My new support for hedonism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

MozartLink
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

My new support for hedonism

Post by MozartLink »

Proof That Our Emotions Are The Perception Of Value: I talk about how our emotions allow us to perceive value. Many people would disagree with this idea because many people think that emotions are just simply emotions (i.e. how we feel about things) and nothing more. But I think this example I am going to give you might prove how our emotions really are the perception of value. When you, for example, feel fear from being in a dangerous situation, that feeling of fear is a chemical message to the brain which is telling your brain something.

It tells your brain "THREAT!!!" or "DANGER!!!" This would be no different than your brain getting the message "IT MATTERS!!!" When your brain gets that message of threat and danger, that allows you to perceive things and situations as being threatening and dangerous. When you perceive a situation as being threatening or dangerous, that is no different than perceiving that situation as something that matters to you because, if it's a threat or danger, then it matters.

Now, when something matters to you, this means it is something good or bad from your perspective. For example, if the loss of your loved one mattered to you or if getting a new movie is something that mattered to you, then this means those things had value from your perspective.

Therefore, when you feel fear, that is no different than your brain getting the message that this dangerous situation you felt fear from was something bad. So, I can honestly conclude that emotions are the message of value to our brains which means they really are the perception of value. But since people are in denial of this, then they are in denial of their own emotions.

That is why I do not trust humanity because people are often times in denial and delusional. Humanity currently believes in this idea that emotions being the source of value in our lives is for the weak-minded and that the real value comes about through our intellect, character, and morals. I think humanity is also in denial when it comes to their moral and intellectual based values because I don't think these are real values. In essence, my views oppose the vast majority of humanity.

I think the emotional values are the real values while the values founded upon morality, intellect, and character are the fake values. But humanity thinks the opposite. Humanity thinks I am the one who is delusional and in denial and I think it is humanity that is delusional and in denial. As I explain later on, I do not think both sets of values can be real. I don't think the emotional values and the intellectual and moral based ones can be real. One set is real and one set is fake.

It would be like having two boxes of money and figuring out which box consists of real money and which box consists of fake money. In a way, I consider myself to be a detective trying to figure this whole thing out. We should all be like detectives to try to figure this out. The idea that our emotions are the perception of value is supported by many skeptics, emotional theorists, and neuroscientists as pointed out later on. Some people reject that idea, but I support it based upon my own personal experience as well as my own arguments.

The very fact that there is this idea out there that our emotions are the perception of value should be our 1st clue to really consider the possibility that humanity is in denial and that it's our emotions that are the true source of value in our lives and not our character, morality, intellect, or obligations/responsibilities (or "just doing what you got to do in life" even if you feel miserable and hopeless).
Last edited by MozartLink on Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:08 pm, edited 3 times in total.
MozartLink
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: My new support for hedonism

Post by MozartLink »

*post deleted*
Last edited by MozartLink on Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6265
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: My new support for hedonism

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Do you get pleasure from all of this?
MozartLink
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: My new support for hedonism

Post by MozartLink »

*post deleted*
Last edited by MozartLink on Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: My new support for hedonism

Post by Bill Wiltrack »

.





Couple of things I would like to review you upon.

First:
In essence, your views are in-line with the vast majority of humanity. Humanity agrees with you.

So, I strongly oppose your assumption in that.

Thing to keep in-mind is that emotions are immediate. Waaaaaay faster than the intellectual function.


Also, emotions are binding. Sticky. Thought processes are bound to our initial emotion responses.

Second:

The intellectual function is by far the most accessible avenue to consciousness; self-consciousness.

Through the intellect we can create tension between our manifested being and a path to self-consciousness.

Through the intellect we can, in fact, oppose our emotional center.




So, in conclusion, I agree with you that emotions overwhelmingly determine values. ALL our values.

I do disagree with you statement that humanity is oppose to your assumptions of emotional value. You have the wind of the vast of humanity behind you.


The recent explosion of seeds to humanity seems to point to some extended level of intellect and towards an opportunity to expand self-consciousness if one is prone towards a phase of introspection.







..........................................................Image









.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: My new support for hedonism

Post by Science Fan »

Grand-moral schemes always seem to me to be based on circular reasoning: A person has an idea of what they consider to be moral behavior, and then they come up with some grand theory that "explains" why this is so. But, if one does not accept the same moral claims to begin with, as the person who is devising this theory, the theory makes no sense. I think all grand moral schemes are doomed to failure for this reason. Ultimately, they are simply ad hoc "explanations."

After all, if you started theorizing about morality without thinking where you needed to end up, and came to the conclusion, according to your specific theory, that rape was moral, or mass murder, or stealing, most people would scrap their theory and start over until they ended up with a conclusion that such conduct was immoral. So, no philosophical theory is going to end up providing us with novel moral insights, but at most, will provide a slight extension of what we already believe to be moral behavior.
MozartLink
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: My new support for hedonism

Post by MozartLink »

Bill Wiltrack wrote: Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:02 pm .





Couple of things I would like to review you upon.

First:
In essence, your views are in-line with the vast majority of humanity. Humanity agrees with you.

So, I strongly oppose your assumption in that.

Thing to keep in-mind is that emotions are immediate. Waaaaaay faster than the intellectual function.


Also, emotions are binding. Sticky. Thought processes are bound to our initial emotion responses.

Second:

The intellectual function is by far the most accessible avenue to consciousness; self-consciousness.

Through the intellect we can create tension between our manifested being and a path to self-consciousness.

Through the intellect we can, in fact, oppose our emotional center.




So, in conclusion, I agree with you that emotions overwhelmingly determine values. ALL our values.

I do disagree with you statement that humanity is oppose to your assumptions of emotional value. You have the wind of the vast of humanity behind you.


The recent explosion of seeds to humanity seems to point to some extended level of intellect and towards an opportunity to expand self-consciousness if one is prone towards a phase of introspection.







..........................................................Image









.
First of all, I have fully perfected (revised) my opening post. So, go ahead and read it over again when you get the chance. I would advise anyone else to do the same. Now, continuing on here. I do not agree that there are the higher emotions which are the emotions founded upon morality and intellect. I think it can only be the lower, basic emotions that are the real emotions. These emotions would be, for example, feeling sexually aroused, feeling excited to get a new movie, or feeling panic from being in a dangerous situation.

Just as how there is no moral and intellectual form of physical pain, physical pleasure, sight, hearing, smell, taste, heat, cold, hunger, and thirst, there can also be no moral and intellectual form of emotions and there can be no real moral/intellectual message of value to our brains. That all goes back to what I said earlier in regards to how moral and intellectual based values are not real values.

Our morality and intellect alone can only give us the idea of values, emotions, smell, colors, sounds, heat, cold, etc., but not any real form of those things. Pleasant (positive) emotions are the message of good and beautiful value to our brains and unpleasant (negative) emotions are the message of bad, horrible, and disgusting value to our brains. Unfortunately, positive emotions are very fleeting things. There are many people who struggle with depression due to no fault of their own and there are many people who struggle with misery and much despair in general.

Lastly, if a therapist told you to visualize a certain scene, visualize certain colors, or to hear a certain sound, then the thought itself of a scene, colors, and that sound would just be the idea of those things, but not any real form of those things just yet. It is only once that thought sends the signal to the audio and visual cortex of your brain that you are able to perceive real sounds, colors, and images. The same rule would apply to hunger, thirst, taste, and smell.

It is only once the thought of your favorite food or drink or the thought of a certain taste and smell sends the signal that you would then be having real hunger, thirst, taste, and smell. This is just how our brains work and having value in our lives would be no different. It is only once a certain thought sends the signal to make you feel a positive or negative emotion that you would then be perceiving real good or bad value in your life depending on which emotion you feel.

In addition, these basic emotions that our thoughts make us feel are the only real emotions and there is no emotion that can come about through our intellect and morality alone as I mentioned earlier. But if you were to have some sort of mental illness that prevented thoughts from making you feel certain emotions, then you wouldn't have those real emotions or any of those real values in your life.

It would be no different than a person who has lost his sense of smell, taste, hearing, hunger, thirst, and sight. A blind and deaf person cannot have any real visuals and sounds in his life just as how a depressed or apathetic person cannot have any real good value and beauty in his life either.
Science Fan wrote: Mon Mar 19, 2018 3:35 pm Grand-moral schemes always seem to me to be based on circular reasoning: A person has an idea of what they consider to be moral behavior, and then they come up with some grand theory that "explains" why this is so. But, if one does not accept the same moral claims to begin with, as the person who is devising this theory, the theory makes no sense. I think all grand moral schemes are doomed to failure for this reason. Ultimately, they are simply ad hoc "explanations."

After all, if you started theorizing about morality without thinking where you needed to end up, and came to the conclusion, according to your specific theory, that rape was moral, or mass murder, or stealing, most people would scrap their theory and start over until they ended up with a conclusion that such conduct was immoral. So, no philosophical theory is going to end up providing us with novel moral insights, but at most, will provide a slight extension of what we already believe to be moral behavior.
My theory is not founded upon a moral definition of good and bad since my theory says that the moral definition of good and bad is the fake version of good and bad that people believe in. My theory is founded upon a materialistic definition of good and bad. My theory says that it is our positive/pleasant emotions that give our lives good and beautiful value. Positive emotions are fleeting things just like materialistic things. According to my worldview, good is an actual materialistic thing. Good would be our positive emotions. If you want more good value in your life, then you need to feel more positive emotions. This would be akin to someone earning more and more money in his life. If you lose your positive emotions due to, for example, a mental illness, then it would be as though you have lost your money and became poor.

Believing that you can have value in your life through your morality and intellect alone would be no different than a person believing he can make money magically fall from the sky into his lap by believing so. You can't do that. You need actual money to be rich just as how you need actual good (positive emotions) to be rich in the good value and beauty in your life. Our morality and intellect alone does not give our brains any real perception of value. Believing that you are perceiving value through your intellect alone is not the same thing as actually perceiving value since I define the perception of value as being our emotions.

Nonetheless, we as human beings are not stupid and we can still make choices to benefit ourselves and others regardless of our emotional state. For example, I still choose to walk on the treadmill to keep myself healthy and alive even if I didn't feel up to it. Even though there is nothing good and beautiful about walking on that treadmill from my perspective, I still do it anyway just from the idea in my mind that I need to do this to keep myself alive. The thing is though, if we as human beings just lived our lives forcing ourselves to do things without our positive emotions, that would be an empty life to live. We need to have our positive emotions to make doing things good, beautiful, and worth living for whether that be helping others, contributing to the world, or doing our hobbies. Positive emotions make our lives good and negative emotions make our lives bad as explained earlier in this post.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: My new support for hedonism

Post by Science Fan »

So, if a child-rapist feels good emotionally after raping a child, then this makes child-rape moral? Isn't your claim that morality is derived from emotions simply the naturalistic fallacy?
MozartLink
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: My new support for hedonism

Post by MozartLink »

Science Fan wrote: Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:35 pm So, if a child-rapist feels good emotionally after raping a child, then this makes child-rape moral? Isn't your claim that morality is derived from emotions simply the naturalistic fallacy?
It would be a good thing, according to my worldview. However, just because my worldview sounds absurd and false does not make it false. There are plenty of things in this world that sound absurd and false, but said things are true. We live in a cruel, unfair, absurd world and, thus, I would not be surprised if my worldview were true and humanity is just delusional and in denial of this. After all, humanity wishes to delude themselves past cruel and absurd things. So, people can deny my worldview all they want to. But it could still be true.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: My new support for hedonism

Post by Science Fan »

With all due respect, any moral system that takes the position child rape is moral if a child rapist gets an emotional thrill from raping children, is not one that I see as having any merit whatsoever. All you are doing is engaging in the naturalistic fallacy and anytime someone gets a good feeling about doing something, no matter how horrible the act is, you conclude it is moral.

This is why I have never believed that morality is biologically determined. I believe biology plays a role, but fail to see how someone's emotional feelings in and of themselves can ever determine what is morally good or bad. Especially when morality mainly concerns itself with how well people get along with one another ---- and child-rapists don't get along with others very well.
MozartLink
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: My new support for hedonism

Post by MozartLink »

Science Fan wrote: Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:13 pm With all due respect, any moral system that takes the position child rape is moral if a child rapist gets an emotional thrill from raping children, is not one that I see as having any merit whatsoever. All you are doing is engaging in the naturalistic fallacy and anytime someone gets a good feeling about doing something, no matter how horrible the act is, you conclude it is moral.

This is why I have never believed that morality is biologically determined. I believe biology plays a role, but fail to see how someone's emotional feelings in and of themselves can ever determine what is morally good or bad. Especially when morality mainly concerns itself with how well people get along with one another ---- and child-rapists don't get along with others very well.
I think it's all about biology and looking at how the brain actually works. It is about looking at the brain and realizing what brain regions allow us to experience this or that. Even though I know nothing about neuroscience, I am just very curious about this whole idea that our intellect and morality alone can somehow allow us to experience real value when I, myself, have never had that experience. Hunger, thirst, smell, taste, heat, and cold are all sensations. When you feel a positive, basic emotion such as being excited to get a new movie or when you feel sexually aroused, this would be a sensation as well. It would be a sensation of pure beauty and joy since positive emotions are what bring our lives beauty and joy.

In order for our intellectual and moral based values to be real values, then our intellectual brain would have to allow us to experience a sensation of pure beauty, horror, disgust, etc. In other words, our intellectual brain would have to allow us to experience something just like our basic emotions. If our intellectual and moral based values cannot give us such an experience and if these are values founded upon nothing more than our intentions, choices, character, mindsets/attitudes, and morals, then they cannot be real values. That all goes back to what I said earlier. Our basic emotions are to be compared to sensations such as hunger and thirst. In order to have an intellectual form of hunger and thirst, then the intellectual brain would have to experience the actual sensation of hunger and thirst.

We know the intellectual brain cannot experience this. Likewise, in order to have real intellectual and moral based values, then our intellectual brain would have to experience the actual sensation of value that comes about through our basic emotions. I realize people describe their moral and intellectual based values as being emotional and that they are actual feelings, but that would be no different than saying that the mindset alone of being hungry and thirsty is actual hunger and thirst. To say that would be putting forth a false definition of hunger and thirst. I guess you could technically describe the mindset alone of being hungry and thirsty as being a feeling if you wish to describe all mental states, including intellectual states, as being feelings. But, again, it wouldn't be actual hunger and thirst.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: My new support for hedonism

Post by Science Fan »

Mozart: You are just repeating the naturalistic fallacy, which Hume pointed out centuries ago. Just because something is natural does not mean it is moral. For example, naturally speaking, humans are likely not monogamous with males naturally having more than one mate at a time. Does that make polygamy moral? No. In fact, we know societies that allow men to marry more than one women, at the same time, have a great deal of violence. Why? Because typically it's the wealthier men who are able to afford more than one wife, and if even the top 25% of men have 2 wives, that essentially means the bottom 25% can't find a wife at all. That bottom 25% gets angry as a result. This is why most westerners view monogamy as moral, even though it is not natural, purely from a biological standpoint.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: My new support for hedonism

Post by Science Fan »

In fact, I should have mentioned that the Jewish interpretation of the Adam and Eve story is largely about rejecting the naturalistic fallacy. The snake's argument, not in the English translations, but in the original, was purely a naturalistic fallacy.
MozartLink
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: My new support for hedonism

Post by MozartLink »

Science Fan wrote: Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:39 pm Mozart: You are just repeating the naturalistic fallacy, which Hume pointed out centuries ago. Just because something is natural does not mean it is moral. For example, naturally speaking, humans are likely not monogamous with males naturally having more than one mate at a time. Does that make polygamy moral? No. In fact, we know societies that allow men to marry more than one women, at the same time, have a great deal of violence. Why? Because typically it's the wealthier men who are able to afford more than one wife, and if even the top 25% of men have 2 wives, that essentially means the bottom 25% can't find a wife at all. That bottom 25% gets angry as a result. This is why most westerners view monogamy as moral, even though it is not natural, purely from a biological standpoint.
But here's the thing though. The idea that our emotions are the perception of value is supported by many emotional theorists and neuroscientists. The idea is currently rejected by some, but this could be an idea that will later be revealed to be true. If this idea is true, then I was right all along and our emotions really do give our lives value since they allow us to perceive value. In which case, our intellect alone cannot allow us to perceive value because, according to this emotional perceptual theory, our emotions are to be compared to our five senses. The intellectual brain alone cannot experience these sensations of cold, hunger, thirst, etc. I will give you the link to this new idea:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... 11.00518.x
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: My new support for hedonism

Post by Science Fan »

There is no support for the idea that our emotions determine what is moral.

It should also be noted that there is the proper use of biological science and an improper use, which is becoming increasingly common these days. I can find numerous so-called public intellectuals who claim such things as intelligence is biologically determined and one can't change it. This is pseudoscience. It's a claim made to "justify" the mistreatment of millions. The real biology tells us that biological determinism is rare, and certainly does not occur with respect to intelligence. Hundreds of genes are involved, all contributing a small amount, and their contribution is dependent upon the environment. Since, for the most part, biologists have rejected biological determinism with respect to such things as intellect and behavior, I fail to see how we could ever have a biological determinism regarding either values or morality.
Post Reply