All My Philosophy Packets (Files)

You should dare to do just that - speak what you think. I will admit that for the first sixty odd years I felt the same way. I would not have questioned even the way people tie their shoelaces for fear of offending or questioning their knowledge or honesty. I pulled into my own private universe to make my own sense of life. Not a bad thing to do, once you realize everyone starts out life almost clueless.

But I don’t regret ‘coming out' after going inside to find answers. Hell, if we're doomed anyway, what do we have to lose? 'They' started out as clueless as we. I’m not afraid of offending or looking the fool anymore.

Old people have a lot of wisdom they could share, but it seems like there is some kind of barrier that stops anyone else from benefiting from it. Either they lack the words or will to share it or we are not able to receive it. Apparently we have to figure some things out for ourselves.

I run on... Anyway, I can’t promise not to question anything you might say, but I Will give it a fair hearing.

Other Person's Response: Here's a hellish near death experience account (it was taken from this link):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6173534/

"Another woman in childbirth felt herself floating on water, but at a certain point, “It was no longer a peaceful feeling; it had become pure hell. I had become a light out in the heavens, and I was screaming, but no sound was going forth. It was worse than any nightmare. I was spinning around, and I realized that this was eternity; this was what forever was going to be…. I felt the aloneness, the emptiness of space, the vastness of the universe, except for me, a mere ball of light, screaming.”

This woman knew this hell would last for an eternity. But, should she trust this knowledge? Perhaps she's wrong, and she's believing a lie. So, perhaps when her physical body dies, her soul won't be trapped for an eternity in that hellish realm. She might just remain there for a little while.

My Reply: Or perhaps she knew the truth, and no being could ever save her. So, if her soul ends up in that hellish realm, she really might remain there for an eternity.

Other Person's Response: If god or his angels can't save her, then how would they be loving entities to allow such a horrible fate? They would've known all along that some souls would be hopelessly trapped for an eternity in a hellish afterlife, where god and his angels couldn't rescue them. So, if god and his angels were all-loving beings, then they would've done everything in their power to prevent such a tragic fate from happening.

My Reply: I agree.

Hi guys,

I am doing a paper about conspiracy theories (artificial diseases). My paper focuses on how the Soviet Union incriminated the US Government of creating the HIV/AIDS disease.

Some help would be appreciated , please reply for the full project requirments. It is an important paper that can be placed in the newspaper, those who help me will certainly have their names on it.

Regards,
HB

Other Person's Response: Are feelings (perceptions) of value and worth the only valuable and worthwhile things in life, just as how feeling good is the only good thing in life?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Good and bad are just labels. So, you can define (label) good and bad however you want. Why limit yourself to the philosophy that feeling good is the only good thing in life, and feeling bad is the only bad thing in life?

My Reply: I did define good and bad as something else. For example, I defined it as a good thing to persevere in my composing dream, despite my misery. But, that didn't work for me, which means it didn't change my life for the better. Being in that miserable state of mind was still no way to live or be a composer for me. So, that's why I have to conclude that feeling good is the only good thing in life. There's clearly no positive experience for me in the absence of my positive emotions. That's why I have this view that positive emotions are the only positive things in life.

Other Person's Response: Colors are mental states (visual states), and reason alone can't allow us to experience them. Beauty, happiness, love, etc. are also mental states, and reason alone can't allow us to experience them.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: Even if a person felt bad about a psychopath feeling good in regards to torturing others, it would still be a good thing for that psychopath to torture others, since he felt good about it.

My Reply: Yes, and I don't care how dumb and dangerous my philosophy sounds.

Other Person's Response: If people don't feel like reading all this material you've written, then why should they even bother reading it? They wouldn't care.

My Reply: But, there are some people who'd feel interested in reading it.

Other Person's Response: Emotions are mental states, and mental states are actual things. Since emotions are value judgments, then that means value judgments are actual things (mental states). So, good and bad are actual things (value judgments/emotions/mental states).

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Have you considered the principle of Yin and Yang, where all things exist as inseparable and contradictory opposites? For example, female-male, dark-light, sun and rain, old and young, etc. The two opposites of Yin and Yang attract and complement each other, and, as their symbol illustrates, each side has, at its core, an element of the other (represented by the small dots).

Neither pole is superior to the other and, as an increase in one brings a corresponding decrease in the other, a correct balance between the two poles must be reached in order to achieve harmony. So, we can't have happiness (or good feelings) without the existence of bad feelings and unhappiness. For instance, can we use 'bad feelings' to help us stay happy, or happy feelings to keep us feeling bad? I certainly agree that it's all about feelings. But, my question is, what value is there to have bad feelings or suffering, when we do not intend to seek or want same?

My Reply: We can use bad feelings however we want. But, my view says that feeling bad can only be bad, regardless of how said feelings are used. Even if bad feelings were used to give us more good feelings throughout our lives, that still wouldn't be good. So, a person would just have to bear through the bad feelings (which are bad) until he gains the end result of more good feelings throughout his life. The moment he gains these good feelings is the moment he has goodness in his life again. As you can see, my horrible, miserable struggles can never be good, valuable, or beautiful, even if the end result was the most powerful bliss for me. I'd just have to bear through those struggles until I gain the bliss (which would be intensely good, beautiful, amazing, magnificent, etc).

Other Person's Response: Is feeling bad required to feel good?

My Reply: I don't think so. After all, in the past, I hardly felt bad, and I mostly felt good throughout my life until, years later, I recently had these miserable struggles. Also, if feeling bad is required to feel good, my philosophy says that feeling bad is still bad. Like I said, having these miserable struggles was no way to live or be an artist, which means these struggles weren't good, valuable, or beautiful. So, that's why I conclude that feeling bad can only be bad, and feeling good can only be good.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy says that feeling bad is no way to live or be an artist. So, that would have to mean feeling bad can only be bad, according to your philosophy. But, an artist who feels bad can paint or write music about feeling bad in order to describe and/or connect with reality (the human condition). Is that bad?

My Reply: It's bad to live a life of feeling bad, even if bad feelings were used to inspire others through artwork. Again, my personal experience has led me to this conclusion.

Other Person's Response: If an artist created a work of art that depicted feeling bad, then would that work of art be bad?

My Reply: No, because works of art, in of themselves, are neither good nor bad. Feeling good is what's good, and feeling bad is what's bad. Also, if an artist created an animated character, and said character expressed that he was feeling bad, then that wouldn't be bad, since the character is just an animated drawing that doesn't have feelings. That character can't feel good, bad, love, hate, etc.

Other Person's Response: Are emotions, by themselves, perceptions of good, bad, beauty, etc.? Or, do we make them perceptions of good, bad, etc. by having the thought or belief that something is good, bad, etc., and that thought or belief giving us perceptions (feelings) of goodness, badness, etc. in regards to that thing?

My Reply: I'm not sure, but I think emotions only become perceptions of good, bad, beauty, etc. through our thoughts and beliefs. So, if someone automatically felt a certain emotion in regards to a given thing, and said emotion wasn't triggered by the person's way of thinking or believing, then I don't think that emotion can be a perception of good, bad, value, beauty, etc. in regards to that thing.

Other Person's Response: So, a thought that something's horrific makes us feel horror in regards to that thing, so we can perceive it as horrific?

My Reply: Yes. Thoughts and beliefs make us feel emotions, so we can perceive things as good, bad, horrific, etc. But, there are things that can prevent thoughts and beliefs from making us feel certain emotions.

Other Person's Response: When a person sees red, actual red is there. When a person sees beauty and goodness, then actual beauty and goodness is there.

My Reply: Yes, and positive emotions are actual beauty and goodness, since they're feelings/perceptions of beauty and goodness. Also, the color red is a perceptual (visual) state, which means red doesn't exist in the physical world. It only exists in our minds. The same idea applies to sounds, smells, and even good, bad, beauty, horror, etc. So, colors, sounds, smells, good, bad, etc. are all perceptual states. They're all produced by the brain. But, the brain can't produce any of them if the necessary brain regions aren't working properly because there are blind people, deaf people, people who can't smell, and people who are unable to feel certain emotions. So, there are people who can't perceive colors, sounds, smells, good, bad, etc.

Other Person's Response: As for sound, there are vibrations in the physical world. But, actual sound is something produced by the brain. So, sound itself doesn't exist in the physical world.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy is basically saying there's no good, bad, etc. in this world, and that it's all in our mind?

My Reply: Yes. Things like good, bad, beauty, etc. are all perceptions.

Other Person's Response: So, this world isn't beautiful or horrible, and we make it a beautiful or horrible place for ourselves by perceiving it as beautiful or horrible?

My Reply: Yes. But, without our emotions, we can't make that happen.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, when a person feels good about something, he's perceiving it as a good thing? Since perceptions of good are the only good things in life, then that means feeling good is the only good thing in life?

My Reply: Yes. The only goodness that exists is the goodness we perceive. The same thing applies to bad.

Other Person's Response: Are feelings (perceptions) of value and worth the only valuable and worthwhile things in life, just as how feeling good is the only good thing in life?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: I think your philosophy is very childish.

My Reply: There will be people who'd say that any given worldview is childish. For example, atheists would say that Christianity is childish, since Christians aren't growing up out of this mystical, fairy tale nonsense that they live their lives by. Christians would say that atheism is childish, since atheists are rebelling against the Christian doctrine, and not living their lives in obedience to the Lord.

I could even say that people who live by a philosophy opposite of mine is childish, since these people trivialize emotions, have stigma against those who uphold the importance of emotions, deny the fact that emotions are the only good and bad things in life, and call me childish. My point is, when people say that any given worldview is childish, that's just their opinion. So, if people say my philosophy is childish, then that's just their opinion.

Other Person's Response: What if people say that your philosophy is nonsense?

My Reply: Again, when it comes to any given worldview, there will be people who'd say it's nonsense. So, if people say that my philosophy is nonsense, then that's just their personal view. I think any philosophy that opposes mine is nonsense, and that would just be my personal view.

Other Person's Response: You say, in another document, that you're undecided when it comes to controversial topics, which means you should remain undecided as to whether any philosophy that opposes yours really is nonsense or not, since even that's controversial.

My Reply: You're right. But, for me, my emotions are the only good and bad things in life, since that's just my personal experience.

Other Person's Response: What are your thoughts on changing your philosophy to a better one?

My Reply: If people think my philosophy is childish nonsense, and they try to convert me to a different philosophy, then that would be like trying to convert a Christian or atheist. It's just a waste of time because it's not going to work. As a matter of fact, nothing will work. So, you can argue with a Christian or atheist all day, and that won't convert him/her. Also, to try to convert me to a different philosophy would be no different than me trying to convert someone to my philosophy. Like I said, it's just not going to work.

Other Person's Response: So, why are people wasting their time having a discussion with you in this very document? Their attempts to change your philosophy are in vain.

My Reply: Such a discussion gives plenty of insight for readers in regards to my philosophy, and I wish to share this insight to people, such as my therapist, my mother, and anyone else who'd be interested in reading it. This discussion section addresses plenty of questions, objections, and responses people have in regards to my philosophy.

Other Person's Response: Do you think it's a futile endeavor to try to change your philosophy?

My Reply: Yes. So, this is just my philosophy, and I don't think anything can change it.

Other Person's Response: There are some Christians and atheists who convert over to a different worldview. So, I think it's possible for you to convert over to a different worldview.

My Reply: But, I think most people don't convert from whatever worldview they had. For example, most Christians don't convert. So, if you're a Christian, then it's very likely you'll remain a Christian your entire life. As for my worldview, which says that feeling good is the only good thing in life, and feeling bad is the only bad thing in life, many people would say it's a very limiting, self-defeating view. Unfortunately, I think it's very likely I'll remain stuck with this view my entire life.

Other Person's Response: I heard that our souls have incarnated into physical bodies here on Earth for the purpose of learning and growing. We undergo suffering and hardships to develop as individuals. You've had much suffering, since you've had many miserable struggles, and said struggles were a cycle of suffering that lasted many years. If god and his angels wanted you to have these struggles in the hopes that you'd develop a better philosophy, then they're really just wasting their time, aren't they? If you can never develop a better philosophy, then reincarnating here on Earth again and again to suffer a life of misery and unhappiness is pointless. It's never going to change your philosophy. So, what's the point?

My Reply: Exactly.

Other Person's Response: Hedonism is a philosophy that advocates the idea of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. I think your philosophy would be a form of hedonism, since your philosophy says that we should pursue positive emotions and avoid negative emotions.

My Reply: Yes. But, the emotion perception theory is added into this hedonistic view of mine. So, instead of me having a hedonistic view that simply says we should pursue positive emotions and avoid negative ones, I have a view that says we should pursue positive emotions (perceptions of goodness, beauty, magnificence, awesomeness, etc.), and avoid negative emotions (perceptions of badness, horror, tragedy, disgust, etc.).

Other Person's Response: Many people, such as therapists, would even say to look on the bright side, and not the dark side. In other words, they'd say to look at the positive and not the negative (i.e. to see the goodness, beauty, etc., and not the bad, horrible, etc.).

My Reply: Right. When you see something as beautiful, good, or amazing, that's giving you a beautiful, good, or amazing experience (a positive experience), and we need these positive experiences. Our perception is our life's experience, and if we're perceiving things as horrible, bad, or disgusting, then we're just creating a negative life experience for ourselves. When we feel positive emotions (have positive perceptions), our minds are in the bright side (the realm of the holy light), and not the dark side.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy says that feeling good is the only good thing in life, and feeling bad is the only bad thing in life. That means how we feel is the only thing that matters.

My Reply: Yes, because our perception/life's experience is all that matters.

Other Person's Response: I think hedonism says that feeling good is the only good thing in life. But, when hedonism talks about feeling good, I don't think it means perceiving someone or something as good. It just means a pleasant feeling. For example, if a person feels well after having recovered from the flu, then that would be feeling good, according to hedonism. When a person feels a pleasant, bodily sensation, then that would also be feeling good, according to hedonism.

My Reply: Right. So, when I talk about feeling good, I'm talking about perceiving good, which is a positive emotion.

Other Person's Response: Positive emotions are also loving, happy, sexually erotic, etc. perceptions, right? We should pursue those perceptions as well, shouldn't we?

My Reply: Yes. So, instead of just perceiving something as good, such as seeing a certain idea as good, we should also pursue loving, happy, and sexually erotic forms of goodness. That means we should happily perceive our hobbies, goals, and dreams as good, we should lovingly perceive someone as a good person, etc.

Other Person's Response: So, we should pursue feelings of happiness and love that are good feelings?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: I heard the only thoughts that have traumatized you were thoughts of worry and concern in regards to yourself, and not others. For example, there was a moment in your life where you lost your ability to feel positive emotions, and that made you miserable. You're not really concerned about others, which is why the death and suffering of people and animals doesn't bother you at all. There were moments where pets in your house died, and it didn't matter to you. As a matter of fact, a person could suffer and die before your very eyes, and that wouldn't bother you. You'd just have a positive, casual mindset about that situation that causes you to feel positive.

My Reply: I wouldn't want to be traumatized and miserable when witnessing the death and suffering of others anyway, since that would be giving me a negative experience. I also wish I never had all these thoughts and worries that traumatized me and made me miserable, since that was nothing but a negative experience for me.

Other Person's Response: Since it's your mindset that causes you to feel certain ways, and since you don't feel bothered by the death and suffering of others, then that must mean you have the mindset that the death and suffering of others doesn't bother you.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: Do you also have the mindset that people and animals don't matter to you at all?

My Reply: Actually, I have the mindset that they matter to me. For example, I had the thought that Michael Jackson was an awesome person, that thought made me feel awesome about him, and that feeling was a perception of him being awesome. The very fact I had that thought means I had the thought that he mattered to me. But, even though I see him as an awesome person, I wasn't bothered at all by his suffering and death.Other Person's Response: You say you normally have a positive mindset that causes you to feel positive emotions, and that you feel many negative emotions only during your miserable struggles/emotional traumas. Is it because you have a lot of negative thoughts making you feel negative emotions during these struggles?

My Reply: I think so. If one negative thought or worry causes you to feel miserable, then you're going to have other negative thoughts and worries making you feel other negative emotions. Also, I can't help but have these negative thoughts and negative emotions during an emotional crisis. During an emotional crisis, many things bother me, such as the name calling of others, having to do certain tasks, etc. But, they don't bother me at all when I'm not having an emotional crisis.

Other Person's Response: Since emotions are the only good and bad things in life, then our thoughts alone can't be positive or negative (good or bad). So, it's just thoughts making you feel positive or negative emotions, and not positive or negative thoughts making you feel positive or negative emotions.

My Reply: Right. But, I can still refer to thoughts as being positive or negative anyway, just for the sake of convenience.

Other Person's Response: You say you can't help but feel negative emotions during an emotional crisis. So, does that mean you do feel miserable when witnessing the death and suffering of others during an emotional crisis?

My Reply: Yes, sometimes, because negative emotions sometimes pop up. They're not traumatic feelings. But, they're still very negative feelings I don't want. But, like I said, when I'm not having an emotional crisis, I normally don't feel sad, miserable, tragic, etc. in regards to others dying and suffering, and that's a good thing because feeling good is the only good thing in life, and I normally feel good when I don't have an emotional crisis.

Other Person's Response: According to Hume, if we were rendered without the ability to feel emotions, then it wouldn't be a good thing to pursue our goals and dreams, help others, do certain tasks, etc. We'd just be apathetic vessels who are hollow on the inside. So, emotions have to be the only good and bad things in life.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: Perceptions are mental states. So, when a person perceives beauty, he's in a beautiful mental state. When he perceives something or someone as valuable or magnificent, then he's in a valuable or magnificent mental state.

My Reply: Yes, and these beautiful, valuable, and magnificent mental states are the only beautiful, valuable, and magnificent things in life. The same thing applies to bad, horrible, disgusting, tragic, etc. mental states.

Other Person's Response: Since these mental states are the only things that matter, according to your philosophy, then that means it's not about what contributions I've made to humanity, what heroic deeds I've done, and what mark I've made upon this world. It's all about how much positive and negative mental states I've experienced throughout my life.

My Reply: Correct. If you've had mostly positive mental states, then you've lived a life that was mostly good, beautiful, magnificent, etc.

Other Person's Response: Some people would say you're a cold-blooded psychopath, since your philosophy says feeling good is the only good thing in life, which means it would be a good thing to harm someone if a person felt good about doing it. But, I don't think you're a cold-blooded psychopath. I think you just have a very limiting, self-defeating view is all. Such a view renders you a victim of negative emotions because, rather than embracing horrible feelings, you instead deem them as the only horrible things in life, and say that having such feelings is no way to live or be an artist.

My Reply: I'm very polite, I don't harm others, and many people love me. So, that shows I'm not a cold-blooded psychopath. But, regardless of how much others tell me my philosophy is dangerous, dumb, or self-defeating, it's not going to change my philosophy.

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: The only way we can value something or someone as good, beautiful, and amazing is through our positive emotions, right?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: So, if I want to value something or someone, then I need to see it as valuable, and I can only do so through a feeling of value (a positive emotion)?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Is the only way you can value people and things is through your feelings of value?

My Reply: Yes. That's been my personal experience.

Other Person's Response: People are telling you why your philosophy is false. It's a dangerous philosophy, and if people lived by it, we'd have a dangerous, dysfunctional society. So, why hasn't that convinced you that your philosophy is false?

My Reply: It's because this is my life and my own personal experience. I pay attention to what my personal experience has to say, regardless of what others tell me. My personal experience says perceptions of goodness and badness are the only good and bad things in life, and that these perceptions can only be emotional states. My personal experience also says that love, hate, fear, pride, and happiness can only be emotions. Until my personal experience says otherwise, this is the philosophy I'll always have.

Other Person's Response: I realized you defined happiness as something other than a positive emotion, such as doing tasks and helping others, despite your misery. But, that didn't work for you, which means your personal experience is still telling you that happiness can only be a positive emotion.

My Reply: Right. No definition of happiness can be happiness for me. So, I've concluded that happiness can only be a positive emotion. After all, my feelings of happiness have always been the only happiness for me. Regardless of what I define as happiness, love, hate, sadness, good, bad, etc., I must pay attention to what my personal experience says, and my personal experience says they can only be emotions.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy says that making others feel good can't be good if we don't feel good about doing so?

My Reply: Correct. A person's perception must be taken into consideration when he's doing certain tasks and deeds. So, as long as a person is unable to see it as a good thing to bring others good feelings, then it wouldn't be a good thing if he brought others good feelings. Also, as long as I'm unable to see the pursuit of my composing dream as good or valuable, then that pursuit can't be good or valuable.

Other Person's Response: Humans have perceptions (mental states). Without them, we'd just be machines with no consciousness. So, to ignore and dismiss a person's feelings (perceptions/mental states) would be no different than treating that person as a machine. For example, if a person was completely apathetic, couldn't love anyone, couldn't see helping others as a good, valuable, or worthwhile endeavor, he forced himself to help others anyway, despite his apathy, and other people acted as though that was a loving, good, valuable, and worthwhile deed, then these people would be treating him as a machine because they act as though it's his deeds that mattered, and not his perception.

My Reply: Right. That person had an apathetic perception, and such a perception shouldn't be ignored and dismissed. The fact is, his deeds wouldn't be loving, good, valuable, or worthwhile because he didn't have loving, good, valuable, or worthwhile feelings/perceptions when doing these deeds. Regardless of how much that apathetic person dragged himself along through life and made it his sworn duty to help and protect others, his deeds wouldn't be good or loving. There are plenty of depressed and apathetic people in this world who get work done because they know it has to be done. But, that wouldn't be a good, valuable, or beautiful thing, according to my philosophy.

Other Person's Response: There are suicidal, miserable people in this world who are in much mental turmoil. But, there are people who dismiss their mental suffering and tell them: "You gotta do what you gotta do in life."

My Reply: Right. Being in that mental state is no way to live, and those people would be dismissing this because they act as though getting work done is what's important, and not our perception/state of mind. As a matter of fact, people even have this attitude in regards to themselves. So, regardless of how miserable and apathetic they are, they still somehow believe it's their deeds that are important, and not their perception.

Other Person's Response: You said you still did certain tasks when you were miserable and unable to feel positive emotions. You even pursued your composing dream for quite some time. But, you're saying that wasn't a good thing?

My Reply: Correct, since I couldn't feel good about it.

Other Person's Response: You say, later on, that depressed and apathetic people are performing loving acts in the absence of their loving feelings. But, they wouldn't be loving acts, and you're just saying they're loving acts anyway, just for the sake of convenience.

My Reply: Yes. It's simply to convey what types of acts I'm talking about. For example, if I just said that depressed and apathetic people perform acts, I wouldn't be making it clear to the reader what type of act I'm talking about, such as a loving, hateful, angry, joyful, etc. act. But, without feelings of love, hate, etc., there can be no loving, hateful, etc. act.

Other Person's Response: You don't need to be bothered by the death and suffering of others. You could instead feel positive about helping others, easing their suffering, and preventing their death.

My Reply: Right. But, I don't really care about going out of my way to help humanity. It's just not my passion in life. My passion is composing music for the world to hear. My goal as a composer is to compose music that the audience would praise, so I can feel positive emotions from said praise.

Other Person's Response: If you felt more horrible than someone else, then that means your suffering was worse than his.

My Reply: Yes. When determining whose suffering is worse, we'd compare our feelings and see who had the worse feelings.

Once in awhile you hit the nail right on the ******* head Mozart.

Other Person's Response: If I wish to create a beautiful, tropical experience for myself, then I'd imagine a tropical place I think is beautiful? From there, that thought needs to make me feel beauty in order for that beautiful, tropical atmosphere (mood) to be created for me?

My Reply: Yes. Whatever beautiful or amazing mood (atmosphere) you wish to create for yourself is yours to create. You can even imagine yourself as being any character you think is awesome or beautiful, and you'd get to experience the awesomeness or beauty of that character as a part of yourself. In other words, you get to perceive yourself as being any awesome or beautiful character you want. But, again, if you had no ability to feel awesomeness or beauty, then it just won't work because you wouldn't be able to perceive awesomeness or beauty.

Other Person's Response: I heard that you listened to an instrumental, heavy metal song while out in nature, you had the thought this song was beautiful, and you also had the thought that nature was beautiful. Those 2 forms of beauty combined to create a new form of beauty, and it would be like combining 2 colors to make a new color (such as combining red and yellow to make orange). So, the feeling of beauty you got was a heavy metal, nature feeling, and this feeling of beauty was a new form of beauty that was created as a result of those 2 forms of beauty combining.

My Reply: Yes. So, that feeling of beauty would be like the color orange, which was created by having a thought of beauty in regards to that heavy metal song (red), and having a thought of beauty in regards to nature (yellow). I notice that beautiful heavy metal/nature feeling pops up whenever I listen to that heavy metal song, regardless if I listen to it while out in nature, or in the store. I also notice that other songs I listen to make me feel positive emotions that are combined forms of beauty, awesomeness, magnificence, etc.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, if there were police who were tired, miserable, and didn't feel like catching a criminal, then it wouldn't be a good thing if they caught that criminal. In addition, that criminal wouldn't be a bad guy if he didn't feel he was a bad guy. If he felt good about himself, then that means he sees himself as a good person, and that makes him a good person.

My Reply: Correct. As for the police, they can still choose to catch that criminal anyway, just as how a miserable, tired person can still choose to drag himself out of bed. But, like I said, it wouldn't be a good thing to do so, which means those police are free to give up catching that criminal.

Other Person's Response: Would you care if your own brother died?

My Reply: No. I just have no attachment to him. But, I could have the thought that he was a good person who lived the best he could, and feel good about that.

Other Person's Response: You, as a human being, have been bestowed with the capacity to suffer. That's why you've suffered so many miserable struggles throughout your life. But, for you, all this suffering was a pointless waste of your life that didn't develop you as an individual, since it didn't change your philosophy. As a matter of fact, all your suffering has only served to reinforce your philosophy. According to your philosophy, there was nothing good about your suffering, since feeling good is the only good thing in life. So, for you, the capacity to suffer like this is a worthless capacity.

My Reply: Right. I've been bestowed with that capacity and allowed to suffer. I couldn't will myself out of my suffering, which means I had to just bear through it all. That was no way to live for me. If the spirit world (astral realm) exists, then it seems the beings there want us to suffer. As a matter of fact, these beings have been known to preach the value and necessity of suffering time and time again, according to many mystical, spiritual teachings. But, I think these beings are preaching a false doctrine.

If there was any loving being in the astral realm, then he would've somehow prevented all my suffering, or healed my mind of all that suffering. Since that didn't happen, then I conclude that all the beings in the astral realm are unloving beings who preach a false doctrine. In order to prevent these beings from having me reincarnate into another Earthly life of pointless, inevitable suffering, I'll have to slaughter them the moment my soul leaves my dead body. If I had the choice, I'd choose to instantly vaporize every single being in the astral realm.

Other Person's Response: If there was any loving being in the astral realm, then he could've prevented that worthless capacity from being bestowed upon you. That way, you would've never had these miserable struggles, and you would've been happy your entire life.

My Reply: Right. A loving being would ensure my happiness, after all. But, since none of these beings have ensured my happiness, then that must mean they're all unloving beings. I could be wrong about these beings. But, living a miserable life is unacceptable for me, and causes me to feel like slaughtering them.

Other Person's Response: If these beings wanted you to suffer because they wanted you to develop a better philosophy, then it's clearly not working. So, they should've chosen another option instead. Suffering isn't the only path to personal growth, and all your suffering was just a waste of your life. As a matter of fact, you didn't even become more loving, giving, and compassionate through your struggles. So, it would be best if these beings have chosen another option as a means of personal growth.

My Reply: I agree. These beings can see into the future, which means they would've known all along that my miserable struggles wouldn't have changed my philosophy. So, why didn't they just choose another alternative? For example, rather than having me undergo horrible, inevitable suffering that wasted 12 years of my life, they could've had me undergo a powerful, positive, life-transforming experience that changed my philosophy, and transformed me into a more giving, compassionate, loving person.

Other Person's Response: What if no positive experience would ever change your philosophy?

My Reply: Then that's just the way it is. There's nothing that can be done to change my philosophy.

Other Person's Response: Many near death experiences transform the lives of individuals. There's one near death account where a person lost his attachment to his family, friends, and materialistic things, since having near death experiences alters us in some way, given that they're powerful, life-transforming experiences, and the beings in the astral realm desire such personal transformations. But, that person was miserable because he lost his attachment to so many people and things. That means he did have one attachment, which would be an attachment to attachment.

If he didn't have that attachment, then he wouldn't have been miserable about the fact that he's no longer attached to so many people and things. He just wouldn't care. If the beings in the astral realm wanted him to lose his attachments as a means of personal growth and transformation, then why did they leave him with that one attachment, but stripped him of all those other attachments? It seems to me they just wanted him to be miserable. So, these beings could be Archons who wanted to feed off his misery.

My Reply: Right.

I’ve always thought the Socratic dialog was a useful tool, even if the one asking you the questions is yourself. Especially so, actually.

Q. - What makes you think you know the universe isn’t Natural?

A. Depends on what you include in 'universe'. The fine tuning argument can be persuasive but not bullet proof. True, the original source of energy is unknown but there is no reason to assume a supernatural origin, Lots of plausible candidates even if not verifiable.

Q. Then what's left? Why postulate an intelligence behind its organization?

A. Good point, there isn’t one, although it’s suitability for what came later is 'suspicious'. But it could be a fluke. String Theory is pretty elegant in its ability to explain quantum values of time, distance, energy thresholds, quarks, etc.

Q. So?

A. Biological life forms. They are based on a completely different organizational paradigm. It is organized not by regular molecular or crystalline structures which react with the well defined molecular and atomic interactions, but a novel and totally unrelated process not predicted by the predictable and expected ones.

Q. Shouldn’t these same observations be apparent to other objective observers?

A. I would think so, but I take your point. I’m still trying to determine the reasons behind that anomaly.

Other Person's Response: Since people can be rendered without the capacity to see, hear, smell, taste, feel pain, feel pleasure, and feel joy, then these beings could've rendered you without the capacity to suffer.

My Reply: Right. My miserable struggles, along with all the other negative emotions that came with these struggles, were unnecessary suffering.

Other Person's Response: You said that you only feel violently enraged during a miserable moment, since said moments are caused by traumatizing thoughts and worries, which cause you to feel all sorts of negative emotions, such as rage, hate, disgust, horror, etc. That's why you feel like slaughtering those beings during your miserable moments. But, once you're fully recovered from your misery, you're happy again, and you no longer feel rage.

My Reply: Right. But, when I'm happy, I could make myself feel good about slaughtering them.

Other Person's Response: If these beings wanted you to suffer because they wanted you to develop a better philosophy, then it's clearly not working. So, they should've chosen another option as a means of personal growth. Suffering isn't the only path to personal growth, and all your suffering was just a waste of your life. As a matter of fact, you didn't even become more loving, giving, and compassionate through your struggles.

My Reply: I agree. These beings can see into the future, which means they would've known all along that my miserable struggles wouldn't have changed my philosophy. So, why didn't they just choose another alternative? For example, rather than having me undergo horrible, inevitable suffering that wasted 12 years of my life, they could've had me undergo a powerful, positive, life-transforming experience that changed my philosophy, and transformed me into a more giving, compassionate, loving person.

After all, people do have positive, blissful experiences that change them and their lives for the better. An example would be people who go on heavenly, blissful trips to the afterlife during their near death experience. People who have such experiences, and come back to life, report that they've been transformed. They report that their souls have had a profoundly beautiful, life-changing experience in the heavenly afterlife, and that they came back from this experience with a much better outlook on life. They report that they're much more giving, loving, compassionate people as a result of this experience.

Other Person's Response: You say that all your miserable struggles were inevitable suffering. That's not true because you have free will. That means you could've chosen to avoid those struggles, which means those struggles weren't inevitable. But, if you didn't have free will, then your struggles would've been inevitable, since you'd have no choice but to have them.

My Reply: Let's pretend that a person was wanting to take drugs, and he believed the lie that drugs aren't harmful to one's body and brain. He's obviously going to take those drugs, which means his act of taking them is inevitable. But, if he knew that drugs are harmful, then he might not take them. So, my point is, I don't think we have free will, and that all our actions are determined by our knowledge, experience, personality, beliefs, etc.

Other Person's Response: What if that person didn't take drugs, even though he wanted to, and believed that lie? He could've thought to himself: "I have free will, and I'm going to choose not to take those drugs," and that thought prevents him from taking them.

My Reply: It wouldn't have been his free will that stopped him from taking drugs. Rather, it was his knowledge of free will that did, combined with with his personality (his personality being someone who wishes to act against fates that seem inevitable, such as the seemingly inevitable fate of taking drugs when you want to take them, and believe the lie that they're not harmful).

Other Person's Response: It's controversial as to whether humans have free will or not, and you're undecided when it comes to controversial topics. So, you should be undecided if free will exists or not.

My Reply: Right. But, I still like to point certain things out anyway (such as my own personal arguments against free will).

Other Person's Response: If people don't have free will, then that means it's not our choice to change as individuals.

My Reply: Right. My mother has people in her life who are cruel to her, she says they have the choice to change, and that they're choosing to remain cruel. But, if they don't have free will, then they have no choice but to remain cruel.

Other Person's Response: If humans don't have free will, then that means these beings in the astral realm can have you reincarnate into many Earthly lives of inevitable suffering. Such suffering would be inevitable because you don't have the free will to avoid it.

My Reply: Right. Also, when we reincarnate, our knowledge and memories are erased. The knowledge I've acquired through my miserable struggles is that there could be astral beings who want me to suffer, and that I'm going to rebel against their desire by keeping myself happy from now on by no longer having thoughts and worries that would make me miserable. So, I've learned to stop having such thoughts and worries.

I've also acquired the knowledge that feeling good really could be the only good thing in life because, during all my miserable struggles, there wasn't a single good moment for me in the absence of my good feelings. Having this knowledge is preventing me from having anymore of these miserable struggles because I want to feel good from now on. But, this knowledge could be erased by these beings before I reincarnate into a new Earthly body. Thus, I might have more inevitable, miserable struggles during another lifetime.

Other Person's Response: There are religious believers who say we've lived thousands of lives. Let's pretend this life you're living now is your 2,500th incarnation. I'm quite sure you've had miserable struggles in a previous incarnation (lifetime), and learned to stop making yourself miserable by no longer having thoughts and worries that would make you miserable.

Thus, you would've ended your miserable struggles in that lifetime. So, the very fact you're having these miserable struggles again in this lifetime must mean that lesson you've learned in a previous life must've been erased by these astral beings, just so you can suffer another series of miserable struggles in this lifetime. This cycle might continue on and on. In other words, you might reincarnate and have more of these miserable struggles.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: If there was someone acting, and I thought to myself: "I see that as bad acting," then I'd be seeing that as bad acting. I don't need to feel bad in order to see it as bad.

My Reply: If you didn't feel bad about the acting, then you'd just be seeing the acting as flawed. So, from your perspective, the acting would be flawed, but not bad. If you wish to see it as bad, then you need to feel bad about it.

Other Person's Response: It's up to each individual to conclude, based upon his/her personal experience, what he/she thinks is love, happiness, good, bad, beauty, horror, etc.

My Reply: Yes, and my personal experience says they're emotions.

Other Person's Response: Did you define it as a good thing to persevere in your hobbies, despite feeling miserable, and unable to feel good?

My Reply: Yes, and that definition didn't work for me. Therefore, I've concluded that feeling good is the only good thing in life.

Other Person's Response: I realize your personal experience says that living a miserable, unhappy, or apathetic existence is no way to live or be an artist.

My Reply: Yes. But, I realize there are people who've concluded otherwise, based upon their personal experience. Well then, that's just their personal experience, which means they have their own philosophies that oppose my philosophy.

Other Person's Response: What if people told you that there were famous, genius, miserable artists who've inspired the world through their artwork? Would that change your view that living a miserable existence is no way to live or be an artist?

My Reply: No, because no amount of reasoning will change my philosophy. So, I'll always have this view that a miserable existence is no way to live or be an artist until my personal experience says otherwise.

Other Person's Response: It would be a mistake to assume that you'd need to become a selfless, giving person in order for your philosophy to change to a better one because there are self-centered people who live by a better philosophy than yours. For example, selfish villains in movies don't need to feel positive emotions because they have superior motives that keep them set on their goals, even while they're miserable, apathetic, or unhappy.

My Reply: Even if, let's pretend, I did become one of the most selfless, giving people in the world, I still don't think that would change my philosophy. So, even if I became a self-sacrificing individual, I still think I'd need to feel good about my acts of self-sacrifice in order for said acts to be good.

Other Person's Response: There are religious believers who say that we need suffering in order to know joy. But, if that's true, then we only need a little bit of suffering. Our souls acquire knowledge and experience through multiple lives (incarnations), and we'd only need a little bit of suffering in one lifetime to know joy. We don't need to suffer in other lifetimes.

My Reply: Right. Also, I've felt profound joy in the past, even when I hardly suffered back then.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, if a criminal felt good about himself, then that makes him a good person, since feeling good is the only good thing in life. If police felt good about catching him, then it would be a good thing if they did so. So, that means it would be a good thing if they caught this criminal (who's a good person).

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: I could even imagine myself as being any anime character I want to be, and I could imagine myself experiencing that character's feelings of joy, love, beauty, etc., which would allow me to experience those feelings.

My Reply: Yes. It would be as though you've become a new character with new feelings. For example, if you're a guy who experiences masculine feelings of love, and you imagined yourself as being a female character, then you'd now get to experience feminine feelings of love. Emotions are qualities of being, which means that female character's very being, and her feminine love, can't exist as a part of you if you had no ability to feel emotions. So, without your emotions, that female character would just be in your imagination. But, her presence would just be a mere thought or image, and not an actual entity that seems alive and real as a part of you.

Other Person's Response: Emotions are qualities of being because, when a person feels happy, he becomes a happy person (being) on the inside, when a person feels sad or angry, he becomes a sad or angry person on the inside, when a person feels love, he becomes a loving person, etc. Without our ability to feel emotions, we'd just be apathetic beings. We'd be hollow on the inside, regardless of our actions, deeds, expressions, etc.

My Reply: Right. Without our emotions, we couldn't even become loving, joyful anime characters on the inside, even if we imagined ourselves as being said characters, and role played as them. There were many moments in my life where I was unable to feel emotions, and I could clearly tell that I was hollow/apathetic on the inside.

Other Person's Response: I consider hedonism to be a cursed philosophy because there are many hedonists who are miserable as a result of their poor, self-defeating, hedonistic views.

My Reply: Actually, having a hedonistic view isn't the curse. What I consider to be the curse is having thoughts and worries that would make one miserable or traumatized. It's possible to have a hedonistic view and not become miserable or traumatized as a result of said view. For example, if a hedonist lost his ability to feel pleasure, he doesn't need to become miserable or traumatized about that. He could instead just accept his loss and try to find ways to restore his pleasure. I was once miserable because I lost my ability to feel positive emotions. But, that miserable moment is done and over with. So, from now on, if I lose my ability to feel positive emotions, I won't be miserable about that loss, and I'll simply find ways to restore my positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: Negative emotions, including feelings of misery, desensitize (fade away on their own over time). So, if a person was miserable because he lost his loved one, then he'd be miserable for a while. But, that misery would eventually go away, since he's being exposed to said misery for a long time.

My Reply: Yes. I think that's why I was able to fully recover from all my miserable struggles.

Other Person's Response: If Andrew was traumatized by the loss of his loved one, and he perceived that loss as horrible and tragic, then that loss would be horrible and tragic for a while until he accepts that loss and moves forward in life. Once he's fully recovered from his emotional trauma, and he no longer sees his loss as horrible and tragic, then that loss is no longer horrible and tragic.

If Brian were to come along and tell him: "Your loss is still horrible and tragic, even though you no longer see it as horrible and tragic," then that loss wouldn't be horrible and tragic in Andrew's life. Each person is the author of his life, which means we create the beauty, tragedy, horror, etc. in our lives/mental universes.

If a person isn't creating any tragedy in his life (that is, if he's not perceiving anything as tragic), then there's no tragedy in his life/mental universe. So, to tell him that there are still tragic things in his life would be false because tragedy only exists for those who perceive it. In other words, an event would be tragic in one person's life if he perceived it as tragic, but nothing tragic in another person's life if he didn't perceive it as tragic.

My Reply: Right. Good, bad, beauty, tragedy, etc. are things we create ourselves. Our thoughts alone can't create the good, bad, etc. It's once those thoughts make us feel good, bad, etc. that good, bad, etc. are created.

Other Person's Response: If a person felt that time was going very slow, then it would seem as though time is going slow for him. But, if he had no ability to feel emotions, then that means he's apathetic. So, it wouldn't matter to him how much time passes.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: A simple, short tune can convey a powerful, profound, memorable feeling for the audience. So, that's why simple, short tunes can be great.

My Reply: Yes. For me, composing is all about the feeling (emotion), and not about if my compositions meet a high technical standard. In other words, I don't need to create compositions that meet a high standard of sound quality and craftsmanship in order for my compositions to be great or amazing. I can just compose some simple, short tunes that convey the awesome, powerful, profound, otherworldly, memorable feeling I wish to convey, and that would be good enough. Even though they'd be simple, short tunes, they'd still be great, amazing compositions because of the emotion they convey. After all, even simple works of art can be great and amazing.

Other Person's Response: So, you don't wish to compose like Beethoven?

My Reply: I don't need to compose masterpieces like he does. So, when I create a tune or song, it doesn't need to be a complicated masterpiece in order for the audience to glorify it.

Other Person's Response: I heard that you wish to create tunes that convey what you want to convey for the audience. But, if you study the rules of music theory, and you end up creating tunes that convey certain scenes for you, but don't for the audience, then the issue isn't what your tunes sound like for you, as opposed to what they sound like for the audience. The issue is how you're perceiving your tunes, as opposed to how the audience is perceiving them.

My Reply: Right. When composing music, I wish to create music that expresses what I want to express for the audience, and not just for me. Hopefully, I'll be able to achieve this goal, and won't run into the issue you've presented.

Other Person's Response: You say that you normally feel positive emotions when you're not having an emotional trauma, and you normally don't feel negative emotions. So, does that mean you'd normally feel joy, even during the most difficult learning curves in music theory?

My Reply: That's right. Normally, when I learn how to compose, I experience no negativity, such as frustration, rage, misery, etc. But, I'd have those negative experiences (negative emotions) during an emotional trauma.

Other Person's Response: Many people would say that suicide is selfish and cowardly. But, when a person is in a miserable, suicidal state of mind, others come along and tell him something, such as: "Life's still precious and beautiful. You shouldn't give up," then such comments couldn't matter to him. Only the negative matters to him, and not the positive. So, how could one expect him to not commit suicide?

My Reply: Right. If he couldn't feel any positive emotion, and he only felt negative emotions, then that means only the negative could matter to him, such as giving up and ending his life, harming himself and others, etc.

Other Person's Response: You've had miserable, suicidal moments where nothing positive mattered to you. Yet, you didn't commit suicide.

My Reply: Right. So, a person can still make certain choices, regardless of his state of mind, such as choosing to not commit suicide, even though he's in a miserable, suicidal state of mind.

Other Person's Response: If people don't have free will, then that means people who commit suicide had no choice in their act of suicide.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: Since that person's act of taking drugs was inevitable, then that means he didn't have free will.

My Reply: Right. Having free will means that our actions aren't inevitable. It would also mean our thoughts and beliefs aren't inevitable. But, a person can't choose what he believes in. An example would be how people are brainwashed to believe certain lies. So, their unfortunate circumstance of believing these lies was inevitable, which means they didn't have free will.

Other Person's Response: In regards to selfishness, it's not natural, and it's against nature because our natural state of being is divine, where we are selfless and giving, interconnected with other humans, have unconditional love and compassion towards one another, etc.

My Reply: I think selfishness is natural and a part of nature. After all, there are many animals, insects, and reptiles that are selfish. So, it's natural to be selfish, and it's also natural to be selfless because there are selfless animals, insects, and reptiles.

Reply: That is a hopeful scenario, but what if your first hypothesis is actually true - What if he (whether hedonist or not) actually did lose his ability to feel pleasure, not just things that gave him pleasure?

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, the beings in the astral realm aren't all-loving because an all-loving being would preserve what's good (good feelings). So, an all-loving being would ensure humanity's good feelings by healing them of clinical depression (which is a mental illness known to take away a person's good feelings), healing them of misery and emotional traumas, etc.

My Reply: Yes. As a matter of fact, these beings could've created us as beings who are incapable of having clinical depression, misery, emotional trauma, etc. In other words, they could've created us as perfect, utopian beings, and they could've created a utopia world for us. But, since these beings aren't doing this, then they're just letting the good waste away because there are plenty of miserable, depressed, unhappy, and apathetic people.

Other Person's Response: This world is a very dystopian life, where people go through unnecessary suffering. For example, there are people who have such poor quality of life, due to a certain mental or physical illness, that they require assisted suicide. So, you're not the only one who had much unnecessary suffering in his life.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: I heard that the style of music you wish to compose is music that conveys an otherworldly, awesome, powerful, profound mood. An example of such music would be heavy, booming bass (like the heavy bass you hear from cars) with an enchanting woman witch who has an evil, heavy, powerful, singing voice. There'd also be an enchanting male astronaut to give an even more otherworldly feeling to the musical piece. This music would have otherworldly instruments to it as well.

My Reply: Yes. The heavy bass would convey a heavy mood, and the rest that goes along with the bass would convey a heavy, otherworldly, evil mood. As of now, I'm not a skilled composer at all, and I'm only composing rubbish tunes.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, your music can't be awesome if people, including you, couldn't feel awesome about it.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: I heard you wish to be a composer because you wish to impact the world through your music. But, let's pretend you lived on life support and never had the opportunity to be a composer. You could still impact the world in other ways, such as being a kind inspiration to others.

My Reply: But, I wish to impact the world in such a way that the feelings I wish to be expressed are expressed to the world. The feelings I wish to express are bizarre, otherworldly, powerful, profound feelings, and such feelings can only be expressed through a field of art. I've chosen composing to express those feelings. If I were to instead impact the world in some other way, such as being a kind person who helps others, then not only would those otherworldly feelings not be expressed to the world, but I'd be impacting the world in a normal, human way, rather than an abnormal, inhuman way. You see, I wish to astonish the audience with music that's unique, out of the ordinary, and not human. I don't wish to astonish people by normal, human means, such as living on life support and being a kind inspiration to others.

Other Person's Response: So, you wish to astonish the world through your otherworldly music, and feel positive emotions from people praising your music?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If someone was living on life support, and he had no artistic skill whatsoever, then how could he possibly convey the powerful, profound feelings that great works of art convey? For example, if there were people who never listened to Beethoven's symphonies, then how could that person on life support possibly convey the sheer magnificence of these symphonies to others? In addition, there are certain feelings that can only be conveyed through works of art, which means you can't convey such feelings to others if you're just an average person with no artistic skill.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: If you had to live on life support, then people would never get to realize the great artist that dwelled within you, since they'd never get to hear your music.

My Reply: Right. I'd just be a normal, kind, inspirational human being in their eyes. But, they'd never get to witness the otherworldly power I wanted to express through my music.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, it's only the emotions we feel that are great, awesome, magnificent, etc. So, if a work of art conveyed a certain emotion, then it wouldn't be conveying anything great, awesome, magnificent, etc.

My Reply: Right. According to my philosophy, our emotions make everything, including works of art, great, awesome, magnificent, etc. in our lives/mental universes. If everyone had no ability to feel emotions, then no work of art could be great or awesome, regardless of what emotion a work of art conveyed. When we feel a certain emotion in regards to a work of art, such as a feeling of awesomeness, that feeling is what bestows awesome power to the work of art, and makes that work of art awesome. A feeling of awesomeness is a perception of awesomeness, and the only awesomeness that works of art possess is the awesomeness we perceive in works of art (i.e., the awesomeness we personally give/attribute to works of art).

Other Person's Response: Life's unfair and doesn't always work in our favor. So, if you never got the opportunity to pursue your composing dream because you had to live on life support, or because of some other unfortunate circumstance, then that's just the way it is. You'd just have to accept the fact that you'd have to impact the world in a normal, human way, rather than through the otherworldly music you wanted to create.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: I agree that emotions are perceptions, and I agree that emotions are good, bad, beautiful, horrific, etc., based upon how they feel. But, emotions aren't the only good, bad, etc. things in life. There's another form of good, bad, etc., which comes through our actions and deeds. For example, it would still be a good thing to help others, even if we're unable to feel good about doing so, and it would still be a bad thing to harm others, even if we're unable to feel bad about doing so.

My Reply: I don't think there can be 2 forms of good, bad, etc. I think there can only be 1 form, and that would be the emotional form. My personal experience has led me to the conclusion that emotions are the only good, bad, etc. things in life.

Other Person's Response: Some people say there are two forms of good, bad, etc. There's the personal version (which comes through our personal feelings). For example, if someone felt good about doing something, then that feeling/perception is good. Then, there's the form of good, bad, etc. that's non-personal, since this form disregards our personal feelings. It just focuses on getting deeds done, or refraining from certain deeds, regardless of our feelings/perceptions. According to your philosophy, this form doesn't exist, and only the feeling version exists.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Emotions do desensitize upon exposure. For example, if a person had a phobia, then his feeling of fear would disappear with continued exposure to it. The fact that emotions desensitize serves a major benefit for you because, if they didn't, then that means you'd be trapped in a miserable state, and wouldn't be able to recover from it. So, if you had an emotional trauma, and emotions couldn't desensitize, then you'd just have to live with that trauma the rest of your life, as well as all the negative emotions that come with that trauma, such as misery, hate, disgust, etc.

I could only imagine just how horrible of an existence that would be for you. Especially considering the philosophy you live by, which says that negative emotions are horrible forms of suffering we should avoid. So, you're fortunate that negative emotions do desensitize. But, when it comes to chronic, physical pain, and chronic, clinical depression, I don't think they desensitize. So, that means people have to live with these things the rest of their lives. Unless, of course, they somehow recover from them. Then they don't have to live with them anymore.

My Reply: Right. As for depression, there are 2 forms. The 1st form would be emotional, such as feeling depressed because you lost your loved one. The 2nd form would be clinical depression, which is a mental illness, and said depression isn't caused by a person's way of thinking or believing. It's just depression that happens because something went wrong with the brain. I don't have clinical depression.

So, all my depression was caused by worries and negative thinking. Since my depression was emotional, then that depression has faded away on its own because I was constantly exposed to it. But, if I had clinical depression, then that depression wouldn't fade away, even if I was constantly exposed to it. So, if I wanted to ease my clinical depression, I'd have to take medication for it, and try other methods.

Other Person's Response: There is PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), where a person continues to experience emotional trauma, and has to live with that trauma the rest of his life. That's because PTSD is a mental illness where the brain can't properly desensitize negative emotions.

My Reply: Right, and I wouldn't want PTSD because that means I'd have to live with negative emotions all throughout my life.

Other Person's Response: I heard that you're mostly not in the mood to jog during the day. If you were to jog anyway when you're not in the mood for it, that really drains your energy, which means you become very slow at performing daily tasks, such as taking out the trash. But, during the night, you're in the mood to jog. If you were to jog when you're in the mood for it, then that doesn't drain your energy very much.

My Reply: Right. I mostly jog during the day, which means I have to do a very slow jog, so that my energy doesn't get drained very much. Jogging can't matter to me anyway when I'm not in the mood for it, which would make it that more difficult for me to do a moderate or fast jog. But, during the night, I'm able to go faster, and keep up that pace. Also, even if I had my full capacity to feel positive emotions, I still don't think I'd be in the mood to jog during the day. For whatever reason, I'm just not in the mood for it during the day.

Other Person's Response: Sometimes, you are in the mood to jog during the day.

My Reply: That's right. But, for the most part, I'm not in the mood for it during the day.

Other Person's Response: I heard that you've been jogging for a while now, which means you can keep up a faster pace.

My Reply: Yes. When I'm in the mood to jog, perhaps I'm able to keep up a 4.2 mph jogging speed for an hour. Again, I'm not sure what speed I'm able to keep up. But, like I said, during the day, I go at a very slow pace, since I'm not in the mood to jog.

That's cold man. Are you really satisfied with that?

Other Person's Response: When our souls are in the heavenly afterlife, we're in a state of bliss 24/7, and there's no illness, misery, or suffering. So, I don't see why we can't be such blissful beings here on Earth.

My Reply: Right. It seems these astral beings don't think that bliss and an absence of negative emotions is the best thing for humanity. Otherwise, they would've ensured that we're such blissful, non-suffering beings here on Earth. So, it seems they don't care much about positivity. To them, positivity isn't divine and holy, and negativity isn't something unholy that needs to be avoided. But, according to my philosophy, these beings are incorrect to assume that positivity is trivial and unnecessary. Our divine nature is bliss (positivity) and an absence of negativity (negative emotions). In heaven, we're in this divine state 24/7. But, here on Earth, that state is difficult to obtain, and these beings really don't care.

Other Person's Response: If we were blissful beings here on Earth with no suffering or illness, then we'd be avoiding a lot of unnecessary suffering and illness here on Earth.

My Reply: Right. That means people could fully pursue their talents, goals, and dreams without having to live on life support, since we'd have perfect bodies that are incapable of illness, bodies that can instantly heal from damage, bodies that can instantly regenerate, etc.

Other Person's Response: In the future, science might find a way to make us beings who are blissful 24/7 and incapable of illness, misery, or suffering.

My Reply: Right. Since these beings haven't done this for us, then it's up to science.

Other Person's Response: We can have perfect bodies in heaven if we wanted to, right?

My Reply: Yes. So, that means we don't have to be souls roaming around in heaven without a body.

Other Person's Response: It would make no sense for these beings to erase the forms of personal growth you've obtained in previous lives, just so you can start out in new lives with this shallow, hedonistic philosophy. So, perhaps these beings don't exist, there's no afterlife, no reincarnation, and this is the one and only life you've lived.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: If I was a Christian who believed I was going to suffer an eternity in hell, and that I have no hope of being saved, no matter what I do, then that would be an emotional trauma for me that would take much longer to recover from than being traumatized because I lost my loved one.

My Reply: Right. The worse an emotional trauma is, the longer the recovery process tends to be.

Not that I believe in the popular idea of hell, but fear of that is not the worst possible Emotional state to be in.
But I do agree that to lose the foundation of one's own world view is as traumatic as it gets.