I notice that you haven’t really presented a solution to this conundrum, despite the headline. Do you ask for one?
Some philosophies claimed that desires are bad because when they are unsatisfied they cause suffering, some philosophies claimed that desires are good because they motivate us to action. Both are right in some regard. But how can we unite these seemingly contradictory perspectives under one view? Is that what troubles you?
Omg I didn’t realize that saved drafts were public. This is only my 3rd writing piece so I didn’t know :)
Yes I plan to show a possible solution
I’m going to finish it today
Edit: I’ve finished it. I see you’re saying the answer seems obvious. Can you explain that? It’s not obvious to me at all, so I’m curious about what you think :)
As with most philosophical problems, this conundrum originates from poor definitions. Lets taboo “good” and “bad” in the phrases “desires are good because they motivate us to action” and “desires are bad because when they are unsatisfied they cause suffering” and see what we really mean and where all this comes from.
Humans have complex values. Among other things we value having things done and we value not suffering. There is no contradiction in that. Our psyche was trained by evolution to execute fitness adaptations with negative and positive stimuli. Now when we are aware of that as well as causal mechanisms behind desires and their satisfaction we can decide what to do.
There are lots of possible tradeoffs. If you value getting things done more than not experiencing stress then reducing your desires may not be the correct path to optimize your values. Unless, your desires are so strong and suffering of their unsatisfaction is so disturbing that it actually harms your ability to act productively. On the other hand if you value comfort and calmness more than being productive, you may want to make your desires less intense, unless they are already very weak. And of course it can vary from desire to desire.
So there is no conundrum on objective level. But there is a difficulty in figuring out your personal utility function and understanding which desires you require to be stronger or weaker in order to optimize it.
That’s true, but only to the individual level. The problem lies in finding an optimal solution for the individual which still sufficiently benefits the collective.
Fair enough. You see, Buddhism has no flaw, except assuming that we live in paradise. If that were so, than yes, desires would cause nothing but suffering. I mean, maybe there are some desires that are always bad, like futile ones (new cars, clothes, prestige, honor, fame, etc etc) but that’s not exclusive to Buddhism.) But other than that, you should have the desire to help others
So, there’s no contradiction, just good and bad desires. Bad ones are selfish and meaningless, good ones are needed, in fact urgently so. A view much closer to Christianity.
I’d say it’s the other way around. If we were indeed in paradise desires won’t be causing us any suffering. What Buddhism implicitly assumes is that the suffering from our desires is so terrible and their satisfaction is so unlikely that it’s worth abolising them all together. It’s the hell, where Buddhism is most reasonable. Which makes a lot of sense, considering that it was invented in much less pleasant times.
Buddhism indeed encorages less proactive approach than Abrahamic religions. It has its pros and its cons. It’s harder to do something when the world is burning but also harder to be the one who is holding the torch. Historically, I’d say, not actively acting on your religious beliefs and just quitely meditating, showed to be more of a virtue than a vice. But, as a person who at some moment of my life actively tried to become less enlightened, I empathize with your worries about apathetic ideologies.
That kind of thinking is a consequence of the rare modern oasis that we’re living in. Only a being of such times would think that the sufferings from our desires are that terrible. There are things way more terrible. I’d rather have a lifetime of suffering from my desires than 5 minutes of burning to death. Not to mention that there’s distractions from the former, but never from the latter.
So I might be have better said: Buddhism would be right if we lived in an acceptable world, not perfect. Acceptable, as in, the worst sufferings were bearable. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
The difference is that the horrors and the wars of the past motivated by Abrahamic religions were irrational, based on the original, unfounded belief on a few. Whereas the modern altruist crusade is based on reason and takes, on average, way more moderate approaches.
One can also say that Buddhism would work if everyone efficiently adhered to it. No doubt that meditation can make you more compassionate through seeing the futility and the horror of agression (but so can just basic reasoning). But then that’s like Communism, it only works if all the world adopts it, which is extremely unfeasible.
Or even if everyone adopted it, even if it would effectively makes us see that we can’t go on with some technologies, that we can’t go on with nationalism, etc etc, what if some peril beyond our control, say aliens, appeared? Or even just a small group of wicked humans. ,”Just don’t worry bro”? Buddhism is suicide. I’d keep my sufferings from my desires, even to the point of paranoia, if that helps keep my alive and away from way bigger sufferings, which it does. And I can always take half a valium, or take a walk, or decide to forget about it for one leasure day.
I notice that you haven’t really presented a solution to this conundrum, despite the headline. Do you ask for one?
Some philosophies claimed that desires are bad because when they are unsatisfied they cause suffering, some philosophies claimed that desires are good because they motivate us to action. Both are right in some regard. But how can we unite these seemingly contradictory perspectives under one view? Is that what troubles you?
If so, the answer seem pretty obvious for me.
Omg I didn’t realize that saved drafts were public. This is only my 3rd writing piece so I didn’t know :)
Yes I plan to show a possible solution
I’m going to finish it today
Edit: I’ve finished it. I see you’re saying the answer seems obvious. Can you explain that? It’s not obvious to me at all, so I’m curious about what you think :)
As with most philosophical problems, this conundrum originates from poor definitions. Lets taboo “good” and “bad” in the phrases “desires are good because they motivate us to action” and “desires are bad because when they are unsatisfied they cause suffering” and see what we really mean and where all this comes from.
Humans have complex values. Among other things we value having things done and we value not suffering. There is no contradiction in that. Our psyche was trained by evolution to execute fitness adaptations with negative and positive stimuli. Now when we are aware of that as well as causal mechanisms behind desires and their satisfaction we can decide what to do.
There are lots of possible tradeoffs. If you value getting things done more than not experiencing stress then reducing your desires may not be the correct path to optimize your values. Unless, your desires are so strong and suffering of their unsatisfaction is so disturbing that it actually harms your ability to act productively. On the other hand if you value comfort and calmness more than being productive, you may want to make your desires less intense, unless they are already very weak. And of course it can vary from desire to desire.
So there is no conundrum on objective level. But there is a difficulty in figuring out your personal utility function and understanding which desires you require to be stronger or weaker in order to optimize it.
That’s true, but only to the individual level. The problem lies in finding an optimal solution for the individual which still sufficiently benefits the collective.
Fair enough. You see, Buddhism has no flaw, except assuming that we live in paradise. If that were so, than yes, desires would cause nothing but suffering. I mean, maybe there are some desires that are always bad, like futile ones (new cars, clothes, prestige, honor, fame, etc etc) but that’s not exclusive to Buddhism.) But other than that, you should have the desire to help others
So, there’s no contradiction, just good and bad desires. Bad ones are selfish and meaningless, good ones are needed, in fact urgently so. A view much closer to Christianity.
I’d say it’s the other way around. If we were indeed in paradise desires won’t be causing us any suffering. What Buddhism implicitly assumes is that the suffering from our desires is so terrible and their satisfaction is so unlikely that it’s worth abolising them all together. It’s the hell, where Buddhism is most reasonable. Which makes a lot of sense, considering that it was invented in much less pleasant times.
Buddhism indeed encorages less proactive approach than Abrahamic religions. It has its pros and its cons. It’s harder to do something when the world is burning but also harder to be the one who is holding the torch. Historically, I’d say, not actively acting on your religious beliefs and just quitely meditating, showed to be more of a virtue than a vice. But, as a person who at some moment of my life actively tried to become less enlightened, I empathize with your worries about apathetic ideologies.
To each paragraph:
That kind of thinking is a consequence of the rare modern oasis that we’re living in. Only a being of such times would think that the sufferings from our desires are that terrible. There are things way more terrible. I’d rather have a lifetime of suffering from my desires than 5 minutes of burning to death. Not to mention that there’s distractions from the former, but never from the latter.
So I might be have better said: Buddhism would be right if we lived in an acceptable world, not perfect. Acceptable, as in, the worst sufferings were bearable. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
The difference is that the horrors and the wars of the past motivated by Abrahamic religions were irrational, based on the original, unfounded belief on a few. Whereas the modern altruist crusade is based on reason and takes, on average, way more moderate approaches.
One can also say that Buddhism would work if everyone efficiently adhered to it. No doubt that meditation can make you more compassionate through seeing the futility and the horror of agression (but so can just basic reasoning). But then that’s like Communism, it only works if all the world adopts it, which is extremely unfeasible.
Or even if everyone adopted it, even if it would effectively makes us see that we can’t go on with some technologies, that we can’t go on with nationalism, etc etc, what if some peril beyond our control, say aliens, appeared? Or even just a small group of wicked humans. ,”Just don’t worry bro”? Buddhism is suicide. I’d keep my sufferings from my desires, even to the point of paranoia, if that helps keep my alive and away from way bigger sufferings, which it does. And I can always take half a valium, or take a walk, or decide to forget about it for one leasure day.