@MozartLink,
File #2: My Philosophy Of Emotions (Part 1/12)
A Life Without Positive Emotions Is No Way To Live Or Be An Artist
Note to Reader: This is my philosophy I'd like to share to others. These are my personal views and others don't have to agree with them. I've had many miserable, devastating struggles throughout my life, and this is everything I've learned from these struggles.
What I've learned is different than what most people would learn because my personal experience has taught me that living such a miserable life is no way to live or be an artist, even if you were a miserable, genius artist who was motivated by his misery to create masterpieces throughout his life. I think life's all about being happy and enjoying things.
If you're someone who's miserable, unhappy, or even apathetic, then that's no way to live or be an artist, an athlete, a boxer, a parent, etc. As long as you don't have your positive feelings, then you can't live a good, valuable, precious, worthwhile, or beautiful life. So, with that being said, I'd like to begin explaining my philosophy:
So many people talk about thinking positive and avoiding negative thinking. But, we should actually strive for positive emotions (the pleasant emotions), and avoid negative emotions (the unpleasant emotions). We should also avoid apathy (no emotions). My personal experience has led me to the conclusion that feeling positive emotions is the only way we can see goodness, beauty, and worth in anything. So, positive emotions are the only things that make life, and any artistic endeavor, good, beautiful, and worth living for.
Sure, thinking is necessary to make us feel emotions, since positive thinking causes us to feel positive emotions. But, I think it can only be the positive emotions that allow us to experience life, and everything else, as amazing, good, beautiful, magnificent, wonderful, and worthwhile. In other words, positive emotions are the only things that give us a positive experience, and not our positive thoughts and beliefs alone. That doesn't mean I’d make reckless decisions that would be harmful if they made me feel joy.
I'm not a dumb person, which means I'd still choose to not do drugs, and I'd still make choices that would promote my own happiness in the long term. So, it's not like I completely leave out and dismiss the thinking aspect of our human existence. But, our thinking alone doesn't allow us to see goodness, badness, beauty, tragedy, horror, and worth in things. Only our emotions do that. An example of some emotions would be a feeling of panic from being in a dangerous situation, a feeling of misery, a feeling of excitement, a feeling of rage, a feeling of sexual arousal, etc.
Positive emotions would be feelings of love, joy, beauty, magnificence, peace, amazement, excitement, etc., and negative emotions would be feelings of misery, tragedy, rage, hate, disgust, horror, etc. So, like I said, positive emotions are the pleasant emotions, and negative emotions are the unpleasant emotions. But, they're more than just pleasant and unpleasant emotions. They're what give us positive and negative perspectives. That's why we should seek positive emotions, since they're the positive perspectives we need.
We need to have a positive perspective in life, which means we must see goodness, beauty, magnificence, worth, etc. in things, and avoid a negative perspective, where we see things as bad, horrible, disgusting, tragic, etc. So, our goal in life should be the positive emotions, since they're the only positive perspectives, which means they're what are important. So many people say that we should have a positive perspective in life, and avoid a negative perspective, since having a negative perspective is no way to live or be an artist.
Well then, we need positive emotions, and we should avoid negative emotions, since feeling negative emotions is no way to live or be an artist. A life without emotions (apathy) is also no way to live or be an artist. If you wish to know how our emotions are the only positive and negative perspectives, then I'll explain. If you have a loving thought, then that thought would make you feel love (a positive emotion). If you have the thought that something's beautiful (such as life itself), then that thought would make you feel that life's beautiful, and that feeling of beauty would be a positive emotion. If you have the thought that something's disgusting, then that thought would make you feel disgust in regards to that thing, and that feeling would be a negative emotion.
We experience things through our feelings. For example, feeling hungry is how we experience hunger, feeling thirsty is how we experience thirst, feeling sleepy is how we experience sleepiness, feeling pain and pleasure is how we experience them, feeling love (a positive emotion) is how we experience love, feeling pride and happiness (positive emotions) is how we experience pride and happiness, and feeling that life's beautiful is how we experience life as beautiful. In addition, if you feel disgust (a negative emotion) in regards to something, then you're experiencing that thing as disgusting.
Perception and experience are the same thing. For example, if you're seeing (perceiving) the color red, then you're experiencing red, and vice versa. If you're feeling that life's beautiful, then you're experiencing life as beautiful, which is the same thing as saying you're seeing (perceiving) beauty in life. In addition, if you feel love, you're experiencing love, which means you're loving someone or something, and that's the same thing as having a loving perspective/perception towards that person or thing.
So, that's why we need positive emotions to see goodness, beauty, and worth in things, and to have a happy, proud, or loving perspective. Again, a life without a positive perspective/outlook is no way to live or be an artist, and that's why a life without positive emotions is no way to live or be an artist. If you lose your positive emotions, then you lose your ability to perceive/experience things as good, beautiful, and worth living for, and you'd lose your ability to experience love, pride, and happiness, just as how you'd lose your ability to experience hunger, thirst, and sleepiness if you lost your ability to feel hungry, thirsty, and sleepy.
Philosophy Discussion Section
Other Person’s Response: I realize this philosophy discussion section addresses as many questions and objections as possible that people have in regards to your philosophy.
My Reply: Yes.
Other Person’s Response: I think there are many interesting objections to your philosophy, and I realize you attempt to address as many of these objections as possible in this big document file. But, if there are objections out there you have yet to address, then will you include them in this file?
My Reply: Yes.
Other Person's Response: When you talk about positive feelings, you're talking about positive emotions, right?
My Reply: Yes.
Other Person's Response: Emotions are biological impulses/drives, right?
My Reply: Yes. For example, if someone felt the motivation to exercise, then he had the impulse/drive to exercise.
Other Person's Response: Thoughts and feelings aren't the same thing. So, you're right about that. For example, if a person had insomnia, which prevented him from feeling sleepy, then his mindset alone can't make him feel sleepy. No way of thinking could make him feel sleepy.
My Reply: Yes, and that's why thoughts and emotions aren’t the same thing. You can't make yourself feel an emotion if there's something preventing you from feeling it, such as having a mental illness.
Other Person’s Response: Your philosophy says that emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, beauty, horror, magnificence, tragedy, value, worth, preciousness, etc. Do you have any support for this claim?
My Reply: Yes, and it would be in this link below. Some people disagree with this claim. But, I have to agree, based upon my personal experience because I can clearly tell that my emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, beauty, horror, etc.:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.404.9284HYPERLINK "http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.404.9284&rep=rep1&type=pdf"&HYPERLINK "http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.404.9284&rep=rep1&type=pdf"rep=rep1HYPERLINK "http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.404.9284&rep=rep1&type=pdf"&HYPERLINK "http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.404.9284&rep=rep1&type=pdf"type=pdf
Other Person’s Response: I don’t have internet access. Even if I did, I’m not allowed to access certain websites. So, could you share that emotion perception theory right here?
My Reply: *****
Are emotions perceptions of value?
Jérôme Dokic &Stéphane Lemaire
Pages 227-247 | Received 13 Mar 2013, Accepted 29 May 2013, Published online: 03 Sep 2013
·
·
AbsracAb
A popular idea at present is that emotions are perceptions of values. Most defenders of this idea have interpreted it as the perceptual thesis that emotions present (rather than merely represent) evaluative states of affairs in the way sensory experiences present us with sensible aspects of the world. We argue against the perceptual thesis. We show that the phenomenology of emotions is compatible with the fact that the evaluative aspect of apparent emotional contents has been incorporated from outside. We then deal with the only two views that can make sense of the perceptual thesis.
On the response–dependence view, emotional experiences present evaluative response-dependent properties (being fearsome, being disgusting, etc.) in the way visual experiences present response-dependent properties such as colors. On the response–independence view, emotional experiences present evaluative response-independent properties (being dangerous, being indigestible, etc.), conceived as ‘Gestalten’ independent of emotional feelings themselves. We show that neither view can make plausible the idea that emotions present values as such, i.e., in an open and transparent way. If emotions have apparent evaluative contents, this is in fact due to evaluative enrichments of the non-evaluative presentational contents of emotions.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00455091.2013.826057?scroll=topHYPERLINK "http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00455091.2013.826057?scroll=top&needAccess=true"&HYPERLINK "http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00455091.2013.826057?scroll=top&needAccess=true"needAccess=true
*****
Other Person’s Response: Why can’t our mindset alone allow us to see things as good, bad, beautiful, etc.? Why do we need emotions to have such a perception?
My Reply: The color red is a perceptual state (a visual state), and that’s different than just having the thought of red. In other words, just having the thought of red isn’t the same thing as seeing (perceiving) red. When a person just has the thought or belief that something’s horrific or beautiful, that’s not the same thing as him seeing that thing as horrific or beautiful. His thought or belief needs to make him feel horror or beauty in regards to that thing in order for him to see it as horrific or beautiful. Also, this red analogy is something you’ll come across a couple more times throughout this packet.
Other Person’s Response: I understand now. There’s a difference between what we think or believe, and what we perceive.
My Reply: Yes. A thought or belief of red isn’t a perception of red, and a thought or belief that things are good, bad, etc. isn’t a perception of those things being good, bad, etc.
Other Person’s Response: If a person lost his ability to feel emotions, then that means he’d lose his ability to perceive things as good, bad, etc.?
My Reply: Yes.
Other Person’s Response: If a person just had a thought or belief of red without seeing red, then he’d be perceiving the idea of red, but not actual red.
My Reply: Correct. The same thing applies to good, bad, etc.
Other Person’s Response: Our thoughts and beliefs alone can’t make us sleepy, they can’t make us hungry or thirsty, they can’t make us emotional, they can’t make us see red, they can’t make us see beauty or horror in things, etc.
My Reply: Correct. They, alone, can only give us intellectual experiences, such as realizing certain truths, having certain ideas, solving puzzles and riddles, rationalizing, etc. But, they can’t give us any of those experiences you’ve mentioned. Another experience they, alone, can’t give us would be being moved by a work of art. It requires emotions to be moved by something, and we can only be apathetic without our emotions.
Other Person’s Response: Our thoughts and beliefs alone can’t give us an emotional experience, given that thoughts and beliefs are different than emotions. Since emotions are perceptions of beauty, horror, etc., then that means our thoughts and beliefs alone also can’t give us a perception of beauty, horror, etc.
My Reply: Correct.
Other Person's Response: Our thoughts take on an emotional form when they make us feel emotions? That's why, when a person has the thought that nature's beautiful, that thought makes him feel beauty in regards to nature?
My Reply: Yes. Another way of putting it would be that thoughts become emotions, or "How we think is how we will feel." A thought of dramatic horror will become an emotional experience of dramatic horror, a sad thought will become a sad emotion, etc. But, like I said, there are factors that can prevent thoughts, as well as beliefs, from making us feel emotions, such as having a mental illness, brain damage, etc. because such factors shut off our ability to feel emotions.
Other Person's Response: If I had the thought that something's unpleasant, that thought would cause me to feel an unpleasant emotion? If I had the thought that something's pleasant, that would cause me to feel a pleasant emotion?
My Reply: Yes.
Other Person's Response: If I had the mindset that someone was horrible or disgusting, but pleasant, would that give me an emotional experience that's pleasantly horrible or disgusting? In other words, would it make me feel a pleasant emotion that's a horrible or disgusting feeling? Likewise, if I had the mindset that someone was beautiful or amazing, but unpleasant, would that give me an emotional experience that's unpleasantly beautiful or amazing?
My Reply: If you had the mindset that someone was horrible or disgusting, then that's the same thing as having the mindset that this person was unpleasant. It would be like how having the mindset of loving someone is the same thing as having the mindset of caring about that person.
But, you could have the mindset that someone was unpleasant, but not horrible or disgusting. In this scenario, having the mindset of someone being unpleasant wouldn't be the same thing as having the mindset of someone being horrible or disgusting. Likewise, you could have the mindset of caring about someone, but not loving that person.
In this scenario, having the mindset of caring about someone wouldn't be the same thing as having the mindset of loving someone. So, in your 1st example, there would have to be 2 mindsets going on. The 1st would be the mindset of that person being horrible or disgusting (unpleasant), and the 2nd would be the mindset of that person being pleasant.
Having these 2 mindsets might cause you to feel mixed emotions about that person, where one emotion would be unpleasantly horrible or disgusting, while the other emotion would be pleasant. In your 2nd example, there are also 2 mindsets going on. The 1st would be the mindset of that person being beautiful or amazing (pleasant), and the 2nd would be the mindset of that person being unpleasant.
Other Person's Response: If I had the mindset of loving someone or something, but not caring about said person or thing, then that means I had 2 mindsets going on: 1.) the mindset of loving that person or thing (caring) 2.) the mindset of not caring.
My Reply: Yes. When you have both mindsets, you'd be having the mindset of loving (caring about) that person or thing for one particular reason, and not caring for another reason. Having these 2 mindsets might give you a loving feeling that wouldn't be as powerful and profound as the loving feeling you'd get by having mindset #1 alone.
Other Person's Response: Have you ever felt emotions that were unpleasantly beautiful or amazing, or pleasantly horrible or disgusting?
My Reply: Never. That's why I'm arguing for the case of beautiful or amazing feelings only being pleasant feelings, and horrible or disgusting feelings only being unpleasant feelings.
Other Person's Response: Our thoughts and beliefs alone can't give us any pleasant or unpleasant experience?
My Reply: Correct. They, alone, can only give us the idea that certain people and things are pleasant or unpleasant.
Other Person's Response: When thoughts make us feel emotions, it's not really accurate though to say that thoughts take on an emotional form. This would mean that the thought stops existing, and is converted into an emotion, which neither seems to be correct, nor plausible.
My Reply: Then maybe I should've said a copy of the thought information takes on an emotional form. I don't know how the brain works. So, maybe there's some other way to work around the problem you posed in order for my philosophy/claim to still hold up.
Other Person’s Response: Since there’s a difference between our thoughts or beliefs, and our perception, then that means a person can’t have a loving perception if he just had a loving thought or belief?
My Reply: Correct. Just having a loving mindset isn’t enough to have a loving perception. In other words, it’s not enough to be in a loving state of mind. A person needs to feel love in order to achieve a loving state. The same idea applies to anger, sadness, happiness, fear, etc.
Other Person’s Response: So, a loving mindset wouldn’t be love, according to your philosophy?
My Reply: Correct. Love can only be a positive emotion.
Other Person’s Response: The color red is a visual state, as mentioned earlier, and just having the thought or belief of red won’t allow a person to achieve that state. Your philosophy says that we can only be in an apathetic state of mind if we were unable to feel any emotions, and that we couldn’t achieve any loving, hateful, sad, angry, etc. state of mind through our mindset alone.
My Reply: Correct. Love, hate, etc. can only be emotional states. Without emotions, we’d be like an empty canvas. Our emotions paint our internal canvas (mental universe) with love, hate, happiness, sorrow, beauty, tragedy, etc.
Other Person’s Response: There are people who are unable to feel any emotions due to a mental illness, damage to the areas of their brains that allow them to feel emotions, etc.
My Reply: Yes. That means their lives (mental universes) would be without any beauty, happiness, etc.
Other Person’s Response: I realize your philosophy reduces love, hate, good, bad, etc. all down to emotions.
My Reply: Yes.
Other Person's Response: You define love as an emotion. But, a person could define love as an action. So, love is defined by the individual. That means love doesn't have to be an emotional state or a mindset. It can just be the act of protecting or helping someone.
My Reply: But, that definition of love treats our actions as being superior to our state of mind. If we were to go by a definition of love that completely leaves out our emotional state and mindset, then we might as well say that an inanimate object saving a person's life would be love.
A trampoline is just an object that has no mindset or emotions, and we might as well say it loved someone because it protected that person from a fatal fall on the concrete floor.
We might as well also say that serial killers and psychopaths doing helpful deeds, just for their own sinister gain, would be love. After all, it doesn't matter what mindset or emotional state they're in, according to this definition. As long as they're doing these helpful deeds, then that's love. So, I disagree with this definition of love.
Other Person’s Response: An example of a positive perspective would be: “I know I’m a disabled person. But, I see myself as a beautiful, disabled person, and I see it as a beautiful thing that other disabled people are trying their best in life.” An example of a negative perspective would be: “I see myself as a pitiful, disgusting, puny weakling because I’m a disabled person. I see it as a pathetic thing that there are other disabled people who can hardly function in life, even though they’re trying their best.”
An example of an apathetic perspective would be: “I just don’t care that I’m a disabled person, and neither do I care that others are disabled.” According to your philosophy, positive emotions are the only positive perspectives, negative emotions are the only negative perspectives, and having no emotions is the only way a person can have an apathetic perspective. So, if a person had no ability to feel any emotions, then it wouldn’t matter what mindset he had because his mindset alone could never give him a positive or negative perspective.
My Reply: Correct.
Other Person’s Response: You say that perception and experience are the same thing, since perceiving red is the same thing as experiencing red. So, if you wanted one of your hobbies to be a beautiful, awesome, good, valuable, precious, or worthwhile experience for you, then you can’t just have the thought or belief that said hobby is beautiful, awesome, etc. Only your positive emotions can give you such an experience.
My Reply: Yes, since it’s only through our positive emotions that we can perceive things as beautiful, awesome, etc.
Other Person’s Response: Emotions are transient, fleeting things. Especially positive emotions, since so many people feel depressed, miserable, and unhappy.
My Reply: That’s right. Fortunately, there are people who feel positive emotions throughout their lives with very little misery, apathy, and unhappiness. An example would be rich, happy people. Thus, these types of people have few moments where it’s no way to live or be an artist. But, as for those who are unfortunate, they have few moments where they feel positive emotions, which means it’s mostly no way to live or be an artist for them.
Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, if a person feels horror, that means he’s perceiving horror, which means he’s experiencing horror, which means he’s having a horrific experience. But, an experience of horror can actually be a beautiful experience because it can be used to inspire others.
My Reply: Experiences of horror are the only horror there is, and experiences of beauty are the only beauty there is. So, an experience of horror can only be a horrific experience. It can never be a beautiful experience, since it’s only experiences of beauty (the positive emotions) that are the beautiful experiences. The same idea applies to good, bad, tragedy, magnificence, etc.
Other Person’s Response: So, what you’re saying is that emotions are the only beauty, horror, etc. there is, since they’re the only perceptions/experiences of beauty, horror, etc.?
My Reply: Yes. Good and bad are also nothing more than emotions.
Other Person’s Response: If beauty could be inspiring others, then an experience of horror could be beautiful if it was used to inspire others. But, your philosophy says that experiences of horror can only be horrific.
My Reply: Correct.
Other Person’s Response: Does your philosophy also say that feelings of sadness, anger, happiness, love, etc. are the only sadness, anger, etc. there is?
My Reply: Yes. Sadness, anger, etc. are also nothing more than emotions.
Other Person’s Response: Your philosophy says that feeling good is the only good thing in life, feeling bad is the only bad thing in life, feeling horrible is the only horrible thing in life, feeling horror is the only horrific thing in life, etc.?
My Reply: Yes.
Other Person’s Response: Your philosophy says that the only beauty and horror that exists is the beauty and horror we perceive?
My Reply: Yes. The same thing applies to good, bad, etc.
Other Person’s Response: A value judgment is a judgment that a certain thing, person, work of art, or situation is good, bad, beautiful, disgusting, etc. Good, bad, etc. are nothing more than value judgments. Emotion theorists claim that emotions are value judgments, since emotions tell us that certain things, people, works of art, and situations are good, bad, etc. That means good, bad, etc. are emotions. Since emotions are value judgments, and since emotions are also perceptions of good, bad, etc., then that means a value judgment would have to be a perception of good, bad, etc. Since emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, etc., then that means emotions are the only value judgments. That means good, bad, etc. can only be emotions.
My Reply: Yes. All things in this world are nothing good, bad, etc. in of themselves. Life just is, and things just are. We require our value judgments (emotions) to give goodness, badness, etc. to things in our lives/mental universes. Without our emotions, then we have nothing good, bad, etc. to live for. So, if I lost my ability to feel positive emotions, then that means there’d be no goodness and beauty in my personal life. It would mean I have nothing good or beautiful to live for. Other people would have good and beautiful things to live for if they had their positive emotions though. So, their personal lives would possess some goodness and beauty.
Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, we’d also have nothing valuable, precious, or worthwhile to live for if we had no positive emotions.
My Reply: Correct.
Other Person's Response: Could you provide links that explain emotions are value judgments?
My Reply: Yes. This is a link that talks about emotions being value judgments. It also explains so much more in regards to emotions:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emotion/#EarlEvalTradPhilEmotJudg
Other Person's Response: There are 2 types of right and wrong. The 1st type would be a value judgment, and the 2nd type would just be right and wrong. An example of the 1st type would be if someone said that helping another person was the right thing to do. He means it was a good or beautiful thing to do. If he then said it was wrong to torture someone, then he means it was a bad or horrible thing to do so. An example of the 2nd type would be if someone said: "You're performing this technique all wrong. Here's the right way to do it." That would just be right and wrong. According to your philosophy, the 1st type would have to be emotional.
My Reply: Yes. So, when a person (Jake) can't handle life anymore, is suicidal, and another person (Jon) says: "There's something drastically wrong here. Jake needs help!," then Jon would have to be referring to Jake's state of mind, which is an emotional state (a negative emotion). Jake feels something's drastically wrong in his life, and that emotional state is not only a form of immense suffering for him, but is drastically wrong. If Jake gets psychological help to restore his positive feelings, then he'll end up in a situation that's beautifully right.
To say something to Jake, such as: "You don't need help, and you don't need to feel any positive emotions because your suffering can be used for a beautiful purpose. You can use it to inspire others, and you'd be living a beautiful life.," then that would be dismissing his emotional experience, which is drastically wrong. So, the very goodness, badness, horribleness, beauty, etc. that our emotions possess should never be dismissed. We should instead dismiss the false, non-emotional form of goodness, badness, etc. that never existed to begin with. That means we shouldn't say that quote to Jake.
Other Person's Response: If Jake felt that something was drastically wrong in his life, then how would that be a form of suffering for him?
My Reply: Because any unpleasant experience is a form of suffering. For example, physical pain is a form of suffering. An example of physical pain would be if someone got a cut on his arm, or punched in the face. Even though there are people who derive pleasure from their pain, the pain itself is a form of suffering, since pain is unpleasant, while pleasure is pleasant. When a person feels negative emotions, such as feelings of horror, tragedy, misery, etc., then they're also a form of suffering. But, negative emotions are a form of suffering that's horrific, bad, tragic, disturbing, etc., while physical pain is just a form of suffering.
Other Person's Response: Our thoughts and beliefs alone can't make us suffer, right? They can only give us the idea of suffering in our minds?
My Reply: Right.
Other Person's Response: What about Jon's emotional state? If he felt that Jake's situation was drastically wrong, then Jon would also be experiencing a form of suffering that's drastically wrong.
My Reply: Yes. But, Jake's suffering would be worse because his emotional state is more profound. It would be a deeper experience than Jon's. In my example, Jon isn't in a state of profound suffering, where he wishes to end his life like Jake. Jon is simply pointing out that Jake needs help. But, Jon should also get help if he has negative emotions lingering on in his life. So, if he continued to feel that Jake's situation is drastically wrong, and this feeling lingered on, then he'd need to find ways to rid of that feeling, as well as other negative emotions, so he can feel positive emotions more often in his life. There are therapies out there that can help with this, such as CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy), which focuses on changing your thinking in order to change how you feel.
Other Person's Response: If someone felt that something was horrific, then not only does that thing become horrific for him, but the emotion itself is horrific?
My Reply: Yes. A feeling of horror is horror, which means it's horrific, and it makes things horrific for us.
Other Person's Response: Your philosophy says that emotions are the only things that give goodness, badness, etc. to our lives/mental universes. So, if I only felt bad about things, and I never felt good or any other positive emotion, such as beauty or magnificence, then I'd have nothing but the bad in my life. But, I'd want the bad because the bad makes me a stronger person. It builds my character.
My Reply: You act as though having the bad is a good thing. But, you need to feel good in order to have some good in your life. As long as you're not feeling good, then you shouldn't be acting as though you have something good going on in your life. That's why you shouldn't be acting as though having the bad is a good thing. Also, you'd have to feel good about the bad in order to see the bad as good. So, why feel bad at all? It would be better if we just feel good all the time because that would be bringing our lives more and more goodness.
Other Person's Response: Your philosophy says that the only way something can matter to us, and the only way we can have a positive or negative perspective, is through our emotions, and not through our mindset alone. So, if someone felt a negative emotion, such as feeling that he's a pitiful human being who should give up on his goals and dreams, and he had a positive thought, such as thinking he's still a beautiful person who should persevere, but that thought couldn't make him feel that way, then that means that thought couldn't matter to him, and neither could it give him a positive perspective. As long as he's just feeling negative emotions, and not any positive emotions, then that means only the negative matters to him, and not the positive, since positivity is absent without positive emotions.
My Reply: Correct. There can be no positivity without positive emotions, and there can be no negativity without negative emotions. So, only our positive and negative emotions color our world in positivity and negativity. Our thoughts and beliefs alone can't. So, our thoughts and beliefs alone can't be positive or negative (i.e. they can't be good, bad, beautiful, horrible, disgusting, pitiful, etc.). But, I still refer to our thoughts and beliefs as being positive and negative, just for the sake of convenience.
Other Person’s Response: If you had no positive emotions, and there were still good, valuable, precious, and beautiful things in this world you could live for, then you wouldn’t be able to perceive any goodness, value, etc. So, it would be futile for someone to come up to you, and say with a cheerful tone of voice: “I know you don’t have your positive emotions. But, look, you can still live for something good and beautiful!”
My Reply: Correct. It would still be no way to live or be an artist for me, even if I did live for something good and beautiful by helping others, seeking knowledge, contributing to the world, etc.
Other Person’s Response: Let’s pretend you felt angry to protect someone. Wouldn’t that feeling of anger be a perception of value, goodness, beauty, etc.?
My Reply: No. We can only have such a perception through our positive emotions. Negative emotions can never be perceptions of goodness, beauty, etc. For example, feeling good is a perception of good, which can only be a pleasant/positive emotion.
Other Person’s Response: So, if someone felt angry to protect someone, then that would give him an angry, motivated perception. But, that wouldn’t make him see the protecting of that individual as good, precious, or beautiful?
My Reply: Correct.
Other Person’s Response: Your philosophy says there’s nothing better to live for than feeling positive emotions because there’s nothing better in life than perceiving our goals, dreams, hobbies, etc. as good, beautiful, awesome, valuable, etc.
My Reply: Correct. There’s no more goodness and beauty to life than positive emotions. Life’s all about wallowing away in our positive emotions.
Other Person’s Response: So, there’s nothing more to live for than feeling positive emotions?
My Reply: Correct.
Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, it would be better for someone to feel positive emotions from doing something he loves than to do something that would save him from a life of misery, just because it would make him feel unhappy to save himself.
My Reply: Actually, it would be better to put himself through that unhappiness to save himself because it’s better to live a life that consists of less misery and more positive emotions. So, my philosophy says that any life that consists of the most positive emotions would be the best life to live. That means a person’s entire lifespan must be taken into consideration. If a person’s lifestyle is going to bring him the most positive emotions throughout his entire life, then he’s living the best life. The profoundness and intensity of positive emotions must also be taken into consideration. If a person is profoundly blissful his entire life, rather than just happy, then that would be the absolute best life to live.
Other Person’s Response: Love is also a positive emotion. So, if we felt profound, intense love throughout our lives, that would also be a better life to live than a life of shallow feelings of happiness at a low intensity level.
My Reply: Correct.
Other Person’s Response: You just said it would be better for that person to put himself through unhappiness to save himself from a life of misery. That means it would be a good thing, even while he’s feeling unhappy.
My Reply: It wouldn’t be a good thing, since he needs to feel good about it. As long as he’s feeling unhappy, then it’s not a good thing for him. So, he just needs to bear through that unhappiness to save himself. Once he has saved himself, and he feels good about it, then that’s the moment it would be a good thing for him because he’d be seeing it as a good thing now.
Other Person’s Response: If other people felt good about that person enduring feelings of happiness to save himself, then it would be a good thing for them, but not for that person.
My Reply: Correct. That’s because they’d be seeing it as a good thing, while that unhappy person wouldn’t.
Other Person's Response: In regards to love, I don't think love is an emotion, since emotions are such fleeting, transient things. Real love is everlasting.
My Reply: A rainbow that only lasts for a short while is still a real rainbow. So, even though feelings of love only last for a short while, they're still real love. Just because something, such as love or a rainbow, is profoundly beautiful for many people, doesn't mean it can only be real if it's everlasting. The precious, beautiful, amazing things are often times the most rare, fleeting things.
Other Person's Response: According to you, positive feelings are the only things that make moments, situations, and works of art precious, beautiful, and amazing in our eyes, and positive feelings are rare, fleeting things for many people.
My Reply: Yes.
Other Person's Response: I don't think that feelings of love are real love, since they're nothing more than biochemical emotions.
My Reply: If you felt attraction towards a soul mate, wouldn't that be real attraction you're experiencing? If so, then if you felt love towards that soul mate, that would be real love you're experiencing as well.
Other Person’s Response: There are different feelings of beauty and horror. For example, there’s a feeling of tropical beauty, there’s a feeling of aquatic beauty, there’s a feeling of cinematic horror, there’s a feeling of religious horror, etc.
My Reply: Yes.
Other Person’s Response: If there was a work of art, then your philosophy would say that this artwork is nothing beautiful or disgusting in of itself, and that people simply have different feelings (value judgments) in regards to that artwork.
My Reply: Correct. So, a work of art is simply a work of art, and nothing more. But, it can become disgusting in one person’s mental universe, it can become beautiful in another person’s mental universe, or it can become sad or annoying in another person’s mental universe. It all depends on how each person feels about the artwork.
Other Person’s Response: If feeling good is the only good thing in life, then what’s the point of all those people having to struggle with lives of unhappiness, misery, clinical depression, and apathy?
My Reply: There is no point. It’s completely unnecessary, no way to live or be an artist, and just a waste of life to have such struggles. That means even the lives of miserable, genius artists have been wasted away, regardless of all their artistic contributions to the world. Their misery has robbed their lives, which means it has taken away the goodness, beauty, value, and worth in their lives, according to my philosophy. When our positive emotions are taken away, that’s taking away the goodness, beauty, etc. in our lives. But, miserable and unhappy struggles exist anyway, and my philosophy says it’s our job to avoid them as much as we can. As for my miserable struggles, they’ve wasted many years of my life, and I wish I never had them.
Other Person’s Response: Those miserable, genius artists wouldn’t be able to perceive their artistic endeavors as good, valuable, precious, or beautiful during their misery, according to your philosophy. That means they’d be making works of art in a miserable pit of darkness and nothingness that’s devoid of any goodness, value, beauty, etc. Basically, they’d just be getting on with life and doing what they got to do, and nothing more.
My Reply: Yes. If those genius artists were still alive today, they might say my philosophy is wrong, and that they were perceiving their artistic endeavors as good, valuable, etc. without their positive emotions. But, I have my own philosophy because I have my own personal experience. When I was composing during my misery, it was clearly no way to live or be an artist for me, and I was unable to perceive my composing as good, valuable, etc. It didn’t matter what mindset I had because no mindset could give me that perception of goodness, value, etc.
Other Person’s Response: So, you think those miserable, genius artists weren’t realizing they weren’t perceiving their artistic endeavors as good, valuable, etc.?
My Reply: Correct. They just thought they were, when they weren’t.
Other Person’s Response: Do you think those miserable, genius artists might as well give up on their artistic endeavors, since they’re in that miserable pit of nothingness while making works of art?
My Reply: Yes. If that’s the experience an artist is going to have when creating works of art, then he might as well give up until he regains his joy. It’s the reason why I’ve given up on my composing dream during my miserable struggles.
Other Person’s Response: I realize your philosophy states that positive emotions are the only good, amazing, and beautiful things in life. This is dumb because that would mean feeling good about doing harmful things would be a good thing.
My Reply: I don’t care how dumb and dysfunctional my philosophy sounds; my personal experience says positive emotions are the only good, beautiful, and amazing things in life, and that it’s no way to live or be an artist without them. They’re the only things that make situations, works of art, moments, and people good, amazing, and beautiful in our eyes, since positive emotions are the only perceptions of goodness, beauty, and amazingness.
Other Person’s Response: Your philosophy says that the only way we can value something would be through our feelings of value (positive emotions).
My Reply: Yes. When you feel value in regards to something, you see it as valuable, which means it’s valuable to you, which means you value it.
Other Person’s Response: Have your emotions always been the only perceptions of good, bad, etc. for you?
My Reply: Yes. I don’t recall a single given moment in my life where I was able to perceive good, bad, etc. through my mindset alone.
Other Person’s Response: Perhaps your perception is being dominated by your emotions. So, it could be the case that you just need to develop a stronger mind. That way, you can be the one in charge when it comes to your perception, and not your emotions.
My Reply: I don’t know if that’s what’s going on here.