[sacado2]

It's a well known psychological phenomenon though. Losing a given sum of money is more painful than earning that same amount. if you find a $20 banknote on the sidewalk, you wont be as happy as the guy who lost lost it is pissed off.

[podgaj]

What you do not have you cannot become attached to. You can still have something and not be attached to it.

That is Buddhism/Daoism in a nutshell.

[johnnujler]

Did you note that the OP said it is a well known psychological phenomenon and not some utopian enlightened state that most of us can only aspire to attain?

And fwiw, Schopenhauer knew about Buddhism very well and talks about it in length in his essays on pessimism. What he means by attachment here is in fact, the Buddhist equivalent of craving. What you own can add to your vanity, but it is what you do not have or are longing for(in this case more money) that shows your true inclination, which Schopenhauer describes as worth. It does not mean that money has no worth, it means that the money that you already own has way less worth than what you don't. Aphorisms are pithy for a precise reason ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[srtjstjsj]

You seem confused. The "utopian enlightened state" as you weirdly mischaracterize it is about overcoming the well known psychological phenomenon.

You wouldn't call every non-instinctive skill (from reading to playing piano to shooting a basketball) that you learn in life a "utopian enlightened state", would you?

[johnnujler]

It is indeed a way to overcome the "well known psychological phenomenon", and also I wouldn't call reading or playing piano as non-instinctive or for that matter a "utopian enlightened state". My retort was more towards the mischaracterization of a pithy quote.

[podgaj]

Set low goals! It's the surest way to win!

And I go to the Buddha if I want to know about Buddhism. Schopenhauer did not understand the difference between the Hindu's denial of self and the Buddha's idea of "not self".

[komali2]

But simps, though.