A Solution to the Desire-Action Conundrum

[-]Dagon4y20

I personally find curiosity to be a great motivator for me, and a great way to maintain some detachment from what happens. But I don't think it solves the underlying problem, that attachment causes suffering AND causes action.

My solution is to go with "acceptance of the past, action for the future" - I acknowledge the tension, and do not consider it a conundrum or a paradox. I think the somewhat trite "Serenity Prayer" is actually a pretty good guide:

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.

I have to admit that I don't understand causality of personality traits, nor the variety of human experience, enough to call this a recommendation. I don't know how someone could change themselves to be more like me, or if it'd work for them. So this isn't really advice, just observation of self.

[-]Ape in the coat4y10

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.

[-]ship_shlap4y*10

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 :)

[-]Ape in the coat4y50

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.

[-]ship_shlap4y*20

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.

[-]superads914y10

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.

[-]Ape in the coat4y10

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.

[-]superads914y10

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.

[-]superads914y-10

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.

[-]superads914y10

Buddhism annoys me. The world is burning while you meditate. Then some will say "oh, but detachment, detachment is the way". Yeah, sure, while you're so focused on getting detached, other people will start to burn, and soon will you. The world doesn't need any inherent meaning when you're focused on alleviating suffering, on helping others. That's why I've come to respect Christianity way more, despite all its flaws. There's way worst stuff out there than our rare-comfort-oasis-induced existential crisis. Way, way worse. When that gets greatly reduced I'll care about getting in tune with existence then.

Nietzsche was super right about this. "Anyone who claims that "everything is fake!", let him swallow up a frog and watch it all go away in a second".

[-]ship_shlap4y00

That's true. I've always thought that Buddhism's concepts were great but then the ideal Buddhist would be someone who spends his entire life meditating. I saw a documentary on it, and the monks would receive all of their food from donations. If everyone was a Buddhist, no one would have anything to receive as donations. There would be no donations because there's no one there to do any work. Therefore I believe Buddhism is flawed, but it's ideas are still useful and so they should be practiced to a certain degree.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

[-]ship_shlap3y10

I take back this comment

LESSWRONG
LW

LESSWRONG
LW

3

A Solution to the Desire-Action Conundrum

3

3