The evolutionary definition of good and bad

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
MozartLink
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

The evolutionary definition of good and bad

Post by MozartLink »

Our good feelings (good moods) are the awareness of good value and worth to us in our lives. They are the awareness of joy, beauty, happiness, love, inspiration, etc. No way of thinking or attitude alone without your good feelings can give you this awareness. It is really no different than how no thought or attitude alone can give you the awareness of physical pain, sight, hearing, or smell when you are blind, deaf, can't smell, and are not in physical pain.

You can think to yourself and have the optimistic attitude that your life has good value and worth to you without your good feelings, but you would not actually be aware of that. Therefore, nothing would have any real good value and worth to you and you would only be fooling and deluding yourself into thinking otherwise. This whole concept also applies to our bad feelings (bad moods) and having neither our good nor bad feelings.

Our good and bad feelings are, therefore, chemical messages to our brains that tell us that certain things are good, bad, and worth something to us. It is the evolutionary definition of good, bad, and worth that scientists have yet to discover. This is my definition of good, bad, worth, joy, beauty, suffering, misery, etc. It is based upon my own personal experience.

I think certain things in life can hold good value in their own right such as that it was a good thing that we have freedom and democracy. You can sit there without your good feelings all you like and acknowledge how good this is. But none of that would actually be good to you. In order to experience (become aware) of the beautiful good value this has, then you need to feel good from that.

Any good value and worth in the lives of others or things and situations that hold good value and worth in their own right cannot be anything of good value and worth to us without our good feelings. For example, if you were blind and deaf, then you can acknowledge that others have sight and hearing. But that cannot be of any real sight and hearing to you.

Actually, according to my definition of good and bad, then I don't think there would be situations or things out there that would hold any good value, bad value, worth, joy, beauty, etc. in their own right and it is simply only a matter of our good and bad feelings that dictate the good and bad value and worth in our lives.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: The evolutionary definition of good and bad

Post by Harbal »

Mozartlink, I just wanted you to know that your posts always fill me with feelings of joy, beauty, happiness, love, inspiration, etc. So, your misery is not wasted, it cheers the rest of us up no end. Think of it as your gift to us.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The evolutionary definition of good and bad

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Yes, it's nice to know that however bad you might fell, Mozart is feeling much worst.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6265
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: The evolutionary definition of good and bad

Post by FlashDangerpants »

MozartLink wrote:according to my definition of good and bad, then I don't think there would be situations or things out there that would hold any good value, bad value
Of course not, but this is not surprising since you appear not to know what the is/ought distinction is.

Are you under the impression that we should take seriously as a philosopher just because you are sad all the time? If so, you should cease this decadence and read some actual philosophy so that you can avoid at least the more obvious errors.
MozartLink
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: The evolutionary definition of good and bad

Post by MozartLink »

FlashDangerpants wrote:
MozartLink wrote:according to my definition of good and bad, then I don't think there would be situations or things out there that would hold any good value, bad value
Of course not, but this is not surprising since you appear not to know what the is/ought distinction is.

Are you under the impression that we should take seriously as a philosopher just because you are sad all the time? If so, you should cease this decadence and read some actual philosophy so that you can avoid at least the more obvious errors.
But is/ought would not be equivalent to good and bad according to my definition of good and bad. There are certain things we ought to do and certain things we ought not to do. However, ought simply means that it would be more wise to do or not do these things. But that does not equate to good and bad.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6265
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: The evolutionary definition of good and bad

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Then you have made an entirely standard error by just granting yourself a definition of something that entirely fails to describe the phenomenon in question and then running with it for no reason. You're expressing a form of Logical Positivism without bothering to build on their foundational basis or to supply your own foundations.

Your theory also isn't evolutionary. It doesn't say that evolution explains this thing because it provides that reproductive or survival benefit which is how those theories work. not that it would matter because evolutionary theories, at their absolute strongest, can say why X is used, but not what X means. So it is pretty questionable whether you even want your theory to match your title as the very notion of "evolutionary definition of good and bad" is self defeating before you even begin.

You are engaging in what Dennett describes as Greedy Reductionism.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: The evolutionary definition of good and bad

Post by Harbal »

FlashDangerpants wrote: You're expressing a form of Logical Positivism without bothering to build on their foundational basis or to supply your own foundations.
Well I never! And I just had him down as a misery gut who wanted to drag as many others as he could, down with him.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6265
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: The evolutionary definition of good and bad

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Harbal wrote:
FlashDangerpants wrote: You're expressing a form of Logical Positivism without bothering to build on their foundational basis or to supply your own foundations.
Well I never! And I just had him down as a misery gut who wanted to drag as many others as he could, down with him.
Most of the great philosophers have only refrained from death in order to outlive some other bastard and shit on his grave. Being a miserable little vortex of despair is probably ok, but also being bad at the thing you do just to kill time until the sweet reprieve of death is jolly poor form!
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: The evolutionary definition of good and bad

Post by Harbal »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Most of the great philosophers have only refrained from death in order to outlive some other bastard and shit on his grave.
I don't see Mozartlink as someone who even knows what a philosopher is.
Being a miserable little vortex of despair
Yes, that's more the way I see him.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The evolutionary definition of good and bad

Post by Walker »

MozartLink wrote:Our good and bad feelings are, therefore, chemical messages to our brains that tell us that certain things are good, bad, and worth something to us.
Sound frequencies cause chemical changes in the body.

This is why sound is used tactically by police and military.

As a correlation, humans also create frequencies, in various ways, that cause chemical changes in the body.
Post Reply