Your definition of selflessness is akin to collectivism. You are free to relinquish your agency, but that too is a choice made by you.

Nope. After all this I believe even less in any kind of spiritually. I fully believe that none of that is real. But that's not entirely accurate, it's absolutely real to some of us depending on the strength of our belief. It's all in our brains and I find that amazing and remarkable. I think of it as I found gods grace within me and it didn't require belief in anything but myself. It's within us all because at the core of each of us is a beautiful person full of joy and wonder and hope. It's the world and it's experiences that drags us all into the dark and keeps us from seeing the light within our selves.

So yea. I worship at the altar of self now. All of this made me a true believer in each of us. I went my entire life without even knowing about half of it. Even the fact that that is possible is amazing. Now that I've found myself it's even more amazing. Humanity is so beautiful and so ridiculously complex and we have our brains to thank for all of it.

You're not arguing in good faith. You are arguing across a semantic and somatic chasm, one the OP is willing and able to bridge and you are not.

most bullshit article i ever read

The OP has demonstrated they are willing to explain their definitions. This is just dismissive, unreflective. You could simply say: "I don't know enough about Buddhism to make authoritative statements about their definitions".

The ball is in your court when you respond to them. The OP is incoherent TO YOU because you are not comprehending any conceptual argument being made. So according to you, YOU don't understand what they are saying and it invalidates them. Perhaps you could use some "self" awareness.

RadioLab covered this topic back in the day, and they have a pretty good description of the research: https://radiolab.org/episodes/104010-one-good-deed-deserves-another

(Edited, because I suck at early-morning typing.)

given the sub I thought this was going to be a quality read. I was disappointed quite soon

That is based on being part of a world, if it is even yours to be part of...

Jay Garfield has studied Buddhism for decades, so that certainly aligns

And also natural that this causes suffering. There's lots of suffering.

Islam incorporates a lot of other religious tenets. This is directly inspired by Buddhism, though typically this focus on mysticism is overlooked (or violently rejected in some cases).

To "find yourself" you have to recognize and unmask the indentities you've fabricated for yourself and learn who and what you are as a unique individual.

[deleted]

Saying that people are too individualistic? Yeah, you know, fine.

Turning your nose up at people saying "I'm a coffee person"? Like... at that point, I think you're not so much expressing a philosophy as expressing an absolutely seething sense of superiority.

the real self is the friends we made along the way

I found your cat, call me if you want it back

I've actually not read Descartes myself, and I'm due to! But I was going to suggest Russel's chapter on Idealism from The Problems of Philosophy. Most of everything I said here was really regurgitated Russel.

„Case in point, I was tested as an INTP 10 years ago, an INFJ 5 years ago, and just months ago when I re-test out of boredom, I got an ENFJ.“

This is purely anecdotal and without further evidence this can also just be a hint that the MBTI-Tests or the Indicator itself is badly designed. I agree that the importance many people give to these test results is concerning.

To put another anecdotal thing out there: I‘ve always gotten an ENTJ out of these tests, but I would never conclude that either the test is very stable or that I didn’t change much during these years.

>To me it would make more sense to say you believe your senses than to say you have faith in them

Yes, but let's draw a line in the sand here. Even though your senses probably do not accurately reflect objective reality, your experience of your senses is absolutely certain. So there would not be much "believing" involved.

After that... Things get a little fuzzy in terms of certainty... Less and less certain... Emotions and thoughts are the runner-up... Immediate memories... Further memories... Universal laws... And so on...

You really think the author picked this as "evidence"? It is clear that this is written to make a story, starting small and then expand later. The next sentence is already telling you it is not just about the anecdote...

I am surprised this is the take-home of the article you focused on.

This is not the realm of philosophy, really. But even a psychologist will tell you that trusting your emotional instinct wouldn't be helpful all the time.

The desire to fit in or even stand out should not be discouraged. We are very social creatures, it is very in our nature to have a self that identifies with others, in groups small and large.

Not the OP or even the person you've been discussing this with, but I enjoyed Descartes in undergrad philosophy, but regret not digging further into Meditations, so would love a rec from someone more schooled in this realm.

I would say I see parallels to this and islam's concept "dunya".

The idea of a cognitive dissonance is rooted in the idea of a "self". It's the conflict of two ideas that a "self" holds, and which acts upon a "self" to cause distress or disharmony. If you were to look at this more pluralistically, you might say that these contradictions are products of a world that is systemic (made up of interlinking, pluralistic systems).