My Hedonistic Philosophy

Reply Sat 2 Sep, 2023 10:40 pm
As human beings, we possess consciousness, which means we experience mental states. For example, we experience bodily pain and pleasure, hunger, thirst, colors, and sound (which are mental states). We also experience goodness and badness. But, what do I mean by that? I'll explain. When something matters to you, that's a state of mind, which I call "an x state." X states are always states of pleasure or displeasure (states of wanting, liking, or disliking).

For example, if you were amazed by a work of art, that means you liked it, which means it pleasantly mattered to you. Happiness is another example of a pleasant x state (a state of liking). Valuing something is also a pleasant x state (a state of wanting or liking). Misery, rage, and disgust are examples of unpleasant x states (states of disliking). Now, x states can be profound or shallow, and intense or not intense.

For example, being there for your family could profoundly matter to you, and buying a fancy, luxurious item could shallowly matter to you. Another example would be experiencing intense happiness towards one thing, and then experiencing less intense happiness towards something else. Now, the more profound and intense a pleasant x state is, the better (more good) something becomes in your eyes, which means the more it matters to you.

So, if you were profoundly and intensely happy about nature, then nature would be very good (would matter very much) in your eyes. You'd, thus, be experiencing a higher level of goodness than if that happiness was shallow and less intense. As you can see, experiencing a pleasant x state is the same thing as experiencing goodness. The higher level of goodness one experiences, the better of an experience he's having, which means the better of an existence he's living.

So, the best (greatest good) existence one can live would be an existence where one is experiencing the best bliss (pleasant x states that are the most profound and intense in the world). But, the best bliss can only be achieved through powerful drug trips or near death experience induced trips. The same thing applies to the worst suffering (the most profound and intense unpleasant x states in the world).

One might wish to experience the worst suffering. But, according to my philosophy, experiencing badness is the only bad thing in life. So, experiencing the worst suffering can never be good. Experiencing goodness is the only good thing, and I'll tell you why. The only goodness that exists is the goodness we experience. I could say the same thing about any other mental state (I'll use sound as an example).

The only sound that exists is the sound we experience because sound doesn't exist in the external world. Only sound waves do. Sound itself is a mental state. Anyway, back to the topic of goodness. To say that experiencing badness is good, or that helping humanity is good (matters) when we're unable to experience pleasant x states, implies there's goodness in the external world.

But, goodness only exists in our minds. In other words, people, places, and things only become good when they pleasantly matter to us (when they're experienced as good), and they only become bad when they unpleasantly matter to us, which means they're subjectively good or bad because what pleases one person might displease another. But, if nothing matters to us (neither pleases nor displeases us), nothing matters in our minds, which means nothing's good or bad (nothing matters).

Now, since goodness only exists in our minds, it would be better if someone lived his entire life in a blissful, vegetative state, unable to do anything for himself or humanity, than to be a non-vegetable, experience much badness, and help humanity. Experiencing goodness can be metaphorically described as experiencing the light of god or the inner light. Without the inner light, it's no way to live.

Our lives/mental universes would either be filled with darkness (badness) or devoid of goodness and badness. So, even though that blissful vegetable is unable to achieve anything in life or help humanity, he has the inner light (the bliss), which means his existence isn't some wasted life that's no way to live. His existence is good. To say his existence is bad and his bliss is neither good nor bad would be to focus on his vegetative existence and dismiss his bliss.

Also, to say that a chronically unhappy person lived a good existence because he helped humanity, and that his unhappiness is neither good nor bad, would be to focus on his helpful deeds and dismiss his bad experiences (his unhappiness). I disagree with and strongly oppose any philosophy that dismisses one's experience. That includes philosophies that say pleasant x states can be bad and unpleasant ones can be good.

If anyone tries to convert me to such a philosophy, it wont work. It would be like trying to convert anyone to a worldview he disagrees with (such as trying to convert an atheist to Christianity). No amount of hardship and unhappiness will convert me either. I've struggled with years of chronic unhappiness as a result of chronic worries, and this struggle hasn't converted me. It has only strengthened my need for the inner light.

Also, I had no choice but to be worried and unhappy because worry and unhappiness are emotional states, and emotions don't listen to reason. For example, reasoning with a phobia doesn't work. I've reasoned with my worries and unhappiness by telling myself it's pointless to be worried about things that might or might not happen, and I also told myself that, since I need the inner light, to stop being worried and unhappy.

But, that didn't help at all, which means I had to wait for these unpleasant emotions to fade away on their own over time until my pleasant emotions (pleasant x states/the inner light) returned. While I was waiting, people told me to stop selfishly focusing on the inner light and just move on with my life. But, I disagree with their philosophies that dismiss my need for the inner light as childishly selfish and trivial. There are many unhappy people who need it as well.

Some of these people have very few or no moments of it and might require electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) to alleviate their unhappiness and fully restore their inner light. Since the inner light is the only good thing, I wonder why we're here on Earth, where there's much inevitable unhappiness and the inner light is fleeting. Why aren't we in heaven, where we get to experience the best, everlasting bliss? That's, of course, providing heaven even exists.

I don't know if god and the afterlife exist or not. But, if they do exist, then why did god send us here to Earth, instead of having us remain in heaven? Perhaps it's because god has a different philosophy than mine. But, he must understand that my philosophy will never change. My philosophy is very incompatible with this Earthly existence. So, why doesn't god just send my soul to heaven right now?

With that being said, I'm going to discuss a few more things regarding my philosophy, and then I'll finally conclude this post. All x states are emotional states and vice versa, and all emotions are forms of pleasure or displeasure. Without pleasure or displeasure, emotions can't exist. Now, there are emotionless people because there are mental illnesses and forms of brain damage that disable emotions.

If an emotionless person had the mindset that something mattered to him, then that mindset alone couldn't make it matter to him because emotions are the only x states. Also, if an insomniac person had the mindset of being sleepy, then that mindset alone couldn't make him sleepy. As you can see, our mindset alone can't be a state of sleepiness, hunger, thirst, nausea, or an x state.

But, if nothing can matter to emotionless people, then how are they able to perform tasks? Doesn't their performance imply these tasks mattered to them? Well, nothing can matter to robots because they're apathetic machines that can't fear, love, hate, be sad or happy, etc. Yet, they still perform tasks. So, emotionless people who perform tasks are like robots. Being emotionless does have an advantage, though, which would be that you don't have to experience badness.

Experiencing neutrality (neither goodness nor badness) is better than experiencing badness, which means it's better to be emotionless or unconscious than to be displeased/bothered by things. The higher level of badness you're experiencing, the better it is to be emotionless or unconscious. Even though I could've rendered myself unconscious by killing myself, I chose not to.

I chose to endure all my unpleasant emotions because I knew that my suffering was gradually fading and my inner light was returning over time. But, while I was suffering greatly, not only was my inner light absent, but I had no emotional drive to pursue my dream of composing music, which means pursuing it couldn't matter to me. So, I gave up on it until my drive returned.

As for anyone who thinks I should've pursued it, here's a quote by Hume (a famous philosopher): "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions." This quote means that reason alone is hollow (can't be an x state). So, according to this quote, a person might as well give up on pursuing his goals if he has no emotional drive to pursue them.

With that being said, I'm now going to conclude this post by discussing one more thing regarding my philosophy. My philosophy is based upon my personal experience and is a form of hedonism, which advocates experiencing pleasant emotions and not unpleasant ones. Some people want to avoid pleasure because they claim it's unpleasant for them. But, pleasure is what it is (pleasant). It can never be unpleasant.

But, it's possible for one to derive displeasure from his pleasure, and it would be the displeasure that's unpleasant. While I'm on the topic of pleasure and displeasure, the only time I'm displeased would be when I'm worried. So, in my non-worried state, I'm always pleased, which means I never get frustrated or miserable, which makes me fortunate.

But, what if I ever become unhappy again, or if I develop a mental illness that disables my pleasant emotions? Well then, I'd just have to find ways to restore my inner light and eliminate the inner darkness.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 955 • Replies: 20
No top replies

Reply Sun 3 Sep, 2023 01:40 am
I would suggest that the consciousness experience is related to two states of mind only.

These being the in synch and out of synch states of mind.

I don’t believe that there is a need to over complicate things to the extent whereby nobody can relate to it.

1.The in synch state of mind- This is when the individual is wearing the physical body fully and looking through the windows of their physical body (eyes) internally to externally when they think and reason.

2.The out of synch state of mind-This is when the individual is not wearing the physical body fully and is not looking through the windows of their physical body (eyes) internally to externally when they think and reason.

The above two states of mind produce 2 different states of consciousness.It’s as simple as that.

The in synch state of mind is STILL.The out of out of synch state of mind is not STILL but “toggles” between consciousness states and is dualistic by nature.
0 Replies
Reply Fri 8 Sep, 2023 05:17 am
You have tried to say and mix many things at the same time in a stream of thought...I can empathise as I often do some bad writing myself to avoid cutting the flow of thought I am into. Paradoxically because I dislike editing from the get go, I end up editing post scriptum because I disliked editing from the start...it doesn't help I care far more with the substance then I do with the form by which I present whatever I happen to have to say...

That all set aside let's see if we can resume what hopefully you meant and what IMO is important to retain from your cool diatribe on the topic:

You ascertain Hedonism is your way and still you speak of suffering as some form of Good experience...

While what you said is partially correct in the sense that suffering is a needed component of the epiphenomena of experiencing life, still suffering is not good, but rather suffering is needed for goodness to have COMPARATIVE value.

Think of it as a tabula rasa...if there is no fluctuation in value and everything is good you have a straight line from where no VALUE can be derived...hence why the fantasy of Paradise or Eden is silly.

In the same fashion in a place where there is no comparative measure for pure suffering you have yet another straight line and you become numb to suffering.

My position on this topic is that given none of us have any free will on what is to become of our experiences, what comes around the corner, we should DIGEST whatever comes our way with some measure of sobriety, be it the good moments or the hardships...

Life is a drama of our own unfolding to which we are mere spectators of ourselves "happening" according to the Laws of Physics, cause and effect. We all role with it, or better said, in it.

We should take it as a whole for what it is and never get deluded with the false perception others have better or worse experiences then we do...in Reality things tend to average out on all domains!
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2023 09:51 pm
I never said suffering was a form of good experience. Could you quote a portion of my post that you think says suffering is a good experience? According to my philosophy, pleasant x states (pleasant emotions) are the only good experiences.
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2023 01:26 am
So lets see if I get it second time around, the permutation you alluded to only works on one direction? Brilliant!...

By the way, if anyone takes Hedonism seriously the shortest path is an overdose of Heroin!
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2023 09:24 am
Alright, here's a much shorter version of my philosophy, which should be more easily understood. I'll first present a note to reader, and then I'll present the shorter version.

Note to Reader: There are 2 versions of good and bad. The 1st version is where something's good or bad, but doesn't matter, and the 2nd version is where something's good or bad, but does matter. I only use the 2nd version in this summary. Actually, there's only one time I use the 1st version, and it's near the end. I let you know when I use it.

My Philosophy of Good and Bad (Shorter Version)

When something matters to you, that's a state of mind, which I call "an x state." All x states are either pleasant or unpleasant (that is, they're all states of wanting, liking, or disliking). So, when something matters to you, it always pleasantly or unpleasantly matters to you. I'm going to discuss why pleasant x states are the only source of goodness in one's life/mental universe, and I'll use liking (a pleasant x state) as an example.

The more profoundly and intensely you like nature, the better you like it, which means the better (more good) it becomes in your eyes. Pleasant x states that are profound and intense give our lives a high level of goodness because they make things in our lives perceived/experienced as very good, while shallow and less intense ones give our lives a low level of goodness. Without pleasant x states, nothing can be perceived as good.

As for unpleasant x states, they're the only perceptions of badness, which means they're the only source of badness in one's life. Without x states, one's life is devoid of goodness and badness. Now, the only goodness that exists is the goodness we perceive, which means goodness only exists in our minds. I could say the same thing about colors or sounds. The only sound that exists is the sound we perceive (hear) because sound doesn't exist in the external world. Only sound waves do. Sound itself is a mental state, and so are colors.

Anyway, since perceived goodness is the only goodness, and since pleasant x states are the only perceptions of goodness, then they're the only good things, which means they're the only good experiences in life. As for unpleasant x states, they're the only bad things. Without x states, we'd be emotionless because all x states are emotional states (and all emotional states are x states). An example of some emotions are fear, misery, happiness, amazement, disgust, etc.

If an emotionless person had the mindset that something was good or bad, then that mindset alone couldn't make him perceive it as good or bad. Also, a blind person's mindset alone can't allow him to perceive (see) something as red, purple, green, etc. A blind person's life/mental universe is devoid of colors, and an emotionless person's life is devoid of goodness and badness. No mindset alone can give one's life colors, sound, goodness, or badness.

There were moments where my life was devoid of goodness and badness. So, I was emotionless. I had the mindset that something mattered to me, but that mindset alone couldn't make it matter to me (perceived as good or bad) because emotions are the only x states. Also, if an insomniac person had the mindset of being sleepy, then that mindset alone can't make him sleepy. As you can see, our mindset alone can't be a state of sleepiness, hunger, thirst, nausea, or an x state.

Here's a quote by Hume (a famous philosopher) that indicates reason alone is hollow (can't be an x state): "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions." Anyway, there were moments where I was emotionless, and many moments where I was emotionally displeased/bothered by things. I, thus, had many moments of badness (suffering/unhappiness), and these moments were ongoing (a long term struggle).

I tried to reason away my suffering because I don't want to experience badness. But, reasoning didn't work, and it would be like reasoning with a phobia in an attempt to rid of the fear, which doesn't work. Also, when I was suffering, my pleasant emotions (pleasant x states) were disabled, which means I had no moments of goodness. As a matter of fact, pleasant emotions are fleeting for many people because there are mental illnesses, brain damage, and unhappy moments, which disable pleasant emotions.

For example, chronic, clinical depression is a mental illness that disables pleasant emotions. Since pleasant emotions are the only good things and are fleeting in this Earthly existence, then if god and the afterlife exist, why aren't we in heaven, where we get to experience the greatest goodness (pleasant x states that are the most profound and intense in the world)? The greatest good can also be called "the best bliss," which is everlasting in heaven.

Thus, heaven would be the best (greatest good) existence, which would be far better than this unfortunate, Earthly existence. With that being said, I'm now going to explain a few more things about my philosophy, and then I'll conclude this summary. My philosophy is based upon my personal experience and is a form of hedonism, which advocates experiencing pleasant emotions and not unpleasant ones. I think I'll always disagree with any philosophy that opposes mine.

So, I don't think my philosophy will ever change. Now, there's a philosophy that advocates reason alone as a source of goodness in one's life. But, until reason alone allows me to perceive goodness, l'll only have my fleeting, pleasant emotions as a source of goodness, and my philosophy will never change to the one I just described. My pleasant emotions have always been the only perceptions of goodness, and my unpleasant ones the only perceptions of badness.

Now, reason alone allows us to perceive the 1st version of good and bad that I mentioned in the note to reader at the beginning. But, I'm talking about the 2nd version, which reason alone can't perceive. Others claim reason alone can. But, I must disagree, based upon my personal experience. I have my personal experience to go by and others have theirs, and that's that. Living by reason alone would be living like a robot. Nothing can matter to robots because they're apathetic machines that can't fear, love, hate, etc.

They can still perform tasks, though, and emotionless people can perform tasks, even though said tasks can't matter to them. Living this way is no way to live, and being emotionally displeased is no way to live either. Emotional displeasure is worse than being emotionless, since badness is worse than neutrality (neither goodness nor badness). Being emotionally pleased is the way to live, and is better than being emotionally displeased or emotionless.
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2023 12:21 pm
Have you ever heard of embodied cognition? There is no such thing as "reason alone", but rather reason according to your nature.

Your mental state is not something you chose, rather it is something that you are being, that is happening to you. Thus that which is good is good in the context of your specific embodied nature, and Universally in the context that Reality itself includes the possibility for good states at large in the emotional perception spectrum in tandem and NEEDED contrast with "bad" states such that the idea of value emerges in your perception as the ups and downs establish according to your natural needs what you ought to do or not to do within your realm or domain of operations as a living being.

The idea that only good states ought to be accepted is naive as good states are relative to their opposite in the perception of value and well being.
A common example easy to grasp is that a loaf of bread or water tastes better if you were hungry or thirsty to start with. Again I repeat what I told you before there is no perception of well being without contrasts. In the same measure that you only know what daylight is if you also know what darkness is.

The idea that you can compartmentalize Reality in little small boxes without any dialectic process in between states or modes of being is a misunderstanding that will cripple your understanding of the world within you and around you!
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2023 01:31 pm
Well, in the past, many years of my life were filled with pleasure and hardly any suffering. This lack of suffering didn't lessen my ability to perceive goodness (that is, it didn't lessen my pleasant emotions). So, for me, suffering isn't needed. Later on in life, I had much suffering, and all that suffering didn't have the end result of enhancing my pleasant emotions (it didn't make them more profound and intense). So, for me, suffering has no benefit.
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2023 02:00 pm
Do you have idea on how many things your body accounts for per second? Like at all? You should try get yourself in a bath tube with your ears covered your eyes closed at 36 º celsius and experiment with one single source of stimulus either painful or pleasurable, without anything else interfering...you will get numb either way...the reason you wont get totally numb is because the complexity of your embodied cognition far surpasses the boundaries of this simple experiment. But still give it a try...

A fish without water is not a fish, is a collection of molecules without purpose...

Owning the Ferrari factory makes you not care one yota about Ferraris, as you would probably find a Citroen 2 CV more interesting...

Pain without ANY knowledge of any kind of pleasure is just a normal state of affairs...
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2023 05:00 pm
Alright, here's something else I wish to share. Good and bad are subjective (not objective). What one person perceives as good another might perceive as bad. Also, as I mentioned before, I had no pleasant emotions (no perceptions of goodness) during my unhappy moments. Living my life unhappy and without my pleasant emotions is no way to live for me, regardless of how much I treat my unhappiness or anything else as good. Such treatment is, thus, ineffective.
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2023 12:04 am
Are you saying the Holocaust was subjective?
bobsal u1553115
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2023 05:29 pm
You had to have been there, apparently.
0 Replies
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2023 10:27 pm
For me, being emotionally pleased has always been the only life that works for me. Living unhappy is no way to live for me, regardless of how much I follow the advice to live by a philosophy that advocates ignoring my perceptions of badness and inability to perceive goodness (my unhappiness and absence of pleasant emotions), and to focus on supposedly objectively good things, such as my family, helping humanity, etc. Such advice is, thus, unhelpful. Since it's unhelpful, that's why I disagree with philosophies that advocate objective goodness and badness.

Good and bad are subjective, by the way, which means things only become good or bad when one perceives them as such (in other words, only perceived goodness and badness exist). Objective goodness and badness don't exist. But, if I'm wrong, they do exist, and I later knew that, then being unhappy and absent of pleasant emotions would still be no way to live for me because simply knowing certain things are objectively good isn't enough. I must be able to perceive things as good and not as bad.
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2023 05:38 am
IMO it is more complicated then what you were lead to believe.
If you want to talk about the relativity of moral and ethical values you will have to ditch principles of cooperation explained by Neo-Darwinism and Game theory...

If your scope is completely absolute and transcends species specific interests you still have to trump similar behavioral patterns that are observed across a good range of species capable of cooperation and thus orthogonal to your Moral relativistic claims.

If all you want to assert is that the nuances of tribalism and culture blur the lines of perception on Morality and Ethics, none of it, is a final argument against the Universal objectivity of better optimized social behaviors, what you call common "good" and less optimized social behaviors which are destructive of that equilibrium and thus deemed "bad" for the collective...

The whole of the political enterprise is made on interpreting and often manipulating what are the best strategies to achieve this goal...sadly we seem to be well bent on having a dichotomic binary approach to the problem...the right tends to emphasize competition and innovation while the left believes the elevation of the less fortunate at a non optimal cost is the trick for progress on the long run. Nature of course infinitely more wise, does both, it nurtures and it kills!
Personally I have plenty of left and right wing "hats" as topics and subjects come and go. When I think of the stupendous statistical improbability of we being here, Life on this small planet we call home and all the minute conditions that were needed so that we can exist I have no doubts Nature nurtures...now the problem lies that we are not the centre of the Universe, nor are we above Death, or above the natural cycle that brings things about and that brings things to an end.

The whole human enterprise has been built on an illusion that we can fight these things and turn them around but as the XX century unfolded we have become more pessimistic, more cynic of our own aspirations. On the turn of the millennium and with the advent of a connected world the remaining hope we had as been shattered on all fronts.
The failure of the State and the rule of Law across the globe that now inspires anti democratic right wing movements all across the world has often been justified and simplified with Religious extremism, with ignorance, lack of scientific education, but none of its is truly explanatory of what is unravelling...the truth is that our ability to control and domesticate complex ecosystems is an enterprise no modern intellectual believes in any more...either cynicism and complacency, or sheer delirium, build on a Sebastian desperate hope of salvation coming from Science or from God are now the last stronghold of what once was an aspiring secular project, started with the Industrial revolution and the Positivist scientific movement in the XIX century! All those institutions are now collapsing and so far we have a hand full of nothing to replace them with!...

To round it up and getting back at the starting point, it is no wonder that some people like you are getting more common nowadays...extremists of both sides of the isle...we have on one hand paranoid pseudo stoic survivalists that delude themselves they can go lone wolf and get anywhere like a monk in the middle ages or cynics that think the all Human enterprise is lost and believe succumbing to hedonistic impulses by living on the present moment ad eternum is the best life they can aspire to live!

Meanwhile no better or worse then anyone else really, I watch mostly in silence, as I am incapable of speaking about what really matters for lack of people interested on true analysis, no one is up to talk the talk and do the walk...everyone has more or less given up and all that is left is shallow Marvel entertainment on the TV...your Hedonistic bubble rap has vacuum all over it...
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2023 08:01 am
Thanks for your detailed response. Now, I'm not a very intelligent person, which means I'm unable to comprehend some things you've written. But, perhaps I'll be able to if I repeatedly read them. Also, there are 2 versions of good and bad. The 1st version is where something's good or bad, but doesn't matter. The 2nd version is where something's good or bad, but does matter. When I discuss good and bad, I only use the 2nd version.
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2023 08:44 am
Don't worry no one around is intelligent enough in any way that matters and I am not excluding myself out.

Tho what I've written is not that hard to grasp. Each of those topics was presented in a very simple form as each of them deserved a thesis of their own...on that regard what might fail fails out of simplification and not out of complexity

There is no need to read it three or four times unless you want to make a point in case of finding it obscure...and to that you are entitled to your own opinion!
Reply Sat 16 Sep, 2023 05:10 pm
Alright, I think I fully understood your post. You advocate objective goodness and badness, and claim there are behaviors that are objectively good and bad. But, just because there are optimal behaviors doesn't mean they objectively matter. It just means they're objectively optimal (that is, they're objectively most effective in terms of promoting our survival and creating a safe world). The most destructive behaviors don't objectively matter either. But, that's just my view.
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2023 08:36 am
If you want to go all the way down the rabbit whole on a Metaphysical complete view of the topic everything that exits matters, literally! Each part as necessary as the next...
Our Epistemic problem has always been confusing what matters to "us", often what matters in a whim, with what matters to Reality.
I've said it sometime ago and I will say it again, there is a difference between what we think ought to be and that which becomes. What becomes matters!

We want a simplified world but a simplified world wouldn't have human beings, animals, plants, molecules not even atoms...we often want things that are in direct contradiction because we simply do not understand how things really work.

This is the kind of thing that led to the dangerous idea Moral Relativism is justified...ignorance is the justifier indeed, and it will keep being until we get down of our pedestal and assume our own limited mode of being and perceiving!
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2023 09:59 pm
Well, nothing's objectively red (that is, nothing in the external world is red). That's because colors are mental states, which means things are red only in our minds. So, how can something objectively matter (that is, how can something in the external world matter)? I thought things only matter in our minds (that is, I thought they only matter when they matter to us). I understand that things in the external world are necessary (an example being the necessity of water to sustain survival). But, what's necessary and what matters are 2 different things.

So, just because water is objectively necessary for survival doesn't mean it objectively matters. Water subjectively matters while being objectively necessary. For example, water might not matter to someone who wishes to die of thirst. But, water is still necessary in terms of his survival. If someone (a woman, for example) was compassionate and noticed he was about to die of thirst, then water would matter very much to her because she'd get some water and give it to him.

As you can see, water doesn't matter in the man's mind/mental universe. He doesn't perceive it as mattering because it doesn't matter to him. But, it matters in the woman's mind. That's why water, including everything else, subjectively matters. But, let's pretend I'm wrong, and that things do objectively matter. If I became enlightened to this, then this enlightenment wouldn't make any difference for me, and I'll tell you why.

Focusing on objectively good things isn't enough when I'm unhappy (perceiving things as bad) and absent of pleasant emotions (unable to perceive things as good). That's because I must have my ability to perceive things as good and not as bad. Otherwise, it's no way to live for me, no matter what. As you can see, knowing there are objectively good things would be of no help to me. Also, a philosophy that advocates objective goodness focuses on objectively good things, such as helping humanity, and dismisses one's unhappiness.

Living by this philosophy would mean helping humanity and ignoring our unhappiness. But, since my philosophy says unhappiness is the only bad thing and pleasant emotions the only good things, then living by my philosophy would mean not ignoring our unhappiness and trying to eliminate it through medication, therapy, etc. From there, my philosophy would advocate ensuring that our entire lives are most abundant with pleasant emotions (especially profound, intense pleasant emotions, which are better than shallow, less intense ones).
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2023 06:29 am
The constant dichotomic appeal to external or internal is insufferable already, I never got how people got stuck on that one...
There is ONE Reality not two! (and no before you wonder I am not referring to the existence or non existence of a Multiverse, it changes jack ****)

There is no inside nor outside. That is useful linguistic metaphor!
The separation is absolutely stupid talk!

Your subjectivity is an objective fact can't you see you just contradicted yourself by making an objective statement about subjectivity itself?

Moreover all "reds" exist" the domain in which they exist is not out of Reality even if I have to refer to 8 Billion minds!
People don't really catch the God damned meaning of the word Reality at all...

When will people understand some fracking super simple statement as Moral Realism just mean that something's work and others don't? (I am not even debating our epistemic problem with it)

Related Topics

  1. Forums
  2. » My Hedonistic Philosophy
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/02/2023 at 05:46:18