If you want nothing, are you still experiencing the feeling of wanting? — Pinprick

Point made, point taken. Thanks. It seems that statements D and N imply each other. If everything is in the category of things I don't want then nothing is in the category of things I want. Right?

Likewise, if nothing is in the category of things I want, where is everything? In the category of things I don't want right?

D implies and is implied by N. D <-> N. In other words D = N.

However, as you said, when it comes to the actual experience of desire/want, it fails to make sense because, no, it's not true that I want nothing when I assert that that I don't want anything.

The problem, however, is that logic, no less, dictates that D = N. What this means is that if one is to be logical, and that is a primary goal in philosophy and in life in general, I have no choice but to accept that if I don't want anything then that entails I want nothing.

I guess in this particular case logic doesn’t really matter since what you’re talking about is human emotion, which is by definition irrational. If you’re describing something irrational, your description wouldn’t be accurate if it was rational itself. Right? — Pinprick

I beg to differ. For one, I don't think desire is an emotion. It's intimately connected to emotions and that's why you've come to the erroneous conclusion that desire is an emotion. Generally speaking, we like (want) things that make us happy and dislike (don't want) those that make us sad. However, it seems possible to go against this pattern. You can make yourself want things that make you sad and not want things that make you happy. I haven't tried it myself but my drive-by suggests it's possible. This, in my opinion, indicates wanting/not wanting can operate at a meta-emotional level, making it, at the very least, not completely an emotion.

The problem, however, is that logic, no less, dictates that D = N. What this means is that if one is to be logical, and that is a primary goal in philosophy and in life in general, I have no choice but to accept that if I don't want anything then that entails I want nothing. — TheMadFool

The other option would be to reject the assumption that logic is 100% accurate. Or that the world (including things like humans, consciousness, and nature) is somehow inherently logical. It doesn’t have to be. Yes, using logic and other tools of reason we are able to learn much about how the world works, but it should also be clearly obvious that humans often think and act irrationally.

In philosophy, this is almost always regarded as a sort of flaw in human nature (?) that needs to be reduced or eliminated completely if we are going to make progress. The idea of the rational charioteer controlling the irrational, passionate horses is regarded a noble ideal in philosophy, but a more accurate model is Haidt’s rider and elephant analogy; and personally I see nothing wrong with this. We needn’t always be rational or logical, and we needn’t always assume the correct explanation is the one that is most logical. Sometimes, trying to insert logic into nature is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. What I’m getting at is that I believe it is physiologically possible to feel like you want to not want, or that you want to continue wanting, because our feelings care little about what is logical or illogical. I think these paradoxical issues arise because language is structured in a logical way, which may not necessarily accurately describe nature. In order for statements to make sense, certain types of words (verbs, direct objects, etc.) must be used in certain ways, but nature may not fit neatly into these certain ways.

I beg to differ. For one, I don't think desire is an emotion. — TheMadFool

That’s fine. I just meant to show that it is separate from cognition.

Generally speaking, we like (want) things that make us happy and dislike (don't want) those that make us sad. — TheMadFool

And very often have no clue what will make us happy/sad. Therefore, we end up making mistakes by wanting the wrong things.

This, in my opinion, indicates wanting/not wanting can operate at a meta-emotional level, making it, at the very least, not completely an emotion. — TheMadFool

Again I have no issue with this, so long as you’re not trying to say that wanting/not wanting is rational. I don’t think we can decide what we want or don’t want. I can’t make myself want anything. I just either want something, or I don’t.

The other option would be to reject the assumption that logic is 100% accurate — Pinprick

I don't know if "accurate" is the right word. I would've chosen "certainty". Anyway, to cut to the chase, deduction guarantees (100% certainty) the truth of conclusions whatever they may be. With induction, it's a different story. I've deduced D from N and N from D.

humans often think and act irrationally. — Pinprick

The idea of the rational charioteer controlling the irrational, passionate horses is regarded a noble ideal in philosophy, but a more accurate model is Haidt’s rider and elephant analogy — Pinprick

This appears to be a distinction without a difference.

Sometimes, trying to insert logic into nature is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. — Pinprick

An instance of this will go a long way in proving your point. Also, your statements indicate that you believe logic is independent of nature in the sense that there's no connection between them at all or that if there is one, it's a coincidence. Any arguments to justify this position?

Again I have no issue with this, so long as you’re not trying to say that wanting/not wanting is rational. I don’t think we can decide what we want or don’t want. I can’t make myself want anything. I just either want something, or I don’t. — Pinprick

If what you say is true, the whole of Buddhism is a con job because, according to you, wanting/not wanting are beyond reason. Yet, I've heard, though never personally experienced, of Buddhists making claims of a reduction, if not an elimination, of wants, and turning their backs on materialism to embrace a life of frugality.

You don't know what you want. Neither do I. Few to none of us know what we REALLY want because what we really want has so rarely if ever been an option that we have so little real experience in considering it. — Hippyhead

Observing that "what we really want has so rarely if ever been an option" is a useful insight, assuming that what we think "we really want" really IS what we want. I wanted "meaningful and fulfilling work" and a couple of times I actually had it. But meaningful and fulfilling work is scarce, and routinized work (as it always becomes) is a pretty much a drag.

What I have really wanted I finally obtained when I retired. I stopped 'working' altogether and now just do whatever I feel like doing, which is mostly reading, listening to music, absorbing information, thinking, feeding, sleeping, etc. There are chores that have to be done, but I can tolerate that.

Unfortunately 99% of us can not retire before we spend our drab wretched lives at work to MAYBE save enough to finally stop working at 65 and finally just do what we feel like doing. Talk about delayed gratification!

Another problem is that we can't choose what we want. We have attacks of wanting that are generally -- and on even brief reflection -- irrational, but stupid never stopped anybody from wanting something. That's what keeps the economy humming along. I recently had an attack of wanting a pair of expensive (on sale) boots that I did not need, by any stretch. Fortunately I dithered and they went back to their regular ridiculous undesirable price. No instant gratification--a loss for our GDP.

You don't know what you want. Neither do I.

That's not correct. I do know what I want, to be able to have a cup of tea and a biscuit when I want. Fortunately I am able to most of the time.

I've deduced D from N and N from D. — TheMadFool

My point is that D and N are statements that attempt to correspond to reality; the statements are about something. That “something” may in fact be as they describe, regardless of whether or not those statements are logical. So, showing that they are irrational/illogical doesn’t necessarily mean they are inaccurate descriptions of reality.

An instance of this will go a long way in proving your point. — TheMadFool

I think they current example demonstrates this. “I want nothing” is illogical, in my opinion, for the reasons I’ve explained. Nonetheless, it could be an accurate description of how I feel. My feelings (wants) don’t have to follow logic or reason.

Also, your statements indicate that you believe logic is independent of nature in the sense that there's no connection between them at all or that if there is one, it's a coincidence. — TheMadFool

No, it’s more that nature isn’t necessarily consistent. Some parts may be logical, but others may not. IOW’s, it’s both logical and illogical. Also, note that I consider basically everything nature, thoughts, delusions, emotions, etc. are all as much a part of nature as trees and streams.

Yet, I've heard, though never personally experienced, of Buddhists making claims of a reduction, if not an elimination, of wants, and turning their backs on materialism to embrace a life of frugality. — TheMadFool

I don’t really doubt these claims, but I consider this pursuit as just another want. Presumably this is done because they want to be a good Buddhist, or to become enlightened, or to cease suffering, etc.