Have a look at the article I posted this morning which quotes liberally from the Dhammapada. That whole book is about the serenity that comes from tranquil detachment. So no, I'm not strawmanning Buddhism, for example, by addressing its teachings. Just because you disagree with those teachings or with some interpretations of them, doesn't mean a critic is ignorant or engaging in distraction by addressing them. And just because I address some Buddhist teachings doesn't mean I agree with them. I'm free to assume some things for the sake of argument.
The issue of personal autonomy is controversial in philosophy. I suspect most philosophers and cognitive scientists, though, are compatibilists. Some, like Sam Harris, might be determinists, while theists are often libertarians. I'm a compatibilist, and I've written a lot on that subject. What do you think I'm ignoring? Are you a determinist who thinks there's no freewill?
