If not, then there is no point to this development, other than that it makes the time that you are alive infinitely more bearable…But for those who do plan on living, and want to make their time on Earth as joyful as possible, I don’t see any harm (and in fact, lots of benefit!) to living in a way that brings us to freedom.

…Why is it good to have good health? Because it is a source of freedom.

It is up to you what you want to do with the reduced stress, the better health — but I think most people would agree that anything that frees them (whether from the stress of ill health, from the tension of worrying about the consequences of our actions, from the problems caused by attachment to transient things, etc…) is an improvement — so while it may be difficult to actually get to it, I think the freedom itself must be worth it for all people, because freedom isn’t binding, each person can do with it what they want.

Does that make any sense?

Still, the question remains — is there a more logical way to pick what we think of as ideal?

That is a good question, Sonali! I think that choosing our ideal is an entirely emotional assertion. I don’t think there is a more logical way to pick what we think of as ideal, because logic implies a motion from premises to conclusions — so premises are inherent to that which is logical. I believe that premises can only be asserted through emotion, not constructed from logic.

For example, suppose I embark on this logical quest to achieve a better ideal. Why be detached from results? “Being detached is good because it causes less stress.” Why is it good to have less stress? “To have better health.” Why is it good to have better health? “Because life is good.” Why is life good? “I don’t know why, it is my fundamental belief.” For me, the deepest premise is always emotional — I don’t have a reason for it, I just feel that it is right.

So to answer the question of “Why?” it is because, after the dust of logical analysis has settled, I feel that it is so.

The big benefit of this is that it creates a stable platform on which to validate an ideal — the platform of emotional assertion.

The big issue with this is that it seems to preclude the possibility of a universal ideal, if the ideal is based on the subjectivity of an individual’s emotional assertion.

Thoughts?