0
   

All My Philosophy Packets (Files)

 
 
MozartLink
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Apr, 2020 01:33 pm
@MozartLink,
Other Person's Response: There are psychics who can see into the future. For example, a psychic could foresee the inevitable future of someone molesting a child. But, since such a future is inevitable, then that means that molester never had free will to begin with because he'd have no choice but to molest that child.

Furthermore, if your miserable struggles were inevitable, then that means you didn't have free will either. Having free will means we have a choice, which means a psychic shouldn't predict whether that molester would molest that child or not, and if you were going to have these miserable struggles or not. So, if we have free will, nobody should be able to predict our future.

But, an exception would be with objects. For example, scientists could predict whether an asteroid would hit Earth or not, and that's because an asteroid is just an object that doesn't have free will. It can't choose whether it's going to hit Earth or not. Another example would be how meteorologists can predict the weather.

My Reply: Right. I heard from religious believers that people reincarnate, and that they experience inevitable suffering. For example, someone who was miserable and committed suicide in a previous lifetime would reincarnate, and inevitably experience that same, horrible fate again. So, that would mean we don't have free will.

Other Person's Response: Of all people living on this Earth, it's inevitable that some people are going to make harmful decisions. Since it's inevitable, then that means we don't have free will.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: A psychic could predict whether it's likely or not someone is going to do drugs, harm others, help others, etc.

My Reply: But, would it be an inevitable likelihood? If so, then that also means we don't have free will because, if we have free will, nobody should be able to predict whether it's even likely or not a person would do those things.

Other Person's Response: Hitler harmed and killed so many Jews. If he had free will, then nobody should be able to predict whether he'd harm or kill another Jew during the Holocaust, or if it's even likely or not he would.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: There are people who have near death experiences, meet God, Jesus, and angels, and they say to these people that free will exists. But, what if they're lying?

My Reply: Then these beings wouldn't be trustworthy. I've actually heard from certain people that there are Archons, who are imposter light beings with loving, compassionate attitudes, but lie, deceive, and have sinister intentions. They have us reincarnate into a world where we continue to suffer, so they can feed off our suffering. There might actually be no loving, compassionate light beings to save us from these Archons.

Other Person's Response: I heard that god and his angels can predict our future, which would mean we don't have free will. So, if someone encountered the inevitable fate of being miserable, committing suicide, entering into a miserable afterlife, and being permanently destroyed for breaking the rule of making contact to people on Earth through a medium, then that person didn't have a choice in the matter. But, god or his angels could've done something to prevent such a tragic fate from happening to that person though. Why would they allow such a fate? They already know such a fate would inevitably happen if they don't do something to prevent it. So, it makes no sense to me why they wouldn't intervene.

My Reply: I see what you mean.
MozartLink
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2020 09:34 am
@MozartLink,
Other Person's Response: So, basically, if we have free will, then nobody should know what choices we're going to make because it's our free will to make any choice we want. That's why psychics, god, Jesus, or any heavenly being shouldn't be able to predict what choices we're going to make. But, if they're able to predict our choices, then that must mean we don't have free will.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: I heard that people who commit suicide are punished. But, if they don't have free will, then that means their suicide was inevitable. So, how would it be fair to punish them?

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: There are people who have near death experiences and report that there were beings of light who've bestowed knowledge upon them. But, such knowledge shouldn't be trusted, since it could be deceptive knowledge.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: If the goal of these Archons is to have us keep on reincarnating into a world where we'll continue to suffer, then why are there some people who live rich, happy, easy lives, where they hardly suffer?

My Reply: Again, I'm not sure.

Other Person's Response: Do god, Jesus, and the angels have free will?

My Reply: I'm not sure.

Other Person's Response: If the Christian god is real, and we don't have free will, then god knew the inevitable fate of his human creations all along. He knew that most humans would be unsaved and suffer an eternity in hell, and that only very few would enter his heavenly kingdom. So, why didn't god just create those human souls who'd enter heaven after the death of their Earthly bodies, and not create those who'd end up in hell? Why create human souls you know would be hopelessly condemned? It's better to never exist than to exist and suffer an eternity in hell.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: There are near death accounts where people report meeting Jesus and other heavenly beings. They sometimes tell these people that they are spiritually dead, and unless they find a way to develop their souls, they'll forever remain in a place in the afterlife that's detached from god's unconditional love. It's a dark, horrible place, where the only thing they can hear is their own thoughts.

My Reply: What about animals that have near death experiences? Does Jesus and these heavenly beings tell them the same thing? If animals don't have to suffer this horrible fate, then why must humans?

Other Person's Response: Even if Jesus and these heavenly beings did explain things to these animals, they wouldn't understand. But, they could bestow understanding upon these animals without saying a single word.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy of emotions, emotions are the only beauty, horror, magnificence, etc. there is. So, if you had no emotions, then that means there’d be no beauty, horror, magnificence, etc. within you to express to the audience through your music.

My Reply: Correct. Without my emotions, I could still choose to compose. But, I’d just be composing music and nothing more. I might end up creating music that expresses awesomeness or beauty in the eyes of the audience. But, without my emotions, there'd be no awesomeness or beauty within me. I'd just be an empty vessel (an apathetic being) composing. My emotions make me more than an empty vessel. They make me a being of awesomeness, beauty, horror, etc.

Other Person's Response: Actually, according to your philosophy, if you were a being of negativity (a being of horror, disgust, tragedy, etc.), then that would make you less (inferior) compared to being an empty vessel. It's only when you're a being of positivity (a being of beauty, magnificence, love, etc.) that you become greater than an empty vessel.

My Reply: Correct. The number zero could be compared to being an empty vessel, negative numbers could be compared to being a negative being, and positive numbers could be compared to being a positive being. Negative numbers are less than 0, and positive numbers are greater than 0.

Other Person's Response: If you felt beauty, then you'd still be a being of beauty, even if you weren't feeling beauty in regards to yourself.

My Reply: Yes. That's because if I feel beauty, then I have beauty within me, since emotions are inner feelings, and me having a feeling of beauty would be my inner beauty. Having inner beauty would make me a being of beauty, regardless of what person or thing I feel beauty in regards to.

Other Person's Response: Nothing matters to robots, since robots don't have emotions. They're nothing but machines. Yet, they can still perform tasks, and they can even act like those tasks matter to them.

My Reply: Yes. Robots can't care about anyone or anything. But, they can still help others and get work done. Like I said though, that would be no way to live, since an apathetic existence is no way to live.

Other Person's Response: In order for something to matter to someone, he needs to perceive that thing as something that matters.

My Reply: Correct, and the only way he can have that perception is through his emotions. Without his emotions, then nothing could matter from his perspective. It would be like if I said that there can be no actual red from a person's perspective if he's not seeing red. So, a given thing can't actually matter from a person's perspective, as long as he's not seeing that thing as something that matters.

Other Person's Response: Emotions can be perceptions of shallow beauty and horror, or they can be perceptions of profound beauty and horror.

My Reply: Yes. So, if I felt profound beauty or goodness in regards to myself, then that would make me a profoundly beautiful or good person in my own mental universe. Also, the only shallow or profound beauty, horror, goodness, etc. that exists is what we feel (perceive).

Other Person's Response: If it's the case that your perception is being dominated by your emotions because you have a weak mind, then it would be a mistake to assume this mental weakness is a character weakness, since any given weakness shouldn't be mistakenly judged as a character weakness. For example, if someone couldn't lift a heavy weight because he didn't have the physical strength to do so, then it's not a character weakness to blame here.

It's a physical weakness to blame, which means he just needs to find a way to become physically stronger. So, it could be the case that a character weakness isn't to blame for the weak philosophy you have, and you just need to find a way to become mentally stronger by doing intellectual exercises and/or other tasks. If that person relied on character strength alone, then he'd never achieve his goal of lifting that weight because he's not doing anything to strengthen his muscles.

Likewise, if you wish to develop a better philosophy, and perceive goodness, value, beauty, etc. through reason alone, then character strength alone will never achieve this goal either because you're not doing what's necessary to strengthen your mind. So, that means you can't expect to achieve this goal just by having a brave, strong mindset of persevering in your composing dream when you're miserable and not feeling up to pursuing it.

My Reply: Right. I did have that mindset and persevered in my composing dream during my miserable struggles for quite some time. But, that never achieved this goal. So, I decided to just give up composing when I'm miserable and not feeling up to it.
0 Replies
 
MozartLink
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2020 01:45 pm
@MozartLink,
Other Person's Response: When emotion theorists say that emotions are perceptions of value, I think they mean they're perceptions of good, bad, beauty, horror, tragedy, etc. But, when you say they're perceptions of value, you mean something different, such as perceiving an item or life lesson as valuable.

My Reply: Yes, and that's why I treat perceptions of good, bad, beauty, horror, etc. as being different than perceptions of value. Also, the only way we can perceive something or someone as valuable is through our positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: Since the only way something can matter to us is through our emotions, then that means a person can't be bothered by loud noises if he doesn't feel bothered by them. Thus, he'll be able to fall asleep while those loud noises are occurring.

My Reply: Yes, and that's been my personal experience. When I was going to sleep, there were some loud noises that kept me awake. But, it wasn't the noises themselves that kept me awake. It was the emotion (feeling of alertness) I got from those noises that did. When that emotion wore off, I was able to fall back to sleep, despite those loud noises still occurring. The noises just didn't matter to me anymore, and I could no longer be in that alert state of mind anymore. I was now in a relaxed state of mind, since I now felt relaxed, rather than alert.

Other Person's Response: So, emotions are states of mind? Feeling relaxed is a relaxed state of mind, feeling alert is an alert state of mind, feeling sad is a sad state of mind, feeling fear is a fearful state of mind, etc.?

My Reply: Yes, and such states of mind are states where things and situations matter to us or bother us. For example, feeling frightened by something means that something matters to you in a frightening way, feeling troubled by something means that something bothers you, etc. But, emotions can be desensitized, which means they fade away on their own over time. An example would be with phobias. When a person exposes himself to his phobia, his feeling of fear fades away with continued exposure, which means his phobia disappears. His phobia could actually disappear immediately upon the 1st exposure session. So, if someone had a fear of elevators, he could go inside an elevator, feel panic, and his phobia be gone.

When I had that feeling of alertness from those loud noises, that feeling went away completely in a very short time. So, at first, I was kept awake by that feeling. But, only for a very short time. Then, I was able to fall back to sleep, even while those noises were still occurring. As for positive emotions, such as feelings of beauty and joy in doing my hobbies, I'm not sure if those feelings desensitize for me. They might, and it just takes a long time. So, if I continued to feel beauty and joy in doing my hobbies, I might no longer be able to experience those feelings anymore because I've desensitized those feelings. Thus, my hobbies could no longer matter to me in a beautiful or joyful way anymore.

Other Person's Response: I heard that your positive emotions do normally wear off. For example, if you were enjoying a hobby, you'd eventually stop feeling that enjoyment, and you'd feel the need to take a break from said hobby and relax.

My Reply: Yes. But, that feeling of enjoyment would normally return back to me again. Desensitization is where an emotion fades away and doesn't return. The example I gave was how phobias disappear through exposure therapy.

Other Person's Response: When a person has a phobia of spiders, they frighten him. But, when he no longer feels afraid of spiders, then they can no longer frighten him anymore, which means they can no longer matter to him in a frightening way.

My Reply: Correct. This indicates that emotions make things matter to us in sad, frightening, beautiful, horrific, disgusting, etc. ways.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, if a certain event happened in a person's life, such as poverty, then that event is nothing good, bad, beautiful, or horrible by itself. If that person had the thought this event was horrible, and that thought made him feel horrible, then he's just making the event horrible for himself. His horrible feeling is a perception of that event being horrible, and that's just giving him a horrible experience. If he no longer wants horribleness, and he instead wants positivity, such as beauty and goodness, then he needs to change his thinking to give himself feelings of beauty and goodness. Without that horrible feeling, or any other negative emotion, then his poverty wouldn't be horrible for him, and it just wouldn't bother him anymore.

My Reply: Yes. Any event or situation is nothing good, bad, etc. in of itself. It's all about how we emotionally respond to said events and situations. When we get certain feelings about things, we're actually getting sadness, anger, peace, happiness, goodness, badness, beauty, horribleness, etc. The idea is to get positivity, and avoid negativity and apathy. That's why I keep on saying life's all about feeling as much positive emotions as we can throughout our lives.

Other Person's Response: So, life's all about our perception? The more beauty we perceive, the more beauty we're getting, since the only beauty that exists is the beauty we perceive? Likewise, the more horribleness we perceive, the more horribleness we're getting?

My Reply: Yes. So, that person was just giving himself more and more horribleness, since he kept on perceiving his poverty as horrible. That's why I said he needs to change his thinking to give himself positive feelings, so he could instead give himself more and more beauty, goodness, magnificence, etc.

Other Person's Response: Does your philosophy say that the only things that matter are the things we perceive as mattering?

My Reply: Yes. When something matters, or when something is beautiful or disgusting, that's a person's feeling (perception) in regards to a given thing. If all people in this world had no emotions, then nothing could matter to anyone, and nothing could be beautiful or disgusting in the eyes of anyone. So, how would it make sense to say that certain things are still beautiful and disgusting, and how would it make sense to say that certain things still matter, when everyone has no ability to feel any emotions?

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, if you had no positive emotions, then that means you couldn't see bringing others positive emotions as good or valuable, which means it couldn't be a good or valuable experience for you. That means you'd be getting no goodness or value out of it. Therefore, it would be better for you to be a psychopath who feels positive emotions from harming others than to be someone without positive emotions who helps others.

My Reply: Yes, because I'd be getting positivity (beauty, goodness, value, etc.) when I'm the psychopath. My philosophy says that life's all about our own positive emotions, which means we must feel positive emotions when bringing others positive emotions. If we have no positive emotions, then it's no way to live or be an artist, even if we help others and bring them positive emotions. So, it would be better for us to become psychopaths who derive positive emotions from harming others. Whatever lifestyle brings us the most positive emotions is the lifestyle we should live, even if it means becoming a harmful psychopath.

Other Person's Response: Can you even keep up a moderate jogging pace?

My Reply: No. I can only keep it up for a very short time.

Other Person's Response: I heard that, when you go jogging, you're not in the mood for it, and you're in the mood to relax. That makes it very difficult for you because you don't really feel up to jogging.

My Reply: That's right. But, after about an hour of jogging, I'm in the mood for it, and I'm no longer slow and dragging myself along. I'm a bit faster, and I can keep it up for a longer period of time. So, I need to exercise for a while just to get myself in the mood to exercise. It would be best if I start out with slow-paced exercising, such as walking, and then move up to jogging when I'm in the mood for it.

Other Person's Response: The reason why you're slow and dragging yourself along is because jogging can't matter to you, and you can't perceive it as good, valuable, or worthwhile when you're not feeling up to it.

My Reply: That's correct. I have no motivation to jog when I'm not in the mood for it.

Other Person's Response: You say you're able to be in the mood for jogging. I thought your positive emotions are shut off. So, how can you be in the mood for it?

My Reply: Since I'm close to a full recovery from this misery-inducing worry, that means I'm able to feel some degree of positive emotion. But, I don't have my full capacity to feel positive emotions yet. It should get restored once I'm fully recovered.

Other Person's Response: Here's a link that talks about the theory of Archons, and how we're all trapped and enslaved into a cycle of reincarnation and unnecessary suffering:

https://www.prometheanrebellion.com/archontic-soul-trap.html

Also, here's another link that talks about near death experiences:

https://the-formula.org/near-death-experiences-suicide/

In the Life After Life excerpt in that 2nd link, it talks about souls being penalized for committing suicide. An all-loving, all-just being or god would never punish someone for suicide. Especially a punishment that lasts a very long time (perhaps hundreds or thousands of years). Only a cruel, unloving being would deliver such a punishment, such as an Archon.

My Reply: You're right, and if there is an all-loving, all-just being or god who exists, then I'm not sure why he or she isn't saving these people from their cruel enslavement and punishment.

Other Person's Response: I'm going to quote something from that 1st link and respond to it:

Quote:
How is it that more than five millennia have past and the whole world still remains under the dominion of the impostor gods? It is important to remember that, from the perspective of the Original Source, a couple of our millennia are simply a few minutes at most. That small blip is nothing for a being who knows eternity.


The Original Source (god) must take into consideration the perspective of humanity. For humanity, more than five millennia is a very long time. God shouldn't allow these imposer gods (Archons) to enslave humanity for this long, just because it's only minutes from his perspective.

My Reply: I agree. From god's perspective, it wouldn't be a problem, since it's only a matter of minutes. But, from our perspective, it's a major problem, since it's a very long time. If god really cares about us, then he'd take into consideration our perspective, and liberate us as soon as he possibly can, rather than having us wait so long.

Other Person's Response: If god is intelligent and he can predict the future, then he could've done something to prevent these Archons from enslaving us in the first place.

My Reply: Yes, and it would be like doing something now to prevent a virus from taking over in the future.

Other Person's Response: There are near death accounts where people report experiencing unconditional love from a being of light. I don't think he's an imposter light being with sinister intentions because no such being is capable of emanating this magnitude of love.

My Reply: But, there's a difference between experiencing unconditional love that's emanating from a being, as opposed to just getting a feeling of being unconditionally loved from said being. This being of light could be sinister, and he's just triggering a very powerful, profound feeling of being unconditionally loved as a means to trick souls into believing he loves them unconditionally. In which case, these souls are getting a feeling they shouldn't trust, no matter how powerful and profound said feeling is. After all, our feelings don't always tell us the truth.
MozartLink
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2020 08:47 pm
@MozartLink,
Other Person's Response: It could be the case that some people are enslaved by Archons, while others aren't. That's why some people in this world are unfortunate, and suffer a lot, while others are fortunate, and hardly suffer.

My Reply: Right. So, perhaps my mother's financial misfortunes are due to her being enslaved by the Archons. Her misfortunes cause her to feel negative emotions, and the Archons feed off these negative emotions.

Other Person's Response: If a person was just getting beauty, but not goodness or amazingness, wouldn't that be no way to live or be an artist? So, when a person has a feeling of beauty, shouldn't it also be a feeling of goodness or amazingness?

My Reply: I'm not sure. I know I've had feelings of beauty in regards to nature, my hobbies, etc. If I had nothing but these feelings, it wouldn't be no way to live or be an artist for me. But, is that because these feelings of beauty are also feelings of goodness or amazingness? I'm not sure. Also, I've had feelings of disgust, horror, tragedy, etc. during my miserable struggles, and they were profound feelings. But, were they also feelings of badness or horribleness?

They could've been. I'm not sure. I know I've had feelings of badness and horribleness during my miserable struggles. But, when it comes to determining whether a feeling of disgust or horror I get is also a bad or horrible feeling, it's difficult. So, if I get a certain feeling, it's difficult for me to determine whether it's a beautifully good feeling, a horribly tragic feeling, or just a beautiful feeling, or tragic feeling.

Other Person's Response: When it comes to pursuing your hobbies, you can't just have feelings of beauty. You must also feel positive emotions that motivate you to pursue your hobbies.

My Reply: Yes. Otherwise, I'd have no motivation to pursue them.

Other Person's Response: You say that physical pain, such as the pain of being punched in the face or sliced on the arm, is nothing bad or horrible, since it's just a painful feeling, and not a bad or horrible feeling. Only negative emotions can be bad or horrible, since they can be bad or horrible feelings. So, god or his angels might as well not care about those in extreme, physical pain, since their pain is nothing bad or horrible. God or his angels should only care about those suffering from negative emotions.

My Reply: But, a loving, compassionate being would still care about those in physical pain, and heal their pain. So, I disagree with what you said about god or his angels.

Other Person's Response: When jogging, go at a pace you're completely comfortable with (a pace you're not struggling to keep up). I heard that you jog for an hour each day. So, go at a pace you can keep up for an hour.

My Reply: Yes, and that pace would be very slow (3.5-3.7 mph). I went on the treadmill at the gym, and I can adjust the speed on it. This is how I know the jogging speed I can keep up for an hour. Even if I was in the mood to exercise, I don't think I'd be able to keep up a 4.0 mph jogging speed for an hour. But, being in the mood does make it easier for me to keep up a 3.5-3.7 mph jogging speed for an hour. When I'm fully recovered from this emotional crisis, I'm no longer going to jog. I'm just going to walk 3 times a week for an hour. The reason why I'm jogging everyday is because I wish to speed up my recovery.

Other Person's Response: Since you're only able to keep up a very slow jogging pace, I wonder if you're a fat person who eats a lot of junk food.

My Reply: No. I'm quite thin, and I eat healthy. By the way, there are fat people who eat a lot of junk food, and are able to keep up a decent jogging pace for an hour. So, what jogging pace a person is able to keep up all depends on his level of physical and mental endurance.

Other Person's Response: I heard that your mother is a bit obese, and does eat junk food. Is she able to jog?

My Reply: No. She's in worse shape than me. She can't even keep up a brisk walking pace like I can. She walks at a very slow pace. My fastest walking pace would be 3.5 mph, I can easily keep up that pace for an hour, and I end up being far ahead of my mother on the bike trails. She admires my walking speed, and so does my grandma. My grandma also can't jog, and she walks at a slow pace as well. Actually, my grandma's walking speed might be 3.0 mph, and my mother's being slower. I'm not sure.

Other Person's Response: If you can easily keep up a 3.5 mph walking speed for an hour, then why can't you keep up a significantly faster jogging speed for an hour (such as 4.5 mph)?

My Reply: I think it's because jogging takes more effort. So, jogging at 3.5 mph takes more effort than walking at 3.5 mph. That's why I can only keep up a 3.5-3.7 mph jogging speed for an hour. Actually, maybe I'm able to keep up a 3.8-4.0 mph jogging speed for an hour. I haven't been to the gym for a while. So, I can't go on the treadmill and find out.

Other Person's Response: You're lacking in so many areas. You're very dumb, you have a hard time understanding things, you can't decide on controversial topics, you have a poor, shallow, weak philosophy, you have very little endurance when it comes to physical exercise, etc.

My Reply: I ask myself what amazing ability I do have, despite all my weaknesses. I suspect I might have this amazing ability of naturally creating awesome music in my mind.

Other Person's Response: According to you, everyone has this ability, since everyone's brain is naturally capable of creating awesome works of art. So, if you have this ability, then it wouldn't be special or amazing, considering that everyone else has this ability.

My Reply: But, what is special and amazing is the type of music I'm creating in my mind. It's bizarre, unique music that conveys powerful and profound emotion. It's unlike the lame, stale, mediocre music that you hear on the radio all the time.

Other Person's Response: Let's pretend all possible melodies and songs existed, and I could choose any possible melody or song I wanted to share to the world that expresses the emotion and scenes I wish to express. I'd still choose to compose my own melodies and songs because composition is enjoyable for me.

My Reply: I'd actually give up composing in that situation because there'd no longer be any need for me to compose music, when all the music I'd compose would already exist, and I can just choose to share that music.

Other Person's Response: I think you're unable to pick up on the beat of a song because you're just an ignorant person. You don't know how to do it.

My Reply: Isn't it supposed to be a natural ability that doesn't need to be taught? Also, I might be able to pick up on the beat of some songs. I'm not sure.

Note to Reader: This is a recap/new summary of my philosophy of emotions. I might as well share it, since I put some effort into it. It explains why I think good, bad, beauty, horror, tragedy, etc. can only be emotions (feelings/perceptions/value judgments):

Final Summary

The only beauty and goodness that exists is the beauty and goodness we perceive. The more of it we perceive, the more of it we're getting. If someone perceived the moment with his family as beautiful and good, then he got some beauty and goodness out of that moment. His goal should be to perceive as much beauty and goodness as he can throughout his life. The more of it he perceives, the better. Perception and experience are the same thing. For example, seeing (perceiving) the color red is the same thing as experiencing red.

So, when he sees (perceives) things as beautiful and good, he's experiencing beauty and goodness in regards to those things, and that's the same thing as him having beautiful, good experiences. Our goal in life is to have as much beautiful, good, amazing, awesome, magnificent, valuable, precious, worthwhile, etc. experiences as we can (i.e. to have as much positive experiences as we can). We should avoid having negative experiences, such as bad, horrible, tragic, horrific, disturbing, pathetic, disgusting, etc. experiences.

So, that means we should avoid perceiving things as bad, horrible, etc. because, if we don't, then all we're doing is bringing ourselves the bad, horrible, etc. Even if there was a psychopath who was torturing living things, we shouldn't perceive that as bad, horrible, etc. We should instead see it as a good or beautiful thing he gets locked up in prison. Or, we could see it as a good or beautiful thing that he's torturing those living things. Either way, we're getting beauty and goodness out of it.

Now that I've established that life's all about getting the positive perceptions/experiences, and avoiding the negative ones, emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, beauty, horror, tragedy, value, worth, etc. An example of some emotions would be a feeling of panic from being in a dangerous situation, a feeling of horror, a feeling of joy or excitement, a feeling of sexual arousal, a feeling of misery, etc. There are the positive emotions (pleasant emotions), and they're the positive perceptions/experiences we need.

Then, there are the negative emotions (unpleasant emotions), and they're the negative perceptions/experiences we should avoid. We can't perceive anything as good, bad, beautiful, horrific, etc. through reason (thinking) alone. In other words, just thinking or believing that something is good, bad, etc. wouldn't allow us to see that thing as good, bad, etc. That thought or belief needs to make us feel good, bad, etc. in regards to that thing in order for us to see it as good, bad, etc. It would be like how reason alone doesn't allow us to see (perceive) the color red.

Just having the thought or belief of red isn't a perception of red, and just having the thought or belief that something is good, bad, etc. isn't a perception of goodness, badness, etc. in regards to that thing. My personal experience has led me to this conclusion because I can clearly tell that my emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, etc. In addition, I can clearly tell that the only way someone or something can matter to me or bother me is through my emotions, and not through reason alone.

That's because the only way I can perceive someone or something as mattering or bothersome would be through my emotions. As a matter of fact, if everyone had no ability to feel emotions, then we'd all be apathetic. We couldn't care about anyone or anything, and neither could we perceive anyone or anything as good, bad, frightening, sad, sexually attractive, morbid, etc. But, emotions are fleeting, transient things. Especially positive emotions, since so many people in this world are depressed, apathetic, and unhappy.

That means these people are hardly getting the positive experiences they need out of life. A life without positive emotions is no way to live or be an artist, and there's nothing better to live for than feeling positive emotions because there's nothing better in life than having positive experiences. I, myself, have had many miserable struggles, which were caused by devastating worries. These struggles have disabled my ability to feel positive emotions, and I couldn't make myself feel positive emotions through reason alone, since there's a difference between reason and emotion.

Likewise, if a person had insomnia, he couldn't make himself feel sleepy through reason alone because there's a difference between reason and feeling sleepy. So, thinking positive is different than feeling positive, and the thought of being sleepy is different than feeling sleepy. During my miserable struggles, I could only have negative experiences, since I could only feel negative emotions. These negative emotions were caused by these miserable struggles. I also had no emotional drive to pursue my composing dream. So, my composing couldn't matter to me, and neither could I perceive it as valuable, good, beautiful, or worthwhile.

That's why I had to give up composing until I was fully recovered from these miserable struggles. That way, my emotional drive would return. Even if I felt negative emotions that motivated me to compose during my miserable struggles, that would still be no way to live or be an artist, since I'd be getting negative experiences and not positive ones. I realize there were miserable, genius artists who felt a lot of negative emotions, and inspired the world through their artwork. But, the audience would be getting positive experiences, since they're able to feel positive emotions from witnessing the artwork, while these genius artists would hardly be getting any.

When bringing others positive emotions, whether it be through helping others or inspiring others through artwork, we need to feel positive emotions in doing so because we need to perceive that endeavor as positive (as good, valuable, beautiful, etc.). In other words, when bringing others positivity, we need to get positivity out of doing so. So, that means life's really all about our own positive emotions because life's all about feeling positive emotions from pursuing any given endeavor, whether it be helping others, doing our hobbies, exercising, etc.

Lastly, here's the emotion perception theory that's been put forth by emotion theorists. This theory explains how emotions are perceptions of good, bad, etc. Since the only good, bad, etc. that exists is the good, bad, etc. we perceive, and since emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, etc., then that means good, bad, etc. can only be emotions. That means feeling good is the only good thing in life, and feeling bad is the only bad thing in life, regardless of what things and situations we feel good or bad about. Emotions are the only things that can make people, situations, and moments good, bad, etc. for us. Anyway, here's that emotion perception theory:

********
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
· Download citation
· https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2013.826057

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=top&needAccess=true

********
Some people disagree with this emotion perception theory. But, I have to agree with it, based upon my personal experience. Also, here's a quote by a famous philosopher (Hume): "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." When Hume talks about passions, he’s referring to emotions. Here’s the definition of passion online: “In philosophy and religion, the passions are the instinctive, emotional, primitive drives in a human being (including, for example, lust, anger, aggression and jealousy) which a human being must restrain, channel, develop, and sublimate in order to be possessed of wisdom.”
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2020 04:02 am
@MozartLink,
Cloud storage is almost as cheap as A2K and probably more reliable.

And the quality of feedback is almost as good.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2020 04:10 am
@MozartLink,
Quote:
When Hume talks about passions, he’s referring to emotions. Here’s the definition of passion online: “In philosophy and religion, the passions are the instinctive, emotional, primitive drives in a human being (including, for example, lust, anger, aggression and jealousy) which a human being must restrain, channel, develop, and sublimate in order to be possessed of wisdom.”

Yeah, but Hume (and you?) gave up too soon, because when passion and wisdom get together - Oh baby.
0 Replies
 
MozartLink
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2020 03:19 pm
@MozartLink,
Other Person's Response: If love was the act of helping others, then that means a person who's in a vegetative state, unable to do anything or help anyone, couldn't love, no matter how much of a loving mindset he had. But, I think that vegetable can still love others, even though he's unable to do anything for them.

My Reply: Right. So, I think love has to be a state of mind. But, that state of mind wouldn't be a person's mindset. Rather, it would be an emotional state (a feeling of love). That's because, without emotions, we're apathetic, and we can't love when we're apathetic. When nobody or nothing matters to us, we can't love that person or thing.

Other Person's Response: A feeling of love is a positive emotion, right?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If someone had a loving mindset that gave him a loving feeling, that feeling must also be a good or amazing feeling, right? So, he can't just have the thought that he loves this person. He must also have the thought that this is a good or amazing person. That way, he gets a loving feeling that's a good or amazing feeling, rather than just a loving feeling.

My Reply: You might be right. I'm not sure if a loving feeling needs to be a good or amazing feeling, just as how I'm not sure if a beautiful feeling needs to be a good or amazing feeling.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2020 04:27 pm
@MozartLink,
Quote:
Other Person:
He must also have the thought that this is a good or amazing person. That way, he gets a loving feeling that's a good or amazing feeling, rather than just a loving feeling.

I like where Other is going here. The concept of ‘unconditional love' has always struck me as absurd. It destroys any intrinsic value in both love and the beloved. Love might as well be just the right chemical mix in the brain.

The atheist embraces the chemistry answer and the religious embrace the even more empty 'unconditional'. God I’m tired of this fucked up planet.

Thanks for listening MozartLink.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 03:56 am
@Leadfoot,
Well, one may point to the chemical in the brain all fine and dandy but I rather focus on the phenomenon being Ontologically possible in the first place in our reality.

You have very pragmatically pointed out that rational Love is a trade agreement just like everything else in Nature...how about the survival of the species in prehistory what would be of us if a mother didn't love their sons for no reason other then them being theirs? Yeah...it is imprinted in some forms of Love...you see, we have rationalized love in many areas where love was not biologically supposed to be rationalized.

...and while I am at it I will spout a blasphemy!
Knowledge can bite you in the arse pretty bad!
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 06:16 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
You have very pragmatically pointed out that rational Love is a trade agreement just like everything else in Nature...how about the survival of the species in prehistory what would be of us if a mother didn't love their sons for no reason other then them being theirs?

I have done no such thing sir. I merely pointed to some absurdities that love is not. You just added another (very popular) one that I have made no claim to. So thank you for that.

Quote:
Yeah...it is imprinted in some forms of Love...you see, we have rationalized love in many areas where love was not biologically supposed to be rationalized.

'Not biologically supposed to be rationalized' ??
I know you put thought into that phrase but I can’t retrace the path. Are you implying actual purpose behind biology that implies intent?

Quote:
...and while I am at it I will spout a blasphemy!
Knowledge can bite you in the arse pretty bad!


Blasphemy? Hardly. You have merely paraphrased King Solomon:

Ecclesiastes 1:17-18 KJV
[17] And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. [18] For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 07:20 am
@Leadfoot,
'Not biologically supposed to be rationalized' ??
Quote:
I know you put thought into that phrase but I can’t retrace the path. Are you implying actual purpose behind biology that implies intent?


No. I meant that the evolution of Love didn't require rational Love for trading Pokemon genes and seeking for compatible immune systems...as for intent, yes, but abstract not personal. Yes, there is Ratio before consciousness.

...in that sense "intent" just means perfect correlation between ultimate ratio and conscious self-perception of the ratio going through your own thinking at you (or a demi-god) intending N stuff.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 07:37 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I speak of "demi-gods" in the sense that I am aware from looking just at the planet Earth diversity of IQ performance between species such that the inferred rationally stands when we fathom the possibility of the spectrum of Alien IQ being so much higher than ours that for all intents and purposes, such beings would not just be like the anthropomorphic "God" we imagined along a few millennia, but better, and thus utterly incomprehensible and totally transcendent for us.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 10:47 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I only recognized the last sentence or so of your second post.
The first was as incomprehensible to me as you posit God to be.
Explanation needed, especially what the ‘evolution of love' means to you.

Yeah, I did get the A.C. Clarke thing.
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'

He also said:
'The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible.'

I am admittedly looking into what everyone tells me is 'impossible'. Otherwise, I won’t know what is possible.


Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2020 04:38 am
@Leadfoot,
Well if you believe a dog can be taught to speak I admire your optimism.

Reptiles had a proto-Love thing going on for their eggs but Love evolved in mammals and social species. Why? Because in some scenarios survival of the group is more cost-effective than the survival of the one... especially when semi-complex tasks are involved.

I made an incursion into the free will problem in case you hadn't notice.

I also explained that in a timeless scenario the ORDER of things it is before within time you come to perceive whatever you come to perceive. That goes way back to the debate about the ontology of archetypes or qualities or phenomena.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2020 04:59 am
@Leadfoot,
PS - I suggest you take a look at mirror neurons and what species do have them. It is important for empathy and also learning.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2020 05:18 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
I also explained that in a timeless scenario the ORDER of things it is before within time you come to perceive whatever you come to perceive.

I will think about that a lot. Like what sort of punctuation would unravel it.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2020 05:19 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
PS - I suggest you take a look at mirror neurons and what species do have them. It is important for empathy and also learning.

I’ve been called an unfeeling asshole Ignorant idiot before.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2020 07:40 am
@Leadfoot,
You are going on a tangent there debate the topic or pass...yes you were reminded of some stuff that either was not in your mind at the time of your post or was neglected in the writing of your post. Deal with it or leave it!
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2020 11:54 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
You are assuming I didn't.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2020 04:18 am
@Leadfoot,
My previous post has 2 conditional propositions as a hypothesis... so I am assuming nothing. I am scanning the landscape of possibilities to explain your drifting.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/08/2020 at 09:11:21