Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Schopenhauer and Buddhist traditions hold that categorical desires reflect attachment, which generates suffering rather than reasons for continued existence.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Some categorical desires (parenting, meaningful work) generate intrinsic satisfaction independent of hedonic adaptation or loss.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim confuses whether desires cause suffering with whether suffering justifies renouncing desires—these require separate arguments.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Buddhist non-attachment aims at equanimity with desires, not elimination of them; this differs from Schopenhauer's pessimistic denial.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Empirically, pursuit of categorical desires (wealth, status, relationships) produces hedonic adaptation—satisfaction fades, requiring escalation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Buddhist phenomenology demonstrates that attachment to impermanent objects creates dukkha through inevitable loss and disappointment.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Schopenhauer's will-based metaphysics explains why desire-satisfaction reinforces the cycle rather than resolving the underlying striving.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42