Detachment Problem

[Cognisant]

If you're on a plane with an infant (for the sake of the thought experiment) it's indisputably annoying, but you would be an infant yourself to be angry at the infant for something it has arguably no control over, so the correct mindset seems to be one of detachment, you're annoyed but quietly accepting it as just bad luck, in other words you remain detached from your misfortune rather than taking it personally.

But where does one draw the line between bad luck and misfortune that you should take offence to?

Obviously an annoying infant has a lot less self control (and thus responsibility) than an annoying adult but in a deterministic universe it could be argued that even a self aware person is still subject to their own biased perspective, for example you can hardly begrudge someone for being distrustful if they've experienced more betrayal than you, except that applies to everything, if a trait isn't instinctual it's learnt and so it could be argued that everything someone does is ultimately a result of chance/circumstances and thus beyond their control, absolving them of responsibility.

So ideally we should never take any misfortune personally, but of course that wouldn't work, so what is the right amount of detachment?

 

[RaBind]

What is the right amount of detachment for what? for not being a pushover, while not being an inconsiderate ass either?

 

[Latte]

The pragmatic amount. For personal wellbeing through how it affects the inner directly, and the inner indirectly through how it affects the external.

 

[Grayman]

...

So ideally we should never take any misfortune personally, but of course that wouldn't work, so what is the right amount of detachment?

Why would it not work? Why do you have to assign fault if responsibility cannot be met? Can't we just seek a greater outcome without using guilt and fault and various emotional indicators that presume to know an objective morality?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

If it's determinist then who cares, your amount of detachment is determined by your circumstances.

The question then is, where is this line for me, or where is this line generally/healthily/accordingly etc.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Detachment / self-denial isn't the only option.

Taking the crying baby scenario, you can still confront the situation without being irrational. You could delay your anger until you arrive, and then later on campaign for separate baby rooms on airplanes.

If you want to value practicality, then it isn't very rational to rage against every single thing that inconveniences you. Assert yourself and demand/achieve satisfaction to the extent that you're not violating someone else's right to satisfaction, or getting mad at something that's impossible/complex to change. Take the necessary steps so that you're not likely to be inconvenienced again.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

If it's determinist then who cares, your amount of detachment is determined by your circumstances.

The question then is, where is this line for me, or where is this line generally/healthily/accordingly etc.

Exactly my thought IF everything is deterministic. I question the notion that all is determined however. Taking a William James perspective.

 

[Pizzabeak]

For all intents and purposes, detachment is the ultimate goal

That doesn't mean it'll be cool or fun but it serves its purpose in preventing more suffering, which is the real notion.

Spoiler

If a baby crying presents a less than ideal atmosphere, the more you're detached the less you'll have an urge to make a scene about. If you're less detached it's possible to feel it to be your duty to condemn the baby & mother (or parents), which is ego. Even if you're detached it could still be ego, because you think you're detached enough to not be bothered by anything. You could also do it for the greater good and get rid of the noise so everyone else can be comfortable but that's only if you're really bored and just have an urge to do something, anything.

Everyone makes mistakes, you just have to try something out and see how weird the reactions get.
Then again the whole notion seemed to have originated with peoples of the East, so we should make sure we're even on the same page. Let's adapt all notions into our program while we're at it. Who wants to seppuku first.

 

[walfin]

Perhaps it might seem unfair, but maybe it just depends on the consequences.

A madman who is not in control of his mental faculties might try to murder you. Perhaps he doesn't intend it, but I could kill him in self defence anyway.

A crying baby is an annoyance which can perhaps be put up with for a while, but nevertheless, I might ask the parents (if they were around), "Hey, don't you think you'd wanna check why your baby is crying?" It's less because they were in control of the crying but more because they could do something about it, like changing the nappy or feeding the kid.

 

[Pizzabeak]

The baby would still probably cry after those were performed and the parents are probably working on soothing it in the first place, but the crying persists. I would just say, "man, can someone please shut that baby up?" Plus there are plenty of other noises. Someone is probably watching the tv too loud, headphone volume up too much, having obnoxious conversations; etc
All you want is your peace and quiet? Selfish & egotistical
Work with what's there or just wait til you get to your hotel room then indulge in the peace & quiet
That's attachment to the belief that baby crying, and other noises nonetheless, are inherently and even at the moment annoying and evil. We're all suffering because of it, so it's advisable to become detached from all the notions and let it be, a beautiful thing can unfold sans any self righteous influence. Could not be necessary. The baby might even have stopped crying 3 seconds before you tried to do anything.. Unless it seems absolutely right and/or sensible, and it might take some practice to differentiate, you don't need to grab any two random slices of pizza out the box just because they're next to each other. you can grab one but if the next slice is too big for your appetite you can grab the slice on the other side which happens to be smaller. it's all probably arbitrary anyway. the hardest thing is remembering all the rules and principles while out in the field in action. SOME ego is probably good for certain things & situations, but i wouldn't go crazy with it, personally, due to my lack of energy and somewhat short attention span. In the US, most people probably don't even care about ego but it's probably hard to tell the difference between an ego fueled action and a more "pure" one.

 

[Duxwing]

So ideally we should never take any misfortune personally, but of course that wouldn't work, so what is the right amount of detachment?

It's personal when your ethical responsibility extends to it; e.g., were the baby alight and, to your knowledge, no-one extinguishing it.

-Duxwing