I feel you're projecting things from yourself into the article that aren't there.
> the reasons people often don't do that still boils down to aversion.
I'm not sure what you intend by this, but the author says, "Often in life, you’ll find yourself in the position of either disliking something or just not having strong feelings about it. That’s normal and fine."
> That's one way to interpret it, but what he describes also sounds closer to Buddhist and similar philosophies that encourage a more direct experiential outlook on life instead of an existence clouded by thoughts and concepts.
Well, the author never mentions Buddist and similar philosophies, so I don't interpret it that way.
> I could be reading too deeply into what he's saying
Yes, I think so. :-)
> What is the purpose or utility of doing so? If the enthusiasm benefits the individual practicing it, it seems the ultimate conclusion of such a stance is self-defeating.
I'm confused by this whole discussion. The article suggests that the reason to "like" things is social, to fit in with your loved ones or maybe just business associates. Not as some kind of journey into self-improvement or recovery from prior trauma. So again, it seems that you're projecting and reading a lot into this that's not in the article.
I saw kernels of advice that seem relevant to people who tend to struggle with some aspects of social life (like me). Trauma is just a single factor that tends to complicate social life, but is far from the only reason someone might find value in the advice.
You concluded that the article didn't need to be written, which suggests that perhaps the content is just not relevant to you. But that's the value of discussion threads like this - to reflect back what we heard, to read each other's reflections, and to take those into consideration as we contemplate the content and decide how valuable and relevant it is to each of us, individually.
Sometimes perspectives will differ, and within those differences you'll find the entire value of a discussion thread.
> You concluded that the article didn't need to be written
That's my opinion, but we can legitimately disagree about that. I have no wish to argue it.
My argument with you was with your interpretation of the article:
> The message I took from the writing wasn’t “like everything indiscriminately”, but closer to “stop making hating stuff a part of your identity”.
You may have taken that message from the article, but you apparently already had that idea before you read the article. As far as I see, there's nothing in the article text that says anything like that.
In any case, my original comment wasn't arguing with you but rather with someone else: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35122226 You replied to me, but I don't think your reply was very relevant to mine.
> the reasons people often don't do that still boils down to aversion.
I'm not sure what you intend by this, but the author says, "Often in life, you’ll find yourself in the position of either disliking something or just not having strong feelings about it. That’s normal and fine."
> That's one way to interpret it, but what he describes also sounds closer to Buddhist and similar philosophies that encourage a more direct experiential outlook on life instead of an existence clouded by thoughts and concepts.
Well, the author never mentions Buddist and similar philosophies, so I don't interpret it that way.
> I could be reading too deeply into what he's saying
Yes, I think so. :-)
> What is the purpose or utility of doing so? If the enthusiasm benefits the individual practicing it, it seems the ultimate conclusion of such a stance is self-defeating.
I'm confused by this whole discussion. The article suggests that the reason to "like" things is social, to fit in with your loved ones or maybe just business associates. Not as some kind of journey into self-improvement or recovery from prior trauma. So again, it seems that you're projecting and reading a lot into this that's not in the article.