I can't value things intellectually

[MozartLink]

My positive emotions are the only things that can make my life and composing dream something positive, beautiful, and worth living for. I'm going to explain why. My emotions are the only way I can value things in life which means I can't value things intellectually.

As a matter of fact, I don't recall a single given moment in my life where I valued things intellectually. My positive emotions, or what people like to call, the good feelings such as feelings of happiness, fun, love, and joy, are the only things that allow me to value things as beautiful, good, magnificent, amazing, etc.

My negative emotions, or the bad feelings such as feelings of misery, disgust, and rage, are the only things that allow me to value things as horrible, bad, disgusting, tragic, etc. So, I need my positive emotions to make my life something positive and I should avoid the negative emotions as well as apathy.

When I'm apathetic, I can't value anything in my life at all. Truly thinking that something is beautiful or horrible in my life doesn't allow me to value that thing as horrible or beautiful. That's what I mean here when I say I can't value things intellectually.

Therefore, I have to rely on my primal instincts (emotions) in order to value things. Sadly, emotions are very fleeting things which means living a beautiful life would be something fleeting for me.

Also, I don't think thoughts and emotions can be the same thing which means emotions are distinct from intellect. So, the emotional values cannot take on the form of my intellect which means intellect cannot be any real source of value in my life no matter what.

[Impenitent]

hedonism is more often valued than intellectually appreciated

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

Emotion, its etymological origin is 'emote' i.e. to move.
Emotions [primary and secondary] are the impulses that activate actions.

Emotions [limbic] are like the engine of a car.
The intellect [cortical] is the driver on the wheel of the car.

Without the intellect, the emotions will send the car over the cliffs.

Anybody can become angry - that is easy,
but to be angry
with the right person and
to the right degree and
at the right time and
for the right purpose, and
in the right way
- that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.

-Aristotle

The intellect is required [with wisdom] to direct and apply anger [or any emotion] with things effectively to the net benefit for the individual.

You have to value your intellect [with relevant things] if you do not want to end up in the bottom of a cliff or rages uncontrollably ending killing a loved-one or others.

[A_Seagull]

Hedonism is the only honest value; all the rest are lies.

[Eodnhoj7]

My positive emotions are the only things that can make my life and composing dream something positive, beautiful, and worth living for. I'm going to explain why. My emotions are the only way I can value things in life which means I can't value things intellectually.

As a matter of fact, I don't recall a single given moment in my life where I valued things intellectually. My positive emotions, or what people like to call, the good feelings such as feelings of happiness, fun, love, and joy, are the only things that allow me to value things as beautiful, good, magnificent, amazing, etc.

My negative emotions, or the bad feelings such as feelings of misery, disgust, and rage, are the only things that allow me to value things as horrible, bad, disgusting, tragic, etc. So, I need my positive emotions to make my life something positive and I should avoid the negative emotions as well as apathy.

When I'm apathetic, I can't value anything in my life at all. Truly thinking that something is beautiful or horrible in my life doesn't allow me to value that thing as horrible or beautiful. That's what I mean here when I say I can't value things intellectually.

Therefore, I have to rely on my primal instincts (emotions) in order to value things. Sadly, emotions are very fleeting things which means living a beautiful life would be something fleeting for me.

Also, I don't think thoughts and emotions can be the same thing which means emotions are distinct from intellect. So, the emotional values cannot take on the form of my intellect which means intellect cannot be any real source of value in my life no matter what.

All emotions form thought and all thought form emotion, they both alternate through each other as evidenced by your intellectualization of emotion in the above argument.

[Eodnhoj7]

Hedonism is the only honest value; all the rest are lies.

The question of pleasure then is relegated to depth, which gives more pleasure physical, spiritual or mental stimulation?

[A_Seagull]

Hedonism is the only honest value; all the rest are lies.

The question of pleasure then is relegated to depth, which gives more pleasure physical, spiritual or mental stimulation?

It is not relegated to depth.

[Eodnhoj7]

Hedonism is the only honest value; all the rest are lies.

The question of pleasure then is relegated to depth, which gives more pleasure physical, spiritual or mental stimulation?

It is not relegated to depth.

Not if one school of thought whether hedonism or non-hedonism (intellectualism, spiritualism, etc.) claims that one receives more "pleasure".

[A_Seagull]

The question of pleasure then is relegated to depth, which gives more pleasure physical, spiritual or mental stimulation?

It is not relegated to depth.

Not if one school of thought whether hedonism or non-hedonism (intellectualism, spiritualism, etc.) claims that one receives more "pleasure".

Would you like to rephrase that?

[Greta]

The question of pleasure then is relegated to depth, which gives more pleasure physical, spiritual or mental stimulation?

It is not relegated to depth.

Not if one school of thought whether hedonism or non-hedonism (intellectualism, spiritualism, etc.) claims that one receives more "pleasure".

I think Seagull is getting at that this is more a matter of strategy than depth. A hedonist seeks pleasure. A smart hedonist knows that over the long term more pleasure will be enjoyed by, say, eating healthily rather than having fabulous nights on the booze that, when overdone, become ever more fractious and sick-making.

Taken to its logical conclusion, hedonism leads ultimately, if uncommonly, to asceticism and the transcending of physical pleasure for less fragile joys ("depth", as referred to above, seemingly). Philosophical joy that's not so reliant on environmental factors and luck to maintain.

Perhaps referring to such pleasures as "more resilient" or "more persistent" would have less semantic load than "more depth" while still getting the point across?

[A_Seagull]

It is not relegated to depth.

Not if one school of thought whether hedonism or non-hedonism (intellectualism, spiritualism, etc.) claims that one receives more "pleasure".

I think Seagull is getting at that this is more a matter of strategy than depth. A hedonist seeks pleasure. A smart hedonist knows that over the long term more pleasure will be enjoyed by, say, eating healthily rather than having fabulous nights on the booze that, when overdone, become ever more fractious and sick-making.

Yes it is a matter of temporal considerations.

Hedonism is tempered by temporal considerations; pleasure is sought over a temporal range from the immediate to the extreme long term.

[Eodnhoj7]

It is not relegated to depth.

Not if one school of thought whether hedonism or non-hedonism (intellectualism, spiritualism, etc.) claims that one receives more "pleasure".

I think Seagull is getting at that this is more a matter of strategy than depth. A hedonist seeks pleasure. A smart hedonist knows that over the long term more pleasure will be enjoyed by, say, eating healthily rather than having fabulous nights on the booze that, when overdone, become ever more fractious and sick-making.

Taken to its logical conclusion, hedonism leads ultimately, if uncommonly, to asceticism and the transcending of physical pleasure for less fragile joys ("depth", as referred to above, seemingly). Philosophical joy that's not so reliant on environmental factors and luck to maintain.

Perhaps referring to such pleasures as "more resilient" or "more persistent" would have less semantic load than "more depth" while still getting the point across?

Agreed, and to further build off the points: the problem of physical pleasure is takes hold when subject to any form of extreme (too much physical pleasure, only physical pleasure, etc.) as the nature of extreme causes a problem of consistency due to the polarizing and divisive nature inherent within it causing a problem of finiteness as instability.

The question of pleasure takes hold through reason: Is the sex-drug induced rockstar receiving more pleasure than a man sitting on a bench in the park watching birds? The level of pleasure would be determined ironically not through levels but rather who was lost more in the moment considering one foundational pillar of pleasure is related strictly to memory as an imprinting of the self through the loss of self.

We remember the most when we forget about ourselves for the moment, allowing the moment to fundamentally leave an imprint on us and give a sense of either transcendence or descendents as to our actual individual identity by effectively changing it.

The sex-drug induced rockstar may feel one form of pleasure where the extremes he submits his mind, body and spirit too effectively cause a form of blacking out or emptying of the self to such a degree were even memory does not take hold. The problem occurs in the respect that physical, mental and emotional memory are dependent upon the repitition of events which fundamentally form our ability to reason and when that memory is reduced strictly to a matter of blacking out our reason metaphorically and literally is tainted by darkness or an absence of form and function.

This dark reasoning effectively causes and absence of structure within the individuals identity by giving form to various extremes within the individual's psyche causing the necessary sacrifice through forgetting of the self to be near impossible as time progresses because of an absent of both habitual choice necessary in the formation of character along with the corresponding inability to "feel" anything do to the inability to relate with either a situation or person because of an inherent nature of division gathered than unification repeated through the acts of said individual.

On the other end of this example of extremes the man sitting on the park bench may not be able to just remember more but enjoy the situation more fully because of the ability to focus on the moment for what it is and gain memory through an act of self-sacrifice. This understanding of sacrifice should not be limited to strictly negative terms as premised in modern culture but effectively should be observed as an act of focus resulting within the individual maintaining a balance within and the corresponding environment about. With this balance as a form of equilibrium the individual effectively, through the act of focusing as an extension of discipline, becomes a medium to the environment causing a corresponding balance by embracing all extremes through a centering of them. This centering effectively causes a cessation of the self in one respect by avoiding any extreme the person may exhibit and attach a form of false identity too while giving a deeper sense of identity by being a medial limit of change to the environment and effectively unifying with it causing a deeper sense of physical, emotional and mental reasoning to occur by establishing memories of order as foundational points in their further application of reason.

In these respects pleasure is not just premised and culminating in the activity of reason itself, but is an effective self negation premised under the formation of memory which forms the individual by a process of imprinting through reciprocation.

In the simplest terms possible, pleasure is the loss of self towards a specific end which may be other transcendental or destructive with pleasure being the medial limit through which this rising or falling occurs.

[A_Seagull]

In the simplest terms possible, pleasure is the loss of self towards a specific end which may be other transcendental or destructive with pleasure being the medial limit through which this rising or falling occurs.

Does that actually mean anything?

[Greta]

The question of pleasure takes hold through reason: Is the sex-drug induced rockstar receiving more pleasure than a man sitting on a bench in the park watching birds?

Nice question. Again, this seems to come down to time.

Note that rock stars tend to have extreme highs and lows anyway due to the nature of their work and passions, so I'd like to use the example of two office workers - a wild partygoer and a mellow bird watcher.

You might expect that over a period of years, with all other things being even (which they never are), the bird watcher would be more stable, and with an overall higher aggregate pleasure, while the socialite would tend to experience more soaring highs and searing lows.

[Eodnhoj7]

In the simplest terms possible, pleasure is the loss of self towards a specific end which may be other transcendental or destructive with pleasure being the medial limit through which this rising or falling occurs.

Does that actually mean anything?

Yes, pleasure can either be transcendental of the self, effectively maintain the self through the appropriate pleasures as subject to the balance and appropriate nature of the (ex: there is an appropriate time for everything. Sexual activity out of lust rather than love causes eros to be effectively formed and given structure hence a fuller degree of pleasure. Competition for survival rather than ego gives a fuller degree of pleasure in victory. Etc. In both examples pleasure has meaning in the respect it connects and unifies many different aspects of reality under the nature of life as a medial force of constant high frequency change...I may have to elaborate further on this point) time and place at hand.

In simpler terms again pleasure is a loss of self through unity.