Reply
Thu 30 Oct, 2014 10:55 pm
Any personal meanings we create in life are all neutral as they all come from the exact same functions of our brains that create nothing but neutral words, sounds, images, etc. For example, create any sound, letter, image, etc. in your mind that provokes no emotional response and is bland to you. Therefore, all other meanings we create in life are the same in that sense because, again, they are all the same functioning in our brains. So that makes our own created meanings all neutral as well. These created meanings are no different than the creation of neutral words, sounds, images, etc. because there is no difference between any personal meanings we create in life as opposed to neutral words, sounds, images, etc. because they are the exact same things. Our personal meanings we create in life may make us do good things in life, but they are all still neutral anyway. Only our pleasure itself that arises from any personal meanings we create in life is good (positive) and is the only thing that makes our lives good and worth living and you would be delusional to somehow think that, without your ability to experience pleasure, that your life is still somehow good and worth living. Also, pleasure, in of itself, is a good experience and we do not need any created meanings in life (which would be knowledge, thoughts, etc.) to tell us that it is good. So if you were happy, but had no knowledge or thoughts whatsoever, your happiness would still feel good to you despite the fact that you are completely unaware of what happiness is and the fact that you are unaware of the word "good" and what it even means. Therefore, any created meanings in life by themselves do not tell us that anything is good (they are not the activating of the pleasure centers of our brains which is the only thing that gives us the "good" signal). The same thing goes for depression. Depression in of itself is a bad experience and we do not need any knowledge or thoughts to tell us that it is bad.
@MozartLink,
There is just one more very important thing I would like to add in conclusion which is that even everything else in life and even your own attitude is neutral and you are free to harm and take advantage of others as long as it gives you the most pleasure in life. However, I would never harm others despite my own personal beliefs because this is not who I am at all. Also, you are not in the minds of other people anyway. So it's only your own pleasure in life that makes your life good and worth living. Not you helping others and giving them pleasure despite your own absence of pleasure.
Is this different from Freud's Pleasure Principle?
@MozartLink,
Wake Up !
Your very presence here attempting to communicate negates your central thesis.
It is facile to attempt to apply the concept of neutrality to
words (aka
concepts) which are acquired at the socio-semantic level, irrespective of the fact that their physical representations (phonetic/graphemic)can be arbitrary. At the semantic level, words are no more neutral to humans than chemical markers are to other species.
In short, your thesis which is based on a solipsistic premise is meaningless. "Selves" are not independent masters of their own fate or selective of their mental activities. And even the concept of "self" only has meaning with respect to the concept of "others".
Happiness is about striking a balance between the different transient facets of "self" which alternate over time according to changing focal social allegiances. In other words, happiness is about living with the fickle nature of "self".
@MozartLink,
May I ask about your assertion that it is 'delusional' to think that without the ability to experience pleasure our lives would be meaningless? What are the implications of considering the fulfilment of a person's preferences rather than pleasure coming from created personal meanings? Or do you take these to be the same thing? Not a criticism - I'm just making sure that I'm understanding you correctly.
@fresco,
I asked a question. I made no positive thesis. You do comprehend the concept of an interrogative statement, right?
@FBM,
I did not respond to your question....only to the OP.
@fresco,
Ooops. My bad.
I thought the OP was responding to me.
@fresco,
I'm just going to add another important thing here which is that the only difference between a thought and such that has meaning to us as opposed to one that doesn't (one that is neutral) would just be the fact that with one meaning, you are experiencing emotion while with another you are not. So it's only our emotions themselves that have the meaning of "good" or "bad." As in terms of one thought that has meaning to us as opposed to another that doesn't, the only difference between these two thoughts is that one sends an emotional signal to the brain while the other doesn't--that is all.
@MozartLink,
Next such OP, suggest paragraphing. Sometimes doing so helps organize
Also, carriage return between
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace