A scientific definition of good and bad

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
MozartLink
Posts: 275
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

A scientific definition of good and bad

Post by MozartLink » Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:57 pm

Thesis: Objective good and bad would be synonymous with a positive and negative emotion. So, objective good and bad would not be a concept or an idea.

How You Think Is How You Will Feel: To prove that our emotions possess inherent qualities of beauty and horror, then if you were to, for example, have the thought of something being the most profoundly beautiful thing in your life such as a character or moment, then that thought would make you feel a positive emotion. This positive emotion would literally take on that profoundly beautiful quality. Thus, producing an objective good and beauty that is being experienced in your life. This objective goodness and beauty takes on different forms (feels different). For example, a feeling of love (a positive emotion) would feel different than the feeling of joy or excitement from going to the carnival (another positive emotion). Therefore, the light takes on different tones and atmospheres in our lives to make our lives beautiful and good in various ways. The same concept applies to the darkness.

This means that our subjective value judgments of good such as thinking it is a good day today make us feel a positive emotion and this positive emotion is the objective good. Subjective value judgments of things having bad value in our lives such as thinking that a certain situation is terrible would make us feel a negative emotion which would be the objective bad. After all, our positive emotions are already objective wanting and liking. So, why wouldn't they also be the objective good in our lives, too? Here is a study that points out our positive emotions being objective wanting and liking:
We have found a special hedonic hotspot that is crucial for reward 'liking' and 'wanting' (and codes reward learning too). The opioid hedonic hotspot is shown in red above. It works together with another hedonic hotspot in the more famous nucleus accumbens to generate pleasure 'liking'.

‘Liking’ and ‘wanting’ food rewards: Brain substrates and roles in eating disorders

Kent C. Berridge 2009 Mar 29.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2717031/


Even if our emotions were drug induced rather than induced by thoughts, they would still be the objective good and bad. I would also like to set up a little experiment (survey) that would support my theory. Go ask as many people as you can as to whether they think that their positive emotions are an objective wanting and liking. I bet they would deny this and say they aren't. This proves that people are having false judgments regarding their positive emotions. Who knows, our positive emotions might be an objective good and people are only denying this, too!

Tones And Expressions

If you were to witness a baby or a child, then this child would display positive tones and expressions if he were to feel a positive emotion. Likewise, he would display negative tones and expressions if he felt a negative emotion such as anger or fear. He would display angry tones/expressions as well as fearful ones. However, there are a few exceptions since people can actually display negative tones/expressions when feeling a positive emotion and they can display positive ones when feeling a negative emotion. But the point I am trying to make here is that our brains are wired by default to respond to positive emotions with positive tones and expressions and to respond to negative emotions with negative tones and expressions. This means that there is some reflection going on here.

These positive tones and expressions would have to reflect the inherent positive nature of our positive emotions. The same applies to our negative emotions. This would also have to mean that positive thoughts reflect positive emotions and negative thoughts reflect negative emotions. It's no different than the objective wanting and liking (our positive emotions). People tend to respond to these emotions in wanting and liking ways. These wanting and liking expressions, thoughts, and tones reflect the inherent wanting and liking characteristics of our positive emotions. From here, it would follow that if people display thoughts, tones, and expressions that indicate their lives are good, beautiful, and worth living while having positive feelings of excitement or joy, that this would also reflect the inherent goodness and beauty of our positive emotions. The same rule applies to negative emotions.
Last edited by MozartLink on Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MozartLink
Posts: 275
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: A scientific definition of good and bad

Post by MozartLink » Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:17 pm

Let me try this one more time. I have recently edited my opening post to make my theory and experiment more coherent.

prof
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: A scientific definition of good and bad

Post by prof » Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:18 pm

So, my friend, are you denying the truth of the conclusions of George Edward Moore as explained in his book, PRINCIPIA ETHICA -- and thus refuting the Naturalistic Fallacy?

I would suggest you are not. Moore shows the weakness in your argument. Your definition of "good" is full of holes. Sorry!

prof
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: A scientific definition of good and bad

Post by prof » Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:59 pm

Emotions are topics in the fields of Psychology and Brain Neurology. To confuse "a positive emotion" or "a nice feeling" with goodness-in-general is to commit a Fallacy. They are on differing levels of abstraction. "Good" is what all good things have in common. A "good movie" will not necessarily produce "a nice feeling." It may produce the opposite kind of feeling. A good headache actually is not a nice feeling. By Hartman's definition [see discussion below] a "good headache" is one that has all the properties a "headache" is supposed to have, in your conception of a headache.

Philosophers and those who still care about concepts, and conceptual analysis, may want to check out the first two posts in this link:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10509&hili

It offers a definition {which I learned from Robert S. Hartman} of "good," in context. It actually defines, in a rigorous manner, "x is a good C." Thus it answers the questions "Good for what?" and "Good as what?" The letter C, for example, could stand for "character", or for "person," or for "life." The concept under which x falls is relevant.

This definition, by employing the class-membership relation, manages to pass The Open Quesion Test of G. E. Moore. It passes it with flying colors! "It is good that x is good" is Robert. S. Hartman's clever definition of "approval." He, also, is the creator of The Axiom of Value, as presented in the Forum thread "Ethics in a Nutshell" q.v.
8)

Comments? Questions?

Viveka
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: A scientific definition of good and bad

Post by Viveka » Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:50 pm

I agree that suffering is a moral statement, just as happiness is. Buddhism is based upon this, so to call it a 'fallacy' is at best ambiguous. The more virtue there is, the more happiness and less suffering. To equate happiness with virtue is a definite truth. Suffering is undesirable, and happiness is desirable. However, the usefulness of suffering is not denied. To desire Good and hate Evil is also something good, but it can be transcended.

Here is an abstract of one of my writings called 'the Sphinx Model of Affect' located here: https://corpushypercubus2.wordpress.com ... -by-on-ra/

Abstract: This model is one that draws from Tibetan Buddhism, Jungian Psychology, the Circumplex Model of Affect, Positive Psychology, and my own thought inspired by these topics to create a qualitative, non-hierarchal, somewhat-value-laden, practical as well as abstract model of affect. Within this model there are five groups of core affective quality that span three types known as pentagrams, which contain the five sub-types.These are the Potency Pentagram, which holds affect that are based upon Survival and repertoire narrowing, generally being negatively valenced, the Virtue Pentagram, which consists of positively valenced elements that are based upon happiness and repertoire broadening, and the Essence Pentagram which reveals the pattern behind the affect throughout the pentagrams and gives virtues to attain happiness.

Keywords: Elements, Affect, Circumplex, Undoing, Undoing Effect, Broaden and Build model, Repertoire Broadening, Positive Psychology...

Londoner
Posts: 612
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: A scientific definition of good and bad

Post by Londoner » Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:10 pm

Thesis: Objective good and bad would be synonymous with a positive and negative emotion. So, objective good and bad would not be a concept or an idea.
If you are saying that something is a synonym for something else, then you are only describing a word. For example, if I say 'sad' is a synonym for 'miserable' I am only making a claim about the English language, I am not asserting that any individual has that emotion, or even that those words describe anything real.

By contrast, to say something is 'objective' is to make an empirical claim. If I say 'the sun rises in the east' then that isn't a claim about language. You and I may use a different word for 'sun' and 'east' etc., but that would not make my claim false.

So, to combine the two, as in 'Objective good and bad would be synonymous with..' is confusing.

You continue: 'So, objective good and bad would not be a concept or an idea'. We cannot tell that; we cannot tell what they are. If we do not currently understand 'good' and 'positive emotion' to be synonyms, then which of those two contrasting understandings should we abandon? Or should we be trying to combine them into some new, third understanding?

To illustrate; suppose I announced that 'hammer' is a synonym for 'screwdriver'. Am I telling you: 'Forget 'hammers'. All hammers are really screwdrivers'. Or 'Forget screwdrivers. All screwdrivers are really hammers'. Or 'They are both some tool intermediate between the concept of hammer and screwdriver? You cannot tell what I am asking you to think - similarly I cannot tell what I am supposed to understand from your claim that 'good/bad' and emotions are synonyms.
How You Think Is How You Will Feel: To prove that our emotions possess inherent qualities of beauty and horror, then if you were to, for example, have the thought of something being the most profoundly beautiful thing in your life such as a character or moment, then that thought would make you feel a positive emotion.
Then which is doing the possessing of that 'positivity'? Us, or the thought?

If it was literally the case that 'our emotions possess inherent qualities' then it would have those qualities independently of me. It might be that 'that thought would make you feel a positive emotion' - but it might not. It might be possible to have an emotion with the inherent quality of 'horror' but for me to feel 'positive' about it.

If that isn't the case, if the two necessarily go together, such that positive emotions are emotions that make us feel positive, then we cannot say that the positivity was 'inherent' in the thought.

To put it another way, is the quality of the emotion an objective fact, such that the person who experiences it can be wrong about it? Or is the emotion, and my experience of that emotion, the same thing?

As it is, the word 'emotion' is being used to cover two incompatible things; a thing that exists objectively, such that we can asserts facts about it - and also as a description of our personal reaction.

It is always going to be a problem with definitions of 'good' and 'bad'. You can construct a system and declare 'Good means doing X (and your feelings about that are irrelevant)'. Or 'Good means doing what feels right (so we cannot criticise anyone else's choices)'. We are uncomfortable with either, so we try to find some ambiguity of language that blurs the difference.

Viveka
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: A scientific definition of good and bad

Post by Viveka » Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:11 pm

Londoner wrote:
Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:10 pm
Thesis: Objective good and bad would be synonymous with a positive and negative emotion. So, objective good and bad would not be a concept or an idea.
If you are saying that something is a synonym for something else, then you are only describing a word. For example, if I say 'sad' is a synonym for 'miserable' I am only making a claim about the English language, I am not asserting that any individual has that emotion, or even that those words describe anything real.

By contrast, to say something is 'objective' is to make an empirical claim. If I say 'the sun rises in the east' then that isn't a claim about language. You and I may use a different word for 'sun' and 'east' etc., but that would not make my claim false.

So, to combine the two, as in 'Objective good and bad would be synonymous with..' is confusing.

You continue: 'So, objective good and bad would not be a concept or an idea'. We cannot tell that; we cannot tell what they are. If we do not currently understand 'good' and 'positive emotion' to be synonyms, then which of those two contrasting understandings should we abandon? Or should we be trying to combine them into some new, third understanding?

To illustrate; suppose I announced that 'hammer' is a synonym for 'screwdriver'. Am I telling you: 'Forget 'hammers'. All hammers are really screwdrivers'. Or 'Forget screwdrivers. All screwdrivers are really hammers'. Or 'They are both some tool intermediate between the concept of hammer and screwdriver? You cannot tell what I am asking you to think - similarly I cannot tell what I am supposed to understand from your claim that 'good/bad' and emotions are synonyms.


I would say that 'good' feelings are good because we enjoy them and value them inherently. Just because the claim is first-person authoritative or introspective has no bearing on whether or not 'I' actually experienced a 'good emotion,' that is different from saying 'the sun rose today.' Just because the sun always rises and my feelings aren't always with me isn't reason for saying that it's not something of a proof for an individual. I could just as well say 'the rose bush has died' just as much as i could say 'the feeling of happiness has passed.' What you are saying ultimately boils down to first-person authority.
Londoner wrote:
Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:10 pm
How You Think Is How You Will Feel: To prove that our emotions possess inherent qualities of beauty and horror, then if you were to, for example, have the thought of something being the most profoundly beautiful thing in your life such as a character or moment, then that thought would make you feel a positive emotion.
Then which is doing the possessing of that 'positivity'? Us, or the thought?

If it was literally the case that 'our emotions possess inherent qualities' then it would have those qualities independently of me. It might be that 'that thought would make you feel a positive emotion' - but it might not. It might be possible to have an emotion with the inherent quality of 'horror' but for me to feel 'positive' about it.

If that isn't the case, if the two necessarily go together, such that positive emotions are emotions that make us feel positive, then we cannot say that the positivity was 'inherent' in the thought.

To put it another way, is the quality of the emotion an objective fact, such that the person who experiences it can be wrong about it? Or is the emotion, and my experience of that emotion, the same thing?

As it is, the word 'emotion' is being used to cover two incompatible things; a thing that exists objectively, such that we can asserts facts about it - and also as a description of our personal reaction.

It is always going to be a problem with definitions of 'good' and 'bad'. You can construct a system and declare 'Good means doing X (and your feelings about that are irrelevant)'. Or 'Good means doing what feels right (so we cannot criticise anyone else's choices)'. We are uncomfortable with either, so we try to find some ambiguity of language that blurs the difference.
The Core of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy is that thoughts and emotions ad behavior entail one another. Circumstances entail all. There is no real 'reasonless' emotion, and of course a positive emotion is inherently positive; otherwise it wouldn't be inherently experienced as what it is. I would say that one can mistake one's own emotions for another emotion, but that is more of the exception to the case that most people are self-aware enough to have authority in their own realm of thoughts and emotions. Introspective practices such as mindfulness goad us towards greater depth of self-awareness as well as awareness of things outside of our minds.

Londoner
Posts: 612
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: A scientific definition of good and bad

Post by Londoner » Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:08 am

Viveka wrote:
Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:11 pm
I would say that 'good' feelings are good because we enjoy them and value them inherently. Just because the claim is first-person authoritative or introspective has no bearing on whether or not 'I' actually experienced a 'good emotion,' that is different from saying 'the sun rose today.' Just because the sun always rises and my feelings aren't always with me isn't reason for saying that it's not something of a proof for an individual. I could just as well say 'the rose bush has died' just as much as i could say 'the feeling of happiness has passed.' What you are saying ultimately boils down to first-person authority.
When you call a feeling 'good' is this another way of saying 'I enjoyed it'?

That's fine, but then to say it is 'good' is not a description of something 'inherent' in the thought. It is only a description of your reaction to the thought. Thus, you and I might have the same thought, I would say it was 'good' and you would say it was 'bad' and there would be no contradiction since we are only describing ourselves, not the thought.
The Core of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy is that thoughts and emotions ad behavior entail one another. Circumstances entail all. There is no real 'reasonless' emotion, and of course a positive emotion is inherently positive; otherwise it wouldn't be inherently experienced as what it is. I would say that one can mistake one's own emotions for another emotion, but that is more of the exception to the case that most people are self-aware enough to have authority in their own realm of thoughts and emotions.
You have introduced the notion that certain emotions are 'positive', a word that might imply a value judgement. And once again you use the word 'inherent'. But we have not established that emotions have any qualities at all, not in themselves. We are still with 'I enjoyed it'

You continue by bringing in the notion of being more, or less, 'self-aware'. You write: 'most people are self-aware enough to have authority in their own realm of thoughts and emotions'. But surely if the 'good', 'positivity' etc. of a thought and emotion is established simply by whether or not 'I enjoyed it', then everybody must always be 100% 'self-aware', since everybody is the sole judge of their own reactions.

The point is that either all thoughts are equal, or some thoughts are more good/positive/aware than others. If it is the second, then you must be applying some criteria to people's thoughts, i.e. it isn't the case that the individual is the only judge of their own thoughts. But you do not explain this criteria.

Then in the final sentence you write
Introspective practices such as mindfulness goad us towards greater depth of self-awareness as well as awareness of things outside of our minds.
Again, how could you know whether you have 'a greater depth of self awareness'? What yardstick are you using to judge that one sort of self-awareness is 'greater' than another?

And how can you know whether you have any awareness of things outside your own mind? We could only know that if we could somehow climb outside our own minds, look at the things, then compare how we thought of things to how they actually are. Having done that, I might declare 'I have observed that I have a greater awareness of things outside of my mind than you do!' But I can never make that observation - nobody can.

Viveka
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: A scientific definition of good and bad

Post by Viveka » Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:11 pm

Londoner wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:08 am
Viveka wrote:
Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:11 pm
I would say that 'good' feelings are good because we enjoy them and value them inherently. Just because the claim is first-person authoritative or introspective has no bearing on whether or not 'I' actually experienced a 'good emotion,' that is different from saying 'the sun rose today.' Just because the sun always rises and my feelings aren't always with me isn't reason for saying that it's not something of a proof for an individual. I could just as well say 'the rose bush has died' just as much as i could say 'the feeling of happiness has passed.' What you are saying ultimately boils down to first-person authority.
When you call a feeling 'good' is this another way of saying 'I enjoyed it'?

That's fine, but then to say it is 'good' is not a description of something 'inherent' in the thought. It is only a description of your reaction to the thought. Thus, you and I might have the same thought, I would say it was 'good' and you would say it was 'bad' and there would be no contradiction since we are only describing ourselves, not the thought.

Essentially saying that it is a 'good feeling' stems from the fact that it is virtuous, as well as positively valenced, hence it feeling 'good.' So yes, feeling 'I enjoyed it' is basically why it is good. I am not claiming that all thoughts that have a happy descriptor such as 'I love this' hold that it is completely true that it will bring a good emotion or behavior with it, but the chances are that thoughts and behavior and emotions all entail one another.
Londoner wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:08 am
The Core of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy is that thoughts and emotions ad behavior entail one another. Circumstances entail all. There is no real 'reasonless' emotion, and of course a positive emotion is inherently positive; otherwise it wouldn't be inherently experienced as what it is. I would say that one can mistake one's own emotions for another emotion, but that is more of the exception to the case that most people are self-aware enough to have authority in their own realm of thoughts and emotions.
You have introduced the notion that certain emotions are 'positive', a word that might imply a value judgement. And once again you use the word 'inherent'. But we have not established that emotions have any qualities at all, not in themselves. We are still with 'I enjoyed it'
The positive or negative valence is inherent in emotions and can readily be discerned as a positively valenced emotion regardless of the thoughts or behavior that precede or follow it.


Londoner wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:08 am
You continue by bringing in the notion of being more, or less, 'self-aware'. You write: 'most people are self-aware enough to have authority in their own realm of thoughts and emotions'. But surely if the 'good', 'positivity' etc. of a thought and emotion is established simply by whether or not 'I enjoyed it', then everybody must always be 100% 'self-aware', since everybody is the sole judge of their own reactions.

The point is that either all thoughts are equal, or some thoughts are more good/positive/aware than others. If it is the second, then you must be applying some criteria to people's thoughts, i.e. it isn't the case that the individual is the only judge of their own thoughts. But you do not explain this criteria.
I don't know why you keep on confusing the positive or negative valence of emotions with the following thought after the emotion that 'it was good.'

Londoner wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:08 am
Then in the final sentence you write
Introspective practices such as mindfulness goad us towards greater depth of self-awareness as well as awareness of things outside of our minds.
Again, how could you know whether you have 'a greater depth of self awareness'? What yardstick are you using to judge that one sort of self-awareness is 'greater' than another?

And how can you know whether you have any awareness of things outside your own mind? We could only know that if we could somehow climb outside our own minds, look at the things, then compare how we thought of things to how they actually are. Having done that, I might declare 'I have observed that I have a greater awareness of things outside of my mind than you do!' But I can never make that observation - nobody can.
Usually people who practice mindfulness immediately recognize they are more aware of their inner states or outer observations. For instance, a few days ago I practiced open monitoring meditation while going on a walk. There was a sharp contrast between my normal 'single-pointed' attention and this open monitoring. The deeper the samadhi, the more self-awareness and observation of outer things changes.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3846
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: A scientific definition of good and bad

Post by Harbal » Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:25 pm

Viveka wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:11 pm
a few days ago I practiced open monitoring meditation while going on a walk.
As they say: practice makes perfect. Keep it up and before you know it you'll be an expert walker.

Viveka
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: A scientific definition of good and bad

Post by Viveka » Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:35 pm

Harbal wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:25 pm
Viveka wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:11 pm
a few days ago I practiced open monitoring meditation while going on a walk.
As they say: practice makes perfect. Keep it up and before you know it you'll be an expert walker.
Haha! Thanks regardless! :)

Londoner
Posts: 612
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: A scientific definition of good and bad

Post by Londoner » Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:35 am

Viveka wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:11 pm
Essentially saying that it is a 'good feeling' stems from the fact that it is virtuous, as well as positively valenced, hence it feeling 'good.'
I still do not see that you have established any connection between it being 'virtuous' and 'feeling good'.

If I claim something is 'virtuous' I am saying it has high moral standards. That is to say I am judging it, applying a set of external moral standards to it.

But that it 'feels good' is subjective. I am the sole judge of whether something 'feels good' to me.
The positive or negative valence is inherent in emotions and can readily be discerned as a positively valenced emotion regardless of the thoughts or behavior that precede or follow it.
I do not understand that sentence. I cannot understand because the word 'emotions' is still being made to play two incompatible roles.

If I look up 'valence' the explanation refers to the 'attractiveness' of an emotion. But this does not answer the question; 'attractive' as judged by whom? Am I the sole judge of whether a thought is 'positive' or can I be wrong about it?
I don't know why you keep on confusing the positive or negative valence of emotions with the following thought after the emotion that 'it was good.'
Because you describe certain thoughts as 'virtuous'. You say the positivity/negativity 'can readily be discerned'. Certain thoughts can display a 'greater awareness'. So we have two things; the subjective experience of the emotion/thought itself - and then a judgement of that thought/emotion.

So, I think there is a confusion and I am drawing attention to it. I am aware of the title of this topic. If we really are going to have a scientific definition we cannot have ambiguity.

That said, I do not criticise what you say for failing to be scientific. My point of view is that ethics cannot be scientific, it is just not that sort of a thing, its nature is confused. So my objection would really be to the aspiration to give it a scientific definition.
Usually people who practice mindfulness immediately recognize they are more aware of their inner states or outer observations. For instance, a few days ago I practiced open monitoring meditation while going on a walk. There was a sharp contrast between my normal 'single-pointed' attention and this open monitoring. The deeper the samadhi, the more self-awareness and observation of outer things changes.
I think philosophy does the same thing in that it invites you to question the way we habitually view the world. I think this does lead to more self-awareness, yet this doesn't mean I feel I see outer things better. Rather it leads back to the Socratic paradox about wisdom being; that I do not think I know what I do not know.

Viveka
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: A scientific definition of good and bad

Post by Viveka » Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:18 pm

Londoner wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:35 am
Viveka wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:11 pm
Essentially saying that it is a 'good feeling' stems from the fact that it is virtuous, as well as positively valenced, hence it feeling 'good.'
I still do not see that you have established any connection between it being 'virtuous' and 'feeling good'.

If I claim something is 'virtuous' I am saying it has high moral standards. That is to say I am judging it, applying a set of external moral standards to it.

But that it 'feels good' is subjective. I am the sole judge of whether something 'feels good' to me.
Just because people are only first-person authoriative and not second or third person authoritative does not relegate the idea that certain positively valenced emotions follow and come from virtue.
Londoner wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:35 am
The positive or negative valence is inherent in emotions and can readily be discerned as a positively valenced emotion regardless of the thoughts or behavior that precede or follow it.
I do not understand that sentence. I cannot understand because the word 'emotions' is still being made to play two incompatible roles.

If I look up 'valence' the explanation refers to the 'attractiveness' of an emotion. But this does not answer the question; 'attractive' as judged by whom? Am I the sole judge of whether a thought is 'positive' or can I be wrong about it?
Refer to the above.
Londoner wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:35 am
I don't know why you keep on confusing the positive or negative valence of emotions with the following thought after the emotion that 'it was good.'
Because you describe certain thoughts as 'virtuous'. You say the positivity/negativity 'can readily be discerned'. Certain thoughts can display a 'greater awareness'. So we have two things; the subjective experience of the emotion/thought itself - and then a judgement of that thought/emotion.

So, I think there is a confusion and I am drawing attention to it. I am aware of the title of this topic. If we really are going to have a scientific definition we cannot have ambiguity.

That said, I do not criticise what you say for failing to be scientific. My point of view is that ethics cannot be scientific, it is just not that sort of a thing, its nature is confused. So my objection would really be to the aspiration to give it a scientific definition.
The emotion is positvely or negatively valenced solely by first-person experience, but we cannot be clever and think we are beyond the existence of other minds, especially human, that are similar to our own. Thus, to be scientific, we must consider what is common to all human minds, such as my pentagrammatical model of affect and the idea that virtue leads to positive emotions. We cannot 'judge' away the experience of love or desire, but we can evaluate them through thought and end up supporting or even contradicting our emotional experience, and we cannot pretend we did not experience it even if our thoughts deny it its so-called validity.
Londoner wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:35 am
Usually people who practice mindfulness immediately recognize they are more aware of their inner states or outer observations. For instance, a few days ago I practiced open monitoring meditation while going on a walk. There was a sharp contrast between my normal 'single-pointed' attention and this open monitoring. The deeper the samadhi, the more self-awareness and observation of outer things changes.
I think philosophy does the same thing in that it invites you to question the way we habitually view the world. I think this does lead to more self-awareness, yet this doesn't mean I feel I see outer things better. Rather it leads back to the Socratic paradox about wisdom being; that I do not think I know what I do not know.
Well, wisdom and knowledge are different. I would say that one can be wise without much knowledge, while one must have knowledge to be non-ignorant. I can meditate upon certain things without a way to describe them fully in words. This is in-between knowledge and wisdom... specifically, self-knowledge.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests