My philosophy of good, bad, and emotions

[Mindwave]

Note to Reader: When you read my philosophy, before asking me any questions or objecting to it, read all if it because it addresses questions and objections. If you're unwilling to read all of it today, then perhaps you'd be willing to read some of it each day until you've read it all.

But, if you're only willing to read some today and no more in the future, then just read what you're willing to read, starting from the beginning. Now, if my philosophy doesn't address a specific question or objection you have, then I'll address it. Lastly, my philosophy uses analogies that might not be perfect. But, they'll suffice.

My Philosophy of Good, Bad, and Emotions (Shorter Version)

What matters to one person might not matter to another. For example, someone might care about a certain work of art, while another person might not care about it. So, people, places, and things subjectively matter. In other words, they only matter (have some level of importance/significance) for those people they matter to. That means they don't matter by themselves, which means they wouldn't matter if they didn't matter to anyone.

So, food, air, and water don't matter for our survival by themselves, even though they're necessary to live. They only matter when they matter to us. So, if they mattered to one person and not to another, then they'd matter in one person's mental universe/mental reality (in his/her mind), and wouldn't matter in another person's mind.

But, without our emotions (amazement, fear, pride, misery, rage, disgust, etc.), nothing can matter to us, including food, air, and water, which means we can't care about anyone or anything. Why? I'll explain. When a person, place, or thing matters to an individual, that's a state of mind, which I call an "x state."

For example, amazement (an emotional state) is an x state because an individual being amazed by something means said thing matters to him/her. X states are always emotional states and vice versa, which means x states that some people consider to be non-emotional states (thoughts alone), such as the casual desire to place an object on the table, or disliking a certain person, are, in fact, emotional states.

Since x states are always emotional states, that means, if an emotionless person has the mindset that he's amazed or frightened by something, then that mindset can't be amazement or fear. He'd require some type of treatment (such as medication) that would restore his x states, including his amazement and fear.

Also, if an insomniac has the mindset that he's sleepy, then that mindset can't be sleepiness. He'd require sleep medication to restore his sleepiness, so he can be sleepy. As you can see, our mindset alone can't be an x state, sleepiness, nausea, hunger, thirst, pain, pleasure, etc. Here's another example that shows our mindset alone can't be an x state:

If someone had a phobia of spiders, and he completely eliminated his phobia through exposure therapy, then he'd no longer be afraid of them because his fear (his emotion/x state) has vanished. If spiders were then presented to him, crawled on him, and he was asked to try to be afraid of them through his mindset alone, given that his emotional fear of them is permanently gone, then he'd say:

"I'm trying to be afraid of them. But, I can't, no matter how hard I try to." As you can see, this example shows that, since our mindset alone can't be one particular x state (fear), then it can't be any x state. Even Hume (a famous philosopher) says reason (our mindset) alone can't be an x state because he says: "Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions."

But, even though reason can't make anything matter to emotionless people, they can still perform tasks, and it would be like how robots (apathetic machines) can perform tasks. Also, emotionless people can't perceive anything as mattering (as having any level of importance/significance). That's because that perception is an emotional state that an emotionless person's mindset can't give him.

It would be like how red and green are perceptions (colors) that a blind person's mindset can't give him. As you can see, our mindset alone can't allow us to perceive anything as mattering or as red or green. So, emotionless people can perceive things as good, bad, or necessary, but not as mattering. Now, since emotions are perceptions of people, places, and things as mattering, the question is:

"Which emotions are perceptions of them as good (as mattering) and which emotions are perceptions of them as bad (as mattering)?" Well, first of all, let me explain a few things that'll lead up to the answer to that question. Emotions are always pleasant or unpleasant, which means they're always states of pleasure or displeasure (states of wanting, liking, or disliking).

For example, disgust, anger, grief, being horrified, being disturbed, and misery are states of disliking (unpleasant emotions), excitement and valuing a prize are wanting or liking (pleasant emotions), and amazement, enjoyment, happiness, sexual attraction, and pride are liking (pleasant emotions). Also, emotions can be shallow or profound and intense or not intense.

For example, being there for your family might profoundly and intensely matter to you (matter much to you), and buying a certain fancy item might shallowly and not intensely matter to you (matter little to you). Pleasant emotions that are more profound and more intense always make people, places, and things better (more good) in our eyes.

For example, the more profoundly and intensely someone likes a movie or work of art, the better he likes it, which means the better/more good (more mattering) it becomes in his eyes. Pleasant emotions that are more shallow and less intense always make people, places, and things less good (less mattering) in our eyes.

So, if someone liked a certain hobby, but his liking was shallow and not intense, and his liking became less good (more shallow and lower in intensity) or better (less shallow and higher in intensity), that would make said hobby less good or better (more good) in his eyes. Now, what I've just said regarding pleasant emotions also applies to unpleasant emotions.

For example, the more profoundly and intensely someone is devastated by the loss of a loved one, the worse (more bad) that loss becomes for him. The more shallow and less intense an unpleasant emotion is, the less bad (less mattering) something becomes in one's eyes.

As you can see, pleasant emotions are always perceptions of people, places, and things as good (as mattering), and unpleasant emotions are always perceptions of them as bad (as mattering). Now, what if something (a certain product, for example) couldn't emotionally please someone and it emotionally displeases him because it causes health problems, but he judges it as good (as mattering) because it accomplishes a certain task?

Well, there are 2 things occurring simultaneously. The 1st thing is his unpleasant emotion, which is making that product bad (matter) in his eyes. The 2nd thing is his judgment, which is making that product good (not matter) in his eyes. His judgment can't make the product good (matter) in his eyes because only pleasant emotions make things perceived as good (as mattering).

As I said earlier, our thoughts, such as our mindsets and judgments alone, are always apathetic states, which means they can never allow us perceive anything as good or bad (as mattering). Sure, our thoughts can elicit certain emotions (providing our emotions aren't disabled by a mental illness, brain damage, emotionally numbing drugs, etc.).

But, our thoughts alone can't be an x state. How we perceive people, places, and things is the same thing as how we experience them, and our thoughts alone can't give us a good or bad (mattering) perception/experience (they can't be an x state), which means we'd be having a hollow experience if we were emotionless.

But, it's always better for us to be emotionless (neither emotionally pleased nor emotionally displeased, aka "apathetic or dead") than to live a life of much emotional displeasure (much bad [mattering] perceptions/experiences)." Why? I'll answer this question soon. But, for now, I'm going to explain some things that'll lead up to the answer.

If someone perceives something as good or bad (as important/mattering), I could say there's goodness or badness (importance) for him. For example, if someone perceives a certain deed as good (as important) for the environment, then there's goodness (importance) for him because said goodness (importance) exists in his mind/mental universe.

I could rephrase it as: "There's goodness (importance) for the environment for him." Also, if someone perceives an object as red or green (sees a red or green object), I could say there's red or green for him because that red or green exists in his mind. So, perceiving a person, place, or thing as good or bad (as mattering) is good or bad (matters) for us, just as how perceiving an object as red or green is red or green for us.

Goodness (importance) is a perception (a pleasant emotion), and it's good (important/matters) for us, just as how red is a perception (a color) and it's red for us. As for our unpleasant emotions, they're bad (matter) for us, and the color green applies to them, just as how red applies to pleasant emotions.

So, unpleasant emotions that are the most profound and intense in the world would be the worst/greatest bad (most important) things for us, and they can be called "the worst unhappiness." The opposite (the best bliss) would be the best/greatest good (most important) for us. Some people say there are instances where pleasant emotions, such as the best bliss, would be bad (matter) for us.

But, to say so would be like saying there are instances where red would be green for us. Red can change to green, and a pleasant emotion can change to an unpleasant emotion because a person can be emotionally pleased about something one moment, and emotionally displeased about it the next moment.

But, our pleasant emotions themselves can never be bad (matter) for us, even if they result in self harm, and our unpleasant emotions themselves can never be good (matter) for us, even if they promote our survival. Our pleasant emotions can be bad (not matter) for us.

But, they can never be bad (matter) for us because they're always good (matter) for us, since they're always perceptions of people, places, and things as good (as mattering). As for our unpleasant emotions, they can be good (not matter) for us. But, they can never be good (matter) for us because they're always bad (matter) for us, since they're always perceptions of people, places, and things as bad (as mattering).

As for being emotionless, it can be good or bad (not matter) for us. But, it can never be good or bad (matter) for us because it's always neutral (doesn't matter) for us. Emotionlessness and neutrality are, thus, the same thing. Also, as long as people, places, and things emotionally please us and don't emotionally displease us, then they're good (matter) in our mental universes/minds and can't be bad (matter), but can be bad (not matter).

As long as they emotionally displease us and don't emotionally please us, then they're bad (matter) in our minds and can't be good (matter), but can be good (not matter). As long as we're emotionless, then they don't matter and can't matter, but can be good or bad (not matter).

Now, being emotionless (neutrality) is in between the best best bliss (greatest good [greatest importance]) and the worst unhappiness (greatest bad [greatest importance]). It would be like how 0 is in between 100 and -100. Also, being at any positive number is always better than being at 0. In other words, having any level of emotional pleasure is always better for us than being emotionless.

It's always better to have something that's good (matters) for us (emotional pleasure) than to have something that doesn't matter for us (no emotions), even during moments where emotional pleasure is very bad (doesn't matter) for us, such as during moments where it results in self harm.

The goal is to not only be at the highest level of emotional pleasure possible (to be emotionally pleased as profoundly and intensely as possible), but for said emotional pleasure to last as long as possible throughout our lifetime because that means we'd be as close to 100 (the best bliss/greatest good) as possible, and as often as possible, which would be much better than constantly being at 0.

But, being at 0 is always better than being at any negative number. In other words, being emotionless is always better for us than having any level of emotional displeasure. It's always better to have something that doesn't matter for us (no emotions) than to have something that's bad (matters) for us (emotional displeasure), even during moments where being emotionless renders us not doing what's necessary to survive, not helping others, not paying the bills, etc.

So, if someone's struggling with much emotional displeasure, then he's better off emotionless (apathetic or dead) than living like that. The more profound and intense his emotional displeasure is, the better off he's emotionless. But, even though my philosophy says it's better for him to be apathetic or dead, my philosophy doesn't say he has to kill himself.

He can live to find treatments that would alleviate his emotional displeasure and restore his pleasant emotions. I, myself, searched for treatments because, unfortunately, I had much ongoing, emotional suffering (emotional displeasure) throughout my lifetime, which was caused by ongoing, severe troubles/worries (which are also unpleasant emotions).

I couldn't reason or will away any of my unpleasant emotions, even though I tried very hard to. That's because emotions don't listen to reason and can't be willed away. For example, a phobia is an emotional state (fear), and a person can neither will or reason away any phobia he has. So, I had to find treatments that, unfortunately, didn't seem effective, and I had to wait for my unpleasant emotions to resolve (fade away) on their own over time.

While I was waiting for my unpleasant emotions to vanish, I was absent of pleasant emotions, such as the passion (emotional drive) to pursue my dream of composing music, and the enjoyment of composing, which means composing couldn't be good (matter) in my eyes. That's why I gave up composing.

Also, nothing could be beautiful, awesome, or magnificent, aka "good" (matter) in my eyes. So, instead of having good (mattering) perceptions/experiences (pleasant emotions), I constantly had very bad (very mattering) ones (unpleasant emotions) that have lasted for 16 years. All this emotional suffering was pointless because it's better to be dead than to have it. What's necessary is the best, everlasting bliss.

So, if heaven (the afterlife) exists, then everyone should be there, experiencing the best bliss for eternity. We shouldn't be here on Earth, where there's much emotional displeasure we can't reason or will away. But, some people would say emotional displeasure is necessary. If it is, then only a tiny amount would be necessary, which means my years of emotional displeasure were unnecessary.

Now that I've discussed my emotional suffering and why I think it was unnecessary, I wish to say one last thing about it. Based upon my personal struggles/emotional suffering that disabled my pleasant emotions (rendered them absent), I've developed a philosophy (the one I'm already explaining in this document).

Some people would object to my philosophy and, as I said, I'll address said objections if this document doesn't address them. Also, my philosophy is based upon my personal experience (is based upon what I've noticed, which is that my emotions are the only x states, only my pleasant emotions make people, places, and thing good [matter] in my eyes, and only my unpleasant emotions make them bad [matter] in my eyes).

My philosophy is also based upon supportive arguments (which I've presented earlier throughout this document). I think anyone who has a different philosophy than mine is delusional, even if his/her philosophy is based upon his/her personal experience and supportive arguments. Some people think I'm the delusional one and they'd try to change my philosophy.

But, until I notice that reason (my thinking) alone becomes an x state for me (allows me to perceive people, places, and things as mattering), my philosophy will never change to one that advocates reason alone. To be honest, I don't think my philosophy will ever change, even if I tried my hardest to change it.

I don't think it would change in a million years (if, let's pretend, I could live that long). If anyone objects to my philosophy in an attempt to convert me to a different philosophy, then such an attempt would be futile. I'd just address said objections, instead of being converted by them.

It would be like a situation where someone with a certain worldview is trying to convert someone else (for example, a Christian trying to convert an atheist and vice versa). It's just not going to work. But, we're free to discuss and debate our worldviews (my philosophy, for example). Such a discussion and debate would yield much insight. To conclude this document, I'll summarize my philosophy by saying:

"People, places, and things (including the idea of x states [emotions] and the act of seeking or avoiding emotions) subjectively matter. So, they don't matter by themselves, which means they wouldn't matter if they didn't matter to anyone. Our emotions are the only things that matter by themselves, which means one's emotions would matter for him/her, even if they didn't matter to him/her.

Our pleasant emotions are always good (matter) for us by themselves because they're always perceptions of people, places, and things as good (as mattering), and our unpleasant emotions are always bad (matter) for us by themselves because they're always perceptions of people, places, and things as bad (as mattering).

Pleasant emotions that are more profound and more intense are always better/more good (matter more) for us. For example, emotional liking (pleasure) that's more profound and more intense is a better form of liking (it means we like a person, place, or thing better, aka: "It means we perceive a person, place, or thing as better [as mattering more]).

Thus, this liking would be of a better quality by itself and would be better (matter more) for us by itself. Unpleasant emotions that are more profound and more intense are always worse/more bad (matter more) for us by themselves. Being emotionless never matters for us."

[Steve Matthew]

Your philosophy offers a unique perspective on the nature of emotions and their impact on our perception of good and bad. Thank you for sharing your insights and personal journey with us.