought we were talking about the theory.

Anyway, the OP question is whether attachment is desirable or not, and my answer to that would be that people cannot live happily without caring about, that is becoming attached to, one thing, person, activity or institution or set of things, people, activities or institutions. — Janus

I think that's wrong. Is it not possible to care about things without becoming attached? I think how much of a problem it is not to have something (attachment) is a separate thing from how much you want the thing. They just happen to coincide often.

what value would such a live have to the human community if the blissed out sage is not politically active — Janus

Considering Buddhism became popularized in Japan at the same time as the samurai, I don't think the ideal of Buddhism is passivity (it depends on the school). From what I read, that's a baseless Western cliche. It comes from conflating attachment with desire, but I think they're separate things. It is possible to become attached to something you don't desire and vice versa. Detachment =/= No desire (passivity).

If the value is only measured in terms of the life or lives to come (after death) and if one does not accept the idea of any form of afterlife, or even if they accept the possibility, do not count it as important as the present life, what then? — Janus

Many schools of Buddhism don't admit to reincarnation literally but metaphorically.

To establish the existence of the self, as every first year philosophy student knows. The 'nature' of the self in question is simply irrelevant for that purpose. Descartes answer to the OP would simply be: who cares? — StreetlightX

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 definitions. A radio OR a radio station. I forget how the whole "self" fit into his overall goals of finding undoubtable knowledge.

Descartes' purposes — StreetlightX

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 that works. But now what?

people think that simply living must be good in and of itself and antinatalism is preventing this — schopenhauer1

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 me, we make the morality first, and if "we should live" doesn't come out of it then so be it. Occasionally they try to adopt the second mindset but end up with a really crooked and funny looking morality that makes weird exceptions (causing unwarranted suffering is bad, EXCEPT HERE) and so revert to the former. Some think they're doing the latter when they're actually doing the former. The malicious genetic engineering example is really telling for this.

But then again, is this really unexpected? Antinatalism will never be a major thing, because all it takes is for 2 people of opposite genders to have the first disposition for everyone else's opinion not to matter.

At some point, you either agree or disagree with the axiom. I have maintained for a long time now that at that point it is more about appealing to a person's emotions on why exactly that premise is so important, not embedding it in another principle that is some sort of air tight case. That will never be the case. — schopenhauer1

I don't bother appealing to people's emotions on the internet at all though (anymore). I don't know why you do it or how you can put up with the replies. It's not like I'm going to change their mind in all likelihood and even if I could I probably wouldn't bother.

I think this whole debate is odd. It basically serves no purpose. None of the antinatalists on this site are moral objectivists, and I have yet to run into a moral objectivist from the other side either. We spend all this time arguing over what exactly? As you said:

At some point, you either agree or disagree with the axiom. — schopenhauer1

If the goal is to try to get people to agree to the axiom through emotional appeals, I don't really want a part of that. But then you get threads like these that attempt to show inconsistencies in the system. As usual, they fail, and upon further investigation neither Benkei or Isaac or any of the big participants are willing to push for a moral objectivist view, so it's more like "All the reasons you shouldn't be an antinatalist" rather than "All things wrong with antinatalism". Sometimes they get a bit daring with "All the ways I can define 'morality' so that antinatalism doesn't count because I don't want it to"

A bunch of moral relativists really not liking the other relativist's point of view who pop up with threads like "All things wrong with antinatalism" or "Arguments for antinatalism" where they pretend to be moral objectivists for the first 3 replies then somehow stretch it into 18 pages. A tale as old as time.

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". If you mean this:

If anyone can provide any further ideas.. this scheme of creating people who can evaluate the very givens of life as negative and then re-educating to "get with the program".. why does this seem immoral, not right, fishy, wrong? I think it has something to do with using individuals, but I'd like other ideas for why this intuitively seems wrong. — schopenhauer1

Then I honestly don't care. I don't care about "embedding" moral premises in other moral premises. Why is creating someone who might hate life wrong? Because it just is. OR because it is "using people". OR because it is "disrespecting the freedom of the individual". OR because it is "unwarranted suffering". Or because all of the above. Or because of the first, which is because of the second, which is because of the third.

I can embed the premise (make it a conclusion deriving from another premise) in a large number of other premises but I think doing that is just distraction. The question then becomes "Why is using people wrong?" or "Why is causing unwarranted suffering wrong?" etc. This "embedding" is just a waste of time, it doesn't give any new information or any new answers.

People certainly seem to like it though. The best moral theories have 2-3 "layers" of redundant embedding at least so that when someone asks "Why X?" you answer "Because Y" and then they ask "Why Y?" up to 3 times at whichpoint you can pretend that they're being ridiculous. That is tip number 1 in the "Moral Objectivist's Guidebook to BS". "Embed your moral premises in many layers so that when people keep asking 'why' you can call them children and not actually have to justify anything"

Note: I'm not calling you a moral objectivist or saying you're BSing. It's unrelated.

the self being the source of thought. That it thinks is enough. — StreetlightX

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

but I’m also prepared for it to possibly NOT work — Possibility

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 despite rationally knowing that it is not. Ironically, I just threw a hissy fit because of internet lag right after writing that reply.

How you determine a ‘maladjustment’ is based on subjective/culturally influenced perception of value/potentiality. — Possibility

Well, technically ALL expectations are maladjustments. My expectation that the internet will always work is a maladjustment (because I know, rationally, that there is a chance it doesn't, yet I become emotionally attached to it always working), but not the worst one in the world because my internet usually works. If I had a prepetual expectation that I am going to win in the next blackjack table however, that's a much worse maladjustment.

From what I read, Buddhism doesn't instruct you to get rid of all maladjustments/expectations. I have the expectation that my family is not going to die tomorrow. If they were to, I would be devastated (to put it lightly). Furthermore, it is possible for me to get rid of this maladjustment while still caring for them (because the two are unrelated, supposedly, I'm not 100% convinced of that but I can't put my finger on why).

And that's all they wrote. There is suffering, it is caused by maladjustments/expectations, there is a way to get rid of the suffering, and it is to get rid of the maladjustments expectations (eight fold path, among many other ways). Interestingly, there is no actual instruction to go out and get rid of your maladjustments. Maybe that's not worth it for you. I don't think I need to get rid of my expectation that my family will be alive tomorrow, not worth it where I live. Had I been in a war torn country however, maybe I should consider it. It is difficult to get rid of attachments and (supposedly) there is no downside to doing so, but maybe the difficulty is not worth it, if the expectation isn't likely to be broken, or isn't very strong.

I should probably get rid of my maladjustment in expecting my internet to work all the time though :confused:

I'm more interested in whether or not getting rid of these expectations has a downside though. The Buddhist claim is that there isn't (from what I read) or that it is always worth it or heck, that it is better to get rid of them, I'm not so sure about that. What do you think? Can someone who is prepared at any moment to see their child die love them as much as someone who would be devastated by the loss? Can an athlete who wouldn't be affected by a loss compete with the same desire to win as one who would be completely devastated if he loses a game? Etc. I think so, but it's weird to me why we would ever form these attachments in the first place then. What's the point of them? They seem to be all negatives, so I'm not so sure, sounds too good to be true.

Life is a negotiated collaboration with the world, not a well-worn path through a shopping aisle. Loss, lack, pain and humility are all part of the process, and we have more capacity to adjust than we think. — Possibility

: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 expectations that the world will go as we predict are tools that allow us to act but that come with a risk. For example, I expect my interenet to work flawlessly at all times, this allows me to take it as a "given", which then removes any barriers to me say, streaming a movie or playing a videogame. If I thought there was a 50% chance my internet would disconnect randomly within the next hour I would not start either of those things.

This expectation allows me to do things I otherwise wouldn't, but it comes with the cost that I suffer when the reality doesn't match the prediction. Expectations simplify tasks to allow us to act more easily, most are a maladjustment to reality. How badly they are maladjustments depends on how accurate they are and how attached we are to them. Paranoia is attachment to predictions that are completely out of whack for example.

You won’t lose anything by non-attachment, you won’t be unable to love, to have a family or friends. It’s more than likely you’ll have more because you are open to more. — Brett

:ok:

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

Misunderstand what? — Janus

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

It’s as hard as the line between cause and effect. Attachment causes desires. — Pinprick

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 which was the effect? My point is that you can keep asking someone "Why do you want X" and they can keep giving answers. Are you saying the last answer in that sequence is the "attachment" and the others are the "desire"? What happens when the sequence is circular? etc. I don't see the point in making such a vague distinction. Like how does this definition help me do anything?

Well, it depends on two things; whether or not wanting to win caused you to participate in the tournament, and how general/specific an answer the questioner accepts. If the questioner is looking for a sort of “first cause” the questioning would continue with “why do you want to win?” But this issue arises when determining cause and effect as well. If someone shoots me, what is my cause of death? The bullet entering my brain? The person who pulled the trigger? Me for pissing off the person that pulled the trigger? It can go on and on, but an effect is always preceded by a cause. — Pinprick

No disagreement there. Causes are iffy.

So how do you define it? — Pinprick

How big of a problem it is not to have the thing. Which I find to often be different from how much you want the thing. Sometimes you want things that you would not be distressed at not having, such as a new car or a particular christmas present (Desire without Attachment). Other times, it seems like a huge problem to not have something even though you don't really want that thing, like with smoking and gambling (Attachment without Desire).

This is just an aside for me, but there are still plenty of other options. Translation issues, the meaning of the term could have changed in 2000 years, perhaps he didn’t fully understand what he meant. Perhaps people find sense in what he said because it is vague enough to allow people to project or insert their own concepts into it? — Pinprick

Possible. But I'm not really concerned with what the Buddha said, I'm more concerned with interpreting it in a useful manner. I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater by declaring "Buddha was just a scam artist and all these people are dealing in mumbo jumbo". Though it is possible that that is the case, I find it unlikely.

I don’t know, and I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other, but your conviction looks a bit more like faith than fact to me. — Pinprick

I think it's reasonable to assume that there is some genuine wisdom in a tradition as old as Buddhism. If you don't that's fine, but that seems highly unlikely to me. If you don't have a strong opinion either way that's fine, neither do I. I thought you were saying that the Buddha was a scam artist, as a matter of fact, and I was challenging that idea.

Almost as if you consider ancient secondhand accounts of the Buddha’s teachings to be infallible or divinely inspired. — Pinprick

I assure you I don't. Heck, most second hand accounts (that I read) stress NOT taking what the guy says too seriously and to instead try to figure things out yourself.

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him" -Famous saying

Desire is more specific, or narrowly focused on specific things (money, sex, objects, etc.), whereas attachment is more abstract (life, pleasure, etc.). So we desire whatever it is we desire because it fulfills/sustains (temporarily, of course) an attachment. — Pinprick

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", they both just seem to be talking abou the same thing to me. "Why are you participating in the tournament?" "Because I want to win" is that attachment or desire? How about "Because I want to be happy?" The way I use the term "attachment" is radically different from what you just outlined.

it could suggest many things; that the Buddha didn’t literally mean what he said, that he was imperfect, that he lied, etc. — Pinprick

Sure but we're gonna have to assume that the guy coining the term "Attachment" knew what he was talking about and was not a scam artist if we are going to discuss the term in any meaningful way. It is either that you or I don't understand what he meant by attachment OR we do understand what he meant by attachment, and the Buddha was lying. I find the first much more likely considering how many people seem to find sense in what he says.