All My Philosophy Packets

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

All My Philosophy Packets

Post by MozartLink »

All My Packets

These packets explain everything about me. They explain my philosophy, composing dream, and everything else you need to know about me, and my personal life. Read them in order. There are Deviant Art links, which will take you to my Deviant Art journal for you to read these packets. If these links don't work for you, for whatever reason, then I present other links for these files. There are 7 packets (files) in total, and here's the 1st file, which talks about my writing skill:

File #1: http://fav.me/dds39b6

This file is my best, most important one, it talks about my philosophy of emotions, and there are 14 parts to it:

File #2 (Part 1/14): http://fav.me/dds39jf
File #2 (Part 2/14): http://fav.me/dds39mn
File #2 (Part 3/14): http://fav.me/dds39oi
File #2 (Part 4/14): http://fav.me/dds39sk
File #2 (Part 5/14): http://fav.me/dds39u1
File #2 (Part 6/14): http://fav.me/dds39v0
File #2 (Part 7/14): http://fav.me/dds39w0
File #2 (Part 8/14): http://fav.me/dds3a08
File #2 (Part 9/14): http://fav.me/dds3a29
File #2 (Part 10/14): http://fav.me/dds3a3k
File #2 (Part 11/14): http://fav.me/dds3a5g
File #2 (Part 12/14): http://fav.me/dds3ac3
File #2 (Part 13/14): http://fav.me/ddw5664
File #2 (Part 14/14): http://fav.me/ddwkmme

This file talks about my lack of knowledge and experience, and my inability to make a decision in regards to controversial topics. There are 4 parts to it:

File #3 (Part 1/4): http://fav.me/dds3af2
File #3 (Part 2/4): http://fav.me/dds3agx
File #3 (Part 3/4): http://fav.me/dds3ai8
File #3 (Part 4/4): http://fav.me/dds3ajf

This file is a summary of my composing dream:

File #4: http://fav.me/dds3ali

This file fully discusses my composing dream, and there are 12 parts to it:

File #5 (Part 1/12): http://fav.me/dds3aqt
File #5 (Part 2/12): http://fav.me/dds3ayx
File #5 (Part 3/12): http://fav.me/dds3b0m
File #5 (Part 4/12): http://fav.me/dds3b24
File #5 (Part 5/12): http://fav.me/dds3b36
File #5 (Part 6/12): http://fav.me/dds3b4g
File #5 (Part 7/12): http://fav.me/dds3b5r
File #5 (Part 8/12): http://fav.me/dds3b70
File #5 (Part 9/12): http://fav.me/dds3b8f
File #5 (Part 10/12): http://fav.me/dds3bak
File #5 (Part 11/12): http://fav.me/dds3bc3
File #5 (Part 12/12): http://fav.me/dds3bd6

This file is very big, it talks more about my philosophy, and it also discusses some other things. There are 26 parts to it:

File #6 (Part 1/26): http://fav.me/dds3bjr
File #6 (Part 2/26): http://fav.me/dds3bku
File #6 (Part 3/26): http://fav.me/dds3blt
File #6 (Part 4/26): http://fav.me/dds3bmo
File #6 (Part 5/26): http://fav.me/dds3bo0
File #6 (Part 6/26): http://fav.me/dds3bpr
File #6 (Part 7/26): http://fav.me/dds3bqr
File #6 (Part 8/26): http://fav.me/dds3bsz
File #6 (Part 9/26): http://fav.me/dds3bvp
File #6 (Part 10/26): http://fav.me/dds3bwr
File #6 (Part 11/26): http://fav.me/dds3bxz
File #6 (Part 12/26): http://fav.me/dds3bzd
File #6 (Part 13/26): http://fav.me/dds3c0w
File #6 (Part 14/26): http://fav.me/dds3c2r
File #6 (Part 15/26): http://fav.me/dds3c45
File #6 (Part 16/26): http://fav.me/dds3c58
File #6 (Part 17/26): http://fav.me/dds3c69
File #6 (Part 18/26): http://fav.me/dds3c6z
File #6 (Part 19/26): http://fav.me/dds3c83
File #6 (Part 20/26): http://fav.me/dds3c97
File #6 (Part 21/26): http://fav.me/dds3caj
File #6 (Part 22/26): http://fav.me/dds3cbw
File #6 (Part 23/26): http://fav.me/dds3cd3
File #6 (Part 24/26): http://fav.me/dds3cdq
File #6 (Part 25/26): http://fav.me/dds3cev
File #6 (Part 26/26): http://fav.me/dds3cfz

This file talks about my recent crisis:

File #7: http://fav.me/dds3d6r

Now, just in case those links didn't work for you, here are the Mediafire links to those packets. These Mediafire links allow you to download my packets, just in case you wish to keep them on your computer. The 1st file is a reader's notice, and you should read it first:

File #1 (Reader's Note): http://www.mediafire.com/file/xpa94lytl ... 1.rtf/file
File #2 (Writing Skill): http://www.mediafire.com/file/88bzz6tkl ... l.rtf/file
File #3 (My Philosophy Of Emotions): http://www.mediafire.com/file/hj4jcc3iw ... s.rtf/file
File #4 (Undecided): http://www.mediafire.com/file/e8h1b4vpy ... d.rtf/file
File #5 (Composing Dream Summary): http://www.mediafire.com/file/ek0k7g1cp ... y.rtf/file
File #6 (My Composing Dream): http://www.mediafire.com/file/kx6fk78gy ... m.rtf/file
File #7 (More On My Philosophy): http://www.mediafire.com/file/3j50vpsmu ... y.rtf/file
File #8 (My Recent Crisis): http://www.mediafire.com/file/6d0xbyu78 ... s.rtf/file

Here are some more links to my packets:

File #1 (Reader's Note): https://pdf.ac/2bJlmx
File #2 (Writing Skill): https://pdf.ac/BN0iZ
File #3 (My Philosophy Of Emotions Part 1/2): https://pdf.ac/gqIeu
File #3 (My Philosophy Of Emotions Part 2/2): https://pdf.ac/hDfJH
File #4 (Undecided): https://pdf.ac/g8EU2
File #5 (Composing Dream Summary): https://pdf.ac/9SW9WE
File #6 (My Composing Dream Part 1/2): https://pdf.ac/z2acA
File #6 (My Composing Dream Part 2/2): https://pdf.ac/9rKE1
File #7 (More On My Philosophy Part 1/4): https://pdf.ac/2L4F4Y
File #7 (More On My Philosophy Part 2/4): https://pdf.ac/2iySV6
File #7 (More On My Philosophy Part 3/4): https://pdf.ac/7mcqZO
File #7 (More On My Philosophy Part 4/4): https://pdf.ac/4fJWfC
File #8 (My Recent Crisis): https://pdf.ac/24hWmG

To conclude this, here are some more links to all my packets. There's a youtube link in this list of links, you click on it, and scroll down to the comments section to see all the material from my packets that's been posted there. But, to read my material in order on youtube, you'll have to read from the very bottom of the comments section all the way to the top. The same idea applies to a few other links. Also, in some of these links, such as the youtube link, not all the material is there. So, I post the missing material in recent posts/comments:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27594
https://zeldauniverse.net/forums/User/5 ... imensions/
https://zeldadungeon.net/forum/threads/ ... les.67679/
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads ... es.230894/
https://youtu.be/GWJHd9sPFHU
https://able2know.org/topic/546544-1
https://www.mentalhealthforum.net/forum ... es.268666/
https://www.crazyboards.org/topic/99900 ... ets-files/




https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YIubKK ... sp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19JIa72 ... sp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jVcHjr ... sp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PeirUj ... sp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-ItHZG ... sp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dieRr1 ... sp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bw-ysf ... sp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x1hEyH ... sp=sharing

http://www.mediafire.com/file/xdp6b7ilp ... !.rtf/file
http://www.mediafire.com/file/smkpq7dqd ... l.rtf/file
http://www.mediafire.com/file/80rc5uawt ... s.rtf/file
http://www.mediafire.com/file/ohxw1a6d8 ... d.rtf/file
http://www.mediafire.com/file/rcbg3pm6q ... n.rtf/file
http://www.mediafire.com/file/bmqn3x05f ... m.rtf/file
http://www.mediafire.com/file/u1goahwyb ... l.rtf/file
http://www.mediafire.com/file/xn2ojbvbn ... s.rtf/file



It's Not The Thought That Counts. It's The Emotion That Counts
Introduction
This is my philosophy I'd like to share to others. These are my personal views and others don't have to agree with them. I've had many miserable, devastating struggles throughout my life, and this is everything I've learned from these struggles. What I've learned is different than what most people would learn because my personal experience has taught me that living such a miserable existence is no way to live or be an artist, even if you were a miserable, genius artist who was motivated by his misery to create masterpieces throughout his life. I realize there were famous, genius artists whose misery and other negative emotions (unpleasant emotions) have inspired them to create masterpieces.
But, I think life's all about being happy and enjoying things (feeling good), and I think that feeling good is the only good thing (well, actually, those things we feel good about are also good, since feeling good is what makes them good, and I explain more on this in the following sections below). Feelings of goodness, also known as good feelings, are perceptions of goodness, which means they're feelings that possess a quality of goodness to them. I could say the same thing about feelings of horror. They're perceptions of horror, which means they're feelings that possess a horrific quality to them.
Good feelings are good, horrific feelings are horrific, and they make things in our lives good and horrific, which means these feelings aren't the only good and horrific things. But, just to shorten things up for convenience sake, I simply say that good and horrific feelings are the only good and horrific things throughout this document. Since feeling good is the only good thing in life, then if you're someone who's miserable, unhappy, or even apathetic, then that's no way to live or be an artist, an athlete, a boxer, a parent, etc. As long as you don't have your ability to feel positive emotions (pleasant emotions), then you can't live a good, valuable, precious, worthwhile, or beautiful life.
Until my personal experience says otherwise, this is the philosophy I'll always have. I've actually had this philosophy my entire life, and my miserable, unhappy, and apathetic struggles have only served to strengthen/reinforce this philosophy. I'm 32 years old now (at the time of writing this), and it could be the case that my philosophy will never change to a different one, no matter how hard I try to change it. I disagree with any philosophy that opposes mine, and it doesn't matter how hard others try to convert me to a different philosophy because it's not going to work. It would be no different than me trying to convert someone to my philosophy, when that person disagrees with it.
If I tried every possible method to convert him to my philosophy, then it's not going to work. So, if I, or anyone else, tries every possible method to convert me to a different philosophy, then I don't think that's going to work either. I'll say one more thing here. In this document, I address as many questions, responses, and objections as possible that people have in regards to my philosophy, and I also give support for my philosophy. As a matter of fact, there are people who have the same philosophy as mine, and also support their view that emotions are the only good, bad, beauty, horror, love, hate, fear, happiness, etc. Everything I explain is spoken from my own personal experience, and, like I said, there are people who hold the same views as me.
Defining Good And Bad
I'd like to clarify what I mean by good and bad. If Seth was apathetic, Dan came up to him, and said: "Yes, you lived an apathetic life. But, you did something good by helping others and making contributions to humanity," then if Seth replied: "It was nothing good or bad because I was apathetic. Neither was there anything good or bad in my life," then Seth is implying that helping others and contributing to humanity didn't matter, since he said it was nothing good or bad. He'd also be implying that nothing mattered in his life. So, when something's good or bad, that means it matters. According to my view, in order for anything to be good, bad, beautiful, disgusting, tragic, valuable, precious, worthwhile, etc., it must matter.
But, it's possible for something to matter, but not be good, bad, etc. For example, if fancy things mattered to someone, he might see them as nothing good or bad, since they're just shallow, trivial things in his eyes. So, for him, fancy things would matter, but wouldn't be good or bad. What might be good in his eyes would be being there for others who need him, making new discoveries and inventions, etc. What might be bad in his eyes would be the harming and torturing of others. Even if I somehow intensified his perception of fancy things mattering, they still wouldn't be good or bad in his eyes. Sure, they'd matter to him more because, by perceiving something as mattering, and intensifying that perception (state of mind), that thing would matter more.
It would be like how intensifying the perception of beauty would make something more beautiful in the eyes of an individual. But, no matter how much I intensified his perception of fancy things mattering, that will never result in those fancy things being good, bad, etc. in his eyes. So, intensity isn't the factor that makes things good, bad, etc. It's profoundness. When that person saw other things, besides fancy things, as good, that means those other things mattered to him more profoundly. The harming and torturing of others also mattered to him more profoundly than those fancy things, since he saw that as bad. So, that would've matttered to him profoundly in comparison to the way those fancy things mattered to him.
Fancy things only mattered to him in a shallow way, which is why they were nothing good, bad, etc. in his eyes. So, if I increased the profoundness of his perception of fancy things mattering, then they should now be good, bad, etc. in his eyes. If there was somehow a way I could do it, I could increase that profoundness in a positive way, which would make him see those fancy things as good, amazing, beautiful, magnificent, etc., or I could increase the profoundness in a negative way, which would make him see them as bad, horrible, disgusting, tragic, etc. So, when someone perceives (sees) something as good, bad, etc., that's the same thing as saying he perceives it as profoundly mattering. Therefore, I define good, bad, etc. as: "What profoundly matters."
Actually, that definition doesn't explain the difference between good, bad, etc. For example, if what profoundly matters is good, and what profoundly matters is also bad, then someone might ask what's the difference between good and bad then, given that they have the exact same definition. So, I'd have to reveal that difference with this definition: "What profoundly matters in a pleasant or unpleasant way." When, for example, a person acts as though something's good, magnificent, or beautiful, not only does he act as though that thing profoundly matters, but he acts as though it pleasantly matters, since he'd display a positive attitude (and positive attitudes are expressions of pleasure, such as good feelings).
Likewise, when a person acts as though something's bad, tragic, or disgusting, he acts as though it profoundly and unpleasantly matters. But, if a psychopath acknowledges something as bad, such as harming others, while acting as though it's something that profoundly and pleasantly matters, then he's actually acting as though it's a good, beautiful, awesome, or magnificent thing. The same idea applies to people acknowledging certain things as good, and acting as though they profoundly and unpleasantly matter. These people would be acting as though they're bad, horrible, disgusting, or tragic things. Now, if someone was being enslaved, and he exclaimed in a profoundly unpleasant, angry tone:
"I need to be set free because that's a good thing," then he wouldn't be acting as though being set free is a bad thing. He'd instead be acting as though his enslavement is bad because that's what he's angry about. But, all things in this world, including slavery and freedom, don't matter by themselves. That means they're nothing good, bad, etc. by themselves. We make them good, bad, etc. by perceiving them as such. But, without our emotions, we're apathetic, regardless of what mindset we have, which means nothing can matter to us, which means nothing could matter in our eyes. That means nothing could be good, bad, etc. in our eyes, which means we couldn't perceive anything as good, bad, etc.
So, it's our emotions that make people and things matter to us, which means we must feel an emotion from someone or something in order for that person or thing to matter to us. Our emotions make people and things matter to us in pleasantly or unpleasantly shallow ways, or pleasantly or unpleasantly profound ways. Our positive emotions (pleasant emotions) make people and things matter to us in pleasant ways, which means they make us perceive them as pleasantly mattering. If they made us perceive them as good, beautiful, awesome, or magnificent, then that means they made us perceive them as both profoundly and pleasantly mattering. Likewise, our negative emotions (unpleasant emotions) make people and things matter to us in unpleasant ways.
This view that nothing can matter to us or bother us in the absence of our emotions is actually a popular view that some agree with and some disagree with. There are a couple of articles that express this view, and they're presented very soon in the discussion section of this document. These articles express the view that we'd have no passion or interest without our emotions, and that we couldn't experience fear (such as anxiety or panic), sexual arousal, happiness, sadness, or love. There were many moments in my life where I wasn't in the mood to do things, and I could clearly tell I was apathetic in regards to those things, regardless of what mindset I had. I had the mindset that those things still mattered to me, but those things still didn't matter to me.
Trying to make those things matter to me through my mindset alone, when I'm unable to feel any emotion from them, would be no different than trying to make myself sleepy, hungry, thirsty, or mentally fatigue through my mindset alone, when I'm unable to feel sleepy, hungry, thirsty, or mentally fatigue. It's just not going to work. So, not only do those articles support this view that we're apathetic without our emotions, but my personal experience also supports this view. I'm quite sure the personal experiences of many other people would also support this view. If you want an example of how emotions make things matter to us, then if someone was feeling angry about a certain situation, and I asked him to act out on that feeling (express it), then he'd act angry about that situation.
From there, I'd say to him: "You sure act as though that situation matters to you. Even when you're not expressing that feeling, that feeling still makes that situation matter to you on the inside, and you're just choosing not to express that." Anyway, I'll say a last few things here. Beauty, magnificence, awesomeness, etc. without the good is less profound, which makes good better and more profound. So, if something was beautiful in the eyes of an individual, but nothing good, then that means it wasn't as profound as something that was good in his eyes. Likewise, horror, tragedy, disgust, etc. without the bad is less profound, which makes bad worse and more profound.
But, if something was, for example, beautiful and nothing good, then that's better and more profound compared to if something just simply mattered in a shallow way. So, when something just matters, and is nothing good, bad, beautiful, disgusting, etc., then that's not as profound as something being beautiful, awesome, tragic, or disgusting. But, when something's beautiful, awesome, tragic, or disgusting, and is nothing good or bad, then that's not as profound as something being good or bad. Intensifying beauty, for example, wouldn't transform it into goodness, and intensifying tragedy wouldn't transform it into badness. But, making beauty and tragedy more profound would transform them into goodness and badness.
So, when something's profoundly beautiful or tragic, then it's good or bad. It would actually be beautifully good or tragically bad because, by saying they're just good or bad, then that would be eliminating the beauty or tragedy. There's beautiful goodness (which is beauty and goodness combined into one). Then there's just plain goodness. Likewise, there's tragic badness, and there's just plain badness. The more profound and intense plain goodness or beautiful goodness is, the more of that goodness there is. The same idea applies to bad. But, if it was very profound and intense, and you decreased that profoundness and intensity, then that means there'd be less of it. As a matter of fact, if you continued to decrease the profoundness, then it would cease to exist.
But, when it's very profound, I think it would be amazing or magnificent goodness, and horrible or horrendous badness. Actually, if, for example, you had beautiful goodness, and increased the profoundness, then it would become amazing or magnificent, beautiful goodness. If it was just plain goodness that had its profoundness increased, it would become amazing or magnificent goodness. Lastly, love, hate, happiness, sadness, anger, fear, etc. are emotional states, which means they're states where people and things matter to us. For example, loving someone, or being happy or sad about something, means that person or thing matters to us. But, it's possible for someone or something to matter to us, but we don't love that person or thing, we're not happy or sad about that person or thing, etc.
Love, hate, etc. are more profound than someone or something just simply mattering to us because, when we love or hate someone or something, then that person or thing matters to us more profoundly. So, loving or hating someone or something means this person or thing profoundly mattered to us in a pleasant or unpleasant way. Emotions, such as love and hate, are not only profound mental states, but are profoundly pleasant and unpleasant mental states. But, when love, hate, etc. have their profoundness increased, then they become loving goodness, hateful badness, happy goodness, sad badness, etc. So, for example, with loving goodness, a person would matter to us in both a loving way and a good way. That means we'd love that person and see him as a good person at the same time.
Thinking vs Perceiving
I'm going to present my 1st example that illustrates the difference between thinking that something is good, bad, etc., and perceiving (seeing) said thing as good, bad, etc. If an emotionless person had the thought or belief that a video game was good or bad, and that thought or belief couldn't make him feel good or bad (which are emotions), then his brain wouldn't be getting the chemical message/nerual signal that this game is good or bad, which means his brain wouldn't be getting the message that this game matters. Thus, that game couldn't be good or bad in his eyes, which means it just wouldn't matter to him. Likewise, if a person had the thought or belief that he's sleepy or thirsty, and he was unable to feel sleepy or thirsty, then his brain wouldn't be getting the message that makes him sleepy or thirsty.
So, when we have the thought or belief that someone or something is good, bad, etc., then that thought or belief needs to give our brains the emotional signal to make us perceive that person or thing as good, bad, etc. In addition, we also need the emotional signal in order to love, be happy, sad, frightened, sexually aroused, etc. As long as that emotional signal gets cut off, due to a mental illness, brain damage, clinical depression, etc., then thoughts or beliefs alone won't work to give us any goodness, badness, love, happiness, etc. Likewise, if the sleepiness, hunger, thirst, audio, or visual signals get cut off, then thoughts or beliefs alone won't work either to give us any sleepiness, hunger, thirst, audio, or visuals.
But, if our brains are getting those signals (including the emotional signal), and those signals are intense, then that would be giving us intense sleepiness, hunger, good, bad, etc. Here's my 2nd example. If someone said: "I know this song is beautiful in the eyes of many people. But, personally, I hate this song and see nothing beautiful about it," then he'd be acknowledging the song as beautiful, which means he had the thought this song was beautiful. But, he's not seeing the song as beautiful. Also, if there was a painting that costed a lot of money, and was valuable in the eyes of many people, then one person could look at the painting and say to himself: “I know this is a valuable painting. But, personally, it’s valueless trash in my eyes. I wouldn’t want that piece of garbage hanging on my wall!” He acknowledged the painting as valuable. But, he didn't perceive the painting as valuable.
He'd need to have a feeling of value (a positive emotion) in regards to that painting to perceive it as valuable, and that other person would need to have a feeling of beauty (a positive emotion) in regards to that song to perceive it as beautiful. If that one person had a feeling of beauty in regards to that song, and that feeling soon went away, then he'd no longer perceive the song as beautiful, and he'd be in denial to believe otherwise. The same thing applies to that other person. He'd be in denial if he believes he's able to still perceive the painting as valuable when his feeling of value is gone. As a matter of fact, many people are ignorant and in denial in regards to emotions because they believe they don't need their emotions to make people and things matter to them, or to perceive people and things as good, bad, etc.
So, that means there are emotionless people who claim they, for example, still see the moments with their families as good or beautiful. But, like I said, these emotionless people wouldn't be seeing those moments as good or beautiful, which means they're in denial. Emotionless people can still make moral assessments through the moral knowledge they have, just as how emotionless people can still make mathematical or scientific assessments through the knowledge of math or science they have. But, if these people wish to actually perceive anything as good or bad, then they must feel good or bad about those things. Lastly, if a person felt horror or beauty in regards to something, then he'd be in denial if he claimed that he's not perceiving that thing as horrific or beautiful.
Explanation of My Philosophy
I'd like to begin with a quote by William Shakespeare:
"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
All things in this world, whether it be nature, our hobbies, goals, dreams, moments with our family, works of art, illnesses, world events, natural disasters, etc., are nothing good, bad, evil, adorable, frightening, scary, horrible, amazing, beautiful, horrific, tragic, pathetic, disturbing, disgusting, ugly, valuable, precious, worthwhile, etc. by themselves. So, life just is, and things just are. They're nothing good, bad, etc. You even hear this being said by meditation gurus because they'd say to not attribute any judgment of good, bad, etc. to anything, given that all things are nothing good, bad, etc. Such advice is given to help people have a quiet mind that's free of judgment. But, according to my philosophy, perceiving things as good is what makes them good, perceiving things as bad is what makes them bad, etc. That's because our perception colors our world in goodness, badness, beauty, horror, etc.
For example, if someone perceives nature as beautiful, then that colors nature in beauty, which makes nature beautiful in his personal life (mental universe). If nobody perceived nature as beautiful, then nature couldn't be beautiful because nobody would be coloring it in beauty. If someone sees helping others as good, then he's perceiving helping others as good, and that perception is what makes it good. If someone helped others, but didn't see helping them as good, then that means it wasn't a good thing that he helped them. That's because perceptions of good are the only good things, perceptions of bad are the only bad things, etc. That means the only goodness and badness that exists is the goodness and badness we perceive.
In other words, good and bad only exist in our minds, which means people and things only become good and bad in our minds. So, good and bad only exist as perceptions, and don't exist anywhere else in the world. That's why acts of aid and contribution, by themselves, wouldn't be good deeds. We make them good deeds by perceiving them as good. Criminals make their crimes good by perceiving them as good. But, as for the police, those crimes would be bad, since they see them as bad. So, in the mental universe of the criminals, their crimes are good. But, in the mental universe of the police, their crimes are bad. In other words, those crimes are good for the criminals, but bad for the police. It would be like how a work of art is beautiful for a person who perceives it as beautiful, and disgusting for a person who perceives it as disgusting.
So, things only become good, bad, beautiful, disgusting, etc. for us when we perceive them as such. But, the only way we can perceive things as good, bad, etc. is through our emotions, and not through our thoughts or beliefs alone. A life without emotions would be a dull, gray world (an apathetic existence). So, it's our emotions that color our world in goodness, badness, etc., which means our emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, etc. An example of some emotions would be a feeling of panic from being in a dangerous situation, a feeling of sexual arousal, a feeling of rage, a feeling of excitement, a feeling of misery, a feeling of horror, a feeling of peace, etc. As I said before, emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, etc. Just having the thought or belief alone that something is good or bad isn't the same thing as perceiving it as good or bad.
It would be like how just having the thought of red isn't the same thing as seeing (perceiving) red. If we're not seeing red, then we'd just be perceiving the idea of red in our minds if we thought of red. But, we wouldn't be perceiving actual red. So, when a person just has the thought or belief alone of something being good or bad, he's just perceiving the idea that this thing is good or bad. But, he's not perceiving it as good or bad, which means he's not perceiving actual goodness or badness in regards to that thing. His thought or belief needs to make him feel good or bad. If he felt good about that thing, then that means he perceived it as good, since feelings of goodness are the only perceptions of goodness. The same idea applies to bad, beauty, horror, tragedy, etc.
If a person, who's unable to feel any emotions, just had the thought or belief that something's good or bad, then there'd be no actual goodness or badness in his mental universe, just as how there'd be no actual red or green in a blind person's mental universe. So, it's only when we perceive good or bad that they exist, just as how colors only exist when we see them. Colors don't exist in the external world, and it's wavelengths that do. So, that means colors are visual/mental states. Good and bad also don't exist in the external world, and they're emotional states. When we see things in color, that colors our mental universes, and when we feel emotions, that colors our mental universes in goodness, badness, etc. Not only do our emotions color our world in goodness, badness, etc., but they color our world in an angry, loving, hateful, happy, sad, frightened, etc. mood (perspective). That means emotions are perspectives.
Without our emotions, we'd be apathetic, which means we'd be in an apathetic state of mind, which means we'd have an apathetic perspective. We'd still be in this apathetic state, regardless of our mindset. As a matter of fact, a person without emotions can't make himself want, like, dislike, or value anyone or anything through his mindset alone. Without emotions, good, bad, etc. wouldn't exist, and neither would anger, love, hate, fear, etc. After all, when we're apathetic (emotionless), nothing matters to us, and we can't love anyone when nobody matters to us, we can't be angry or sad, etc. Even though a person without emotions can act like he cares about people and things, he still doesn't care about them, which means you shouldn't trust his acts, tones, and expressions, regardless of how much he claims he still cares about them.
As a matter of fact, it's often the case that a person's acts, tones, and expressions can't be trusted. For example, a serial killer can act loving. But, that doesn't mean he's loving. He could be filled with hate on the inside, and trying to deceive people. Another example would be that a depressed person can fake a smile and act happy, even though he's not happy. So, regardless if a person believes and claims he cared about someone, or believes and claims he was loving, angry, happy, etc. in the absence of his emotions, you shouldn't trust that claim because I think it's a false claim, based upon my personal experience of always being apathetic during moments where I was unable to feel any emotion. Also, if you want an example of how love, hate, fear, good, bad, etc. wouldn't exist in the absence of our emotions, then here's an example of how fear wouldn't exist.
When a person has a phobia, and he overcomes it, then he's no longer afraid of the stimulus he once feared, since he no longer feels afraid of it. Thus, that stimulus is no longer scary or frightening for him. This indicates that, without feelings of fear, then fear doesn't exist, which means nothing would be colored in a frightening tone (mood). Nothing would be perceived (seen) as scary or frightening, which means nothing would be scary or frightening. Continuing on here. My philosophy says that the positivity is what we need in life (which would be the goodness, beauty, magnificence, awesomeness, value, worth, love, happiness, etc.). We should avoid the negativity (which would be the badness, tragedy, horror, disgust, hate, misery, etc.). That means we need the positive emotions, which would be feelings of goodness, beauty, etc.
We should avoid the negative emotions, as well as apathy. After all, the more positivity we have in our lives (mental universes), the more goodness, beauty, etc. we have. So, life's all about coloring ourselves and our world in positivity through our positive emotions (positive perceptions). We should avoid coloring ourselves and our world in negativity or apathy. The more positive moments we have, the better, which means, the more moments we have of feeling positive emotions, the better. But, having an absence of positive emotions is no way to live or be an artist, a teacher, a parent, an athlete, etc., regardless of how much we've helped others, made them feel positive, and contributed to the world in the absence of our positive emotions. Such endeavors can be nothing positive without our positive emotions.
Unfortunately, it's often the case that people do have an absence of positive emotions because positive emotions, along with negative emotions, are transient, fleeting things, since brain damage, mental illness, stress, etc. can render us without the ability to feel them. For example, people who struggle with clinical depression often lack the ability to feel positive emotions. Thus, they have few moments where they can have a positive experience. I, myself, have had many emotional traumas, which were profoundly horrible feelings that made my existence profoundly horrible. These emotional traumas have disabled my ability to feel positive emotions, which means I couldn't perceive my hobbies as positive (as good, beautiful, precious, valuable, worthwhile, etc.). I was rendered without the emotional drive to pursue my hobbies, which means I was apathetic in regards to them.
Thus, I've given up on my hobbies (including the pursuit of my composing dream) during these emotional traumas. Not only that, I only felt a lot of negative emotions during my emotional traumas, such as profound hate, misery, disgust, rage, etc. I couldn't will myself out of my emotional traumas, which means I had to remain in a pit of negativity until I was fully recovered from said traumas, and that was a very long wait. Since feeling positive is the only positive thing in life, then that means there was nothing positive about my suffering, and suffering like that was no way to live. Therefore, I don't know why god or the heavenly beings (astral beings) have allowed me to suffer like this. They should be preserving what's positive (the positive emotions) by healing people of illnesses and forms of suffering that take away their positive emotions.
Positive emotions are the only holy things, since they're the only positive things, and it's disrespect of god or these astral beings to not preserve them, and to not use their healing powers to erase the emotional agony and negativity that people suffer through. If god and these astral beings somehow think there's more positivity to life than positive emotions, and that positive emotions are unnecessary, trivial things, then they're wrong. That's why they should be healing people, rather than allowing them to suffer. That is, if god and these beings do exist. It could be the case that we live in a naturalistic, godless universe, where they don't exist, and there's no paranormal or afterlife. In which case, it's up to us and science to preserve our positive emotions the best we can. As a matter of fact, it could be the case that science will create a blissful, utopia life for us in the future that's free of illness and suffering.
But, if we're going to be blissful, non-suffering beings in the future, then that bliss needs to be feelings of goodness, beautiful goodness, loving goodness, happy goodness, peaceful goodness, valuable goodness, worthwhile goodness, etc. Those feelings would bring different forms of goodness into our lives (mental universes). Not only that, since these would be blissful feelings, then that would be bringing our lives intense goodness, since bliss is an intense, positive emotional experience. Also, if these are very profound feelings, then that would be even better because having intense, very profound goodness is better than just having intense goodness. That would create an intensely and very profoundly good existence for us, as opposed to just an intensely good existence.
The less profound and intense good feelings are, the less goodness we're getting in life. That's why very profound, intense, good feelings are better. To conclude this explanation of my philosophy, it's actually our emotions, and not our thinking alone, that makes things good or bad, since it's only through our emotions that we can see goodness, badness, etc. in things. But, when thoughts make us feel emotions, whatever we thought of becomes an emotional experience (perception) for us. So, if someone thought or believed that something tropical was beautiful, and that thought or belief made him feel beauty in regards to that thing, then that feeling would be a perception of tropical beauty. That feeling would be a beautiful, tropical experience for him, and it would be coloring that thing in tropical beauty from his perspective.
Last edited by MozartLink on Sun Sep 13, 2020 10:59 pm, edited 92 times in total.
MozartLink
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: All My Philosophy Packets

Post by MozartLink »

If someone thought that a cinematic scene was horrific, and that thought made him feel horror in regards to that scene, then that feeling would be a perception/experience of cinematic horror. Also, if someone had a loving, hateful, sad, or happy mindset (thought), and that mindset made him feel an emotion, then that emotion would be a loving, hateful, sad, or happy perspective/experience. So, our thoughts and beliefs don't make us feel emotions for nothing. They make us feel emotions so that we can perceive people and things as good, bad, etc., and to give us a loving, hateful, or sad perspective (i.e., to make us loving, hateful, or sad individuals). But, our thoughts and beliefs alone can't give us any good, bad, loving, hateful, sad, etc. perception/experience. So, our thoughts and beliefs alone wouldn't be good, bad, love, or hate.
Therefore, all we got is our emotions to color our world in goodness, badness, etc., and to make us loving, hateful, etc. individuals. My personal experience has led me to this conclusion because my emotions have always been the only goodness, badness, love, and hate for me. Love and hate don't exist in the external world, just as how good and bad don't. It's what's on the inside that counts, and I think that good, bad, love, and hate only exist on the inside (i.e., they're emotional states). But, like I said, emotions are fleeting things, just as how other feelings are fleeting, such as feelings of hunger, thirst, bodily pain and pleasure, sleepiness, etc. So, that leaves us in an unfortunate predicament where our lives can't be filled with positivity all the time. That especially applies to clinically depressed people because their mental universes are mostly devoid of positivity.
Emotions Are Moods (Mental Atmospheres/Perceptions)
Some people might say it's nonsense to think that emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, etc. So, here's an example that illustrates how it's not nonsense. When, for example, someone perceives something as horrific, that perception sets a horrific mental atmosphere (mood) for him, which means perceptions of horror are mood states (emotional states). That means perceptions of horror can't be non-emotional states, which is why a person can't perceive horror through his mindset alone. Perceptions of horror could also be called horrific mental states, in addition to being called horrific mental atmospheres. Without them, then even Halloween movies would be devoid of horror. Nobody would be feeling (perceiving) horror when watching these movies.
Therefore, these movies wouldn't be horrific for the audience. In addition, when someone has a frightened, happy, or loving perspective, that perspective is also a mood state because that perspective sets a frightened, happy, or loving mental atmosphere for him. Since that perspective is an emotional state, then one can't have that perspective through his mindset alone. Like I said earlier, we have an apathetic perspective in the absence of our emotions. There's a difference between our mindset and our perception because, as I said earlier, having the mindset that something is beautiful or horrific isn't the same thing as perceiving it as beautiful or horrific. Likewise, there's a difference between our mindset and our perspective.
Our mindset alone can give us certain perceptions and perspectives, such as perceiving truths, having delusional, religious, or philosophical perspectives, etc. But, our mindset alone can't allow us to perceive colors, beauty, horror, and it can't give us a loving, sad, caring, or happy perspective. Perceptions and perspectives are states of mind, and our mindset alone can't put us in a state of red, blue, green, or yellow (which are color/visual states), and neither can our mindset alone put us in a state of love, happiness, sadness, beauty, tragedy, or horror. Neither can it put us in a state of mental turmoil or suffering. So, when a person has an emotionally traumatized mindset, that mindset alone can't put him in a state of mental turmoil and agony.
That mindset needs to make him emotionally traumatized in order for him to be in that state. The moment he's emotionally traumatized is the moment he'd have a traumatized perspective. Here's another example. If a clinically depressed person didn't have his sex drive, then he'd be sexually apathetic, and he wouldn't be able to put himself in a sexually aroused state through his mindset alone. Thus, he wouldn't be able to have a sexually aroused perspective. I actually wouldn't refer to our mindset, attitudes, or actions alone as being loving, hateful, sad, or sexually aroused, since love, hate, etc. can only be emotional states. Neither would I refer to them alone as being positive or negative, since emotions are the only positivity and negativity there is.
So, since our mindset alone isn't love, hate, etc., then that means the perspectives that come about through our mindset alone wouldn't be loving, hateful, etc. But, I can still refer to our mindset, attitudes, and actions alone as being such anyway, just for the sake of convenience, because doing so lets readers know what type of mindset, attitude, or action I'm talking about, whether it be a loving act, a positive attitude, etc. Anyway, when artists talk about conveying love, happiness, good, bad, beauty, tragedy, horror, etc. through their artwork, they're talking about conveying moods. They wish to create that loving, happy, etc. atmosphere through their artwork. But, no work of art can create such an atmosphere. Only our own moods can, since it's only our own moods that are the love, happiness, beauty, etc. Sure, works of art do convey atmospheres and ideas. But, they wouldn't convey any love, happiness, etc.
Lastly, our moods are different places for our minds, which means they're different mental realms, since they're different mental atmospheres. For example, a feeling of beauty or horror is a beautiful or horrific place for our minds. Our goal in life is to have our minds reside in positive realms, rather than negative or apathetic realms. So, our minds need to be in positive places through our positive emotions. That means we should even avoid feeling bad about the suffering of others because that would be putting our minds in a bad place. It would be better if we felt positive about helping suffering people. Also, during my emotional traumas, my mind was in a very negative place. Actually, my mind was in different negative places, since I felt different negative emotions during my emotional traumas.
Those negative emotions did keep on popping up during my emotional traumas, which means my mind continued to re-enter those profoundly negative places. All this profound negativity was caused by my own profound, negative thinking, and I couldn't will it away. But, it wasn't the negative thoughts alone that put my mind in those negative places. It was the negative emotions these negative thoughts made me feel that did. Fortunately, my psyche has fully recovered from these emotional traumas on its own over time. That means all that negativity disappeared, and the positivity started to return back into my life again. I'd actually refer to the positivity as being the holy light, the holy mental realms, or the realms of the holy light.
But, all that negativity I've experienced would be the unholy realms. After all, negative emotions are the only unholy things, since they're the only negative things. The more profound and intense negative emotions are, the more unholy they are. So, the worst possible emotional suffering would be the most unholy thing, and the best possible bliss would be the most holy thing. I've had a lot of emotional suffering in my life, and I don't want my mind to be in those unholy places again. So, from now on, I'll make sure to keep my thoughts positive. That way, I'll ensure that my mind remains in the holy realms. But, like I said, positive emotions are fleeting things, which means my mind won't remain in these holy realms 24/7. So, if there were to be a given moment where I'm apathetic, then my mind would be in a realm that's neither positive nor negative (neither holy nor unholy).
My Philosophy Advocates Both Objective Good And Bad, And Subjective Good And Bad
Some people say good, bad, etc. are objective, while others say they're subjective, and that's a heated debate. But, my philosophy says they're both objective and subjective. Here's why. My philosophy says that feeling good is the absolute good, which means feeling good is objectively good. In other words, if there are people who disagree that feeling good is good, then they'd be wrong (incorrect) to think so. They'd be in denial of the fact that feeling good is objectively good, and there are people who are in denial of objective truths (facts). For example, when it comes to Flat Earth believers, so many people laugh at them and say they're in denial of the obvious fact that the Earth is round.
Now, when it comes to events, places, objects, deeds, etc., my philosophy says these things are subjectively good because they're nothing good by themselves, and each individual determines what event, place, etc. is good by feeling good about it. Different people will feel good about different things, which means what's good for one individual won't be good for another. Even the idea (thought) of feeling good can't be good for an individual who doesn't feel good about it. But, as for actually feeling good, that's objectively good. So, ideas, events, places, etc. are subjectively good and bad, and feelings of goodness and badness themselves are objectively good and bad.
Therefore, seeking good feelings isn't objectively good, since that's an endeavor, and endeavors aren't objectively good, bad, etc., according to my philosophy. But, good feelings themselves are objectively good. As for love, happiness, wanting, liking, disliking, valuing, fear, sadness, etc., they're objectively emotional. But, a person could feel sad about a certain situation, which would make it a sad situation for that individual. So, that means sadness is objectively emotional, and events, situations, etc. are subjectively sad. Another example is that a person could value something (have a feeling of value in regards to something, which would be a positive emotion). This feeling would make that thing valuable for that individual. So, that means value is objectively emotional, and events, situations, etc. are subjectively valuable.
More Info On Love And Happiness
Loving someone implies something personal. It implies that we personally had a loving perspective in regards to that person. It implies that this individual personally mattered to us in both a profound and pleasant way. Of course, hating someone implies that this individual personally mattered to us in both a profound and unpleasant way. But, when people act as though they love someone, they act as though this person profoundly matters to them in a pleasant way. The same idea applies to happiness. When people act as though they're happy about something, they act as though that thing profoundly matters to them in a pleasant way. But, if a husband was grieving over the loss of his wife, and exclaimed in a profoundly unpleasant, grieving tone:
"I love my wife. But, now, she's gone," then he'd be saying he loves her. But, he wouldn't be acting as though he loves her. He's acting as though he's grieving over her death. As for love and grief, they're not the same thing, just as how happiness and sadness aren't the same thing. Sure, loving someone does result in grief over that person's death. But, love is a different feeling than grief, since love is a positive, gentle emotion, while grief is a negative, devastating emotion. Thus, love and grief are different things. The same idea applies to happiness and sadness. Being happy about something does result in sadness when that thing is gone out of our lives.
But, happiness and sadness are different feelings. So, if someone exclaimed in a profoundly unpleasant, sad tone: "I'm happy about that thing. But, now, it's gone," then he's not acting as though he's happy about that thing. He's acting as though he's sad over the loss of it. Anyway, since I've given love and happiness the exact same definition (which would be: "When someone or something profoundly matters to us in a pleasant way"), then I'd have to reveal the difference between love and happiness. Love could be that pleasant feeling of wanting to always be there for someone or a pet, or it could be that pleasant feeling someone gets when he exclaims: "I absolutely love this video game!"
Of course, those 2 feelings of love I gave as examples are different forms of love. As for happiness, it could be that pleasant feeling someone gets when he says he has no need for money or materialistic things, and that he's happy with living the low class life. Happiness could also be that feeling of glee someone gets when he has won the lottery. I think my view of love and happiness is an objective truth, and I could say the same thing about a loving or happy mindset. For example, a loving mindset would be that pleasant mindset of always wanting to be there for someone. Of course, our mindset isn't the love or happiness, as I pointed out earlier.
Our mindset needs to make us feel love or happiness because those feelings are the love or happiness. Goodness is better and more profound than just love or happiness, as I mentioned earlier. So, loving or happy goodness would be better and more profound than just love or happiness. Lastly, as for disgusting and tragic, I also give them the same definition because I define them as: "What profoundly matters in an unpleasant way." So, I'd have to reveal the difference between disgusting and tragic. But, I think that difference is self-explanatory. Therefore, I actually don't have to reveal that difference.
More Info On Defining Good And Bad
Words are meaningless without their definitions. For example, the words good, bad, love, happiness, and green would be nothing more than words without their definitions. They'd be no different than the meaningless words "vudxa" or "duqudil." But, you can, for example, define the words good and bad however you want. So, if you defined good as a desktop computer, then a desktop computer would be good. Likewise, if you defined vudxa as a plate, then a plate would be vudxa. But, if I asked a person to define good however he wants, and he defined good as a rainbow, then he wouldn't treat good as though it's nothing more than just a rainbow. He'd act as though it profoundly matters in a pleasant way.
So, when he defines good as a rainbow, he wouldn't have the attitude of: "Yeah, whatever. I defined good as a rainbow. So, good is a rainbow now. Big deal." Instead, he'd have the attitude of: "I defined good as a rainbow, and I look forward to seeing one in the sky because rainbows are good." Likewise, if a person defined good as helping others, he'd have the attitude of: "I defined good as helping others, and I want to dedicate my life to helping others because that's what's good." So, for these people, rainbows and helping others wouldn't have just been given the label "good." These people have already taken the following definition of good:
"What profoundly matters in a pleasant way" from the start and, from there, they've chosen rainbows and helping others to be the good things (to be the things that both profoundly and pleasantly matter). Of course, if these people didn't have their emotions, then those things wouldn't be good. Like I said, just choosing certain things to be good won't make them good. We need to feel good about them to make them good. But, if these emotionless people have simply instead defined the word good as rainbows and helping others, then they'd be good, and these people would be able to see them as good, just by acknowledging them as good, because it doesn't require emotions in order to perceive words, such as good, bad, etc.
In addition, if a person defined the word green as the sky, then the sky would be green, and he'd be able to perceive the sky as green just by acknowledging it as green. But, when the word green is defined as: "The color between blue and yellow in the spectrum; colored like grass or emeralds," then the sky wouldn't be green, and he wouldn't be able to see the sky as green just by thinking or believing it's green. He'd have to put on some green tinted glasses to see the sky as green. Of course, these glasses would make him see everything else in green. Going by my definition of good, good would like the color green because people can't see the sky as good just by thinking or believing it's good.
People need to feel good about things, including the sky, to see them as good. Also, going by my definition of good, if you saw an item as being good for someone else, then that means the item was good for you because we all have our own mental universe, and anything we see as good becomes good for us. When we see things as good, that's our own personal perception, which means those things become personally good for us. So, if Jake saw an item as being good for Jon, then I could say: "Well, for Jake, that item is good because it's something good in his eyes." In order for that item to be good for Jon, then he'd have to see it as good.
The same idea applies to things mattering. If someone saw something as mattering, then that means it mattered to him. I'll say one last thing here. If a person felt miserable, and he just defined the word happiness as that miserable state, then his misery would be happiness. But, going by my definition of happiness, his misery obviously wouldn't be happiness because that miserable state isn't a state where something profoundly matters to him in a pleasant way. Even if he metaphorically described his misery as being happiness, it still wouldn't be happiness.
There's a difference between metaphors and actual things. So, if someone metaphorically described himself as being a bolt of lightning or the color green, then he wouldn't be an actual bolt of lightning or the color green. I realize there are Buddhists who claim they've obtained a state of happiness through their meditation, they say this happiness is everlasting, and that it's not an emotional state. As a matter of fact, there are many people claiming they can be happy, even while they're feeling depressed, or while they're emotionless. But, these Buddhists and people wouldn't be happy if they weren't feeling happy.
Important Note About Emotions
I'm going to quote something I said earlier and respond to it:
feelings of goodness, beautiful goodness, loving goodness, happy goodness, valuable goodness, worthwhile goodness, etc.
By the way, negative emotions can't be feelings of goodness, and positive emotions can't be feelings of badness. Only negative emotions can be feelings of badness, and only positive emotions can be feelings of goodness. For example, there can't be feelings of tragic, miserable, or horrific goodness, and there can't be feelings of beautiful, happy, or magnificent badness. But, there can be mixed emotions, where there's a tragic, miserable, or horrific feeling that's mixed in with a good feeling, or a beautiful, happy, or magnificent feeling that's mixed in with a bad feeling. So, when it comes to positive emotions, such as feelings of beauty, love, value, worth, etc., they can be good feelings. When it comes to negative emotions, such as feelings of fear, horror, disgust, rage, etc., they can be bad feelings.
But, when a person is having the thought that something is beautiful and bad (such as if he thought that having a girlfriend was beautiful, but also bad because there are problems when it comes to having a girlfriend), then that thought can't make him feel beautiful badness. But, it could give him mixed emotions (2, independent emotions felt at the same time), where he has a feeling of beauty mixed in with a feeling of badness. If he had the thought that something was beautifully good, then that could make him feel beautiful goodness, though. If he had the thought that something was disgusting and good, then that thought can't make him feel disgusting goodness. But, if he had the thought that something was disgustingly bad, then that thought could make him feel disgusting badness, which would make him perceive that thing as disgustingly bad.

File #1: Writing Skill

An Important Note About My Writing Skill

Note to Reader: So many people complain over every little thing, and lack appreciation. That even includes my writing. I think my writing is good enough, and some people out there can't appreciate it, due to their unreasonably high standards. Having such a high standard is unfair, and I ask others to lower it. This is what I discuss in this packet.

There are also other important things you need to know about my writing. Also, if people can't read my material because they just don't have the time, then I have no problem with that. But, if they're not reading it because they think it's poorly written, then they're just being plain unfair. One more thing. I don't care if this writing skill notice turns readers away, and makes them not want to read any more of my material, due to me putting blame on the reader.

If you're the type of reader with a high writing standard, then you'll be turned away by my level of writing skill anyway, which doesn't meet your standard. So, I might as well give you this notice before you leave. As for the types of people who'd accept my writing, they shouldn't be turned away by this writing skill notice. Instead, they'd read it, sympathize with me, and agree with it.

Writing Skill Note: Other people would complain that my writing is very poor and not worth reading. But, I don't want to be a skilled writer, since that's not my goal in life. I just want to share my philosophy to mental health professionals, my family, and other people, since it's important they understand why my positive emotions are the only things that can make my life good, beautiful, and worth living.

I'm sharing my own personal arguments and my own personal life experience here, and I think that's important. Also, my spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc. is good for the most part. So, I think other people would be having too high of a writing standard if they refuse to read my packets because they think they're poorly written. I mean, I could understand it if my packets were so horribly written that nobody could understand them. But, that's clearly not the case.

I shouldn't be treated as a student in an English class, handing in a poorly written essay, and scoffed at for my lack of 100% skill in writing. This is me as a struggling individual, sharing and expressing his personal views, and I should be treated as such. Other people should have the compassion and concern to read through my packets. If they can't, and said reason is justified, then I have no issue with that.

But, if they treat me as a student in an English class to be scoffed at, whose essays are not worth reading, then they're not being compassionate towards me and my predicament. Thus, they'd be a waste of time talking to. I clearly told these people I don't want to be a skilled writer, and they should understand that. So, rather than me meeting their high standards and expectations, they should instead lower their standards.

If I was a student in an English class, then, yes, I'd be expected to meet that teacher's standard of writing. I would not dare tell that teacher to lower his standards, to just accept my writing, and read through it all anyway. But, this is a different situation here, and that's why I expect other people to lower their writing standards and read through my packets.

Some people actually understood my writing quite well, and they said it was really good. They even said I'm a talented writer. So, I think it all depends on who you are, what standards you have, and what experience you've had. If you're someone who's read professionally written material his whole life, then you're very likely to have a higher standard.

You might find my writing very painful and incoherent to read. But, for someone who's used to reading average, everyday material written by family, friends, and people struggling, such as myself, your standards will be set lower. This will allow you to understand my writing much better, and my writing will appear above the average skill level.

Think of someone who's used to sleeping on the best beds, eating the best foods, and living in 1st class homes. This person will find it very unpleasant to sleep on an average bed, to eat average food, and to live in a low class home. But, for someone who's lived a low class life, he'll find the average lifestyle to be suitable or even better than he expected.

Here's one more example. If there was a son who played basketball and shot some hoops like an average player, that son might be a skilled player, according to the father's standard. But, according to the standard of a professional NBA player, that son would suck. I will say one last thing here to conclude this.

I have obsessive compulsive disorder, which means I might repeat things in my writing, drag things on much longer than they need to be, explain too much, say unnecessary things, etc. There are other flaws with my writing, too. Even though I've asked others to lower their standards and just accept my writing as it is, I'm willing to improve my writing.

If someone, who's a skilled writer, helps me revise my writing to make it better, I'm willing to do that. I know I've written a ton of material, and many people would ask me who's willing to sit down and read through all of this. My mother and therapist have read through all of this, since they're concerned for me, and are very interested in my personal views/personal experience.

Therefore, maybe there will be other people in this world who would bother fully reading through all my packets as well. Perhaps not too many people. But, at least some. I'd also like others to read through the Discussion Sections of these packets as well, since they address any objections people have to my personal views on life, music, etc. The Discussion Sections also talk more about my views, and these sections take up virtually the entire document files/packets.
Last edited by MozartLink on Sun Sep 13, 2020 10:59 pm, edited 9 times in total.
MozartLink
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: All My Philosophy Packets

Post by MozartLink »

File #2: My Philosophy Of Emotions (Part 1/12)

It's Not The Thought That Counts. It's The Emotion That Counts

Note to Reader: This is my philosophy I'd like to share to others. These are my personal views and others don't have to agree with them. I've had many miserable, devastating struggles throughout my life, and this is everything I've learned from these struggles.

What I've learned is different than what most people would learn because my personal experience has taught me that living such a miserable life is no way to live or be an artist, even if you were a miserable, genius artist who was motivated by his misery to create masterpieces throughout his life. I think life's all about being happy and enjoying things.

If you're someone who's miserable, unhappy, or even apathetic, then that's no way to live or be an artist, an athlete, a boxer, a parent, etc. As long as you don't have your positive feelings, then you can't live a good, valuable, precious, worthwhile, or beautiful life. So, with that being said, I'd like to begin explaining my philosophy:

So many people talk about thinking positive and avoiding negative thinking. But, we should actually strive for positive emotions (the pleasant emotions), and avoid negative emotions (the unpleasant emotions). We should also avoid apathy (no emotions). My personal experience has led me to the conclusion that the only way we can perceive anything as good, valuable, beautiful, or worthwhile is through our positive emotions. So, positive emotions are the only things that make life, and any artistic endeavor, good, valuable, beautiful, and worth living for.

Sure, thinking is necessary to make us feel emotions, since positive thinking causes us to feel positive emotions. But, I think it can only be the positive emotions that allow us to experience life, and everything else, as amazing, good, beautiful, magnificent, wonderful, valuable, precious, and worthwhile. In other words, positive emotions are the only things that give us a positive experience, and not our positive thoughts and beliefs alone. That doesn't mean I’d make reckless decisions that would be harmful if they made me feel joy.

I'm not a dumb person, which means I'd still choose to not do drugs, and I'd still make choices that would promote my own happiness in the long term. So, it's not like I completely leave out and dismiss the thinking aspect of our human existence. But, our thinking alone doesn't allow us to see goodness, badness, beauty, tragedy, horror, and worth in things. Only our emotions do that. An example of some emotions would be a feeling of panic from being in a dangerous situation, a feeling of misery, a feeling of excitement, a feeling of rage, a feeling of sexual arousal, etc.

Positive emotions would be feelings of love, joy, beauty, magnificence, peace, amazement, excitement, etc., and negative emotions would be feelings of misery, tragedy, rage, hate, disgust, horror, etc. So, like I said, positive emotions are the pleasant emotions, and negative emotions are the unpleasant emotions. But, they're more than just pleasant and unpleasant emotions. They're what give us positive and negative perspectives. That's why we should seek positive emotions, since they're the positive perspectives we need.

We need to have a positive perspective in life, which means we must see goodness, beauty, magnificence, worth, etc. in things, and avoid a negative perspective, where we see things as bad, horrible, disgusting, tragic, etc. So, our goal in life should be the positive emotions, since they're the only positive perspectives, which means they're what are important. So many people say that we should have a positive perspective in life, and avoid a negative perspective, since having a negative perspective is no way to live or be an artist.

Well then, we need positive emotions, and we should avoid negative emotions, since feeling negative emotions is no way to live or be an artist. A life without emotions (apathy) is also no way to live or be an artist. If you wish to know how our emotions are the only positive and negative perspectives, then I'll explain. If you have a loving thought, then that thought would make you feel love (a positive emotion). If you have the thought that something's beautiful (such as life itself), then that thought would make you feel that life's beautiful, and that feeling of beauty would be a positive emotion. If you have the thought that something's disgusting, then that thought would make you feel disgust in regards to that thing, and that feeling would be a negative emotion.

We experience things through our feelings. For example, feeling hungry is how we experience hunger, feeling thirsty is how we experience thirst, feeling sleepy is how we experience sleepiness, feeling pain and pleasure is how we experience them, feeling love (a positive emotion) is how we experience love, feeling pride and happiness (positive emotions) is how we experience pride and happiness, and feeling that life's beautiful is how we experience life as beautiful. In addition, if you feel disgust (a negative emotion) in regards to something, then you're experiencing that thing as disgusting.

Perception and experience are the same thing. For example, if you're seeing (perceiving) the color red, then you're experiencing red, and vice versa. If you're feeling that life's beautiful, then you're experiencing life as beautiful, which is the same thing as saying you're seeing (perceiving) beauty in life. In addition, if you feel love, you're experiencing love, which means you're loving someone or something, and that's the same thing as having a loving perspective/perception towards that person or thing.

So, that's why we need positive emotions to see goodness, beauty, and worth in things, and to have a happy, proud, or loving perspective. Again, a life without a positive perspective/outlook is no way to live or be an artist, and that's why a life without positive emotions is no way to live or be an artist. If you lose your positive emotions, then you lose your ability to perceive/experience things as good, beautiful, and worth living for, and you'd lose your ability to experience love, pride, and happiness, just as how you'd lose your ability to experience hunger, thirst, and sleepiness if you lost your ability to feel hungry, thirsty, and sleepy.

Philosophy Discussion Section

Other Person’s Response: I realize this philosophy discussion section addresses as many questions and objections as possible that people have in regards to your philosophy.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: I think there are many interesting objections to your philosophy, and I realize you attempt to address as many of these objections as possible in this big document file. But, if there are objections out there you have yet to address, then will you include them in this file?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: When you talk about positive feelings, you're talking about positive emotions, right?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Emotions are biological impulses/drives, right?

My Reply: Yes. For example, if someone felt the motivation to exercise, then he had the impulse/drive to exercise.

Other Person's Response: Thoughts and feelings aren't the same thing. So, you're right about that. For example, if a person had insomnia, which prevented him from feeling sleepy, then his mindset alone can't make him feel sleepy. No way of thinking could make him feel sleepy.

My Reply: Yes, and that's why thoughts and emotions aren’t the same thing. You can't make yourself feel an emotion if there's something preventing you from feeling it, such as having a mental illness.

Other Person’s Response: Your philosophy says that emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, beauty, horror, magnificence, tragedy, value, worth, preciousness, etc. Do you have any support for this claim?

My Reply: Yes, and it would be in this link below. Some people disagree with this claim. But, I have to agree, based upon my personal experience because I can clearly tell that my emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, beauty, horror, etc.:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 4HYPERLINK "http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... &HYPERLINK "http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1HYPERLINK "http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... &HYPERLINK "http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... f"type=pdf

Other Person’s Response: I don’t have internet access. Even if I did, I’m not allowed to access certain websites. So, could you share that emotion perception theory right here?

My Reply: *****



Are emotions perceptions of value?
Jérôme Dokic &Stéphane Lemaire
Pages 227-247 | Received 13 Mar 2013, Accepted 29 May 2013, Published online: 03 Sep 2013

· 

· 

AbsracAb

A popular idea at present is that emotions are perceptions of values. Most defenders of this idea have interpreted it as the perceptual thesis that emotions present (rather than merely represent) evaluative states of affairs in the way sensory experiences present us with sensible aspects of the world. We argue against the perceptual thesis. We show that the phenomenology of emotions is compatible with the fact that the evaluative aspect of apparent emotional contents has been incorporated from outside. We then deal with the only two views that can make sense of the perceptual thesis.

On the response–dependence view, emotional experiences present evaluative response-dependent properties (being fearsome, being disgusting, etc.) in the way visual experiences present response-dependent properties such as colors. On the response–independence view, emotional experiences present evaluative response-independent properties (being dangerous, being indigestible, etc.), conceived as ‘Gestalten’ independent of emotional feelings themselves. We show that neither view can make plausible the idea that emotions present values as such, i.e., in an open and transparent way. If emotions have apparent evaluative contents, this is in fact due to evaluative enrichments of the non-evaluative presentational contents of emotions.


http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10. ... pHYPERLINK "http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10. ... &HYPERLINK "http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10. ... ccess=true


*****

Other Person's Response: When emotion theorists say that emotions are perceptions of value, I think they mean they're perceptions of good, bad, beauty, horror, tragedy, etc. But, when you say they're perceptions of value, you mean something different, such as perceiving an item or life lesson as valuable.

My Reply: Yes, and that's why I treat emotional perceptions of value as being different than emotional perceptions of goodness, badness, beauty, horror, etc. So, I treat feelings of value as being different than feelings of goodness, badness, beauty, horror, etc. Also, the only way we can perceive something or someone as valuable is through our positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy says that the only way we can see beauty, goodness, horror, tragedy, value, and worth in things is through our emotions?

My Reply: Yes. For example, you need to feel good about something to see it as a good thing, you need to feel horror in regards to something to see that thing as horrific, etc. That's because emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, horror, etc.

Other Person’s Response: Why can’t our mindset alone allow us to see things as good, bad, beautiful, etc.? Why do we need emotions to have such a perception?

My Reply: The color red is a perceptual state (a visual state), and that’s different than just having the thought of red. In other words, just having the thought of red isn’t the same thing as seeing (perceiving) red. When a person just has the thought or belief that something’s horrific or beautiful, that’s not the same thing as him seeing that thing as horrific or beautiful. His thought or belief needs to make him feel horror or beauty in regards to that thing in order for him to see it as horrific or beautiful. Also, this red analogy is something you’ll come across a couple more times throughout this packet.

Other Person’s Response: I understand now. There’s a difference between what we think or believe, and what we perceive.

My Reply: Yes. A thought or belief of red isn’t a perception of red, and a thought or belief that things are good, bad, horrific, beautiful, etc. isn’t a perception of those things being good, bad, horrific, beautiful, etc.

Other Person's Response: Are emotions, by themselves, perceptions of good, bad, beauty, etc.? Or, do we make them perceptions of good, bad, etc. by having the thought or belief that something is good, bad, etc., and that thought or belief giving us perceptions (feelings) of goodness, badness, etc. in regards to that thing?

My Reply: I'm not sure, but I think emotions only become perceptions of good, bad, beauty, etc. through our thoughts and beliefs. So, if someone automatically felt a certain emotion in regards to a given thing, and said emotion wasn't triggered by the person's way of thinking or believing, then I don't think that emotion can be a perception of good, bad, value, beauty, etc. in regards to that thing.

Other Person's Response: So, a thought that something's horrific makes us feel horror in regards to that thing, so we can perceive it as horrific?

My Reply: Yes. Thoughts and beliefs make us feel emotions, so we can perceive things as good, bad, horrific, etc. But, there are things that can prevent thoughts and beliefs from making us feel certain emotions.

Other Person’s Response: If a person lost his ability to feel emotions, then that means he’d lose his ability to perceive things as good, bad, etc.?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: If a person just had a thought or belief of red without seeing red, then he’d be perceiving the idea of red, but not actual red.

My Reply: Correct. The same thing applies to good, bad, etc. So, if a person had no ability to feel any emotions, and he had the thought or belief that something was good, bad, etc., then he'd just be perceiving the idea that this thing is good, bad, etc. But, he wouldn't be perceiving it as good, bad, etc. So, he wouldn't be perceiving actual goodness, badness, etc. in regards to that thing.

Other Person’s Response: Our thoughts and beliefs alone can’t make us sleepy, they can’t make us hungry or thirsty, they can’t make us emotional, they can’t make us see red, they can’t make us see beauty or horror in things, etc.

My Reply: Correct. They, alone, can only give us intellectual experiences, such as realizing certain truths, having certain ideas, solving puzzles and riddles, rationalizing, etc. But, they can’t give us any of those experiences you’ve mentioned. Another experience they, alone, can’t give us would be being moved by a work of art. It requires emotions to be moved by something, and we can only be apathetic without our emotions.

Other Person’s Response: Our thoughts and beliefs alone can’t give us an emotional experience, given that thoughts and beliefs are different than emotions. Since emotions are perceptions of beauty, horror, etc., then that means our thoughts and beliefs alone also can’t give us a perception of beauty, horror, etc.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: When a person sees red, actual red is there. When a person sees beauty and goodness, then actual beauty and goodness is there.

My Reply: Yes, and positive emotions are actual beauty and goodness, since they're feelings/perceptions of beauty and goodness. Also, the color red is a perceptual (visual) state, which means red doesn't exist in the physical world. It only exists in our minds. The same idea applies to sounds, smells, and even good, bad, beauty, horror, etc. So, colors, sounds, smells, good, bad, etc. are all perceptual states. They're all produced by the brain. But, the brain can't produce any of them if the necessary brain regions aren't working properly because there are blind people, deaf people, people who can't smell, and people who are unable to feel certain emotions. So, there are people who can't perceive colors, sounds, smells, good, bad, etc.

Other Person's Response: As for sound, there are vibrations in the physical world. But, actual sound is something produced by the brain. So, sound itself doesn't exist in the physical world.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy is basically saying there's no good, bad, etc. in this world, and that it's all in our mind?

My Reply: Yes. Things like good, bad, beauty, etc. are all perceptions.

Other Person's Response: So, this world isn't beautiful or horrible, and we make it a beautiful or horrible place for ourselves by perceiving it as beautiful or horrible?

My Reply: Yes. But, without our emotions, we can't make that happen.

Other Person's Response: If I wish to create a beautiful, tropical experience for myself, then I'd imagine a tropical place I think is beautiful? From there, that thought needs to make me feel beauty in order for that beautiful, tropical atmosphere (mood) to be created for me?

My Reply: Yes. Whatever beautiful or amazing mood (atmosphere) you wish to create for yourself is yours to create. You can even imagine yourself as being any character you think is awesome or beautiful, and you'd get to experience the awesomeness or beauty of that character as a part of yourself. In other words, you get to perceive yourself as being any awesome or beautiful character you want. But, again, if you had no ability to feel awesomeness or beauty, then it just won't work because you wouldn't be able to perceive awesomeness or beauty.

Other Person's Response: I heard that you listened to an instrumental, heavy metal song while out in nature, you had the thought this song was beautiful, and you also had the thought that nature was beautiful. Those 2 forms of beauty combined to create a new form of beauty, and it would be like combining 2 colors to make a new color (such as combining red and yellow to make orange). So, the feeling of beauty you got was a heavy metal, nature feeling, and this feeling of beauty was a new form of beauty that was created as a result of those 2 forms of beauty combining.

My Reply: Yes. So, that feeling of beauty would be like the color orange, which was created by having a thought of beauty in regards to that heavy metal song (red), and having a thought of beauty in regards to nature (yellow). I notice that beautiful heavy metal/nature feeling pops up whenever I listen to that heavy metal song, regardless if I listen to it while out in nature, or in the store. I also notice that other songs I listen to make me feel positive emotions that are combined forms of beauty, awesomeness, magnificence, etc.

Other Person's Response: You could even imagine any character you think is awesome, that character's awesomeness gets combined with the awesome emotion that's conveyed by any given song, and that creates a combined form of awesomeness for you.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, when a person feels good about something, he's perceiving it as a good thing? Since perceptions of good are the only good things in life, then that means feeling good is the only good thing in life?

My Reply: Yes. The only goodness that exists is the goodness we perceive. The same thing applies to bad.

Other Person's Response: Are feelings (perceptions) of value and worth the only valuable and worthwhile things in life, just as how feeling good is the only good thing in life?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: Your philosophy says that the only way we can value something would be through our feelings of value (positive emotions)?

My Reply: Yes. When you feel value in regards to something, you see it as valuable, which means it’s valuable to you, which means you value it.

Other Person's Response: The only way we can value something or someone as good, beautiful, and amazing is through our positive emotions, right?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: So, if I want to value something or someone, then I need to see it as valuable, and I can only do so through a feeling of value (a positive emotion)?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Is the only way you can value people and things is through your feelings of value?

My Reply: Yes. That's been my personal experience.

Other Person’s Response: Let’s pretend you felt angry to protect someone. Wouldn’t that feeling of anger be a perception of value, goodness, beauty, etc.?

My Reply: No. We can only have such a perception through our positive emotions. Negative emotions can never be perceptions of goodness, beauty, etc. For example, feeling good is a perception of good, which can only be a pleasant/positive emotion.

Other Person’s Response: So, if someone felt angry to protect someone, then that would give him an angry, motivated perception. But, that wouldn’t make him see the protecting of that individual as good, valuable, precious, or beautiful?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: I think your philosophy is very childish.

My Reply: When it comes to any given worldview, there will be people who'd say that said view is childish. For example, atheists would say that Christianity is childish, since Christians aren't growing up out of this mystical, fairy tale nonsense that they live their lives by. Christians would say that atheism is childish, since atheists are rebelling against the Christian doctrine, and not living their lives in obedience to the Lord.

I could even say that people who live by a philosophy opposite of mine is childish, since these people trivialize emotions, have stigma against those who uphold the importance of emotions, deny the fact that emotions are the only good and bad things in life, and call me childish. My point is, when people say that any given worldview is childish, that's just their opinion. So, if people say my philosophy is childish, then that's just their opinion.

Other Person's Response: What if people say that your philosophy is nonsense?

My Reply: Again, when it comes to any given worldview, there will be people who'd say that said view is nonsense. So, if people say that my philosophy is nonsense, then that's just their personal view. I think any philosophy that opposes mine is nonsense, and that would just be my personal view.

Other Person's Response: You say, in another document, that you're undecided when it comes to controversial topics because you're incapable of discovering the truth in regards to these topics. So, that means you should remain undecided as to whether any philosophy that opposes yours really is nonsense or not, since even that's controversial.

My Reply: You're right. But, for me, my emotions are the only good and bad things in life, and not having the ability to feel positive emotions is no way to live for me. That's been my personal experience, which means this is my philosophy, and what my personal experience is saying could be true for all of humanity. So, my philosophy could be true, people deny it, and won't accept it as the truth.

Other Person’s Response: You should be undecided in regards to the emotion perception theory because that theory is controversial.

My Reply: You’re right. I require emotions to perceive beauty, horror, etc. But, perhaps it’s the case that emotions aren’t perceptions of beauty, horror, etc., and I’m just allowing my emotions to dominate my perception. I really don’t know.

Other Person's Response: Are the moments you're unable to feel positive emotions the moments it's no way to live or be an artist for you?

My Reply: Yes. Also, the worst life for me would be living in the worst emotional state, such as the worst miserable state.

Other Person's Response: What are your thoughts on changing your philosophy to a better one?

My Reply: If people think my philosophy is childish nonsense, and they try to convert me to a different philosophy, then that would be like trying to convert a Christian or atheist. It's just a waste of time because it's not going to work. As a matter of fact, nothing will work. So, you can argue with a Christian or atheist all day, and that won't convert him/her. Also, to try to convert me to a different philosophy would be no different than me trying to convert someone to my philosophy. Like I said, it's just not going to work.

Other Person's Response: So, why are people wasting their time having a discussion with you in this very document? Their attempts to change your philosophy are in vain.

My Reply: Such a discussion gives plenty of insight for readers in regards to my philosophy, and I wish to share this insight to people, such as my therapist, my mother, and anyone else who'd be interested in reading it. This discussion section addresses plenty of questions, objections, and responses people have in regards to my philosophy.

Other Person's Response: Do you think it's a futile endeavor to try to change your philosophy?

My Reply: Yes. So, this is just my philosophy, and I don't think anything can change it.

Other Person's Response: There are some Christians and atheists who convert over to a different worldview. So, I think it's possible for you to convert over to a different worldview.

My Reply: But, I think most people don't convert from whatever worldview they had. For example, most Christians don't convert. So, if you're a Christian, then it's likely you'll remain a Christian your entire life. As for my worldview, which says that feeling good is the only good thing in life, and feeling bad is the only bad thing in life, many people would say it's a very limiting, self-defeating view. Unfortunately, I think it's likely I'll remain stuck with this view my entire life.

Other Person's Response: I heard that our souls have incarnated into physical bodies here on Earth for the purpose of learning and growing. We undergo suffering and hardships to develop as individuals. You've had much suffering, since you've had many miserable struggles, and said struggles were a cycle of suffering that lasted many years. If god and his angels wanted you to have these struggles in the hopes that you'd develop a better philosophy, then they're really just wasting their time, aren't they? If you can never develop a better philosophy, then reincarnating here on Earth again and again to suffer a life of misery and unhappiness is pointless. It's never going to change your philosophy. So, what's the point?

My Reply: Exactly.

Other Person's Response: You, as a human being, have been bestowed with the capacity to suffer. That's why you've suffered so many miserable struggles throughout your life. But, for you, all this suffering was a pointless waste of your life that didn't develop you as an individual, since it didn't change your philosophy. As a matter of fact, all your suffering has only served to reinforce your philosophy. According to your philosophy, there was nothing good about your suffering, since feeling good is the only good thing in life. So, for you, the capacity to suffer like this is a worthless capacity.

My Reply: Right. I've been bestowed with that capacity and allowed to suffer. I couldn't will myself out of my suffering, which means I had to just bear through it all. That was no way to live for me. If the spirit world (astral realm) exists, then it seems the beings there want us to suffer. As a matter of fact, these beings have been known to preach the value and necessity of suffering time and time again, according to many mystical, spiritual teachings. But, I think these beings are preaching a false doctrine.

If there was any loving being in the astral realm, then he would've somehow prevented all my suffering, or healed my mind of all that suffering. Since that didn't happen, then I conclude that all the beings in the astral realm are unloving beings who preach a false doctrine. In order to prevent these beings from having me reincarnate into another Earthly life of pointless, inevitable suffering, I'll have to slaughter them the moment my soul leaves my dead body. If I had the choice, I'd choose to instantly vaporize every single being in the astral realm.

Other Person's Response: If there was any loving being in the astral realm, then he could've prevented that worthless capacity from being bestowed upon you. That way, you would've never had these miserable struggles, and you would've been happy your entire life.

My Reply: Right. A loving being would ensure my happiness, after all. But, since none of these beings have ensured my happiness, then that must mean they're all unloving beings. I could be wrong about these beings. But, living a miserable life is unacceptable for me, and causes me to feel like slaughtering them.

Other Person's Response: If these beings wanted you to suffer because they wanted you to develop a better philosophy, then it's clearly not working. So, they should've chosen another option instead. Suffering isn't the only path to personal growth, and all your suffering was just a waste of your life. As a matter of fact, you didn't even become more loving, giving, and compassionate through your struggles. So, it would be best if these beings have chosen another option as a means of personal growth.

My Reply: I agree. These beings can see into the future, which means they would've known all along that my miserable struggles wouldn't have changed my philosophy. So, why didn't they just choose another alternative? For example, rather than having me undergo horrible, inevitable suffering that wasted 12 years of my life, they could've had me undergo a powerful, positive, life-transforming experience that changed my philosophy, and transformed me into a more giving, compassionate, loving person.

Other Person's Response: What if no positive experience would ever change your philosophy?

My Reply: Then that's just the way it is. There's nothing that can be done to change my philosophy.

Other Person's Response: Hedonism is a philosophy that advocates the idea of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. I think your philosophy would be a form of hedonism, since your philosophy says that we should pursue positive emotions and avoid negative emotions.

My Reply: Yes. But, the emotion perception theory is added into this hedonistic view of mine. So, instead of me having a hedonistic view that simply says we should pursue positive emotions and avoid negative ones, I have a view that says we should pursue positive emotions (perceptions of goodness, beauty, magnificence, awesomeness, etc.), and avoid negative emotions (perceptions of badness, horror, tragedy, disgust, etc.).

Other Person's Response: Many people, such as therapists, would even say to look on the bright side, and not the dark side. In other words, they'd say to look at the positive and not the negative (i.e. to see the goodness, beauty, etc., and not the bad, horrible, etc.).

My Reply: Right. When you see something as beautiful, good, or amazing, that's giving you a beautiful, good, or amazing experience (a positive experience), and we need these positive experiences. Our perception is our life's experience, and if we're perceiving things as horrible, bad, or disgusting, then we're just creating a negative life experience for ourselves. When we feel positive emotions (have positive perceptions), our minds are in the bright side (the realm of the holy light), and not the dark side.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy says that feeling good is the only good thing in life, and feeling bad is the only bad thing in life. That means how we feel is the only thing that matters.

My Reply: Yes, because our perception/life's experience is all that matters.

Other Person's Response: I think hedonism says that feeling good is the only good thing in life. But, when hedonism talks about feeling good, I don't think it means perceiving someone or something as good. It just means a pleasant feeling. For example, if a person feels well after having recovered from the flu, then that would be feeling good, according to hedonism. When a person feels a pleasant, bodily sensation, then that would also be feeling good, according to hedonism.

My Reply: Right. So, when I talk about feeling good, I'm talking about perceiving good, which is a positive emotion.

Other Person's Response: Positive emotions are also loving, happy, sexually erotic, etc. perceptions, right? We should pursue those perceptions as well, shouldn't we?

My Reply: Yes. So, instead of just perceiving something as good, such as seeing a certain idea as good, we should also pursue loving, happy, and sexually erotic forms of goodness. That means we should happily perceive our hobbies, goals, and dreams as good, we should lovingly perceive someone as a good person, etc.

Other Person's Response: So, we should pursue feelings of happiness and love that are good feelings?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Perceptions are mental states. So, when a person perceives beauty, he's in a beautiful mental state. When he perceives something or someone as valuable or magnificent, then he's in a valuable or magnificent mental state.

My Reply: Yes, and these beautiful, valuable, and magnificent mental states are the only beautiful, valuable, and magnificent things in life. The same thing applies to bad, horrible, disgusting, tragic, pathetic, etc. mental states.

Other Person's Response: Since these mental states are the only things that matter, according to your philosophy, then that means it's not about what contributions I've made to humanity, what heroic deeds I've done, and what mark I've made upon this world. It's all about how much positive and negative mental states I've experienced throughout my life.

My Reply: Correct. If you've had mostly positive mental states, then you've lived a life that was mostly good, beautiful, magnificent, etc.

Other Person's Response: Some people would say you're a cold-blooded psychopath, since your philosophy says feeling good is the only good thing in life, which means it would be a good thing to harm someone if a person felt good about doing it. But, I don't think you're a cold-blooded psychopath. I think you just have a very limiting, self-defeating view is all. Such a view renders you a victim of negative emotions because, rather than embracing horrible feelings, you instead deem them as the only horrible things in life, and say that having such feelings is no way to live or be an artist.

My Reply: I'm very polite, I don't harm others, I help my family when they need my help, and many people love me. So, that shows I'm not a cold-blooded psychopath. But, regardless of how much others tell me my philosophy is dangerous, dumb, or self-defeating, it's not going to change my philosophy.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, a person might as well harm someone if he felt good about doing it. But, a person who feels the need to stop him might as well do so.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: People are telling you why your philosophy is false. It's a dangerous philosophy, and if people lived by it, we'd have a dangerous, dysfunctional society. So, why hasn't that convinced you that your philosophy is false?

My Reply: It's because this is my life and my own personal experience. I pay attention to what my personal experience has to say, regardless of what others tell me. My personal experience says perceptions of goodness and badness are the only good and bad things in life, and that these perceptions can only be emotional states. My personal experience also says that love, hate, fear, pride, and happiness can only be emotions. Until my personal experience says otherwise, this is the philosophy I'll always have.

Other Person's Response: I realized you defined happiness as something other than a positive emotion, such as doing tasks and helping others, despite your misery. But, that didn't work for you, which means your personal experience is still telling you that happiness can only be a positive emotion.

My Reply: Right. No definition of happiness can be happiness for me. So, I've concluded that happiness can only be a positive emotion. After all, my feelings of happiness have always been the only happiness for me. Regardless of what I define as happiness, love, hate, sadness, good, bad, etc., I must pay attention to what my personal experience says, and my personal experience says they can only be emotions.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy says that making others feel good can't be good if we don't feel good about doing so?

My Reply: Correct. A person's perception must be taken into consideration when he's doing certain tasks and deeds. So, as long as a person is unable to see it as a good thing to bring others good feelings, then it wouldn't be a good thing if he brought others good feelings. Also, as long as I'm unable to see the pursuit of my composing dream as good or valuable, then that pursuit can't be good or valuable.

Other Person's Response: Humans have perceptions (mental states). Without them, we'd just be machines with no consciousness. So, to ignore and dismiss a person's emotions (perceptions/mental states) would be no different than treating that person as a machine. For example, if a person was completely apathetic, since he didn't have the ability to feel emotions, he couldn't love anyone, couldn't see helping others as a good, valuable, or worthwhile endeavor, he forced himself to help others anyway, despite his apathy, and other people acted as though that was a loving, good, valuable, and worthwhile deed, then these people would be treating him as a machine because they act as though it's his deeds that mattered, and not his perception.

My Reply: Right. That person had an apathetic perception, and such a perception shouldn't be ignored and dismissed. The fact is, his deeds wouldn't be loving, good, valuable, or worthwhile because he didn't have loving, good, valuable, or worthwhile feelings/perceptions when doing these deeds. Regardless of how much that apathetic person dragged himself along through life and made it his sworn duty to help and protect others, his deeds wouldn't be good or loving. There are plenty of depressed and apathetic people in this world who get work done because they know it has to be done. But, that wouldn't be a good, valuable, or beautiful thing, according to my philosophy.

Other Person's Response: There are suicidal, miserable people in this world who are in much mental turmoil. But, there are people who dismiss their mental suffering and tell them: "You gotta do what you gotta do in life."

My Reply: Right. Being in that mental state is no way to live, and those people would be dismissing this because they act as though getting work done is what's important, and not our perception/state of mind. As a matter of fact, people even have this attitude in regards to themselves. So, regardless of how miserable and apathetic they are, they still somehow believe it's their deeds that are important, and not their perception.

Other Person's Response: You said you still did certain tasks when you were miserable and unable to feel positive emotions. You even pursued your composing dream for quite some time. But, you're saying that wasn't a good thing?

My Reply: Correct, since I couldn't feel good about it. I gave up composing during my miserable struggles, since composing in that miserable state was no way to live. I had to give up composing for 12 years until my miserable struggles were over with. Also, I couldn't have any emotional drive to pursue my composing dream during my miserable struggles.

Other Person's Response: You say, later on, that depressed and apathetic people are performing loving acts in the absence of their loving feelings. But, they wouldn't be loving acts, and you're just saying they're loving acts anyway, just for the sake of convenience.

My Reply: Yes. It's simply to convey what types of acts I'm talking about. For example, if I just said that depressed and apathetic people perform acts, I wouldn't be making it clear to the reader what type of act I'm talking about, such as a loving, hateful, angry, joyful, etc. act. But, without feelings of love, hate, etc., there can be no loving, hateful, etc. act.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, if there were police who were tired, miserable, and didn't feel like catching a criminal, then it wouldn't be a good thing if they caught that criminal. In addition, that criminal wouldn't be a bad guy if he didn't feel he was a bad guy. If he felt good about himself, then that means he sees himself as a good person, and that makes him a good person.

My Reply: Correct. As for the police, they can still choose to catch that criminal anyway, just as how a miserable, tired person can still choose to drag himself out of bed. But, like I said, it wouldn't be a good thing to do so, which means those police are free to give up catching that criminal.

Other Person's Response: I heard the only thoughts that have traumatized you were thoughts of worry and concern in regards to yourself, and not others. For example, there was a moment in your life where you lost your ability to feel positive emotions, and that made you miserable. You're not really concerned about others, which is why the death and suffering of people and animals doesn't bother you at all. There were moments where pets in your house died, and it didn't matter to you. As a matter of fact, a person could suffer and die before your very eyes, and that wouldn't bother you. You'd just have a positive, casual mindset about that situation that causes you to feel positive.

My Reply: I wouldn't want to be traumatized and miserable when witnessing the death and suffering of others anyway, since that would be giving me a negative experience. I also wish I never had all these thoughts and worries that traumatized me and made me miserable, since that was nothing but a negative experience for me.

Other Person's Response: Since it's your mindset that causes you to feel certain ways, and since you don't feel bothered by the death and suffering of others, then that must mean you have the mindset that the death and suffering of others doesn't bother you.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: Do you also have the mindset that people and animals don't matter to you at all?

My Reply: Actually, I have the mindset that they matter to me. For example, I had the thought that Michael Jackson was an awesome person, that thought made me feel awesome about him, and that feeling was a perception of him as awesome. The very fact I had that thought means I had the thought that he mattered to me. But, even though I see him as an awesome person, I wasn't bothered at all by his suffering and death.

Other Person's Response: Would you care if your own brother died?

My Reply: No. I just have no attachment to him. But, I could have the thought that he was a good person who lived the best he could, and feel good about that.

Other Person's Response: You don't need to be bothered by the death and suffering of others. You could instead feel positive about helping others, easing their suffering, and preventing their death.

My Reply: Right. But, I don't really care about going out of my way to help humanity. It's just not my passion in life. My passion is composing music for the world to hear. My goal as a composer is to compose music that the audience would praise, so I can feel positive emotions from said praise. The style of music I wish to compose is something out of the ordinary.

Other Person's Response: You say you normally have a positive mindset that causes you to feel positive emotions, and that you feel many negative emotions only during your miserable struggles/emotional traumas. Is it because you have a lot of negative thoughts making you feel negative emotions during these struggles?

My Reply: I think so. If one negative thought or worry causes you to feel miserable, then you're going to have other negative thoughts and worries making you feel other negative emotions. Also, I can't help but have these negative thoughts and negative emotions during an emotional crisis. During an emotional crisis, many things bother me, such as the name calling of others, having to do certain tasks, etc. But, they don't bother me at all when I'm not having an emotional crisis.

Other Person's Response: Since emotions are the only good and bad things in life, then our thoughts alone can't be positive or negative (good or bad). So, it's just thoughts making you feel positive or negative emotions, and not positive or negative thoughts making you feel positive or negative emotions.

My Reply: Right. But, I can still refer to thoughts as being positive or negative anyway, just for the sake of convenience.

Other Person's Response: You say you can't help but feel negative emotions during an emotional crisis. So, does that mean you do feel miserable when witnessing the death and suffering of others during an emotional crisis?

My Reply: Yes, sometimes, because negative emotions sometimes pop up. They're not traumatic feelings. But, they're still very negative feelings I don't want. But, like I said, when I'm not having an emotional crisis, I normally don't feel sad, miserable, tragic, etc. in regards to others dying and suffering, and that's a good thing because feeling good is the only good thing in life, and I normally feel good when I don't have an emotional crisis.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy says that the only way people and things can matter to us would be through our emotions, and not through our mindset alone. Positive emotions make people and things matter to us in positive ways (such as: "Wow, that was such a beautiful and amazing moment"), negative emotions make people and things matter to us in negative ways (such as: "That was such a horrible, pitiful, disgusting person"), and feeling no emotions means people and things can't matter to us at all.

My Reply: Correct. The component that makes people and things matter to us, and allows us to perceive people and things as good, bad, etc., wouldn't be our reason component (our thinking alone). It would be our emotional component. Also, hearing, smelling, and seeing are separate components as well. They'd be the audio, olfactory, and visual components. Again, our reason component alone can't allow us to hear, smell, or see.

Other Person's Response: Is your emotional component the only component that has ever allowed people and things to matter to you, and allowed you to perceive people and things as good, bad, valuable, beautiful, horrible, etc.?

My Reply: Yes. That's been my personal experience.

Other Person's Response: Our emotional component can be disabled though, and our ability to hear, smell, and see can also be disabled. That's why there are people who are deaf, blind, and can't smell.

My Reply: Yes. But, our emotional component can be disabled very easily, unlike our audio, olfactory, and visual components, since there are many factors that can take away our ability to feel certain emotions, such as feeling tired and not feeling up to doing certain tasks, feeling panic or excitement one moment, only for those feelings to soon wear off, etc.

Other Person's Response: I have a quote that supports your philosophy, and it's a famous quote by Hume: "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." When Hume talks about passions, he’s referring to emotions. Here’s the definition of passion online:

“In philosophy and religion, the passions are the instinctive, emotional, primitive drives in a human being (including, for example, lust, anger, aggression and jealousy) which a human being must restrain, channel, develop, and sublimate in order to be possessed of wisdom.”

My Reply: Without emotions, we’d have no motivation, passion, and we wouldn’t be able to see anything as good, bad, beautiful, frightening, etc. We’d be apathetic, which means we’d have an apathetic perspective. So, without emotions, we wouldn’t have that life force of passion, motivation, etc. Even though we could think and act through reason alone, just as how a robot can still think and act without emotions, living a life of reason alone is no way to live or be an artist.

Emotions are like a life force. Without them, then we’re like machines that are stripped of the ultimate life forces in this universe, which would be the positive/holy/divine life force (positive emotions), and the negative/unholy life force (negative emotions). But, we should avoid those negative emotions, which means we don’t need that unholy life force of hate, badness, disgust, horror, etc. We need that holy life force of love, goodness, beauty, joy, etc.

Other Person’s Response: So, love, happiness, fear, passion, good, bad, horror, etc. are actual things? They’re a life force?

My Reply: Yes. They’re emotions, and they can only be emotions, regardless if a person defined them as something else. Also, I explain why good, bad, beauty, etc. can only be emotions soon enough when I talk about emotions being value judgments, and how good, bad, beauty, etc. can only be value judgments (emotions).

Other Person's Response: Hume says that reason alone is hollow and impotent without emotions. In other words, reason alone can't make things matter to us, and it can't make us see anything as good, bad, etc.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: According to Hume, if we were rendered without the ability to feel emotions, then it wouldn't be a good thing to pursue our goals and dreams, help others, do certain tasks, etc. We'd just be apathetic vessels who are hollow on the inside. So, emotions have to be the only good and bad things in life.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person’s Response: Since we’re apathetic without our emotions, then the only way to admire someone is through our feelings of admiration (positive emotions) because admiring someone means that we’re not apathetic in regards to that person.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Here's another thing I’d like to share:

"Therefore, moral good and evil are not discovered by reason alone. ... The second and more famous argument makes use of the conclusion defended earlier that reason alone cannot move us to act. As we have seen, reason alone “can never immediately prevent or produce any action by contradicting or approving of it” (T 458)."

My Reply: Thanks for sharing!

Other Person's Response: If people don't feel like reading all this material you've written, then why should they even bother reading it? They wouldn't care.

My Reply: But, there are some people who'd feel interested in reading it.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy fails to meet the demands of daily life. Life's a challenge, and such a challenge demands a better philosophy than the one you have. If reason alone couldn't make people and things matter to us, or allow us to perceive people and things as good, bad, valuable, etc., then we wouldn't have a properly functioning society that's able to meet life's challenges. For example, if someone was miserable and didn't feel like doing something important, then he'd require his reason component to perceive the pursuit of that important task as valuable, worthwhile, good, and beautiful. If emotions were all that we had to rely on to perceive value, worth, goodness, badness, horror, and beauty, then we wouldn't get very far in life or in any given endeavor.

My Reply: Well, this is the philosophy I have for now, and I don't know what can change my philosophy.

Other Person's Response: Life's unfair because positive emotions are fleeting, and life comes with a lot of miserable, unhappy, and apathetic challenges where we don't feel up to doing certain things, but still have to do them. Your philosophy makes you a victim of life's unfairness. If you had a better philosophy, then you wouldn't be a victim of your miserable struggles. That means you wouldn't be giving up on your hobbies when you're miserable, and you'd be seeing the pursuit of your hobbies as good, beautiful, valuable, and worthwhile, even when you don't feel up to doing them. So, even while you're miserable, suicidal, and feel like giving up on your hobbies, your reason component would still compel you to persevere. Like the person above me said, solely relying on emotions is very self-defeating, and won't get you very far in life or in your hobbies.

My Reply: You're right. But, like I said, this is the philosophy I have for now.

Other Person's Response: You're wrong. Reason alone does allow people and things to matter to me, and it does allow me to see people and things as good, bad, beautiful, etc. For example, there were moments in my life where I was unable to feel any emotion whatsoever. But, I still had the thought in my mind that being there to support my family mattered to me, and was valuable and beautiful in my eyes. That thought worked for me.

My Reply: You must suspend everything that has led you to the conclusion that reason alone can do this. Instead, you must ask yourself whether your reason component alone really does this for you or not, or if you just believe it does when it doesn't. So, when you're unable to feel any emotion, are you really able to perceive value and beauty in regards to things through reason alone, or do you just believe you're able to when you're not? I've concluded that my emotions are the only perceptions of beauty, value, horror, etc.

Other Person's Response: Another question a person must ask himself is whether he's able to be in a loving or proud state of mind through reason alone.

My Reply: Right. Also, when someone is proud, that means something matters to him. But, since reason alone can't allow things to matter to us, then that means we can't be proud through reason alone. Like I said, we can only be apathetic without our emotions, which means we can't be proud, happy, sad, frightened, loving, hateful, or angry without our emotions.

Other Person's Response: I supported my family, even though I had no ability to feel any emotions whatsoever. If supporting my family didn't matter to me, then why did I even do it? The very fact I did it means it mattered to me.

My Reply: A person can perform acts, tones, and expressions that contradict his state of mind. So, if someone was in a state of mind where nothing mattered to him (an apathetic state), he could still act like certain tasks matter to him, and he could still perform those tasks, even though they don't matter to him. I think this is what those people without emotions are doing. But, many people without emotions believe that people and things matter to them, and they just need to ask themselves if people and things really do matter to them, or if they just believe they matter to them, when they don't.

Other Person's Response: So, what you're saying is that I can still act like supporting my family matters to me without my emotions, and I can still support my family, even though doing so doesn't matter to me?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: So, you think that the only way we can care about anyone or anything is through our emotions?

My Reply: Yes. That means someone who's been known to be very caring and empathetic could no longer care about anyone or anything if he lost his ability to feel emotions.

Other Person's Response: Nothing matters to robots, since robots don't have emotions. They're nothing but machines. Yet, they can still perform tasks, and they can even act like those tasks matter to them.

My Reply: Yes. Robots can't care about anyone or anything. But, they can still help others and get work done. Like I said though, that would be no way to live, since an apathetic existence is no way to live.
Last edited by MozartLink on Wed May 13, 2020 6:32 pm, edited 60 times in total.
MozartLink
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: All My Philosophy Packets

Post by MozartLink »

File #2: My Philosophy Of Emotions (Part 2/12)

Other Person's Response: In order for something to matter to someone, he needs to perceive that thing as something that matters.

My Reply: Correct, and the only way he can have that perception is through his emotions. Without his emotions, then nothing could matter from his perspective. It would be like if I said that there can be no actual red from a person's perspective if he's not seeing red. So, a given thing can't actually matter from a person's perspective, as long as he's not seeing that thing as something that matters.

Other Person's Response: Since the only way something can matter to us is through our emotions, then that means a person can't be bothered by loud noises if he doesn't feel bothered by them. Thus, he'll be able to fall asleep while those loud noises are occurring.

My Reply: Yes, and that's been my personal experience. When I was going to sleep, there were some loud noises that kept me awake. But, it wasn't the noises themselves that kept me awake. It was the emotion (feeling of alertness) I got from those noises that did. When that emotion wore off, I was able to fall back to sleep, despite those loud noises still occurring. The noises just didn't matter to me anymore, and I could no longer be in that alert state of mind anymore. I was now in a relaxed state of mind, since I now felt relaxed, rather than alert.

Other Person's Response: So, emotions are states of mind? Feeling relaxed is a relaxed state of mind, feeling alert is an alert state of mind, feeling sad is a sad state of mind, feeling fear is a fearful state of mind, etc.?

My Reply: Yes, and such states of mind are states where things and situations matter to us or bother us. For example, feeling frightened by something means that something matters to you in a frightening way, feeling troubled by something means that something bothers you, etc. But, emotions can be desensitized, which means they fade away on their own over time. An example would be with phobias. When a person exposes himself to his phobia, his feeling of fear fades away with continued exposure, which means his phobia disappears. His phobia could actually disappear immediately upon the 1st exposure session. So, if someone had a fear of elevators, he could go inside an elevator, feel panic, and his phobia be gone.

When I had that feeling of alertness from those loud noises, that feeling went away completely in a very short time. So, at first, I was kept awake by that feeling. But, only for a very short time. Then, I was able to fall back to sleep, even while those noises were still occurring. As for positive emotions, such as feelings of beauty and joy in doing my hobbies, I'm not sure if those feelings desensitize for me. They might, and it just takes a long time. So, if I continued to feel beauty and joy in doing my hobbies, I might no longer be able to experience those feelings anymore because I've desensitized those feelings. Thus, my hobbies could no longer matter to me in a beautiful or joyful way anymore.

Other Person's Response: I heard that your positive emotions do normally wear off. For example, if you were enjoying a hobby, you'd eventually stop feeling that enjoyment, and you'd feel the need to take a break from said hobby and relax.

My Reply: Yes. But, that feeling of enjoyment would normally return back to me again. Desensitization is where an emotion fades away and doesn't return. The example I gave was how phobias disappear through exposure therapy.

Other Person's Response: When a person has a phobia of spiders, they frighten him. But, when he no longer feels afraid of spiders, then they can no longer frighten him anymore, which means they can no longer matter to him in a frightening way.

My Reply: Correct. This indicates that emotions make things matter to us in sad, frightening, beautiful, horrific, disgusting, etc. ways.

Other Person's Response: If a person was unable to feel any emotions, then that means he can't be troubled or devastated by anything?

My Reply: Correct, since nothing would matter to him.

Other Person's Response: Our thoughts take on an emotional form when they make us feel emotions? That's why, when a person has the thought that nature's beautiful, that thought makes him feel beauty in regards to nature?

My Reply: Yes. Another way of putting it would be that thoughts become emotions, or "How we think is how we will feel." A thought of dramatic horror will become an emotional experience of dramatic horror, a sad thought will become a sad emotion, etc. But, like I said, there are factors that can prevent thoughts, as well as beliefs, from making us feel emotions, such as having a mental illness, brain damage, etc. because such factors shut off our ability to feel emotions.

Other Person's Response: Even Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) talks about how the way we think will cause us to feel that way, and that changing our thinking will cause us to feel differently.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If I had the thought that something's unpleasant, that thought would cause me to feel an unpleasant emotion? If I had the thought that something's pleasant, that would cause me to feel a pleasant emotion?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If I had the mindset that someone was horrible or disgusting, but pleasant, would that give me an emotional experience that's pleasantly horrible or disgusting? In other words, would it make me feel a pleasant emotion that's a horrible or disgusting feeling? Likewise, if I had the mindset that someone was beautiful or amazing, but unpleasant, would that give me an emotional experience that's unpleasantly beautiful or amazing?

My Reply: If you had the mindset that someone was horrible or disgusting, then that's the same thing as having the mindset that this person was unpleasant. It would be like how having the mindset of loving someone is the same thing as having the mindset of caring about that person.

But, you could have the mindset that someone was unpleasant, but not horrible or disgusting. In this scenario, having the mindset of someone being unpleasant wouldn't be the same thing as having the mindset of someone being horrible or disgusting. Likewise, you could have the mindset of caring about someone, but not loving that person.

In this scenario, having the mindset of caring about someone wouldn't be the same thing as having the mindset of loving someone. So, in your 1st example, there would have to be 2 mindsets going on. The 1st would be the mindset of that person being horrible or disgusting (unpleasant), and the 2nd would be the mindset of that person being pleasant.

Having these 2 mindsets might cause you to feel mixed emotions about that person, where one emotion would be unpleasantly horrible or disgusting, while the other emotion would be pleasant. In your 2nd example, there are also 2 mindsets going on. The 1st would be the mindset of that person being beautiful or amazing (pleasant), and the 2nd would be the mindset of that person being unpleasant.

Other Person's Response: If I had the mindset of loving someone or something, but not caring about said person or thing, then that means I had 2 mindsets going on: 1.) the mindset of loving that person or thing (caring) 2.) the mindset of not caring.

My Reply: Yes. When you have both mindsets, you'd be having the mindset of loving (caring about) that person or thing for one particular reason, and not caring for another reason. Having these 2 mindsets might give you a loving feeling that wouldn't be as powerful and profound as the loving feeling you'd get by having mindset #1 alone.

Other Person's Response: Have you ever felt emotions that were unpleasantly beautiful or amazing, or pleasantly horrible or disgusting?

My Reply: Never. That's why I'm arguing for the case of beautiful or amazing feelings only being pleasant feelings, and horrible or disgusting feelings only being unpleasant feelings.

Other Person's Response: Our thoughts and beliefs alone can't give us any pleasant or unpleasant experience?

My Reply: Correct. They, alone, can only give us the idea that certain people and things are pleasant or unpleasant.

Other Person's Response: If I felt a positive emotion from something (such as a feeling of beauty in regards to nature), then I'd be perceiving nature as pleasantly beautiful? If I felt disgust in regards to something, then I'd be perceiving that thing as unpleasantly disgusting?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: When thoughts make us feel emotions, it's not really accurate though to say that thoughts take on an emotional form. This would mean that the thought stops existing, and is converted into an emotion, which neither seems to be correct, nor plausible.

My Reply: Then maybe I should've said a copy of the thought information takes on an emotional form. I don't know how the brain works. So, maybe there's some other way to work around the problem you posed in order for my philosophy/claim to still hold up.

Other Person’s Response: Since there’s a difference between our thoughts or beliefs, and our perception, then that means a person can’t have a loving perception if he just had a loving thought or belief?

My Reply: Correct. Just having a loving mindset isn’t enough to have a loving perception. In other words, it’s not enough to be in a loving state of mind. A person needs to feel love in order to achieve a loving state. The same idea applies to anger, sadness, happiness, fear, etc.

Other Person’s Response: So, a loving mindset wouldn’t be love, according to your philosophy?

My Reply: Correct. Love can only be a positive emotion.

Other Person’s Response: The color red is a visual state, as mentioned earlier, and just having the thought or belief of red won’t allow a person to achieve that state. Your philosophy says that we can only be in an apathetic state of mind if we were unable to feel any emotions, and that we couldn’t achieve any loving, hateful, sad, angry, etc. state of mind through our mindset alone.

My Reply: Correct. Love, hate, etc. can only be emotional states. Without emotions, we’d be like an empty canvas. Our emotions paint our internal canvas (mental universe) with love, hate, happiness, sorrow, beauty, tragedy, etc.

Other Person’s Response: There are people who are unable to feel any emotions due to a mental illness, damage to the areas of their brains that allow them to feel emotions, etc.

My Reply: Yes. That means their lives (mental universes) would be without any beauty, happiness, etc.

Other Person’s Response: I realize your philosophy reduces love, hate, good, bad, etc. all down to emotions.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: You define love as an emotion. But, a person could define love as an action. So, love is defined by the individual. That means love doesn't have to be an emotional state or a mindset. It can just be the act of protecting or helping someone.

My Reply: But, that definition of love treats our actions as being superior to our state of mind. If we were to go by a definition of love that completely leaves out our emotional state and mindset, then we might as well say that an inanimate object saving a person's life would be love.

A trampoline is just an object that has no mindset or emotions, and we might as well say it loved someone because it protected that person from a fatal fall on the concrete floor.

We might as well also say that serial killers and psychopaths doing helpful deeds, just for their own sinister gain, would be love. After all, it doesn't matter what mindset or emotional state they're in, according to this definition. As long as they're doing these helpful deeds, then that's love. So, I disagree with this definition of love.

Other Person's Response: If love was the act of helping others, then that means a person who's in a vegetative state, unable to do anything or help anyone, couldn't love, no matter how much of a loving mindset he had. But, I think that vegetable can still love others, even though he's unable to do anything for them. Even if he was unable to speak a single word, he could still love.

My Reply: Right. So, I think love has to be a state of mind. But, that state of mind wouldn't be a person's mindset. Rather, it would be an emotional state (a feeling of love). That's because, without emotions, we're apathetic, and we can't love when we're apathetic. When nobody or nothing matters to us, we can't love that person or thing.

Other Person's Response: So, a person's loving mindset needs to take on an emotional form in order for him to love?

My Reply: Yes. That means his loving mindset needs to make him feel love. Remember what I said before? I said our thoughts take on an emotional form when they make us feel emotions.

Other Person’s Response: An example of a positive perspective would be: “I know I’m a disabled person. But, I see myself as a beautiful, disabled person, and I see it as a beautiful thing that other disabled people are trying their best in life.” An example of a negative perspective would be: “I see myself as a pitiful, disgusting, puny weakling because I’m a disabled person. I see it as a pathetic thing that there are other disabled people who can hardly function in life, even though they’re trying their best.”

An example of an apathetic perspective would be: “I just don’t care that I’m a disabled person, and neither do I care that others are disabled.” According to your philosophy, positive emotions are the only positive perspectives, negative emotions are the only negative perspectives, and having no emotions is the only way a person can have an apathetic perspective. So, if a person had no ability to feel any emotions, then it wouldn’t matter what mindset he had because his mindset alone could never give him a positive or negative perspective.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person’s Response: You say that perception and experience are the same thing, since perceiving red is the same thing as experiencing red. So, if you wanted one of your hobbies to be a beautiful, awesome, good, valuable, precious, or worthwhile experience for you, then you can’t just have the thought or belief that said hobby is beautiful, awesome, etc. Only your positive emotions can give you such an experience.

My Reply: Yes, since it’s only through our positive emotions that we can perceive things as beautiful, awesome, etc.

Other Person’s Response: Emotions are transient, fleeting things. Especially positive emotions, since so many people feel depressed, miserable, and unhappy.

My Reply: That’s right. Fortunately, there are people who feel positive emotions throughout their lives with very little misery, apathy, and unhappiness. An example would be rich, happy people. Thus, these types of people have few moments where it’s no way to live or be an artist. But, as for those who are unfortunate, they have few moments where they feel positive emotions, which means it’s mostly no way to live or be an artist for them.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, if a person feels horror, that means he’s perceiving horror, which means he’s experiencing horror, which means he’s having a horrific experience. But, an experience of horror can actually be a beautiful experience because it can be used to inspire others.

My Reply: Experiences of horror are the only horror there is, and experiences of beauty are the only beauty there is. So, an experience of horror can only be a horrific experience. It can never be a beautiful experience, since it’s only experiences of beauty (the positive emotions) that are the beautiful experiences. The same idea applies to good, bad, tragedy, magnificence, etc.

Other Person’s Response: So, what you’re saying is that emotions are the only beauty, horror, etc. there is, since they’re the only perceptions/experiences of beauty, horror, etc.?

My Reply: Yes. Good and bad are also nothing more than emotions.

Other Person’s Response: If beauty could be inspiring others, then an experience of horror could be beautiful if it was used to inspire others. But, your philosophy says that experiences of horror can only be horrific.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person’s Response: Does your philosophy also say that feelings of sadness, anger, happiness, love, etc. are the only sadness, anger, etc. there is?

My Reply: Yes. Sadness, anger, etc. are also nothing more than emotions.

Other Person’s Response: Your philosophy says that feeling good is the only good thing in life, feeling bad is the only bad thing in life, feeling beauty is the only beautiful thing in life, feeling horror is the only horrific thing in life, feeling horrible is the only horrible thing in life, etc.?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: Your philosophy says that the only beauty and horror that exists is the beauty and horror we perceive?

My Reply: Yes. The same thing applies to good, bad, etc.

Other Person's Response: If I felt bad about others suffering, and that feeling motivated me to help those suffering people, then wouldn't that be a good thing?

My Reply: No, because feeling bad can only be bad. Also, during my miserable struggles, I've had horrible, agonizing, miserable feelings that motivated me to get psychological help. But, suffering like that was no way to live, which means there was nothing good or beautiful about my suffering, even though it motivated me to get help. The fact is, I was having a horrible experience, which means my suffering could only be horrible, regardless of how it motivated me. Even if it motivated me to change the world by discovering cures and inventing new technology, there'd still be nothing positive about my suffering. But, for those people who've been given cures and new technology, that would be a positive experience for them, since they're able to feel positive emotions. As for me, it couldn't be a positive thing, since I'd be miserable, and unable to feel positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: When you say it couldn't be a positive thing for you, you mean it couldn't be a good, beautiful, amazing, precious, or valuable thing for you?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: So, helping others while feeling horrible can't be a positive way to live?

My Reply: It can't. It's not a good, beautiful, or amazing way to live, even if you're a genius artist who has inspired others through your horrible feelings.

Other Person's Response: If someone was suffering, another person could see her suffering as good because he could feel good about her suffering. But, as for the suffering individual, she wouldn't be able to see her suffering as good if she was unable to feel good.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: There are masochists (people who see their suffering as good, beautiful, and amazing). In order for their suffering to matter to them in a positive way, then they must feel positive about it, right?

My Reply: Yes. So, when those masochists are suffering, then they need to have some level of positive emotion mixed in with their suffering. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to love, enjoy, or see their suffering as good, beautiful, valuable, or amazing. So, life's still all about the positive emotions, which means even a masochist can't leave them out of the picture because he'd be leaving out the goodness, beauty, enjoyment, etc.

Other Person's Response: What about people who wish to avoid positive emotions?

My Reply: These people would need to feel negative emotions in regards to feeling positive emotions in order for positive emotions to matter to them in a negative way.

Other Person's Response: There are some people in this world who say that reason alone can make things matter to us, and allow us to perceive things as good, bad, etc. There are also some people who say it would still be a good, beautiful, and amazing way to live if we persevered in our goals and dreams, helped others, contributed to the world, etc. while in an apathetic state, where we couldn't perceive goodness, beauty, horror, etc. An example would be if someone said to you: "I know you're apathetic, and that you can't see it as a good thing to do this certain task. But, it's still a good thing that you're doing this task."

My Reply: I disagree with that. If we're doing those things while in that apathetic state, then that's no way to live or be an artist. It can't be a good, beautiful, or amazing way to live, since we're not perceiving any goodness, beauty, or amazingness. So, it wouldn't be a good thing that I'm still doing that task. But, again, for others, it would be a good thing, since they can feel good about me doing that task.

Other Person’s Response: A value judgment is a judgment that a certain thing, person, work of art, or situation is good, bad, beautiful, disgusting, tragic, horrific, disturbing, amazing, pitiful, pathetic, etc. Good, bad, beauty, etc. are nothing more than value judgments. Emotion theorists claim that emotions are value judgments, since emotions tell us that certain things, people, works of art, and situations are good, bad, etc. That means good, bad, etc. are emotions. Since emotions are value judgments, and since emotions are also perceptions of good, bad, etc., then that means a value judgment would have to be a perception of good, bad, etc. Since emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, etc., then that means emotions are the only value judgments. That means good, bad, etc. can only be emotions.

My Reply: Yes. All things in this world are nothing good, bad, etc. in of themselves. Life just is, and things just are. We require our value judgments (emotions) to give goodness, badness, etc. to things in our lives/mental universes. Without our emotions, then we have nothing good, bad, etc. to live for. So, if I lost my ability to feel positive emotions, then that means there’d be no goodness and beauty in my personal life. It would mean I have nothing good or beautiful to live for. Other people would have good and beautiful things to live for if they had their positive emotions though. So, their personal lives would possess some goodness and beauty.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, we’d also have nothing valuable, precious, or worthwhile to live for if we had no positive emotions.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person’s Response: I could take the phrase “perception of beauty” and take out “perception of.” That would leave me with “beauty.” So, there’s the beauty right there. I could do the same thing with the phrase “plate of spaghetti.” If I took out “plate of,” then that would leave me with “spaghetti.” So, there’s the spaghetti right there. My point is, there’s actual beauty in a perception of beauty, and there’s actual spaghetti on a plate of spaghetti. So, when we have perceptions of beauty, we’re having beauty, just as how we’d be having spaghetti if we had plates of spaghetti. I’m not implying beauty is food that we eat. I’m just saying that beauty is something we need in our lives, and perceptions of beauty give beauty to our lives.

My Reply: Yes. So, if we want beauty in our lives, then that requires us to have feelings (perceptions) of beauty. If nobody had these feelings, then beauty would no longer exist because beauty is simply a perception/feeling/value judgment (a state of mind). Spaghetti would still exist if there were no plates of it. But, beauty, goodness, evil, etc. would no longer exist if there were no perceptions of it.

Other Person's Response: In regards to good and bad, they're actual things. Good and bad are nothing more than value judgments, and value judgments are actual things. They're emotions. So, good and bad are emotions.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Emotions are mental states, and mental states are actual things. Since emotions are value judgments, then that means value judgments are actual things (mental states). So, good and bad are actual things (value judgments/emotions/mental states).

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Good and bad are just labels. So, you can define (label) good and bad however you want. Why limit yourself to the philosophy that feeling good is the only good thing in life, and feeling bad is the only bad thing in life?

My Reply: I did define good and bad as something else. For example, I defined it as a good thing to persevere in my composing dream, despite my misery, and inability to feel positive emotions. But, that didn't work for me, which means it didn't change my life for the better. Being in that miserable state of mind was still no way to live or be a composer for me. So, that's why I have to conclude that feeling good is the only good thing in life. There's clearly no positive experience for me in the absence of my positive emotions. That's why I have this view that positive emotions are the only positive things in life.

Other Person's Response: Have you considered the principle of Yin and Yang, where all things exist as inseparable and contradictory opposites? For example, female-male, dark-light, sun and rain, old and young, etc. The two opposites of Yin and Yang attract and complement each other, and, as their symbol illustrates, each side has, at its core, an element of the other (represented by the small dots).

Neither pole is superior to the other and, as an increase in one brings a corresponding decrease in the other, a correct balance between the two poles must be reached in order to achieve harmony. So, we can't have happiness (or good feelings) without the existence of bad feelings and unhappiness. For instance, can we use 'bad feelings' to help us stay happy, or happy feelings to keep us feeling bad? I certainly agree that it's all about feelings. But, my question is, what value is there to have bad feelings or suffering, when we do not intend to seek or want same?

My Reply: We can use bad feelings however we want. But, my view says that feeling bad can only be bad, regardless of how said feelings are used. Even if bad feelings were used to give us more good feelings throughout our lives, that still wouldn't be good. So, a person would just have to bear through the bad feelings (which are bad) until he gains the end result of more good feelings throughout his life. The moment he gains these good feelings is the moment he has goodness in his life again. As you can see, my horrible, miserable struggles can never be good, valuable, or beautiful, even if the end result was the most powerful bliss for me. I'd just have to bear through those struggles until I gain the bliss (which would be intensely good, beautiful, amazing, magnificent, etc).

Other Person's Response: Is feeling bad required to feel good?

My Reply: I don't think so. After all, in the past, I hardly felt bad, and I mostly felt good throughout my life until, years later, I recently had these miserable struggles. Also, if feeling bad is required to feel good, my philosophy says that feeling bad is still bad. Like I said, having these miserable struggles was no way to live or be an artist, which means these struggles weren't good, valuable, or beautiful. So, that's why I conclude that feeling bad can only be bad, and feeling good can only be good.

Other Person's Response: If feeling bad really is required to feel good, then you'd only need a little bit of bad feelings, and not all those horrible, miserable struggles you'd suffered through much of your life.

My Reply: Right. Also, I feel the same level of positive emotions after having fully recovered from my miserable struggles. In other words, my struggles didn't result in me feeling much more positive emotions than I ever could otherwise. I didn't even gain more profound positive emotions. So, I didn't gain any benefit from my struggles.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy says that feeling bad is no way to live or be an artist. So, that would have to mean feeling bad can only be bad, according to your philosophy. But, an artist who feels bad can paint or write music about feeling bad in order to describe and/or connect with reality (the human condition). Is that bad?

My Reply: It's bad to live a life of feeling bad, even if bad feelings were used to inspire others through artwork. Again, my personal experience has led me to this conclusion.

Other Person's Response: If an artist created a work of art that depicted feeling bad, then would that work of art be bad?

My Reply: No, because works of art, in of themselves, are neither good nor bad. Feeling good is what's good, and feeling bad is what's bad. Also, if an artist created an animated character, and said character expressed that he was feeling bad, then that wouldn't be bad, since the character is just an animated drawing that doesn't have feelings. That character can't feel good, bad, love, hate, etc.

Other Person's Response: Since emotions (value judgments) are the only goodness, badness, beauty, etc. that exists, then that means it's not our actions and deeds that determine whether we're good, bad, beautiful, or disgusting people. It's how we feel about ourselves that determines this. So, if a psychopath felt that he was a beautiful person for torturing living things, then that means he's perceiving himself as a beautiful person, and it's this perception/emotion/value judgment that makes him a beautiful person. His act of torturing living things wouldn't make him a bad, horrible, or disgusting person.

My Reply: Correct. Seeing yourself as a beautiful or disgusting person is the only thing that makes you a beautiful or disgusting person. But, if you saw yourself as a beautiful person, while another person saw you as disgusting, then you'd be beautiful from your perspective, and disgusting from that other person's perspective. So, you'd be a beautiful person in your own mental universe, and you'd be disgusting in that other person's mental universe.

Other Person's Response: If a psychopath saw himself as a beautiful person for torturing living things, then that would make him a better person than someone who helps humanity, but is struggling with a lot of negative emotions, and sees himself as a disgusting person?

My Reply: Yes. Being a beautiful person is better than being a disgusting person, and that's why that psychopath would be the better person. That's why I'd choose to be that psychopath than to be that struggling individual. My own mental universe needs to be filled with positivity, such as beauty and goodness. That means I need to be a beautiful person in my own mental universe, and that's why I'd choose to be a psychopath who feels a lot of positive emotions, and feels beautiful about himself, than to be that struggling individual.

Other Person's Response: What if you had to be that struggling individual only for a very short time? Would you still choose to be that happy psychopath?

My Reply: No. I'd just bear through the struggle until it's over, since I'd have my positive emotions again very shortly. But, if I had to live most or my entire life with little to no positive emotions, then I'd choose to be that psychopath. As a matter of fact, I think I'd choose to be that psychopath than to be someone who has an overall, significant loss of positive emotions in his total lifespan. After all, a life that consists of more positive emotions is the better life to live. So, choosing to be that psychopath would be the better choice.

Other Person's Response: Let's pretend that you perceived yourself as a disgusting person, and someone else perceived you as a beautiful person, since you were polite, kind, and helpful. At least you brought beauty to that person's life, since his perception of beauty brought beauty to his mental universe.

My Reply: But, I wouldn't be able to see that as a good, valuable, or beautiful thing without my positive emotions though. As long as I'm just feeling negative emotions, such as feelings of disgust, misery, horror, etc., then I can't be a good, valuable, or beautiful person in my own mental universe, and neither would my mental universe possess any goodness, value, or beauty.

Other Person's Response: People who struggle with a lot of negative thoughts and emotions, and see themselves as disgusting people, sometimes end up committing suicide. So, I understand why you'd prefer to be a happy psychopath who sees himself as a beautiful person than to be that struggling individual who might end his life someday.

My Reply: Yes. I was that struggling individual during my miserable struggles. I felt many negative emotions, including feelings of disgust in regards to myself, and I couldn't help but feel these negative emotions. That means I saw myself as a disgusting person, and I also felt like ending my life. Sure, I was still a beautiful person in the eyes of others. But, as long as I'm having those negative emotions (negative perceptions), then that means I'm still stuck seeing myself as a disgusting person, and I'm still stuck with other negative perceptions as well, such as having the desire to end my life.

Other Person's Response: If you harmed yourself, since you saw yourself as a disgusting person, then you'd be harming someone who's disgusting in your eyes, but beautiful in another person's eyes.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Even if you were still a beautiful person, regardless of the fact you saw yourself as disgusting, you'd still be seeing yourself as disgusting, as long as you're feeling disgust in regards to yourself. So, even if you knew that you were still a beautiful person, knowing this wouldn't make a difference for you, since you're still seeing yourself as a disgusting person who's deserving of harm and eradication.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: So, in other words, knowing that you're still a beautiful person wouldn't matter to you, since you're feeling a negative emotion (a feeling of disgust) in regards to yourself, which means you can only matter to yourself in a disgusting (negative) way, and not a beautiful (positive) way.

My Reply: Correct. Again, the only way people and things can matter to us is through our emotions, and emotions make people and things matter to us in positive or negative ways.

Other Person's Response: Emotions can be perceptions of shallow beauty and horror, or they can be perceptions of profound beauty and horror.

My Reply: Yes. So, if I felt profound beauty or goodness in regards to myself, then that would make me a profoundly beautiful or good person in my own mental universe. Also, the only shallow or profound beauty, horror, goodness, etc. that exists is what we feel (perceive).

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, if a certain event happened in a person's life, such as poverty, then that event is nothing good, bad, beautiful, or horrible by itself. If that person had the thought this event was horrible, and that thought made him feel horrible, then he's just making the event horrible for himself. His horrible feeling is a perception of that event being horrible, and that's just giving him a horrible experience. If he no longer wants horribleness, and he instead wants positivity, such as beauty and goodness, then he needs to change his thinking to give himself feelings of beauty and goodness. Without that horrible feeling, or any other negative emotion, then his poverty wouldn't be horrible for him, and it just wouldn't bother him anymore.

My Reply: Yes. Any event or situation is nothing good, bad, etc. in of itself. It's all about how we emotionally respond to said events and situations. When we get certain feelings about things, we're actually getting sadness, anger, peace, happiness, goodness, badness, beauty, horribleness, etc. The idea is to get positivity, and avoid negativity and apathy. That's why I keep on saying life's all about feeling as much positive emotions as we can throughout our lives.

Other Person's Response: So, life's all about our perception? The more beauty we perceive, the more beauty we're getting, since the only beauty that exists is the beauty we perceive? Likewise, the more horribleness we perceive, the more horribleness we're getting?

My Reply: Yes. So, that person was just giving himself more and more horribleness, since he kept on perceiving his poverty as horrible. That's why I said he needs to change his thinking to give himself positive feelings, so he could instead give himself more and more beauty, goodness, magnificence, etc.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, we shouldn't mourn the loss of our loved ones, since that would just be giving us a horrible, tragic, miserable experience. We should instead feel positive and move forward in life, despite their loss.

My Reply: Yes. For example, we could feel positive about the fact that they were kind, helpful individuals who lived the best they could. Or, we could not feel anything about their loss, and feel positive while going about our daily lives.

Other Person's Response: In regards to happiness, that's defined by the individual. So, if someone had no ability to feel emotions, then he could define his emotionless, apathetic state as happiness. For him, that would be happiness.

My Reply: That would be like if someone was apathetic, wasn't perceiving beauty, and he defined that as beauty. But, since the only beauty that exists is the beauty we perceive, then his definition can yield no beauty for him, since he's not perceiving beauty. If he wants beauty, then he needs to perceive beauty. That means he needs to feel beauty (which is a positive emotion). Likewise, if someone wants happiness, then he needs to feel happy (which is also a positive emotion). Reason alone can't give him happiness, sadness, anger, love, beauty, horror, goodness, badness, etc., which means definitions alone can't give him any of those things. Definitions are just thoughts we have, and, like I said, our thoughts alone can't give us any happiness, beauty, etc.

Other Person's Response: So, definitions alone can yield no happiness, sadness, value, worth, etc. for us?

My Reply: Correct. Happiness, sadness, love, beauty, etc. are states of mind (perceptions), and they can only be emotional states.

Other Person's Response: The term "happiness" implies a state of mind that's not apathetic. How can a person be happy if he's apathetic? The same thing applies to the term "grief." If someone was apathetic, the loss of his mother didn't matter to him, and he defined his apathy as grief, then how could he be in a state of grief? So, I don't think a person can be happy or grieve through definitions alone.

My Reply: Right. So, happiness and grief are emotional states.

Other Person's Response: Happiness implies a pleasant state of mind, and grief implies an unpleasant state of mind.

My Reply: Yes, and they're pleasant and unpleasant emotions.

Other Person's Response: The only pleasantness and unpleasantness that exists is the pleasantness and unpleasantness we perceive. Since emotions are perceptions of things and situations being pleasant and unpleasant, then that means emotions are perceptions of pleasantness and unpleasantness. So, that means emotions are pleasant and unpleasant, just as how emotions are beautiful and horrific, since they're perceptions of beauty and horror.

My Reply: Yes. Emotions are pleasant, unpleasant, beautiful, horrific, etc. experiences. Also, reason alone can't allow us to perceive things and situations as pleasant or unpleasant.

Other Person's Response: Reason alone can't make us feel horror, fear, etc.?

My Reply: Correct. There's a difference between thinking and feeling.

Other Person's Response: If someone couldn't perceive beauty, he defined something as beautiful, and said this thing is still beautiful for him, then he'd just be having the idea in his mind that this thing is beautiful for him. But, in order for that thing to actually be beautiful for him, he needs to perceive it as beautiful.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Colors are mental states (visual states), and reason alone can't allow us to experience them. Beauty, happiness, love, etc. are also mental states, and reason alone can't allow us to experience them.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: You're right when you say that beauty, happiness, goodness, and love are states of mind (perceptions/experiences). But, they're neither emotional nor based on reason. So, neither reason nor emotion can give them to us. They're divine, everlasting, unconditional, and something we obtain through meditation. When Buddhists talk about achieving a state of happiness through their meditation, they're talking about a divine state, and not an intellectual or emotional state. There's also unconditional love, which is divine love, and that's obtained through meditation as well.

My Reply: I don't know if that's true or not. Also, what about negativity, such as hate, horror, misery, disgust, etc.? Are they neither based on reason nor emotion? During my miserable struggles, I've felt many unpleasant emotions, and it definitely seems these emotions were perceptions of horror, disgust, tragedy, etc. So, it seems to me that negativity is emotional. The same idea applies to positivity being emotional because I've felt pleasant emotions that definitely seemed like perceptions of beauty, magnificence, awesomeness, goodness, etc.

Other Person's Response: So, if positivity and negativity is neither emotional nor intellectual, then that means all those people who haven't meditated never had any happiness, love, beauty, sadness, good, bad, etc.

My Reply: Correct. They never loved, hated, or perceived beauty, goodness, badness, etc.

Other Person's Response: If it's the case that both reason and emotion can be perceptions of beauty, horror, good, bad, etc., then that means a person would be having some horror if he felt horror in regards to something. But, he'd also be having some beauty if he had the thought that something was beautiful.

My Reply: Right. But, if his horrific feeling was more profound and intense than his intellectual beauty, then he'd have more horror than beauty. As for reason being a perception of beauty, horror, etc., I don't think it can, based upon my personal experience.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, perceiving someone or something as bad is the only bad thing in life, and perceiving someone or something as pathetic is the only pathetic thing in life. So, that means it would be a bad thing to perceive the acts of criminals as bad.

Also, if there was a cowardly individual who couldn't fight back in order to save the lives of his family, and a big, tough guy came along and perceived him as pathetic, then not only does that coward become pathetic in the eyes of that tough guy, but the tough guy's perception is pathetic.

So, that means we shouldn't go up to that tough guy and say to him: "I admire your awesome perception because that coward really is pathetic." Instead, we should say to him: "Your perception of that coward is pathetic! You need to transcend your mind to positive perceptions!"

My Reply: Actually, people are free to feel (perceive) how they want. So, one person could perceive that tough guy's perception as awesome and admirable, while another person could perceive his perception as pathetic. But, yes, that tough guy's perception would be pathetic, since pathetic is simply a perception/feeling/value judgment. So, if someone perceives someone or something as pathetic, then that's a pathetic perception. If someone perceives someone or something as beautiful or horrific, then that's a beautiful or horrific perception, etc.

Other Person's Response: So, if someone perceives the acts of criminals as beautiful, then that's a beautiful perception, and that would be a beautiful thing?

My Reply: Yes. But, if someone perceived it as beautiful that those criminals get locked up, then that would also be beautiful.

Other Person's Response: Does your philosophy say that the only things that matter are the things we perceive as mattering?

My Reply: Yes. When something matters, or when something is beautiful or disgusting, that's a person's feeling (perception) in regards to a given thing. If all people in this world had no emotions, then nothing could matter to anyone, and nothing could be beautiful or disgusting in the eyes of anyone. So, how would it make sense to say that certain things are still beautiful and disgusting, and how would it make sense to say that certain things still matter, when everyone has no ability to feel any emotions?

Other Person's Response: If everyone had no ability to feel emotions, then it wouldn't make sense to say that anything is valuable or worthwhile, since nobody could see value or worth in anything.

My Reply: Correct. Even the most fancy things wouldn't be of any value or worth to us without our emotions.

Other Person's Response: Are positive emotions the only things that make life worth living?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, if you had no positive emotions, then that means you couldn't see bringing others positive emotions as good or valuable, which means it couldn't be a good or valuable experience for you. That means you'd be getting no goodness or value out of it. Therefore, it would be better for you to be a psychopath who feels positive emotions from harming others than to be someone without positive emotions who helps others.

My Reply: Yes, because I'd be getting positivity (beauty, goodness, value, etc.) when I'm the psychopath. My philosophy says that life's all about our own positive emotions, which means we must feel positive emotions when bringing others positive emotions. If we have no positive emotions, then it's no way to live or be an artist, even if we help others and bring them positive emotions. So, it would be better for us to become psychopaths who derive positive emotions from harming others. Whatever lifestyle brings us the most positive emotions is the lifestyle we should live, even if it means becoming a harmful psychopath.

Other Person's Response: If a person perceives a given moment as beautiful, that means he's getting a beautiful experience out of that moment, which is the same thing as saying he's getting beauty out of that moment?

My Reply: Yes. But, if someone perceives the torturing of living things as beautiful, and he thinks: "I wish I didn't perceive that as beautiful because doing so is a horrible thing," then he's making himself feel horrible, and that's just giving him a horrible experience now. His attitude should instead be: "At least I got my beautiful experience out of witnessing these tortuous acts, and I'm not going to give myself a horrible experience by making myself feel horrible." As I said before, our goal in life is to get as much positive experiences as we can. So, even if we feel positive emotions from things people think we shouldn't feel positive about, we shouldn't make ourselves feel negative emotions about that.

Other Person's Response: If a person was just getting beauty, but not goodness or amazingness, wouldn't that be no way to live or be an artist? So, when a person has a feeling of beauty, shouldn't it also be a feeling of goodness or amazingness?

My Reply: I'm not sure. I know I've had feelings of beauty in regards to nature, my hobbies, etc. If I had nothing but these feelings, it wouldn't be no way to live or be an artist for me. But, is that because these feelings of beauty are also feelings of goodness or amazingness? I'm not sure. Also, I've had feelings of disgust, horror, tragedy, etc. during my miserable struggles, and they were profound feelings. But, were they also feelings of badness or horribleness?

They could've been. I'm not sure. I know I've had feelings of badness and horribleness during my miserable struggles. But, when it comes to determining whether a feeling of disgust or horror I get is also a bad or horrible feeling, it's difficult. So, if I get a certain feeling, it's difficult for me to determine whether it's a beautifully good feeling, a horribly tragic feeling, or just a beautiful feeling, or tragic feeling.
Last edited by MozartLink on Wed May 13, 2020 5:25 pm, edited 34 times in total.
MozartLink
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: All My Philosophy Packets

Post by MozartLink »

File #2: My Philosophy Of Emotions (Part 3/12)

Other Person's Response: When it comes to pursuing your hobbies, you can't just have feelings of beauty. You must also feel positive emotions that motivate you to pursue your hobbies.

My Reply: Yes. Otherwise, I'd have no motivation to pursue them.

Other Person's Response: If someone had a loving mindset that gave him a loving feeling, that feeling must also be a good feeling, right? So, he can't just have the thought that he loves this person. He must also have the thought that this is a good person. That way, he gets a loving feeling that's a good feeling, rather than just a loving feeling.

My Reply: You might be right. I'm not sure if a loving feeling needs to be a good feeling, just as how I'm not sure if a beautiful feeling needs to be a good feeling. But, I'm just going to say they do need to be good feelings.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, a life of eternal bliss would be the best life for anyone to live, since such a life would possess an eternal amount of intense beauty, love, goodness, magnificence, etc. But, there are people who'd find such a life to be a worthless existence that's nothing good or beautiful. Such people would prefer to die and never exist again than to live such a blissful life. As a matter of fact, there are people who'd prefer to live miserable, unhappy lives.

My Reply: But, it would make no sense to treat an eternally blissful life as a worthless existence that's nothing good or beautiful, given that such a life is the most worthwhile, good, and beautiful existence there is. So, it would only make sense for people to prefer living an eternally blissful life.

Other Person's Response: Could you provide links that explain emotions are value judgments?

My Reply: Yes. This is a link that talks about emotions being value judgments. It also explains so much more in regards to emotions:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emot ... ilEmotJudg

Other Person's Response: There are 2 types of right and wrong. The 1st type would be a value judgment, and the 2nd type would just be right and wrong. An example of the 1st type would be if someone said that helping another person was the right thing to do. He means it was a good or beautiful thing to do. If he then said it was wrong to torture someone, then he means it was a bad or horrible thing to do so. An example of the 2nd type would be if someone said: "You're performing this technique all wrong. Here's the right way to do it." That would just be right and wrong. According to your philosophy, the 1st type would have to be emotional.

My Reply: Yes. So, when a person (Jake) can't handle life anymore, is suicidal, and another person (Jon) says: "There's something drastically wrong here. Jake needs help," then Jon would have to be referring to Jake's state of mind, which is an emotional state (a negative emotion). Jake feels something's drastically wrong in his life, and that emotional state is not only a form of immense suffering for him, but is drastically wrong. If Jake gets psychological help to restore his positive feelings, then he'll end up in a situation that's beautifully right.

To say something to Jake, such as: "You don't need help, and you don't need to feel any positive emotions because your suffering can be used for a beautiful purpose. You can use it to inspire others, and you'd be living a beautiful life," then that would be dismissing his emotional experience, which is drastically wrong. So, the very goodness, badness, horribleness, beauty, etc. that our emotions possess should never be dismissed. We should instead dismiss the false, non-emotional form of goodness, badness, etc. that never existed to begin with. That means we shouldn't say that quote to Jake.

Other Person's Response: If Jake felt that something was drastically wrong in his life, then how would that be a form of suffering for him?

My Reply: Because any unpleasant experience is a form of suffering. For example, physical pain is a form of suffering. An example of physical pain would be if someone got a cut on his arm, or punched in the face. Even though there are people who derive pleasure from their pain, the pain itself is a form of suffering, since pain is unpleasant, while pleasure is pleasant. When a person feels negative emotions, such as feelings of horror, tragedy, misery, etc., then they're also a form of suffering. But, negative emotions are a form of suffering that's horrific, bad, tragic, disturbing, etc., while physical pain is just a form of suffering.

Other Person's Response: Our thoughts and beliefs alone can't make us suffer, right? They can only give us the idea of suffering in our minds?

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: Pleasant and unpleasant experiences are a form of motivation, and reason alone can't give us these experiences.

My Reply: Correct. Reason alone can't give us pain or pleasure.

Other Person's Response: You say that physical pain, such as the pain of being punched in the face or sliced on the arm, is nothing bad or horrible, since it's just a painful feeling, and not a bad or horrible feeling. Only negative emotions can be bad or horrible, since only they can be bad or horrible feelings. So, god or his angels might as well not care about those in extreme, physical pain, since their pain is nothing bad or horrible. God or his angels should only care about those suffering from negative emotions.

My Reply: But, a loving, compassionate being would still care about those in physical pain, and heal their pain. So, I disagree with what you said about god or his angels.

Other Person's Response: What about Jon's emotional state? If he felt that Jake's situation was drastically wrong, then Jon would also be experiencing a form of suffering that's drastically wrong.

My Reply: Yes. But, Jake's suffering would be worse because his emotional state is more profound. It would be a deeper experience than Jon's. In my example, Jon isn't in a state of profound suffering, where he wishes to end his life like Jake. Jon is simply pointing out that Jake needs help. But, Jon should also get help if he has negative emotions lingering on in his life. So, if he continued to feel that Jake's situation is drastically wrong, and this feeling lingered on, then he'd need to find ways to rid of that feeling, as well as other negative emotions, so he can feel positive emotions more often in his life. There are therapies out there that can help with this, such as CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy), which focuses on changing your thinking in order to change how you feel.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, the worst possible suffering would have to be the most horrible feeling, since "the worst" means "the most horrible," and the only horrible thing in life is feeling horrible.

My Reply: Yes. It would be the most profound, intense, horrible feeling.

Other Person's Response: If you felt more horrible than someone else, then that means your suffering was worse than his.

My Reply: Yes. When determining whose suffering is worse, we'd compare our feelings and see who had the worse feelings.

Other Person's Response: If someone felt that something was horrific, then not only does that thing become horrific for him, but the emotion itself is horrific?

My Reply: Yes. A feeling of horror is horror, which means it's horrific, and it makes things horrific for us.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy says that emotions are the only things that give goodness, badness, etc. to our lives/mental universes. So, if I only felt bad about things, and I never felt good or any other positive emotion, such as beauty or magnificence, then I'd have nothing but the bad in my life. But, I'd want the bad because the bad makes me a stronger person. It builds my character.

My Reply: You act as though having the bad is a good thing. But, you need to feel good in order to have some good in your life. As long as you're not feeling good, then you shouldn't be acting as though you have something good going on in your life. That's why you shouldn't be acting as though having the bad is a good thing. Also, you'd have to feel good about the bad in order to see the bad as good. So, why feel bad at all? It would be better if we just feel good all the time because that would be bringing our lives more and more goodness.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy says that the only way something can matter to us, and the only way we can have a positive or negative perspective, is through our emotions, and not through our mindset alone. So, if someone felt a negative emotion, such as feeling that he's a pitiful human being who should give up on his goals and dreams, and he had a positive thought, such as thinking he's still a beautiful person who should persevere, but that thought couldn't make him feel that way, then that means that thought couldn't matter to him, and neither could it give him a positive perspective. As long as he's just feeling negative emotions, and not any positive emotions, then that means only the negative matters to him, and not the positive, since positivity is absent without positive emotions.

My Reply: Correct. There can be no positivity without positive emotions, and there can be no negativity without negative emotions. So, only our positive and negative emotions color our world in positivity and negativity. Our thoughts and beliefs alone can't. So, our thoughts and beliefs alone can't be positive or negative (i.e. they can't be good, bad, beautiful, horrible, disgusting, pitiful, etc.). But, I still refer to our thoughts and beliefs as being positive and negative, just for the sake of convenience.

Other Person's Response: So, only our emotions color our world in beauty, magnificence, horror, tragedy, goodness, badness, etc.?

My Reply: Yes. Without our emotions, then our lives would possess no beauty, magnificence, etc.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy says that emotions are perceptions/perspectives. So, if someone didn't feel a negative emotion, such as the desire to give up on his goal or dream, then that means he doesn't have the negative, motivational perspective of giving up? So, giving up (the negative) wouldn't matter to him, and it's instead the positive that matters to him (persevering)?

My Reply: Yes. If he's feeling the positive drive to persevere, then that means he has the positive perspective of persevering.

Other Person's Response: There's a problem when it comes to being too positive because Jake could see Jon as good and beautiful, and admire him. But, if Jon is harmful and sinister, then Jake's positive perception would render him falling into Jon's harmful traps.

My Reply: Even so, positive emotions are still the only goodness, beauty, and magnificence that exists. We just have to be careful when we have a very positive perspective is all.

Other Person’s Response: If you had no positive emotions, and there were still good, valuable, precious, and beautiful things in this world you could live for, then you wouldn’t be able to perceive any goodness, value, etc. So, it would be futile for someone to come up to you, and say with a cheerful tone of voice: “I know you don’t have your positive emotions. But, look, you can still live for something good and beautiful!”

My Reply: Correct. It would still be no way to live or be an artist for me, even if I did live for something good and beautiful by helping others, seeking knowledge, contributing to the world, etc.

Other Person's Response: There can be nothing better in life than the beautiful, good, valuable, etc. (the positive) because better means more positive. Since positive emotions are the only positivity that exists, then there can be nothing better in life than positive emotions.

My Reply: Yes. There's nothing better in life than feeling positive emotions.

Other Person’s Response: Your philosophy says there’s nothing better to live for than feeling positive emotions because there’s nothing better in life than perceiving our goals, dreams, hobbies, etc. as good, beautiful, awesome, valuable, etc.

My Reply: Correct. There’s no more goodness and beauty to life than positive emotions. Life’s all about wallowing away in our positive emotions.

Other Person’s Response: So, there’s nothing more to live for than feeling positive emotions?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: It would be better to be apathetic than to feel horrible, since feeling horrible is worse than being apathetic. There's horrible (negative), there's amazing (positive), and then there's neither horrible nor amazing (neutral). Neutrality is better than negativity, and positivity is better than neutrality and negativity.

My Reply: But, being apathetic still can't be good, amazing, or beautiful because only positivity is good, amazing, and beautiful. Also, there are negative numbers, the number zero, and positive numbers. The number zero can't be a positive number. But, being at 0 is closer to the positive numbers than being at a negative number. My point is, apathy can't be positive (it can't be good, beautiful, or amazing). But, it's closer to positivity than being in a state of negativity.

Other Person's Response: When you say that a life without positive emotions is no way to live or be an artist, you're saying there's nothing good, beautiful, valuable, or amazing without positive emotions?

My Reply: Yes. There's no positivity without positive emotions.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, it would be better for someone to feel positive emotions from doing something he loves than to do something that would save him from a life of misery, just because it would make him feel unhappy to save himself.

My Reply: Actually, it would be better to put himself through that unhappiness to save himself because it’s better to live a life that consists of less misery and more positive emotions. So, my philosophy says that any life that consists of the most positive emotions would be the best life to live. That means a person’s entire lifespan must be taken into consideration. If a person’s lifestyle is going to bring him the most positive emotions throughout his entire life, then he’s living the best life. The profoundness and intensity of positive emotions must also be taken into consideration. If a person is profoundly blissful his entire life, rather than just happy, then that would be the absolute best life to live.

Other Person’s Response: Love is also a positive emotion. So, if we felt profound, intense love throughout our lives, that would also be a better life to live than a life of shallow feelings of happiness at a low intensity level.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person’s Response: You just said it would be better for that person to put himself through unhappiness to save himself from a life of misery. That means it would be a good thing, even while he’s feeling unhappy.

My Reply: It wouldn’t be a good thing, since he needs to feel good about it. As long as he’s feeling unhappy, then it’s not a good thing for him. So, he just needs to bear through that unhappiness to save himself. Once he has saved himself, and he feels good about it, then that’s the moment it would be a good thing for him because he’d be seeing it as a good thing now.

Other Person’s Response: If other people felt good about that person enduring feelings of happiness to save himself, then it would be a good thing for them, but not for that person.

My Reply: Correct. That’s because they’d be seeing it as a good thing, while that unhappy person wouldn’t.

Other Person's Response: In regards to love, I don't think love is an emotion, since emotions are such fleeting, transient things. Real love is everlasting.

My Reply: A rainbow that only lasts for a short while is still a real rainbow. So, even though feelings of love only last for a short while, they're still real love. Just because something, such as love or a rainbow, is profoundly beautiful for many people, doesn't mean it can only be real if it's everlasting. The precious, beautiful, amazing things are often times the most rare, fleeting things.

Other Person's Response: According to you, positive feelings are the only things that make moments, situations, and works of art precious, beautiful, and amazing in our eyes, and positive feelings are rare, fleeting things for many people.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: I don't think that feelings of love are real love, since they're nothing more than biochemical emotions.

My Reply: If you felt attraction towards a soul mate, wouldn't that be real attraction you're experiencing? If so, then if you felt love towards that soul mate, that would be real love you're experiencing as well.

Other Person’s Response: There are different feelings of beauty and horror. For example, there’s a feeling of tropical beauty, there’s a feeling of aquatic beauty, there’s a feeling of cinematic horror, there’s a feeling of religious horror, etc.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: If there was a work of art, then your philosophy would say that this artwork is nothing beautiful or disgusting in of itself, and that people simply have different feelings (value judgments) in regards to that artwork.

My Reply: Correct. So, a work of art is simply a work of art, and nothing more. But, it can become disgusting in one person’s mental universe, it can become beautiful in another person’s mental universe, or it can become sad or annoying in another person’s mental universe. It all depends on how each person feels about the artwork.

Other Person’s Response: If feeling good is the only good thing in life, then what’s the point of all those people having to struggle with lives of unhappiness, misery, clinical depression, and apathy?

My Reply: There is no point. It’s completely unnecessary, no way to live or be an artist, and just a waste of life to have such struggles. That means even the lives of miserable, genius artists have been wasted away, regardless of all their artistic contributions to the world. Their misery has robbed their lives, which means it has taken away the goodness, beauty, value, and worth in their lives, according to my philosophy. When our positive emotions are taken away, that’s taking away the goodness, beauty, etc. in our lives. But, miserable and unhappy struggles exist anyway, and my philosophy says it’s our job to avoid them as much as we can. As for my miserable struggles, they’ve wasted many years of my life, and I wish I never had them.

Other Person’s Response: Those miserable, genius artists wouldn’t be able to perceive their artistic endeavors as good, valuable, precious, or beautiful during their misery, according to your philosophy. That means they’d be making works of art in a miserable pit of darkness and nothingness that’s devoid of any goodness, value, beauty, etc. Basically, they’d just be getting on with life and doing what they got to do, and nothing more.

My Reply: Yes. If those genius artists were still alive today, they might say my philosophy is wrong, and that they were perceiving their artistic endeavors as good, valuable, etc. without their positive emotions. But, I have my own philosophy because I have my own personal experience. When I was composing during my misery, it was clearly no way to live or be an artist for me, and I was unable to perceive my composing as good, valuable, etc. It didn’t matter what mindset I had because no mindset could give me that perception of goodness, value, etc.

Other Person’s Response: So, you think those miserable, genius artists weren’t realizing they weren’t perceiving their artistic endeavors as good, valuable, etc.?

My Reply: Correct. They just thought they were, when they weren’t.

Other Person’s Response: Do you think those miserable, genius artists might as well give up on their artistic endeavors, since they’re in that miserable pit of nothingness while making works of art?

My Reply: Yes. If that’s the experience an artist is going to have when creating works of art, then he might as well give up until he regains his joy. It’s the reason why I’ve given up on my composing dream during my miserable struggles.

Other Person's Response: Even if a person felt bad about a psychopath feeling good in regards to torturing others, it would still be a good thing for that psychopath to torture others, since he felt good about it.

My Reply: Yes, and I don't care how dumb and dangerous my philosophy sounds.

Other Person's Response: We can still make certain choices, regardless of how we feel. So, even if you were unable to feel that it was a good thing to get the psychological help you needed for your emotional traumas, you could still choose to get help.

My Reply: Yes. But, it wouldn't be a good thing for me to get help, since I couldn't feel good about it. So, I'd just be getting help anyway because I'd have the idea in my head that, if I get help, that will speed up my recovery, so I can feel good again.

Other Person’s Response: Have your emotions always been the only perceptions of good, bad, etc. for you?

My Reply: Yes. I don’t recall a single given moment in my life where I was able to perceive good, bad, etc. through my mindset alone.

Other Person’s Response: Perhaps your perception is being dominated by your emotions. So, it could be the case that you just need to develop a stronger mind. That way, you can be the one in charge when it comes to your perception, and not your emotions.

My Reply: I don’t know if that’s what’s going on here.

Other Person's Response: If it's the case that your perception is being dominated by your emotions because you have a weak mind, then it would be a mistake to assume this mental weakness is a character weakness, since any given weakness shouldn't be mistakenly judged as a character weakness. For example, if someone couldn't lift a heavy weight because he didn't have the physical strength to do so, then it's not a character weakness to blame here.

It's a physical weakness to blame, which means he just needs to find a way to become physically stronger. So, it could be the case that a character weakness isn't to blame for the weak philosophy you have, and you just need to find a way to become mentally stronger by doing intellectual exercises and/or other tasks. If that person relied on character strength alone, then he'd never achieve his goal of lifting that weight because he's not doing anything to strengthen his muscles.

Likewise, if you wish to develop a better philosophy, and perceive goodness, value, beauty, etc. through reason alone, then character strength alone will never achieve this goal either because you're not doing what's necessary to strengthen your mind. So, that means you can't expect to achieve this goal just by having a brave, strong mindset of persevering in your composing dream when you're miserable and not feeling up to pursuing it.

My Reply: Right. I did have that mindset and persevered in my composing dream during my miserable struggles for quite some time. But, that never achieved this goal. So, I decided to just give up composing when I'm miserable and not feeling up to it.

Other Person's Response: If it's the case that you really are a weak person who lives by a weak, shallow philosophy, then I don't think it's right if others treated you as a pathetic human being of little to no significance. The fact is, weak people can still be beautiful human beings. For example, a mother can still be an amazing, beautiful, kind person, even though she's weak as an individual. So, I think you're still a wonderful, precious human being, despite your weaknesses.

My Reply: Thank you.

Other Person’s Response: Different brains are wired differently. So, it could be the case that some brains are wired to perceive good, bad, etc. through reason alone, while other brains are wired to have such a perception only through emotions. So, the very fact your emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, etc. for you must mean your brain is wired this way.

My Reply: I don’t know if that’s true or not. If that’s true, then it could also be the case that some brains are wired to experience love, pride, happiness, misery, etc. through reason alone. That would mean some people can be happy, miserable, proud, etc. through reason alone, while others only can through their emotions.

Other Person's Response: It could also be the case that reason alone can make things matter to some people, since their brains are wired that way, while reason alone can't make things matter to other people.

My Reply: Right. I know that nothing can matter to me through reason alone, and perhaps it's because of the way my brain is wired. My brain might be wired to perceive things as mattering only through my emotions.

Other Person’s Response: During your miserable struggles, you couldn’t help but feel all sorts of negative emotions. That means those negative emotions were automatic for you. So, I think you were having automatic negative thoughts as a result of these miserable struggles, and it’s these thoughts that have been triggering those negative emotions.

My Reply: Yes. It’s something I had no power or control over.

Other Person’s Response: I realize your philosophy says that miserable and unhappy struggles are better off never existing. There’s so much suffering in this world that’s better off not existing. If god’s response to all the suffering in this world is that life’s tough and wasn’t meant to be easy, then he might as well say that to all the suffering animals that are being brutally tortured. He might as well say it to their faces.

My Reply: Yes, and I don’t think that would be an all-loving, all-just god. As a matter of fact, people who go on trips to the afterlife during their near death experience encounter such a god. There are people who commit suicide because of the difficulties in their lives, their souls leave their bodies, and meet god.

God gets stern and tells them that life’s supposed to be tough, and that all the suffering in this world is meant for the evolution of our souls. These souls then return back to their bodies and tell their near death experience stories.

But, I think an all-loving, all-just god would make life easy for us. He’d create a blissful utopia life for us, where we don’t have to suffer, and can feel profound bliss our entire lives. A blissful utopia life would be the best life for all of us, according to my philosophy.

Other Person’s Response: So, god wants us to suffer then? He wanted you to go through all those miserable struggles, even though they were no way to live, and just a waste of your life?

My Reply: Correct. If god wants me to continue to suffer in misery, he’s not going to get his wish granted now. That means I’ll make sure to ensure my happiness from now on by avoiding worries and negative thinking, since that was the cause of my misery.

Other Person’s Response: God could have you reincarnate into a new body on Earth, where you’ll experience inevitable suffering.

My Reply: That could be. My miserable struggles were inevitable, and I could have such suffering again in another lifetime, since god likes to see me suffer.

Other Person’s Response: If life’s supposed to be tough, then why are there rich, happy people in this world who hardly suffer?

My Reply: I’m not sure.

Other Person’s Response: Wouldn’t it be a good thing to see this god as horrible? So, wouldn’t it be a good thing to feel horrible about this god?

My Reply: No, because feeling horrible is horrible, and feeling good is good. But, let’s pretend I felt good about this god. I could still have the idea in my mind that he’s horrible without feeling horrible about him. That would just give me an idea in my mind without bringing any horribleness into my life. Basically, I’d just have the thought in my head that he’s a horrible god, even though said thought wouldn’t matter to me. But, if that thought made me feel he’s a horrible god, then that thought would bother me now. So, it’s best if I just had the thought without the horrible feeling.

Other Person’s Response: If how a person thinks is how a person feels, then having the thought that god is horrible would have to make you feel horrible. Unless, of course, there’s something preventing that thought from making you feel horrible, such as a mental illness or brain damage.

My Reply: If a person just has the thought that something’s horrible, but doesn't think he sees it as a horrible thing, then that thought wouldn’t make him feel horrible about that thing, even if he had no mental illness, brain damage, etc. It’s when he has the thought that he sees it as a horrible thing that it makes him feel horrible, so he can see that thing as horrible.

Other Person’s Response: So, when a person has the thought that something’s horrible, and he has an apathetic mindset in regards to that thought, then that thought wouldn’t make him feel horrible?

My Reply: Correct. For example, I’m having the thought right now that I’m going to suffer an eternity in hell, since I’m not obeying the Christian god. I’m having the thought that this is a very horrible thing. But, since I don’t believe in Christianity, then that thought can’t devastate me or evoke fear. It can’t make me feel horrible because my mindset is that going to hell doesn’t matter to me, and that I see nothing horrible about it, given that I don’t believe in the doctrine of hell. If I believed, then I would feel horrible right now.

Other Person’s Response: If you believed, and that thought did devastate you or make you feel fear, then that devastation or fear would be a horrible feeling, since you had the thought that going to hell was horrible?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: I heard you had an emotional crisis in the past, which was being devastated over the possibility that this is the one and only life you have. You were devastated because of permanent ego loss. You couldn’t will yourself or talk yourself out of this crisis, which means you had to let it run its course. You must’ve had some level of conviction in this idea that this is the only life you have. Otherwise, you shouldn’t have been devastated.

My Reply: That could be. I know I said I’m undecided in regards to controversial topics (including the notion of this being the only life). But, maybe there was some level of conviction that I wasn’t realizing. So, subconsciously, I might’ve had some level of conviction, while, consciously, I still thought that I’m undecided if there’s an afterlife or not.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, perceptions of good are the only good things in life, which means feeling good is the only good thing in life. If god wanted you to go through all these miserable struggles as a means of soul evolution because he saw that as a good thing, then it would just be a good thing in his eyes, since he felt good about it. But, you couldn’t feel good at all during your miserable struggles. So, all the goodness in your life was taken away, while god had all the goodness in his life.

My Reply: Correct. God was getting all the good feelings, while I was getting very little to none. An all-loving, all-just god would instead be seeing it as a good thing that I have my positive emotions intact, and that I never have any miserable struggles.

Other Person’s Response: If god wanted your soul to evolve, then you feeling good while pursuing the endeavor of soul evolution would’ve been the better alternative. There’s no need for you to suffer in order to achieve soul evolution.

My Reply: Correct. If god is going to give us a challenge (such as soul evolution), then it must be a fun, enjoyable challenge that we feel good about. Miserable, unhappy, and apathetic challenges shouldn’t exist. So, if someone was challenging another person in chess or in a video game, then there’s no need for him to feel frustrated, unhappy, apathetic, or miserable from the challenge.

Other Person’s Response: I realize your philosophy says that positive emotions are divine and holy, and that they’re the holy light of god experienced within us. But, if god isn’t loving, and he’s just putting you through all this unnecessary suffering, then how could god have holy light? He wouldn’t be a holy god.

My Reply: Perhaps positive emotions would instead have to be holy light from the heavenly realm experienced within us then, rather than from god himself. It would be our thoughts of love, beauty, joy, etc. that bring that invisible, spiritual, heavenly light down on Earth for us. That light gets received by our brains, since our brains are receivers, according to religious believers. Once received, that creates an experience of love, beauty, joy, etc. for our minds, and that experience would be a positive emotion. But, there are factors that can prevent our brains from receiving the light, which would be mental illnesses, brain damage, etc. It would be like preventing a radio from receiving the signal.

Other Person’s Response: I take it negative emotions are the opposite of the holy light experienced within us.

My Reply: Yes. When we have thoughts of hate, horror, disgust, tragedy, etc., and those thoughts make us feel negative emotions, then our brains have tuned into the lower, hellish, spiritual realm. When we rise above that negativity by changing our thinking, we then reconnect back to the heavenly realm, which would rid of those negative emotions, and restore the positive ones.

Other Person’s Response: So, when you had those miserable struggles, which were caused by worries and negative thinking, that was a matter of your mind being trapped in a hellish realm? Once you changed your thinking, you’ve risen above that realm?

My Reply: Yes. Thus, I’ve regained my joy, and gotten rid of all that misery, as well as all the other negative emotions that came with that misery.

Other Person’s Response: What about those people who automatically feel negative emotions? Their negative emotions aren’t triggered by thoughts or beliefs.

My Reply: Then these people would be stuck in that realm of negativity, even if they’ve changed their way of thinking and believing.

Other Person’s Response: So, positive emotions symbolize heaven, negative emotions symbolize hell, and apathy symbolizes The Void (limbo)?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Not only does negative thinking cause us to feel negative emotions, but it causes us nightmares. Nightmares are a result of our brains tuning into the lower, hellish, spiritual realm. So, nightmares come from hell, and so do negative emotions.

My Reply: Yes. This is what religious believers would say. Especially the New Age spiritual believers. As for positive emotions, and beautiful, amazing dreams, they come from heaven. Our souls are at a lower frequency when we have negativity, and our souls are at a higher frequency when we have positivity.

Other Person's Response: So, some religious believers say that positivity is holy and divine, and that negativity is unholy?

My Reply: Yes. They say that positivity is the holy light, and negativity is the unholy darkness.

Other Person’s Response: You say you have your own personal religion, which says positive emotions are holy and divine. But, if you’re undecided on the existence of god, angels, divinity, psychic abilities, etc., then you shouldn’t have this religion.

My Reply: Just in case we do live in a universe where those mystical things exist, then I’m just putting forth the religious form of my philosophy anyway because I want to share it.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, the only way our minds can be immersed in a realm of beauty, peace, and joy would be through our positive emotions. That means a person who’s watching a movie or playing a video game wouldn’t be able to be immersed in such a realm without his positive emotions.

My Reply: Yes. Without our positive emotions, we can’t have any beautiful, peaceful, or joyful experience, which is why our minds can’t be immersed in such a realm. Emotions are like different realms for our minds. When we feel horror, that creates a horrific realm for our minds. When we feel beauty, that creates a beautiful realm for our minds, etc.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, it would be better to live in a vegetative state of profound bliss than to enjoy pursuing your composing dream and achieving said dream.

My Reply: Yes. That would be the better life to live. I don’t experience profound bliss from pursing my composing dream. Normally, I just experience average positive feelings, which are feelings that aren’t very profound or intense. So, that’s why it would better for me to live in a vegetative state of profound bliss. Still, I’d choose to pursue my composing dream and achieve it, as long as I’m enjoying it, because I’m personally satisfied with the positive feelings I normally get. But, I’d choose to be that blissful vegetable if I could have little to no positive feelings throughout my life.

Other Person’s Response: I heard there are moments where you do feel profound, intense, positive emotions throughout your life. But, that wouldn’t compare to a life of profound bliss.

My Reply: Right. So, being a vegetable in a state of profound bliss would still be the better life.

Other Person's Response: I heard you have a composing dream you wish to achieve, and that you wish to compose some profound, bizarre, unique, otherworldly music that has a heavy, awesome mood/atmosphere to it. If you had the choice to either live your life as a miserable genius who composes amazing masterpieces to share to the world, or instead live your life in a vegetative state of bliss, doing nothing for yourself, or for humanity, which would you choose?

My Reply: I'd choose to be the blissful vegetable. So, it was all about my positive feelings and never about my composing dream in of itself. That's why I must enjoy my composing through my positive feelings, since they're what make my composing positive for me.

For example, if I produced a composition that many people thought was amazing, I'd want to experience that moment as amazing, and I'd want to experience my own composition as amazing upon listening to it. Without my positive feelings, I can't have that amazing experience.

So, without my positive feelings, my entire composing dream is ruined. It can no longer be anything good, beautiful, awesome, valuable, worthwhile, etc. for me, and there’s no other way it can. The only way it can would be if my positive feelings were restored.

Other Person’s Response: If someone perceived a criminal’s deeds as horrible or disgusting, that would be a positive perspective. So, it would be a good or beautiful perspective. If someone perceived it as a good or beautiful thing to torture innocent people, then that would be a negative perspective. So, it would be a horrible or disgusting perspective.

My Reply: Positivity is goodness, beauty, magnificence, etc., and negativity is badness, disgustingness, horribleness, etc. Perceptions of goodness, beauty, etc. are the only positivity there is, according to my philosophy, and perceptions of badness, disgustingness, etc. are the only negativity there is. So, in your criminal example, that person would be having a negative perspective in regards to the criminal’s deeds. In your other example, that person would be having a positive perspective in regards to torturing innocent people.

Other Person’s Response: So, it doesn’t matter what we perceive as good or beautiful because said perception will always be good or beautiful, and it doesn’t matter what we perceive as horrible or disgusting because said perception will always be horrible or disgusting?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person’s Response: So, according to your philosophy, positive emotions are the only positive things in life, and negative emotions are the only negative things in life?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: When a person perceives beauty or horror, that perception isn’t an emotion.

My Reply: I think it is, and many people don’t realize this.

Other Person's Response: When you say, throughout this packet, that positive emotions are the only way we can see beauty in things, and that positive emotions are the only way our lives can be beautiful, do you mean we can only see beauty in things through our positive emotions, and that our lives can only be beautiful through our positive emotions?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: I find it offensive when you say a life without positive emotions is no way to live or be an artist.

My Reply: Each person is different and has his own views. I bet there are plenty of people in this world with views that would offend you. But, that's just the way it is. That's just life. Also, the views of Christians would sometimes offend atheists, and the views of atheists would sometimes offend Christians. But, that's just the way the world works. When people have different views, said views will conflict. But, that doesn't stop atheists, or Christians, from sharing and expressing their views, just because their views would offend others. So, that doesn't stop me from sharing and expressing my views either.

Other Person's Response: You do realize that many people will be offended when they read your philosophy?

My Reply: I don't care, and I have no fear or shame in expressing and sharing my views. Besides, people need to understand why positive emotions are so important, and why it's no way to live or be an artist without them.

If I ever lose my positive emotions, then people would be baffled and confused as to why I think positive emotions are so vital and precious for my existence, and for the existence of all human beings.

That's why I'd give people everything I've explained in regards to my philosophy, so they can understand why, and so they can stop telling me I don't need positive emotions. I'm not going to bottle my views inside, and leave people without any explanations, just because said explanations would offend people.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy tells me how to live my life, and I don't like that.

My Reply: I'm not ordering you to live a life of happiness. So, I'm not shoving my views down your throat. I'm just sharing them, and people are free to agree or disagree with them. They're also free to debate them, and I'd address their objections.

Other Person's Response: All the things you've explained in regards to emotions are things people already know. So, they don't need explaining.

My Reply: Many people don't know the things I'm explaining.

Other Person's Response: I think you should be a better writer. That way, you can present and explain your philosophy better.

My Reply: I think my writing is more than good enough, since it's much better than the writing of an average person who spells poorly, has poor grammar, poor punctuation, and presents and explains things poorly. I don't think my writing needs to meet a high standard to be acceptable. People just need to lower their standards, so they can accept and appreciate my writing. Many people have actually told me I'm a talented writer, and that I should write stories. But, I actually wish to pursue composing, even though I'm better than an average writer.

So, why am I spending all this time writing, when composing is what I want to do? Well, it's because people need to know why my positive emotions are so important and necessary. That's why I explain every possible thing that comes to my mind in regards to my philosophy. If people have a difficult time understanding my explanations, and find them incoherent, then perhaps it's their ability to understand that's poor because my writing shouldn't have to meet a high standard in order for people to understand it.

I know plenty of people who are able to understand the writing of those who write poorly, and their writing is much worse than mine. An example would be teenagers who write things to share to their parents and mental health professionals. These parents and mental health professionals are still able to understand their writing, even though it's poor. So, I don't see why people shouldn't be able to understand my writing. Therefore, I don't think I need to dedicate my life to becoming a better writer.

It's not something I want to do, and I think my writing should be more than good enough as it is. When people have conversations, they're able to understand one another. They don't need to dedicate their lives to learning how to converse better. The same idea applies to my writing. I'm explaining things in my writing, and it would be no different than your friend or family member explaining things to you. You'd be able to understand what that friend or family member is saying to you, right? Well, why can't you understand what I'm explaining?

Other Person's Response: So, if some people can't understand your writing, you don't think your writing is poor? You think it's instead their ability to understand that's poor?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: You said your writing is good enough. According to your philosophy, feeling good is the only good thing in life.

My Reply: I’m going outside my emotional definition of good, just for the sake of convenience.

Other Person’s Response: I think your philosophy would be called “hedonism,” which is a philosophy that advocates seeking pleasure (positive emotions) and avoiding painful emotions. Hedonism is very selfish, and I think you need to grow up. You need to live by a better philosophy.

My Reply: Anyone who has this attitude towards me simply doesn’t understand. They jump to the conclusion that I’m just being selfish without understanding my predicament. I’ve written all of this, so that people can gain a full understanding.

Other Person’s Response: What’s there not to understand? You saying a life without positive emotions is no way to live would be no different than a person without sight saying it’s no way to live. Blind people have helped so many people, and you can without your positive emotions.

My Reply: People still don’t understand. They have a limited perspective that’s blinding them to the reality of my predicament.

Other Person’s Response: There were miserable, genius artists who contributed many works of art to humanity, and your philosophy says that’s no way to live or be an artist. I disagree with that. Just because a person is miserable doesn’t mean it’s no way to live or be an artist.

My Reply: Well, my personal experience has me agreeing.
Last edited by MozartLink on Mon May 11, 2020 6:25 pm, edited 30 times in total.
MozartLink
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: All My Philosophy Packets

Post by MozartLink »

File #2: My Philosophy Of Emotions (Part 4/12)

Other Person’s Response: There’s a famous, intelligent atheist known as “Sam Harris.” I think he’s as famous as Richard Dawkins. He says that there’s nothing worse than the worst possible misery for everyone. So, that means there’s nothing better than the best possible bliss for everyone, since the opposite of misery is bliss. Here’s a link to a discussion regarding that quote of Sam Harris:

https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comm ... le_misery/

My Reply: I have to agree with Sam Harris. There’s nothing better in life than feeling the most profound, intense positive emotions (the bliss). Even though people say that even the worst possible misery is good and beautiful, since it teaches us life lessons and builds our character, life’s not about the lessons or character development. Life’s all about being in a state of mind that’s the opposite of misery, which would be a state of bliss. The more bliss we have throughout our lives, the better of a life we’re living. According to my philosophy, how much life lessons and personal growth we obtain doesn’t determine the quality of our lives.

The only thing that determines the quality of our lives is our emotional state. In other words, if we’re blissful, then we’re living lives that are very good, beautiful, amazing, etc. That means we’d be living very positive lives. If we’re in the worst possible state of misery, then we’re not living good, beautiful, valuable, precious, or worthwhile lives, regardless of how much life lessons and personal growth we’re obtaining, regardless of how much contributions we’re making to humanity, and regardless of how tough and enduring we are of said misery. A life of the worst possible misery is a very horrible life, which means it’s a very negative life. A life of apathy (no emotions) would just be a neutral quality of life.

Other Person’s Response: So, bliss is good, misery is bad, and apathy is neutral (neither good nor bad)?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: Well, in order for bliss to be good, it has to be a good feeling. It can't just be a blissful feeling. The same idea applies to misery being bad.

My Reply: Right. Bliss has to be a feeling of goodness or beauty to be good or beautiful, and misery has to be a feeling of badness or horribleness to be bad or horrible.

Other Person’s Response: There are people who love and enjoy their misery or pain. These people are known as “masochists.”

My Reply: If a person was miserable, and he loved and enjoyed his misery, then that means he had a feeling of loving and enjoyment (a positive emotion) mixed in with his misery. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be able to love or enjoy his misery. That positive emotion could either be small or great in intensity. The more profound, intense, and frequent it is, the more he’d be loving and enjoying his misery.

If he didn’t have this positive emotion at all, and he still said he’s loving and enjoying his misery, then he’d be in denial. The only way we can love or enjoy something would be if we had the perspective of loving or enjoying said thing. The only way we can have that perspective would be if we felt love or enjoyment. When we feel certain emotions, those are more than just feelings. They’re perspectives.

Other Person’s Response: So, if you wanted to hate someone, such as a psychopath, you’d have to feel hate towards that person, since that’s the only way you can have a hateful perspective towards him?

My Reply: Yes. Emotions are perceptions, and the only way I can have a hateful perception would be if I felt hate. That’s been my personal experience, and emotion theorists also say that emotions are perceptions. Also, in order for me to even want to hate that psychopath, I’d have to feel wanting, since that’s the only way I can have the perspective of wanting.

Wanting can either be a positive or negative emotion. For example, if you really wanted a new video game that was exciting to you, then that feeling of wanting would be a positive emotion. But, if you were miserable, and wanted to commit suicide, since you can’t handle life anymore, then that wanting would be a negative emotion.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, our emotions are the only things that determine the quality of our lives. That means a person who’s living a life of poverty and starvation wouldn’t be living a bad life, as long as he’s feeling good. As long as he feels good, then he’s living a good life.

My Reply: Correct. Also, feeling good about things is how we perceive those things as good. As long as things are all good and well in our eyes, then life becomes a good place for us. Nothing’s bad, disgusting, tragic, horrific, or disturbing in our eyes, which means those negative qualities aren’t being perceived. Thus, they wouldn’t exist for us.

Of course, if we felt negative emotions, then those negative qualities would exist for us, since negative emotions are negative perceptions. Our emotional state (perception) determines what type of mental atmosphere is created for us. When we feel good, that creates a good mental atmosphere/life for us. When we feel bad and tragic, that creates a bad, tragic mental atmosphere/life for us.

Other Person’s Response: So, our emotional state sets the mood (atmosphere) of our lives, and that determines the quality of our lives? That atmosphere could be good, bad, horrible, precious, valuable, worthwhile, beautiful, tragic, or horrific? If someone felt horror, then that sets a horrific mental atmosphere for him? Thus, he’d be living a horrific life?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: So, positive emotions are the only things that give us a positive quality of life, and negative emotions are the only things that give us a negative quality of life?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If someone was a bum who smoked and drank beer for a living, but he felt very good, then we shouldn't say: "Some life that is!" We should instead say: "He lived a very good life!"

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: If someone only felt bad and tragic in regards to suffering people, and he helped them, then he didn’t live a good or beautiful life? He lived a bad, tragic, altruistic life? In order for him to live a good altruistic life, he needs to feel good when helping others?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: Are the moments a person feels good the moments he’s living a good life, and are the moments he feels bad the moments he’s living a bad life?

My Reply: Yes. The goal in life is to have as many moments of feeling goodness, beauty, magnificence, etc. as possible.

Other Person’s Response: If a mother felt that her child was horrible, then she lived a horrible life in that brief moment she felt horrible?

My Reply: Yes. But, it wouldn’t be anywhere near as horrible as a more profound, intense, horrible feeling, such as the type of feeling an emotionally traumatized person would experience, such as someone with PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). So, people with PTSD are living more horrible lives than mothers who feel horrible about the immature acts of their children.

Other Person's Response: A person's quality of life is determined by his quality of experience. Since positive emotions are what allow us to experience things as good, beautiful, and amazing, then they're what make our lives good, beautiful, and amazing. Since negative emotions are what allow us to experience things as horrible, morbid, and tragic, then they make our lives horrible, morbid, and tragic.

My Reply: Yes. A person's quality of life is not determined by his actions and deeds.

Other Person's Response: Since a person's quality of life is determined by his quality of experience, and since positive emotions are the only good and amazing experiences, then they're the only things that can give us a good or amazing quality of life?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Since a person's quality of experience determines the quality of his life, then a person who feels a lot of physical pleasure, but never feels goodness or beauty, would be living a physically pleasant life, but wouldn't be living a good or beautiful life.

My Reply: Correct. That's because he wasn't experiencing those feelings of goodness and beauty to make his life good and beautiful.

Other Person's Response: I'm going to quote something you said and respond to it:
As long as things are all good and well in our eyes, then life becomes a good place for us. Nothing’s bad, disgusting, tragic, horrific, or disturbing in our eyes, which means those negative qualities aren’t being perceived. Thus, they wouldn’t exist for us. Of course, if we felt negative emotions, then those negative qualities would exist for us, since negative emotions are negative perceptions.
So, if you weren't feeling any negative emotions, then all the negative qualities, such as horribleness, badness, disgustingness, tragedy, horror, etc. wouldn't exist for you?

My Reply: Correct. They'd be absent in my personal life, and that's what I need. I need an absence of negative qualities, and I need the positive qualities (the positive emotions). My philosophy says this is what we all need.

Other Person’s Response: I heard that you’ve had many miserable struggles throughout your life that were caused by worries and negative thinking, which gave you a perspective of seeing things as morbidly insignificant and meaningless. So, that means you lived a morbidly insignificant, meaningless life.

My Reply: Yes. I also lived a profoundly horrible, miserable life, since my miserable struggles also involved many feelings of misery that were profoundly horrible feelings. During these struggles, anime and video game characters I once perceived as awesome and beautiful became morbidly insignificant, puny, and meaningless in my eyes. Even music became meaningless noise in my eyes. In regards to anime and video game characters, I realized they were just animated drawings that had no inner life/inner experience, since they have no emotions or any conscious experience.

That realization caused me to feel miserable in regards to them, and that miserable feeling was a perception of the characters being morbidly insignificant, meaningless, lifeless vessels. The characters just seemed like nothing more than animated drawings with a voice overlaid on top of them. It was as though the only thing that mattered about these characters was the fact they were these empty vessels, and not the fact they’re awesome characters with amazing personalities and powers. So, all the awesomeness, beauty, and amazingness was shunned out of my perspective during my miserable struggles.

But, it gets restored once I’m happy again, and it’s as though the only thing that matters about these characters now is the fact they’re amazing, beautiful, awesome, etc. The realization that they’re just animated drawings no longer matters to me. That realization no longer makes me see the characters as empty vessels, which means that realization no longer makes me feel miserable. It’s as though the characters are now real, living, breathing, amazing, beautiful beings, and no longer these morbidly insignificant, lifeless, animated drawings with a voice slapped on top of them.

Other Person’s Response: You talk about the characters being amazing and beautiful. But, they’d just be characters and nothing more, according to your philosophy. It’s your feelings of amazingness and beauty that make them amazing and beautiful in your eyes.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person’s Response: If a person creates a work of art, such as a character, and his creation inspires many people, then that’s not enough. The artist needs to perceive his creation as beautiful, good, amazing, etc. As long as his creation is morbidly insignificant and meaningless in his eyes, then having such a morbid perception is no way to live or be an artist.

My Reply: Correct, and it’s that perception of beauty, goodness, and amazingness that makes the artist’s life beautiful, good, and amazing. Again, that perception would be a positive emotion.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, it would be worse to be in the worst possible state of misery than to be apathetic because a horrible quality of life is worse than a neutral quality of life.

My Reply: Yes. Being in a horrible, miserable state of mind is worse than being in an apathetic state.

Other Person’s Response: There are many people who say that a life without emotions would be a dull, valueless, worthless existence, and that it’s no way to live or be an artist. Since insects don’t have emotions, then that means they’re living such an existence, regardless of how much they help other insects.

My Reply: Yes. If humans had no emotions, they can still pursue goals and dreams, and help one another. But, it would be no way to live.

Other Person’s Response: There are articles that make the claim that a life without emotions is no way to live, while there are other articles that claim otherwise. Here’s an article that supports the necessity of emotions:

http://philosophy.talons43.ca/2015/11/1 ... -emotions/

Here’s an article that’s against the need for emotions:

https://gailbrenner.com/2013/12/want-to ... -feelings/

My Reply: Until I have a new personal experience that changes my philosophy, I’m agreeing with the idea that emotions are a necessity of life. To be more specific, the positive emotions. Also, anyone can search on Google about a life without emotions, and what that would be like. People can also do further online research into emotions if they want.

Other Person’s Response: You define positivity as perceptions of goodness, beauty, magnificence, awesomeness, etc., you say life’s all about the positivity, and that it’s no way to live or be an artist without it. I don’t think life’s all about positivity, and I think there’s more to life. If someone had a delusion, such as believing he was going to win the lottery, and he saw that as a good, beautiful thing, then, yes, he did have a positive perspective, since he perceived goodness and beauty in regards to his delusion of winning the lottery. But, it’s false positivity because it’s not the truth. What really matters in life is the truth, and what that person can do to earn money because he’s not going to be rich by winning the lottery. So, positivity isn’t the goal in life.

My Reply: If that person gave up his delusion and was finding other ways to earn money, then he needs to perceive that endeavor as good, beautiful, or awesome. So, it all still comes down to positivity. Without a positive perspective, then we wouldn’t be able to see anything as good, beautiful, etc., and that’s no way to live or be an artist.

Other Person’s Response: You say our goal in life is positivity. That’s not for you to decide. If a person’s goal is negativity, then that’s his passion/goal.

My Reply: I’ve had many miserable moments in my life, which gave me a very negative perspective (a morbid, hateful, tragic, violent, suicidal, pessimistic perspective of giving up on my life, goals, and dreams). Having such a perspective was no way to live or be an artist. But, I couldn’t have a positive perspective, no matter how hard I tried. I needed to recover from these miserable moments to regain my positive perspective.

People would tell me that I don’t need a positive perspective, that I can still live my life to the fullest, and create musical compositions, even while in that horrible pit of misery and negativity. What these people don’t understand is that I really do need positivity. This entire packet I’ve written explains why I need it, and why every human being needs it. Positive emotions are the positivity we need in our lives, and I explain how positive emotions are perceptions of goodness, beauty, magnificence, etc.

Other Person’s Response: So many people say that having a positive outlook and a positive attitude is important, and that we should avoid having a negative attitude and perspective.

My Reply: Yes. What’s necessary in life is being in a positive state of mind. Since positive emotions are the only positive states of mind, then positive emotions are necessary. Since negative emotions are the only negative states of mind, then we should avoid negative emotions. Since having no emotions is the only way we can be apathetic, then we should also avoid having no emotions. A person could have a positive attitude, even while being in a negative or apathetic state of mind. But, he needs to be in a positive state of mind because being in a negative or apathetic state of mind is no way to live or be an artist.

Other Person’s Response: A person’s state of mind is the same thing as a person’s perspective. So, if a person isn’t in a positive state of mind, then that means he can’t have a positive perspective in regards to anything, which means nothing could be positive in his eyes.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person’s Response: Just to be clear, when you talk about positive emotions, you’re referring to pleasant emotions, right? When you talk about negative emotions, you’re referring to unpleasant emotions, right?

My Reply: Yes, and positive emotions are reward stimulation in our brains. For example, if a drug addict got high, then his high would be a positive emotion, which would be a reward stimulation going on in his brain. So, if I was going to get a new video game, and I exclaimed: “Wow, let’s get this new, awesome video game! I look forward to having it!,” then that would be a reward stimulation to my brain, and that state of exhilaration would be a positive emotion/positive state of mind, which would be a pleasant experience. I’d be in a pleasant state of mind.

Other Person’s Response: I’m just curious. How old are you? Given your philosophy, I’d assume you’re very young.

My Reply: I’m 31 years old, I’ve had this philosophy my entire life, and it’s the year 2020. I was born in September 1st, 1988. As for my philosophy, I knew that a life without positive emotions was no way to live or be an artist, and that positive emotions were the only good and beautiful things in life, based upon my personal experience. But, I just couldn’t find a way to articulate why that is, and I was very poor at explaining things in the past. But, I’ve greatly improved in terms of my writing skill. Hopefully, I’ve presented and explained my philosophy in such a way that people can easily understand it.

Other Person’s Response: If you’ve had this philosophy your entire life, then I think it’s time for a change. In order for you to develop a new, better philosophy, then you must live your life a new, better way.

My Reply: I’m not sure my philosophy can ever change, no matter how hard I try to change it. So, I could live my life a whole new way by helping others, seeking knowledge, and making contributions to the world. But, I’m not sure any of these things would change my philosophy.

Other Person’s Response: You say your philosophy might never change, no matter how hard you try to change it. I think you’re just unwilling to change it.

My Reply: That’s not true. If I ever lose my positive emotions, and can’t seem to sufficiently or fully regain them, that’s when I’ll try to change my philosophy, since that’s my only option of changing my life for the better.

Other Person’s Response: The 1st step in trying to change your philosophy is writing about it and sharing it to a mental health professional. It’s always wise to talk about our philosophies, predicaments, problems, etc.

My Reply: Yes, and I’d share my philosophy to my family as well. But, it doesn’t matter what objections people make to my philosophy in an attempt to change it; I don’t think any of these objections will change it.

Other Person’s Response: If there is a better philosophy you can live and compose by, then that means you’d no longer have this limiting and self-defeating philosophy you currently have. Your philosophy renders you giving up on your composing dream when you don’t feel up to pursuing it, and having such a philosophy won’t get you very far in your composing.

My Reply: Hopefully, I’m capable of upgrading to such a philosophy. Thus, I hope it’s not a futile endeavor to try to upgrade my philosophy.

Other Person's Response: You can change your philosophy right here and now in the comfort of your own home, which means you don't need to talk to your therapist, you don't need to seek knowledge or contribute to humanity, etc. All you have to do is think to yourself: "Do I really want to be in a position where I give up on my composing when I'm miserable? No, I don't! I wish to perceive my composing as good and valuable through my mindset alone. I don't need my positive emotions to perceive goodness or value. So, I can be miserable and see my composing as good and valuable. Therefore, there's no need for me to give up composing when I'm miserable."

My Reply: I thought this many times and it didn't work at all for me. So, my philosophy still remains the same. That means I'm still giving up on my composing until my positive emotions return.

Other Person’s Response: Some people can never be talented at drawing, no matter how hard they try, since they just don’t have the talent for it. Likewise, it could be the case that you’ll never develop a better philosophy, no matter how hard you try, since you just don’t have what it takes.

My Reply: I hope that’s not the case.

Other Person’s Response: You say you hope that’s not the case. According to your philosophy, hope can only be an emotion.

My Reply: Yes. But, I’m going outside my emotional definition of hope, just for the sake of convenience.

Other Person's Response: If you're incapable of developing a better philosophy, then perhaps this incapability is a curse by the Archons (imposter angels with sinister intentions), since they want you to be a victim of life's miserable, unhappy struggles.

My Reply: Yes. So, if I lose my positive emotions somehow, I might always remain a victim of that circumstance, since I might never be able to develop a better philosophy.

Other Person's Response: I think you should strengthen your intellect through intellectual exercises, such as puzzles, riddles, etc.

My Reply: I don't think that's going to change my philosophy though. Even if I became an intellectual genius, I think I'd still have the same philosophy. Becoming an intellectual genius can never replace the emotional experience of love, happiness, joy, seeing beauty in life, etc. So, becoming an intellectual genius is still no way to live or be an artist without positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: If you were an intellectual genius who helped humanity, contributed to the world, and made new discoveries, I bet you'd be having a better philosophy than the one you have now.

My Reply: I don't know about that. I might still have the same philosophy. In other words, my values might still be the same. That means my positive emotions would still be the only things that would make my intellectual endeavors good and beautiful in my eyes.

Other Person's Response: You don't think it would matter how much power and control you have over your emotions, since positive emotions are still the only way to see goodness and beauty in things?

My Reply: Yes. I don't think any amount of power and control over my emotions would change my philosophy.

Other Person's Response: I heard you have autism, and that you're a special needs person who's a bit mentally disabled. This could explain the weak philosophy you live by. I think you need to develop a stronger mind if you wish to have a better, stronger philosophy.

My Reply: I'm not sure if that would change my philosophy.

Other Person's Response: If there is more positivity to life that you can experience besides your positive emotions, then do you think you're capable of acquiring these new, positive experiences?

My Reply: I hope I am. But, I'm not sure, which means I'm not sure I'm capable of developing a better philosophy. Especially considering I'm mentally disabled.

Other Person's Response: If severely mentally handicapped people are able to develop a better philosophy, then so can you!

My Reply: I hope so.

Other Person's Response: What if people don't understand your philosophy, and misinterpret it?

My Reply: That's fine. I tried my best to explain it, and I just hope people can understand it. That way, they'll understand why I need my positive emotions. Many people think positive emotions are shallow, trivial things, and I'm trying to explain why that's false.

Other Person’s Response: Your philosophy says there’s nothing better to live for than feeling positive emotions. Your personal experience has led you to this conclusion. What will change your philosophy?

My Reply: It’s only through our positive emotions that things become valuable, good, etc. in our eyes. My personal experience had led me to this conclusion. If we had no positive emotions, then there can be nothing better to live for, since saying there’s something better to live for means there’s more value, beauty, goodness, etc. to live for. But, we wouldn’t be able to perceive any of it without our positive emotions.

So, that beauty, goodness, etc. wouldn’t exist in our eyes. Therefore, that means there really is nothing better to live for than feeling positive emotions from our hobbies, goals, dreams, nature, etc. But, if there’s a way to perceive beauty, goodness, etc. through our mindset alone with no need for our positive emotions, then that means there’s something better to live for than feeling positive emotions. Since my mindset alone has never given me this perception, then that’s why I have this emotional based philosophy.

Other Person’s Response: If I was unhappy, apathetic, or miserable, and didn’t have my ability to feel positive emotions, that doesn’t mean I see no goodness, value, beauty, or worth in things. So, my personal experience has led me to the conclusion that our mindset alone does allow us to see things as good, valuable, etc.

My Reply: I think you’re in denial because my personal experience has led me to conclude otherwise.

Other Person’s Response: Actually, according to your philosophy, there is something better to live for than feeling positive emotions, and that would be feeling positive emotions that are very profound and intense.

My Reply: Yes. Profound bliss is better to live for than just positive emotions. If someone got high off of drugs while pursuing a goal or dream, then that would give him a much more profound, intense, positive experience. In other words, it would give him a much more profound, intense perception of value, goodness, etc. in regards to pursuing his goal or dream. So, taking drugs would definitely enhance the quality of our lives and endeavors.

But, taking drugs is harmful, and they’ve been known to cause negative emotions, such as feelings of misery and unhappiness, which means there’s definitely a risk involved. I don’t take drugs because of that risk. They also damage the reward system of our brains, which means we’d eventually be left without the ability to feel positive emotions through extensive drug use. I’m not going to give myself some short term bliss, just so that I’ll be miserable, unhappy, and apathetic later on.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, if someone was unhappy, miserable, or apathetic, and he made many contributions to humanity his entire life, then he lived an inferior existence compared to someone who’s blissful his entire life, and does nothing for humanity.

My Reply: Correct. That blissful individual lived the better life, and that’s why his existence is superior.

Other Person’s Response: Many people would say that you’re very unenlightened, given your philosophy.

My Reply: I think it’s those people who think positive emotions are unnecessary, trivial things who are the unenlightened ones. So, anyone who lives by my philosophy is the enlightened one, and anyone who doesn’t is the unenlightened one.

Other Person’s Response: The very fact you have this philosophy makes you weak as an individual. Strong people would never allow their emotions to determine the beauty, magnificence, horror, goodness, badness, etc. in their lives. For example, a strong person would never need to feel beauty in regards to a certain moment in order for said moment to be beautiful for him.

My Reply: I think many people have stigma against emotions because they’d say that those people who live by an emotional-based philosophy, such as my philosophy, are weak people. Since people have this stigma, that renders them in denial of the beauty, magnificence, goodness, and necessity of positive emotions. They’d dismiss positive emotions as unnecessary, trivial things, and they’d say that only the weak need them.

Other Person’s Response: I realize your philosophy takes on a religious form because you say that positive emotions are divine and holy, and that negative emotions are unholy, such as those horrible, suicidal, miserable feelings you’ve had during your struggles.

My Reply: Yes. This is my own personal religion, which is a religion that’s emotional-based. That means I’m not a Christian, a Buddhist, etc.

Other Person's Response: You say that we can only see (perceive) things as beautiful, valuable, etc. through our positive emotions. That means you’re saying things only become beautiful, valuable, etc. for us through our positive emotions. I don't agree with this. It just sounds like nonsense to me.

My Reply: Think of it this way then. If there was an animal (such as a mouse), then the mouse would have the thought that a certain mate is beautiful and attractive. Once that thought sends a signal to the mouse's reward system, that would spark a reward response within the mouse, which would be a positive emotion. That reward response would be an exclamatory experience/mental state, where the mate becomes beautiful and attractive to the mouse.

So, it's only through having the reward response that things, moments, situations, and mates become beautiful, attractive, awesome, worthwhile, precious, and valuable to us. The reward response is not only meant to motivate animals, including human beings, but to make things valuable and beautiful to us. So, no reward response means nothing can be valuable or beautiful to an individual, and there are plenty of things that can disable the reward response, since positive emotions are very fleeting things.

Other Person's Response: So, when the mouse just has the thought that a mate is beautiful and attractive, that's just a thought, or idea, going through the mouse's mind, and nothing more. The mouse doesn't care about the mate yet, and neither is the mate beautiful or attractive to the mouse. But, once that thought makes the mouse feel beauty and attraction, that's the moment the mouse is like: "Wow, you're so hot, beautiful, and attractive!"

My Reply: Yes. Positive emotions are, therefore, like a divine life force, breathed into our very being. They literally make life awesome, beautiful, and amazing.

Other Person’s Response: A mouse can’t have the thought: “This mate is beautiful and attractive” because it doesn’t know the English language.

My Reply: It can still have that thought, even though said thought consists of no words.

Other Person's Response: I find it ironic how the only way to have amazing, magnificent experiences is through something as meaningless, trivial, and primitive as the reward response.

My Reply: Well, that's just the way it works, regardless of how absurd or ironic you think it is.

Other Person’s Response: Based upon your personal experience, you conclude that the only way things can become beautiful, amazing, etc. for us is through our positive emotions? From there, you say that anyone who claims otherwise would be in denial?

My Reply: Yes. That’s been my personal experience, and I’m applying my personal experience to everyone else.

Other Person’s Response: According to your religion/philosophy, positivity is holy and divine, and negativity is unholy. Positive emotions are a divine, holy life force. When a person, for example, feels a rush of awesomeness from listening to a song he thinks is awesome, that rush of awesomeness is a divine, holy life force flowing through his mind.

My Reply: Yes. Positive emotions are a divine, holy life force that pumps us up. They motivate us in positive ways. Even if positive emotions motivated someone to do reckless, harmful things, that would still be a positive motivation, since positive emotions are the only positive things in life. I’m not implying that I’d do reckless, harmful things if I felt the positive drive to do those things. I’m just saying that positive emotions are the only positivity there is in life.

Other Person’s Response: Many people would say that suffering is necessary, and that positive emotions are unnecessary. But, you’re saying that suffering is unnecessary, and that positive emotions are necessary.

My Reply: Yes. So, I think all my miserable struggles were unnecessary. They were forms of immense suffering for me, and I would’ve been much better off without them.

Other Person’s Response: You say throughout this packet that emotions are perspectives/states of mind. For example, if a person feels frightened, then that means he’s frightened, which means he’s in a frightened state of mind, which means he has a frightened perspective. So, feeling frightened (an emotion) is a frightened perspective/frightened state of mind.

According to your philosophy, if a person feels many different emotions, then that means he has many different perspectives. But, if a person feels frightened, happy, or angry, that doesn’t mean he’s frightened, happy, or angry. Thus, that doesn’t mean he has a frightened, happy, or angry perspective. So, this disproves your claim that emotions are perspectives/states of mind.

My Reply: If a person feels frightened, happy, or angry, then that means he’s frightened, happy, or angry. People can deny this all they want. But, I think it’s the truth, based upon my personal experience. Many people make the mistake of treating emotions as nothing more than feelings, when they’re really perspectives/states of mind/states of being. Emotions can be considered as alter egos. So, if a person felt happy one moment and then miserable the next, then that means he’s happy one moment and miserable the next moment.

Other Person’s Response: If a person feels fear, that means he’s experiencing fear, which means he’s afraid, which means he’s in a fearful state of mind.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: When a person has a phobia, such as a fear of spiders, spiders become very frightening in his eyes, since he feels frightened by them. But, if he overcomes his phobia, then he no longer feels afraid of spiders. Thus, he no longer perceives them as frightening. This indicates that we perceive things as frightening through our feelings of fear. No fear means no frightened perspective. So, if a person couldn’t feel fear in a dangerous situation, then that situation couldn’t be frightening for him.

My Reply: Correct. The Joker (from Batman) doesn’t feel fear in dangerous situations, which is why these situations aren’t frightening for him. He instead has fun and games during danger.

Other Person’s Response: If a person was in a dangerous situation and couldn’t feel fear, but he had the thought or belief that said situation was frightening, then that means he’s perceiving the situation as frightening. So, things can be frightening for us, which means we can be frightened by things, even without feeling fear.

My Reply: Just having the thought or belief that something’s frightening isn’t the same thing as perceiving said thing as frightening. So, we need to feel frightened about that thing in order to perceive it as frightening. It would be like how having the thought of red isn’t the same thing as seeing (perceiving) red. Without perceiving red, then we can only perceive the idea of red in our minds. Likewise, without feeling fear, then we can only perceive the idea that a certain thing or situation is frightening. But, we wouldn’t be able to see that thing or situation as frightening.

Other Person’s Response: Someone could acknowledge that a work of art is frightening or beautiful. But, that’s not the same thing as seeing that work of art as frightening or beautiful. For example, someone could acknowledge that a certain song is beautiful, but hate that song, and see nothing beautiful about it.

My Reply: That’s right. Our mindset alone just allows us to acknowledge that things are beautiful, frightening, etc. But, it’s our emotions that allow us to actually see those things as beautiful, frightening, etc. So, in that example you gave of the person who didn’t see the song as beautiful, he didn’t have a feeling of beauty (a positive emotion) in regards to the song. He instead felt negative emotions about the song, which would be a feeling of hate, and a feeling that the song was just plain awful.

Other Person’s Response: Since that person didn’t see the song as beautiful, then that means it was nothing beautiful for him, even though he acknowledged it as beautiful.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person’s Response: Another example would be if there was a painting that costs a lot of money, and was valuable in the eyes of many people. One person could look at the painting and say to himself: “I know this is a valuable painting. But, personally, it’s valueless trash in my eyes. I wouldn’t want that piece of garbage hanging on my wall!”

My Reply: Yes. That means the painting was nothing valuable for that person, which means he didn’t have a feeling of value (a positive emotion) in regards to the painting.

Other Person’s Response: What if there was a person who thought that the painting was valuable for him, even though he didn’t have a feeling of value in regards to the painting?

My Reply: Then he’d be in denial. There’s no way it can be valuable in his eyes if he didn’t have a feeling of value.

Other Person’s Response: So, if a person couldn’t feel fear, and just had the thought or belief that a situation was frightening for him, or that he was frightened by a situation, then that’s not the same thing as said situation being frightening for him, or him being frightened by that situation?

My Reply: Correct. In order to be frightened by something, you need to perceive it as frightening, and thoughts or beliefs alone don’t allow us to perceive things as frightening.

Other Person’s Response: So, emotions are the only things that make moments, people, situations, and works of art frightening, horrible, beautiful, amazing, adorable, good, bad, valuable, precious, worthwhile, magnificent, horrific, disgusting, morbid, tragic, etc. for us?

My Reply: Correct. Again, going back to the phobia example, when a person overcomes his phobia, he no longer feels afraid of the stimulus, which is why that stimulus is no longer frightening for him. I could give another example, which would be feeling erotic. If a person couldn’t feel that way, then that means he couldn’t perceive anything as erotic, which means nothing could be erotic for him. So, if a person felt depressed, and couldn’t feel erotic from pornographic images, then those images couldn’t be erotic for him. Since he can’t feel erotic, then he can’t have an erotic experience, which is why he can’t experience those images as erotic.

Other Person’s Response: Frightening, erotic, sad, etc. are value judgments (emotions).

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: Based upon your personal experience, do you agree that emotions are the only things that make people, moments, situations, and works of art frightening, beautiful, etc. for us?

My Reply: Yes. For example, I know that when I don’t feel afraid about something, that this thing can’t be frightening for me. When I don’t feel beauty or horror in regards to something, this thing can’t be beautiful or horrific for me.

Other Person’s Response: We can only value things as precious, beautiful, good, amazing, etc. through our positive emotions?

My Reply: Yes, and people would be in denial to believe otherwise.

Other Person’s Response: Many people in this world are ignorant. So, many people would be ignorant of the fact that emotions are perceptions of good, bad, beauty, horror, etc.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: Positive emotions can be unholy if they’re used to harm others, commit crimes, etc., and negative emotions can be holy if they’re used for righteous deeds.

My Reply: According to my philosophy, that wouldn’t be so. Since positive emotions are the only good, beautiful, amazing, etc. things in life, then that means they’re the only holy, divine things in life. Also, feelings of righteousness (positive emotions) are the only righteousness there is in life. Since negative emotions are the only bad, disgusting, horrific, etc. things in life, then that means they’re the only unholy things in life.

Other Person’s Response: Since the worst possible misery would be the worst thing, according to your philosophy, and according to Sam Harris, then that means it would be the most unholy thing? Since the best possible bliss would be the best thing, then that means it would be the most holy thing?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If you think that good, bad, etc. is purely emotional based, then you lack empathy. An empathetic individual would be living by a much better definition of good, bad, etc.

My Reply: Well, empathy can't exist without emotions because empathy is where you care about someone, and you can't care about anyone or anything if you had no emotions. Love, hate, sorrow, good, bad, etc. can't exist either without emotions.

Other Person’s Response: You say there were moments where you were miserable and apathetic. You had no feelings of goodness or beauty whatsoever, which means, according to your philosophy, you couldn’t perceive any goodness or beauty whatsoever. Yet, you were still able to determine that certain things were good and beautiful.

Such a determination means that you were perceiving some goodness and beauty. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have been able to make such a determination. So, I think you’re wrong when you say that emotions are the only perceptions of goodness, beauty, horror, etc. We make non-emotional assessments all the time, and such assessments presuppose that reason alone allows us to perceive good, bad, etc.

My Reply: I can still make such determinations, even without perceiving any goodness or beauty. If I was completely apathetic, where I had no emotions whatsoever, I can still make moral assessments, which means I could still determine that certain deeds and situations are good, bad, horrible, beautiful, etc., even without perceiving anything as good, bad, etc.

For example, if someone said he was going to give money to the poor, I already know that’s considered to be a good deed. So, I can still have the thought that it’s good, even without perceiving it as good. Another example would be that I know what’s considered to be amazing, beautiful, or horrible sound quality.

I could listen to some sound samples, compare them, and determine which sounds are beautiful and amazing, and which ones are horrible, even without perceiving them as beautiful, amazing, or horrible. All that’s needed for me to make such a determination would be listening to the samples. The samples that have poor sound quality would be the horrible ones, since I already know that poor sound quality is considered to be horrible.

The samples that have high sound quality would be the beautiful and amazing ones, since I know that’s what’s considered to be beautiful and amazing sound. One last example would be people coming up with dumb or intelligent arguments to support their position. I already know that dumb arguments are considered to be bad ones, while the intelligent arguments are considered to be the good and better ones.

Other Person’s Response: Basically, you’re saying you already have knowledge that allows you to make such determinations, which means you don’t require perceptions of good, bad, etc. to make such determinations.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person’s Response: In regards to emotions, they’re sometimes not triggered by thoughts or beliefs. They can be triggered automatically. For example, if a person had a phobia of spiders, then he’d automatically feel fear when he encounters them.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Is it possible that someone could witness a certain event, not have a single thought or belief about it, and automatically feel bad or horrified about the event? If that's so, then we don't need to have thoughts or beliefs that certain things are bad or horrific in order to feel bad or horrified in regards to said things. That means a person could witness certain events, automatically feel bad or horrified about one event, and exclaim:

"That event is so bad or horrific!" From there, he could witness another event, automatically feel amazement or beauty in regards to it, and exclaim: "Wow, that event is amazing or beautiful!" Such exclamatory expressions were spawned by the emotions themselves, which means it was his emotions that gave him information about the world (in this case, those events he witnessed being bad, horrific, amazing, beautiful, etc.).

My Reply: You could be right.
Last edited by MozartLink on Sun May 10, 2020 11:50 pm, edited 35 times in total.
MozartLink
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: All My Philosophy Packets

Post by MozartLink »

File #2: My Philosophy Of Emotions (Part 5/12)

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, there’s no good, bad, etc. that’s non-emotional. So, if all people had no emotions, then that means nothing in this world could be good, bad, etc.

My Reply: Correct. If, for example, I was apathetic, and I determined that something was good, then there’d be no goodness in my personal life. Feeling good is what brings goodness to our lives, feeling horror is what brings horror to our lives, etc. Emotions are the only things that give goodness, badness, horror, etc. to things in our lives.

Other Person’s Response: I realized you still did certain things with your life during your misery, such as pursuing your composing dream. But, that doesn’t mean you were perceiving your composing dream as good, beautiful, precious, or worthwhile. Even a robot could take up certain tasks without such a perception. A robot is just a machine, which means it can’t perceive anything as good, bad, precious, worthwhile, etc.

My Reply: Correct. Robots don’t have emotions, which means they can’t have that perception. But, they don’t require this perception to get things done.

Other Person’s Response: If your composing dream had no value or worth in your eyes during your misery, then you wouldn’t have pursued it. That shows your composing did have value and worth to you, even without your positive emotions. So, you don’t need your positive emotions to see your composing as valuable, good, or worthwhile. Therefore, there’s no need to give up on your composing when you’re miserable, unhappy, or apathetic.

My Reply: A person’s acts, expressions, and tones don’t have to match up with his inner experience. So, I can still act like I see value in my composing, and pursue it, even though it really has no value, worth, or goodness in my eyes. Here are some other examples. If a person was sad or angry, he could still act like he’s happy, and jump around with a joyful tone of voice.

If a person was completely apathetic in regards to a show or movie, he could still act like he’s interested in it, and watch it. If a person wasn’t hungry or thirsty, he could still act like he’s hungry or thirsty, and get something to eat or drink. Lastly, a cruel, nasty person, who has nothing but hate for humanity, could still act like he’s nice, and do kind deeds, just to fool people.

Other Person’s Response: So, people shouldn’t jump to any conclusions based upon your acts, tones, or expressions? They need to realize what you’re actually experiencing on the inside?

My Reply: Yes. So, when I’m miserable, people need to realize that I’m not having any valuable, happy, beautiful, or worthwhile experience, regardless of how much my acts, tones, or expressions convey otherwise.

Other Person’s Response: Your philosophy says that people would be apathetic without their emotions. There were moments in my life where I was unable to feel any emotions. But, things and situations still mattered to me, which means I wasn’t apathetic.

My Reply: You just think they mattered to you, when they didn’t. So, you really were apathetic, which means you’re in denial. People are in denial in regards to emotions because they think they don’t need them to make things matter to them.

Other Person’s Response: I take it there were moments in your life where you were unable to feel any emotions. You still did things anyway, such as brushing your teeth, taking a shower, etc. But, you realized you were apathetic. So, that leads you to the conclusion that people are apathetic without their emotions, regardless of their acts, tones, words, and expressions.

My Reply: Yes. People may claim they’re not apathetic without their emotions. But, I think they’re in denial. They’d also be in denial if they think they’re able to love, have compassion towards others, or perceive anything as good, beautiful, etc. without their emotions.

Other Person’s Response: People can still do things in life, even when they’re apathetic. It’s called “Going through the motions of life” or “Dragging oneself along through life.” It would also be like playing out a movie that’s dull and gray.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: There’s a difference between will and motivation. A person can have no motivation to do something, but still do it anyway through sheer will power. For example, people with clinical depression complain of a lack of sex drive. But, a person without any sex drive can still engage in sex through sheer will alone.

My Reply: Yes. But, that’s no way to have sex. He needs that positive drive (emotion) to have sex in order for it to be an amazing, beautiful, and erotic endeavor for him.

Other Person’s Response: So, you’re basically saying that a life of sheer will alone, without any emotion, is no way to live, be an artist, or have sex?

My Reply: Correct. Also, emotions are more than just motivation. For example, without emotions, we’d just be apathetic beings. But, we wouldn’t be happy, sad, angry, frightened, erotic, etc. beings. So, emotions are aspects of our very being. Many people say that relying on emotions is a character weakness, and that a person just needs to rely on will power alone to get through life. But, people who say this are dismissing emotions as trivial, unnecessary things, when they’re not. They treat will power and character as being superior to emotions, when it’s the other way around.

Other Person’s Response: I heard that you’re in a chronically miserable state of mind right now, due to some worry that has devastated you. It’s a worry your subconscious mind is constantly stuck on, and you’re having a difficult time recovering from it. You are recovering. But, you’re trying methods that will speed up your recovery, so that you can return back to your happy, positively motivated state of mind faster. You’re trying certain therapies, meditation, exercise, etc. Out of all these methods, you notice that intense exercise has the most benefit for you, which means it’s significantly accelerating your recovery. Exercise has many benefits for the brain and body, and I’m glad you’re doing it. Especially intense exercise.

My Reply: Yes. As for meditation, you’re supposed to close your eyes, focus on your breathing, and let your troubles, worries, and negative thoughts melt away. I tried that for quite some time, and it just doesn’t seem to speed up my recovery. Perhaps I’m not doing meditation correctly.

Other Person’s Response: So, are you going to do some intense exercise through sheer will alone, even though you’re miserable, and have no motivation to do it?

My Reply: As of now, I’m almost fully recovered, and I do have a little bit of positive motivation to exercise. So, I will run some more on the track or treadmill. I’ve been mostly doing brisk walking. But, I’ll do some more running.

Other Person's Response: You're not physically or mentally fit though, which means you can't keep up a running pace.

My Reply: That's right. I can only run for a short time before needing to go back to a walking pace. But, I recently went at a pace that's faster than brisk walking, and it would be a very slight jog. It was a pace that I could keep up for a very long time. I noticed this had the most benefit in terms of speeding up my recovery because I think I'm getting more exercise this way. So, I'll continue to do this instead of running.

Other Person's Response: Can you even keep up a moderate jogging pace?

My Reply: No. I can only keep it up for a very short time.

Other Person's Response: I heard that, when you go jogging, you're not in the mood for it, and you're in the mood to relax. That makes it very difficult for you because you don't really feel up to jogging.

My Reply: That's right. But, after about an hour of jogging, I'm in the mood for it, and I'm no longer slow and dragging myself along. I'm a bit faster, and I can keep it up for a longer period of time. So, I need to exercise for a while just to get myself in the mood to exercise. It would be best if I start out with slow-paced exercising, such as walking, and then move up to jogging when I'm in the mood for it.

Other Person's Response: The reason why you're slow and dragging yourself along is because jogging can't matter to you, and you can't perceive it as good, valuable, or worthwhile when you're not feeling up to it.

My Reply: That's correct. I have no motivation to jog when I'm not in the mood for it.

Other Person's Response: You say you're able to be in the mood for jogging. I thought your positive emotions are shut off. So, how can you be in the mood for it?

My Reply: Since I'm close to a full recovery from this misery-inducing worry, that means I'm able to feel some degree of positive emotion. But, I don't have my full capacity to feel positive emotions yet. It should get restored once I'm fully recovered.

Other Person's Response: When jogging, go at a pace you're completely comfortable with (a pace you're not struggling to keep up). I heard that you jog for an hour each day. So, go at a pace you can keep up for an hour.

My Reply: Yes, and that pace would be very slow (3.5-3.7 mph). I went on the treadmill at the gym, and I can adjust the speed on it. This is how I know the jogging speed I can keep up for an hour. Even if I was in the mood to exercise, I don't think I'd be able to keep up a 4.0 mph jogging speed for an hour. But, being in the mood does make it easier for me to keep up a 3.5-3.7 mph jogging speed for an hour. When I'm fully recovered from this emotional crisis, I'm no longer going to jog. I'm just going to walk 3 times a week for an hour. The reason why I'm jogging everyday is because I wish to speed up my recovery.

Other Person's Response: Since you're only able to keep up a very slow jogging pace, I wonder if you're a fat person who eats a lot of junk food.

My Reply: No. I'm quite thin, and I eat healthy. By the way, there are fat people who eat a lot of junk food, and are able to keep up a decent jogging pace for an hour. So, what jogging pace a person is able to keep up all depends on his level of physical and mental endurance.

Other Person's Response: I heard that your mother is a bit obese, and does eat junk food. Is she able to jog?

My Reply: No. She's in worse shape than me. She can't even keep up a brisk walking pace like I can. She walks at a very slow pace. My fastest walking pace would be 3.5 mph, I can easily keep up that pace for an hour, and I end up being far ahead of my mother on the bike trails. She admires my walking speed, and so does my grandma. My grandma also can't jog, and she walks at a slow pace as well. Actually, my grandma's walking speed might be 3.0 mph, and my mother's being slower. I'm not sure.

Other Person's Response: If you can easily keep up a 3.5 mph walking speed for an hour, then why can't you keep up a significantly faster jogging speed for an hour (such as 4.5 mph)?

My Reply: I think it's because jogging takes more effort. So, jogging at 3.5 mph takes more effort than walking at 3.5 mph. That's why I can only keep up a 3.5-3.7 mph jogging speed for an hour. Actually, maybe I'm able to keep up a 3.8-4.0 mph jogging speed for an hour. I haven't been to the gym for a while. So, I can't go on the treadmill and find out.

Other Person's Response: When jogging on the bike trails, are you the slowest jogger there?

My Reply: Yes. All joggers there jog faster than me. But, I walk faster than some walkers there.

Other Person's Response: I heard that this recent worry you're having is in regards to those trips to the afterlife people have during a near death experience. People have very powerful, profound experiences during these trips, and you're worried about the possibility of having negative experiences during a trip that are far more horrible and disturbing than the ones you've had in your nightmares. Anything that people tell you, and anything you tell yourself, doesn't ease this worry at all.

My Reply: Correct. During hellish trips, people have very horrible experiences. But, during heavenly trips where people meet god in the afterlife, they experience not only the positive, but also the negative they've had throughout their Earthly lives. They experience all of this during a life review, which is where a person looks back at his life and makes judgments. Such experiences are greatly intensified, and I worry about having the negative experiences from my nightmares during a life review, greatly intensified. That would give me a much worse experience than what I've experienced in my nightmares.

By the way, the negative experiences (negative emotions) in my nightmares were far more horrible and disturbing than the ones in my waking life. But, if I were to have a hellish trip or life review, where those negative emotions from my nightmares are felt again, and greatly intensified, then that would be a waking experience worse than my nightmares. It's also possible I could feel negative emotions during a life review or hellish trip that are completely different than the ones I've had during my nightmares, and said negative emotions being far worse than the ones I've had in my nightmares.

Other Person's Response: People not only have these trips when they're near death, but when they die. That's because our souls leave our bodies when our bodies die.

My Reply: If I ever go on one of these trips, then I can only hope it's a beautiful experience for me, and not a horrible one.

Other Person's Response: Those miserable struggles you've had were immense forms of suffering for you. Especially the profoundly horrible experiences you've had in your nightmares from these struggles, which were far worse. An all-loving god would only allow such suffering if it was absolutely necessary. But, if you were to re-experience all that suffering during a life review, just so you can look back at your life and make some sort of judgment, then that would be unnecessary. You don't need to go through all that suffering again, just for this purpose.

You could instead have a life review where you don't re-experience all that suffering. For example, when all the images of events from your Earthly life pop up during your life review, you could just witness images of your suffering without experiencing any of that suffering again. But, if god and these heavenly beings are going to have you re-experience your suffering during a life review, then they must not be all-loving beings, since they'd be putting you through unnecessary suffering. Thus, they might be Archons (imposter beings of light with sinister intentions).

My Reply: Right. It would be better if I just witnessed images of me feeling all those negative emotions, and not having to feel them again. It would actually be best if I felt blissful during the life review, even while witnessing those images.

Other Person's Response: I heard that you feel many negative emotions during this crisis. If you continue to expose yourself to these emotions, I think that will speed up your recovery. So, I think exposure therapy is the answer for you. An example of exposure therapy would be someone overcoming his phobia by facing it. By exposing himself to his feeling of fear, it fades away.

I realize you give up watching anime and playing video games because of those miserable feelings that make you perceive the characters, and their worlds, as morbidly insignificant and meaningless. But, I don't think you should give up. By continuing to experience those miserable feelings, rather than running away from them, that will allow you to enjoy anime and video games sooner. Sure, you'd have to bear through a miserable life for a while. But, you'd eventually get back to a place of joy.

My Reply: I'm not sure if that will speed up my recovery or not. Also, I am already allowing and facing all those negative emotions that naturally occur on their own as a result of this crisis. But, I'm not sure if taking things a step further by continually exposing myself will speed up my recovery. I'll try it though.

Other Person's Response: I think you have to expose yourself to the very source of all those negative emotions (which would be the worry itself) in order for your recovery to speed up. That means you must constantly think about the worry, and imagine it coming true, since that's how you'd continually expose yourself to it. If you just expose yourself to those negative emotions, then I don't think that's going to speed up your recovery from this worry.

My Reply: You might be wrong. So, if I continue to expose myself to that feeling of misery that keeps on popping up whenever I watch anime or video games, then that really might speed up my recovery from the worry itself.

Other Person's Response: How is the exposure doing for you?

My Reply: I've exposed myself to the miserable feeling that keeps on occurring when I watch anime or play video games. I noticed that feeling subsided over time. It's gotten to the point where that feeling is no longer there. However, this exposure process hasn't restored my ability to enjoy anime and video games. It's just gotten rid of that miserable feeling. Also, it hasn't sped up my overall recovery because, overall, my mental status is still the same. In other words, I'm still apathetic, a bit miserable, and I feel negative emotions from time to time. Perhaps I should expose myself to the worry by constantly thinking about it. Maybe that will speed up my recovery.

Other Person's Response: When you expose yourself to that worry, does a feeling of worry pop up, or any other negative emotions? The reason I ask is because recovery from an emotional trauma involves a process known as "desensitization." It's a process where a person becomes exposed to his traumatic feelings, and exposure to these feelings rids of his emotional trauma. It's like how a person's phobia disappears when he exposes himself to his feeling of fear. So, if a feeling of worry, or any other negative emotions, continue to pop up when you continue to think of that worry, your emotional crisis will be gone. Thus, you'll be fully recovered, and you should be able to enjoy your life and hobbies again.

My Reply: I've continued to think of that worry many times, and it doesn't cause negative emotions to pop up. By the way, my subconscious mind is already worried 24/7. So, even while I'm not consciously thinking about this worry, it's always there subconsciously. When negative emotions do pop up due to this worry being there, they pop up on their own, and I can't make them pop up through conscious effort. So, I can't make myself feel worried by consciously thinking of that worry. A feeling of worry in regards to those trips will pop up whenever it pops up. That means I can't speed up my recovery through conscious effort. Actually, I noticed there are few moments where a feeling of worry will pop up when consciously thinking of the worry. But, those are very few moments.

Other Person's Response: When you watch anime or video games, that continually triggers a feeling of misery, right?

My Reply: Right, and I've desensitized that feeling. But, there could still be other anime and video games out there that would trigger misery, and I'd just have to desensitize myself to that misery as well.

Other Person's Response: The moment you had this emotional crisis is the moment you were chronically stuck in a very miserable state, and you were in much emotional turmoil. But, since you're close to a full recovery, you're now mostly in a state of mental well-being, which means you're no longer in that chronic, miserable state, and you're no longer in emotional turmoil.

My Reply: That's right. I think it's because I've been exposed for so long to that emotional trauma. But, this was a long term recovery process, which means I didn't reach a state of mental well-being in a matter of days or weeks. I had to be exposed to powerful, profound negative emotions all throughout the day each day for a few years. As of now, there are few moments where negative emotions pop up, and I think I'll be fully recovered soon.

Other Person's Response: If you all of a sudden believed that this misery-inducing worry of yours wouldn't come true, would you be fully recovered right now?

My Reply: Yes. I think I'd be fully recovered instantly. So, my chronically miserable state could be instantly healed if I had that belief. If this miserable state was a mental illness, then having that belief wouldn't help it at all. In other words, my brain would still remain stuck in that miserable state, just as how a clinically depressed person's brain would remain stuck in a depressed state.

Other Person's Response: If a person was miserable, due to the loss of his loved one, then his misery would vanish if his loved one was brought back to life.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Since you're very close to a full recovery from this crisis, you do have some emotional drive to write all this material now, right?

My Reply: Yes. There is some positive emotion there now.

Other Person's Response: So far, it's taken you 3 years, 8 months to recover from this recent crisis. You're not fully recovered yet, which means you're still feeling negative emotions and having nightmares due to this crisis. You say you're very close to a full recovery, which is why you're very close to a state of complete, mental well-being again. But, what if you're much farther away from a full recovery than you realize?

My Reply: Who knows, it could take another 4 years until I'm fully recovered. But, it seems I'm very close to a full recovery, since those negative emotions and nightmares are almost completely gone. However, if it's going to take another 4 years or so before I'm able to enjoy my hobbies again, then I'd need to find some way to speed up my recovery. I give up on my hobbies when I'm unable to feel the drive to do them. I have a composing dream to live for, and all these years of waiting are just wasting that dream away. Although I do have some positive drive to write this material, I still don't have the drive to pursue my other hobbies, such as composing.

Other Person's Response: Perhaps the reason why it's taking you so long to recover from this recent crisis is because your brain is having a very difficult time processing the emotional trauma. If you see a therapist who specializes in EMDR, that can really help you out. Here's a link to a list of popular therapies for emotional trauma:

https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/traum ... s-it-work/

My Reply: Thank you. The reason why it's taking so long to recover is because this recent worry is far more troubling than all my other worries. So, it didn't take as long for me to fully recover from all the other emotional traumas I've had in the past. Also, once I'm fully recovered from a crisis, the worry is no longer there anymore.

Other Person's Response: I don't think what you're having is an emotional trauma.

My Reply: When a person is devastated by a thought or worry, that's an emotional trauma. Since I was devastated by this recent worry, then I had an emotional trauma.

Other Person's Response: Since it's taking a very long time for you to recover, then here's a link to a device that I think could immensely speed up your recovery. It's called the "Fisher Wallace Stimulator," and it stimulates the brain to rapidly ease chronic, severe depression, insomnia, and stress. It does cost a lot of money though ($800). When purchasing it, your purchase needs to be authorized by a licensed health care provider:

https://www.fisherwallace.com/products/ ... BMQAvD_BwE

My Reply: Well, I do think I'm very close to a full recovery, where I'll be happy and able to enjoy my hobbies again. So, I'm not sure if I need this device. I don't know how much longer it's going to take for me to reach a full recovery, though.

Other Person's Response: Let's pretend you purchased this device the moment you had this recent, emotional crisis, and you used it everyday like the instructions said. You could've been fully recovered in a few months or even a few weeks, rather than having to wait 4 years or more for your psyche to fully recover on its own. That would've ended your suffering in a few months or weeks, and it wouldn't have to linger on like this. So, you could've saved yourself a few years of suffering, and in those few years, you could've pursued your composing dream, since you'd be able to enjoy it. But, since those years have instead been wasted, then that's just the way it is, unfortunately.

My Reply: I'm not sure how much this device would've sped up my recovery, though. The device is very effective for many people, and many people do see rapid results. But, there's no way to tell how effective the device would've been for me. Also, I was unaware of this device at the time I had this emotional crisis. But, thank you for informing me about this device now. In case I ever develop a mental illness, such as clinical depression, that takes away my ability to feel positive emotions, then that's when I'll consider purchasing this device. I don't think I'm going to have another emotional trauma ever again. So, the only thing that can take away my positive emotions now is a mental illness, which can be alleviated by this device.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy says it's no way to live or be an artist without positive emotions, which is why you're considering getting that device to speed up your recovery in order to restore your positive emotions. But, if you had a better philosophy, then you'd have no need for that device because you wouldn't need your positive emotions. So, instead of wasting all that money to buy this device, I recommend trying to upgrade your philosophy to a better one.

My Reply: Like I said, I don't think my philosophy can ever change, no matter how hard I try to change it.

Other Person's Response: You can't afford this device yet, anyway.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: In regards to methods of recovery from an emotional trauma, there are 2 types. The 1st type would be methods, such as exercise, eating foods and drinking fluids that help speed up recovery, using that brain stimulation device, etc. These methods work by biological means, since they speed up recovery by promoting neurogenesis, improving brain function, etc. The 2nd type would be methods, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), talk therapy, mindfulness to keep one's mind in the present moment in order to reduce troubling worries, etc. These methods work by means of changing our thinking to help us feel better. So, if you're going to use some of the type 1 methods, then also use some type 2 methods.

My Reply: I agree. I'll keep searching to see if there's a method that will immensely speed up my recovery. So far, exercise has been the best method for me, although I'm still undergoing a very slow recovery process. So, yes, exercise does speed up my recovery, since I notice results. But, it doesn't speed it up much.

Other Person's Response: During this whole recovery process, you haven't been consciously fixated on that worry, and you've been consciously fixated on many things, such as writing this material. Mindfulness is the very process of focusing our conscious awareness on things in the present moment, and that's what you've been doing this whole time. But, it doesn't seem to help because your recovery is still a slow, long process.

My Reply: That's right.

Other Person’s Response: Let's get back to discussing your philosophy. If a person feels sleepy, then that means he’s sleepy, which means he’s in a sleepy state of mind, which means he has a sleepy perspective.

My Reply: Yes. The same idea applies to emotions. So, if you wish to be in an awesome or magnificent state of mind, then you must feel awesomeness or magnificence (which are positive emotions). Such states of mind are divine and holy, unlike a sleepy state of mind (which is just sleepiness, and nothing more). So, if a person felt sleepy, then he’s just sleepy. But, if he felt awesomeness or magnificence, then it’s as though he has entered into a divine, holy, god-like state of mind.

Other Person’s Response: Just to be clear, when you talk about feelings of awesomeness and magnificence, you’re talking about feelings a person has in regards to a work of art, situation, moment, etc.?

My Reply: Yes. So, if a person felt that a certain work of art was awesome or magnificent, that feeling would allow him to perceive the work of art as awesome or magnificent, and that feeling/perception would be putting him in an awesome or magnificent state of mind.

Other Person’s Response: In a movie, the mood is the atmosphere, and moods are emotions. So, if a character felt miserable in a movie, then that feeling is an emotion, which would be a miserable mood/atmosphere in the movie. The same idea applies to life itself. If a person were to feel miserable, then that creates a miserable mental atmosphere for him. So, I think you’re right when you say that emotions are perspectives/states of mind.

My Reply: Yes. So, if a person wishes to create a beautiful mental atmosphere for himself, then he must feel beauty in regards to something or someone. If a person wishes to create a horrific mental atmosphere for himself, then he must feel horror in regards to something or someone. Our minds need to be in a beautiful, amazing, magnificent, etc. atmosphere, and that’s why we need those positive emotions.

Other Person’s Response: You talked about the emotion perception theory that’s been put forth by emotion theorists earlier. It’s a theory that states that emotions are perceptions of horror, beauty, awesomeness, magnificence, etc. Such perceptions are mental atmospheres. If emotions were nothing more than feelings, and not perceptions, then they’d just be feelings, and not mental atmospheres.

My Reply: Yes. Emotions are perspectives, and perspectives are states of mind, which are mental atmospheres. For example, when you perceive something as disgusting, that’s your perspective, which is an emotion, which is a disgusting, mental atmosphere. Being unable to feel emotions means no beautiful, horrific, disgusting, miserable, happy, etc. mental atmosphere for you.

Other Person’s Response: The opposite of mental turmoil and misery would be joy and peace. I completely understand why you’d want your mind to be in a joyful, peaceful, beautiful place because not too many people want their minds to be in a place of turmoil and misery. So, I understand why you wish to only feel positive emotions, and not those negative emotions you felt during your struggles, such as turmoil, misery, disgust, etc.

My Reply: Yes. I think I would’ve been much better off never having these struggles.

Other Person’s Response: If positive emotions are so necessary, holy, and divine as you say they are, then why does the opposite exist (negative emotions)? Why is there so much suffering and misery in this world?

My Reply: Spiritual believers say this Earthly existence is a realm of duality, where there’s happiness and unhappiness, love and hate, etc.

Other Person’s Response: You define happiness as an emotion. But, it’s up to the individual how he wishes to define happiness.

My Reply: If I was frustrated, and I defined that frustration as happiness, then that wouldn’t change the fact that I was still frustrated. If I hated someone, and I defined that hate as love, then that wouldn’t change the fact that I still hated that person. Frustration and hate are states of mind, and defining them as happiness and love won’t change the fact that they’re still frustration and hate. It won’t transform them into happiness and love. So, our definitions don’t change anything.

Other Person’s Response: So, if a person felt frustrated, that means he’s frustrated. If he defined that frustration as happiness, then he’d still be frustrated.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: If nothing mattered to someone, and he defined those things as mattering to him anyway, then those things still wouldn’t matter to him.

My Reply: Correct. When something matters to you, that’s a state of mind, and such a state can’t magically pop into existence through definitions alone.

Other Person’s Response: If a person was in a frustrated state of mind while trying to learn something, and he defined his learning efforts as happiness, then his definition of happiness would be disregarding his frustrated state of mind. If a person was in a miserable, suicidal state of mind, and he defined the enduring of his suffering as happiness, then his definition of happiness would be disregarding his miserable, suicidal state of mind.

My Reply: Yes. There were times where I was miserable and suicidal, and I defined the enduring of this misery as happiness. But, that didn’t work for me. It did nothing for me, which means it didn’t change my life for the better. I was still trapped in that horrible, miserable, suicidal pit. So, definitions won’t get me out of that pit. The only thing that would get me out of that pit and, thus, change my life for the better, would be a change in my state of mind. I’d have to change from a miserable, suicidal state of mind back to a positive state of mind. I make that change naturally on my own as my psyche slowly and gradually recovers on its own from these miserable, suicidal moments.

Other Person’s Response: So, the only way you can be happy would be if you recovered from your misery, and felt happy?

My Reply: Correct. As long as I’m in that miserable, suicidal state of mind, then I can’t be happy by defining happiness however I want.

Other Person’s Response: When a person has a change in his perspective/state of mind, that will change his life for the better or for the worse. So, I agree that definitions alone won’t change one’s life for the better or for the worse.

My Reply: Correct. I could endure my misery all I wanted to, and I could define that endurance as happiness as much as I wanted to. But, again, that wouldn’t change my life for the better.

Other Person’s Response: So, when you were in that suicidal, miserable pit, and you defined the enduring of this misery as happiness, then that definition of happiness was completely hollow, and didn’t work at all for you?

My Reply: Correct. I also defined that misery as good and beautiful. But, that didn’t work at all for me either. So, definitions aren’t going to work, since they’re hollow. They’re nothing more than hollow sentences going through my mind, such as: “This misery is what I call happiness, good, and beautiful.” Such definitions are nothing more than words being uttered in a dark, suicidal, miserable void. Thus, the only thing that can bring me happiness, and bring my life goodness and beauty, would be my positive emotions.

Other Person’s Response: You say these definitions are nothing more than words in a dark void. That means they’re not the actual light you need in your life. Your positive emotions are the light that would illuminate that dark void.

My Reply: Correct. That means my positive emotions are the actual happiness, goodness, beauty, magnificence, etc. I need in my life. Just having certain thoughts (such as definitions) won’t help me at all when I’m miserable.

Other Person’s Response: It seems to me there’s a difference between one’s personal experience and one’s personal definitions because defining the enduring of your misery as happiness did nothing to change your personal experience. Your personal experience was like being in a dark, suicidal, miserable void of nothingness. Your life’s experience was completely hollow, and definitions did absolutely nothing to change that.

My Reply: Correct. Also, imagine a scenario where someone was miserable due to the loss of his loved one, and everything in his life became morbidly insignificant and meaningless in his eyes. If he defined the enduring of his miserable, hollow experience as good, beautiful, or happiness, that would do nothing for him. So, one’s personal experience is 1st priority. Not one’s definitions, actions, or deeds.

Other Person’s Response: So, it’s one’s state of mind that’s 1st priority?

My Reply: Yes, and we need to be in a positive state of mind.

Other Person’s Response: I heard that, during your miserable moments, things became morbidly insignificant and meaningless in your eyes, and that this morbid perception was something you couldn’t just will away. Defining the enduring of this morbid perception as happiness did nothing to change this perception.

My Reply: Correct. It didn’t transform this morbid perception into a happy perception, and it didn’t make things in my life perceived as beautiful, awesome, good, etc. Only my positive emotions can give me such a perception. So, I think you can see why a life without positive emotions is no way to live or be an artist.

Other Person’s Response: During your miserable moments, it didn’t matter what thought you had because no thought could change this morbid perception?

My Reply: Correct. I had the mindset of helping others, contributing to the world, pursuing my composing dream, etc. in an attempt to change this morbid perception. But, it didn’t help at all. Many things also became morbidly disturbing and tragic in my eyes, and having such a perception was also no way to live or be an artist.

Again, I couldn’t change that perception either, no matter how hard I tried. I had so many negative emotions (perceptions) during my miserable moments, such as the enraged desire to give up on my composing dream, the enraged desire to end my life, harm myself and others, etc., and I couldn’t change them. I had to recover from these miserable moments in order for all those negative emotions to pass, and for my positive emotions to return.

Other Person’s Response: I heard that all your miserable struggles were chronic, and that they took a long time to recover from. But, your recent miserable struggle took the longest to recover from, since it was the worst of all your struggles. Why didn’t god, or his angels, bestow upon you the ability to fully recover instantly? That way, you wouldn’t have suffered for so long, and you would’ve been back to your normal, happy self in a few seconds.

My Reply: Why even bestow upon me the ability to be miserable in the first place?

Other Person’s Response: If god and his angels exist, then it seems they don’t care about your feelings. If they cared, they wouldn’t have allowed you to be miserable. They would’ve ensured your happiness.

My Reply: It seems they don’t care about my state of mind. If I’m in a miserable, suicidal state of mind, then they’ll just allow me to remain in that horrible state.

Other Person’s Response: You said you were suicidal during these miserable struggles. It’s selfish to be suicidal!

My Reply: I couldn’t help but be suicidal, since I couldn’t help but feel suicidal. Feeling certain emotions isn’t always under our control, and feeling suicidal is one of these emotions. Emotions are states of mind, as I said earlier. So, if a person feels suicidal, that means he’s in a suicidal state of mind, which means he’s suicidal, which means he has a suicidal perspective.

Other Person’s Response: In regards to suicide, there are laws in the spirit realm, and suicide is spiritually unlawful. People who commit suicide won’t escape their suffering. They’ll bring their suffering with them, and they’ll remain in a dark, morbid place in the afterlife, where they’ll continue to suffer in misery. That’s their penalty. If they then try to communicate to people on Earth through a medium, they’ll cease to exist. Such communication is also spiritually unlawful, and they’ll be penalized with permanent soul annihilation.

My Reply: Whoever made such laws and punishments wouldn’t be an all-loving god or being. If there are other spiritual beings, then they wouldn’t be all-loving either, since they’re not rescuing these souls from the darkness, and not saving them from permanent destruction.

Other Person’s Response: There are people who continue to remain suicidal, no matter what help they get. So, why should they be punished if they commit suicide?

My Reply: Exactly.

Other Person's Response: There are psychics who can see into the future. For example, a psychic could foresee the inevitable future of someone molesting a child. But, since that future is inevitable, then that means that molester never had free will to begin with because he'd have no choice but to molest that child.

Furthermore, if your miserable struggles were inevitable, then that means you didn't have free will either. Having free will means we have a choice, which means a psychic shouldn't be able to predict whether that molester would molest that child or not, and if you were going to have these miserable struggles or not.

So, if we have free will, nobody should be able to predict our future. But, an exception would be with objects. For example, scientists could predict whether an asteroid would hit Earth or not, and that's because an asteroid is just an object that doesn't have free will. It can't choose whether it's going to hit Earth or not. Another example would be how meteorologists can predict the weather.

My Reply: Right. I heard from religious believers that people reincarnate, and that they experience inevitable suffering. For example, someone who was miserable and committed suicide in a previous lifetime would reincarnate, and inevitably experience that same, horrible fate again. So, that would mean we don't have free will.

Other Person's Response: So, basically, if we have free will, then nobody should know what choices we're going to make because it's our free will to make any choice we want. That's why psychics, god, Jesus, or any heavenly being shouldn't be able to predict what choices we're going to make. But, if they're able to predict our choices, then that must mean we don't have free will.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: I heard that people who commit suicide are punished. But, if they don't have free will, then that means their suicide was inevitable. So, how would it be fair to punish them?

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: Of all people living on this Earth, it's inevitable that some people are going to make harmful decisions. Since it's inevitable, then that means we don't have free will.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: A psychic could predict whether it's likely or not someone is going to do drugs, harm others, help others, etc.

My Reply: But, would it be an inevitable likelihood? If so, then that also means we don't have free will because, if we have free will, nobody should be able to predict whether it's even likely or not a person would do those things.

Other Person's Response: Hitler harmed and killed so many Jews. If he had free will, then nobody should be able to predict whether he'd harm or kill another Jew during the Holocaust, or if it's even likely or not he would.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: There are people who have near death experiences, meet God, Jesus, and angels, and they say to these people that free will exists. But, what if they're lying?

My Reply: Then these beings wouldn't be trustworthy. I've actually heard from certain people that there are Archons, who are imposter light beings with loving, compassionate attitudes, but lie, deceive, and have sinister intentions. They have us reincarnate into a world where we continue to suffer, so they can feed off our suffering. There might actually be no loving, compassionate light beings to save us from these Archons.

Other Person's Response: If the goal of these Archons is to have us keep on reincarnating into a world where we'll continue to suffer, then why are there some people who live rich, happy, easy lives, where they hardly suffer?

My Reply: Again, I'm not sure.

Other Person's Response: There are people who have near death experiences and report that there were beings of light who've bestowed knowledge upon them. But, such knowledge shouldn't be trusted, since it could be deceptive knowledge (lies).

My Reply: Right. So, if there's a being of light who bestows the knowledge that he's an all-loving being, then that could be a lie. He could be a hateful, sinister being who's trying to trick people into believing he's an all-loving being.

Other Person's Response: Here's a hellish near death experience account (it was taken from this link):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6173534/

"Another woman in childbirth felt herself floating on water, but at a certain point, “It was no longer a peaceful feeling; it had become pure hell. I had become a light out in the heavens, and I was screaming, but no sound was going forth. It was worse than any nightmare. I was spinning around, and I realized that this was eternity; this was what forever was going to be…. I felt the aloneness, the emptiness of space, the vastness of the universe, except for me, a mere ball of light, screaming.”

This woman knew this hell would last for an eternity. But, should she trust this knowledge? Perhaps she's wrong, and she's believing a lie. So, perhaps when her physical body dies, her soul won't be trapped for an eternity in that hellish realm. She might just remain there for a little while.

My Reply: Or perhaps she knew the truth, and no being could ever save her. So, if her soul ends up in that hellish realm, she really might remain there for an eternity.

Other Person's Response: If god or his angels can't save her, then how would they be loving entities to allow such a horrible fate? They would've known all along that some souls would be hopelessly trapped for an eternity in a hellish afterlife, where god and his angels couldn't rescue them. So, if god and his angels were all-loving beings, then they would've done everything in their power to prevent such a tragic fate from happening.

My Reply: I agree.

Other Person's Response: Here's a link that talks about the theory of Archons, and how we're all trapped and enslaved into a cycle of reincarnation and unnecessary suffering:

https://www.prometheanrebellion.com/arc ... -trap.html

Also, here's another link that talks about near death experiences:

https://the-formula.org/near-death-experiences-suicide/

In the Life After Life excerpt in that 2nd link, it talks about souls being penalized for committing suicide. An all-loving, all-just being or god would never punish someone for suicide. Especially a punishment that lasts a very long time (perhaps hundreds or thousands of years). Only a cruel, unloving being would deliver such a punishment, such as an Archon.

My Reply: You're right, and if there is an all-loving, all-just being or god who exists, then I'm not sure why he or she isn't saving these people from their cruel enslavement and punishment.
Last edited by MozartLink on Sun May 10, 2020 11:51 pm, edited 23 times in total.
MozartLink
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: All My Philosophy Packets

Post by MozartLink »

File #2: My Philosophy Of Emotions (Part 6/12)

Other Person's Response: I'm going to quote something from that 1st link and respond to it:
How is it that more than five millennia have past and the whole world still remains under the dominion of the impostor gods? It is important to remember that, from the perspective of the Original Source, a couple of our millennia are simply a few minutes at most. That small blip is nothing for a being who knows eternity.
The Original Source (god) must take into consideration the perspective of humanity. For humanity, more than five millennia is a very long time. God shouldn't allow these imposer gods (Archons) to enslave humanity for this long, just because it's only minutes from his perspective.

My Reply: I agree. From god's perspective, it wouldn't be a problem, since it's only a matter of minutes. But, from our perspective, it's a major problem, since it's a very long time. If god really cares about us, then he'd take into consideration our perspective, and liberate us as soon as he possibly can, rather than having us wait so long.

Other Person's Response: If god is intelligent and he can predict the future, then he could've done something to prevent these Archons from enslaving us in the first place.

My Reply: Yes, and it would be like doing something now to prevent a virus from taking over in the future.

Other Person's Response: It could be the case that some people are enslaved by Archons, while others aren't. That's why some people in this world are unfortunate, and suffer a lot, while others are fortunate, and hardly suffer.

My Reply: Right. So, perhaps my mother's financial misfortunes are due to her being enslaved by the Archons. Her misfortunes cause her to feel negative emotions, and the Archons feed off these negative emotions.

Other Person's Response: There are near death accounts where people report experiencing unconditional love from a being of light. I don't think he's an imposter light being with sinister intentions because no such being is capable of emanating this magnitude of love.

My Reply: But, there's a difference between experiencing unconditional love that's emanating from a being, as opposed to just getting a feeling of being unconditionally loved from said being. This being of light could be sinister, and he's just triggering a very powerful, profound feeling of being unconditionally loved as a means to trick souls into believing he loves them unconditionally. In which case, these souls are getting a feeling they shouldn't trust, no matter how powerful and profound said feeling is. After all, our feelings don't always tell us the truth.

Other Person's Response: Skeptics would say this being of light is just a hallucination, and that the unconditional love people experience from him is nothing more than a powerful, profound feeling that's been induced by drugs or the dying brain. So, skeptics are saying this unconditional love is just their own personal feeling that's been induced by some means.

My Reply: Right. But, even if this being of light isn't a hallucination, it's still possible that the unconditional love people get from him is nothing more than their own personal feeling. Like I said, people shouldn't trust this feeling.

Other Person's Response: Many near death experiences transform the lives of individuals. There's one near death account where a person lost his attachment to his family, friends, and materialistic things, since having near death experiences alters us in some way, given that they're powerful, life-transforming experiences, and the beings in the astral realm desire such personal transformations. But, that person was miserable because he lost his attachment to so many people and things. That means he did have one attachment, which would be an attachment to attachment.

If he didn't have that attachment, then he wouldn't have been miserable about the fact that he's no longer attached to so many people and things. He just wouldn't care. If the beings in the astral realm wanted him to lose his attachments as a means of personal growth and transformation, then why did they leave him with that one attachment, but stripped him of all those other attachments? It seems to me they just wanted him to be miserable. So, these beings could be Archons who wanted to feed off his misery.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: I heard that god and his angels can predict our future, which would mean we don't have free will. So, if someone encountered the inevitable fate of being miserable, committing suicide, entering into a miserable afterlife, and being permanently destroyed for breaking the rule of making contact to people on Earth through a medium, then that person didn't have a choice in the matter. But, god or his angels could've done something to prevent such a tragic fate from happening to that person though. Why would they allow such a fate? They already know such a fate would inevitably happen if they don't do something to prevent it. So, it makes no sense to me why they wouldn't intervene.

My Reply: I see what you mean.

Other Person's Response: Do god, Jesus, and the angels have free will?

My Reply: I'm not sure.

Other Person's Response: If the Christian god is real, and we don't have free will, then god knew the inevitable fate of his human creations all along. He knew that most humans would be unsaved and suffer an eternity in hell, and that only very few would enter his heavenly kingdom. So, why didn't god just create those human souls who'd enter heaven after the death of their Earthly bodies, and not create those who'd end up in hell? Why create human souls you know would be hopelessly condemned? It's better to never exist than to exist and suffer an eternity in hell.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: There are near death accounts where people report meeting Jesus and other heavenly beings. They sometimes tell these people that they are spiritually dead, and unless they find a way to develop their souls, they'll forever remain in a place in the afterlife that's detached from god's unconditional love. It's a dark, horrible place, where the only thing they can hear is their own thoughts.

My Reply: What about animals that have near death experiences? Does Jesus and these heavenly beings tell them the same thing? If animals don't have to suffer this horrible fate, then why must humans?

Other Person's Response: Even if Jesus and these heavenly beings did explain things to these animals, they wouldn't understand. But, they could bestow understanding upon these animals without saying a single word.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person’s Response: Your philosophy says that suffering is unnecessary. But, it’s necessary because it has to do with karma. We need to pay off karmic debt, and suffering is how it gets paid off.

My Reply: I think that whole spiritual journey of suffering to pay off karmic debt is unnecessary. It’s also unnecessary for souls to remain in a dark, miserable afterlife after they’ve committed suicide, and it’s unnecessary for them to be permanently destroyed for making contact to people on Earth through a medium. What’s necessary is living an eternally blissful life. If we are eternal spiritual beings, and there’s a blissful heaven, then heaven would be an eternally blissful life that’s free of misery, illness, pain, etc.

Other Person’s Response: Many people would prefer an eternally blissful life, where they can feel all the positive emotions they want, such as sexual ecstasy.

My Reply: Yes. Not too many people would prefer to suffer a life of negative emotions, such as feelings of misery and agony. I think such negative emotions are unnecessary.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, emotions are states of mind and states of being. So, if a person felt sexually aroused, that means he’s in a sexually erotic state of mind, which means he becomes a sexually erotic person.

My Reply: Yes. So, if a person prefers to live a blissful life where he gets to feel sexually erotic all he wants to, then that means he wishes to be in an erotic state of mind all he wants to, and it means he wishes to be an erotic person all he wants to. I’ll admit, many people prefer to have an erotic experience, and they say it’s a beautiful, amazing experience.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, life isn’t about our actions, deeds, etc. It’s all about the experience. So, we need to have as much profound, intense, positive experiences (positive emotions) as we can throughout our lives.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: So, you think life’s all about our personal fun, entertainment, and enjoyment? You think there’s no need to suffer?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person’s Response: Many religious doctrines teach the value and necessity of suffering. But, your doctrine opposes them.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: If suffering is so divine and necessary, as many religious believers claim, then why are there psychic healers who’ve been bestowed with the divine gift of healing the minds and bodies of suffering people? It makes suffering seem unnecessary because if a person was in a state of mental grief and turmoil, then the very existence of these psychic healers implies that this person doesn’t need to be in such a state of suffering, and he can have his mind healed if he chooses. The same idea applies to physical illnesses. It makes them seem unnecessary as well.

My Reply: You’re right. It would be like if god and his angels said that having car problems is divine and necessary, but divinely inspired people to fix cars. It seems like a contradiction. Psychic healers say their healing powers came from God (aka Source) and his angels, and that contradicts the religious notion that suffering is divine and necessary.

Other Person’s Response: There are people who have near death experiences, go on heavenly trips to the afterlife, and report that god and his angels said that suffering is divine and necessary. But, that’s a contradiction, given the existence of psychic healers.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: Since having car problems is unnecessary, then it would be best if we lived in a world where cars have no problems. Likewise, if suffering is unnecessary, then it would be best if we lived in a world where there’s no suffering. There are people who have their lives and talents robbed by physical illnesses, and if their struggles are unnecessary, then it would be best if they never had them to begin with. An example would be someone who has to live his life with cancer on a hospital bed, and can never pursue his talents, goals, and passions. If his cancer was unnecessary, then why didn’t god and his angels just heal his cancer directly? Better yet, why didn’t they just create him as a being who’s incapable of having cancer and other illnesses?

My Reply: You’re right. If people could have these illnesses healed by psychic healers, then there was never any point in having these illnesses to begin with. So, it would be best if god and his angles created us as beings who are incapable of having such illnesses in the first place.

Other Person’s Response: In heaven, we have perfect bodies that are incapable of illnesses. There’s no suffering of any kind in heaven.

My Reply: But, our Earthly bodies are imperfect, and we could’ve had perfect Earthly bodies if god and his angles made this decision. They could’ve created us as Earthly beings who are incapable of having any kind of suffering or illness.

Other Person's Response: There are heavenly, spiritual beings (angels) who don't want us to grieve over the loss of our loved ones, since they go to heaven when they die, and aren't forever gone. These angels say that grief is just negative energy and unnecessary suffering that we don't need. So, that says there are forms of suffering that are unnecessary.

My Reply: Yes, and I think my miserable struggles were also unnecessary, and I would've been better off never having them. My miserable struggles weren't grief though. They were induced by worries and negative thinking, as I said earlier. As for loved ones going to heaven, there are many accounts of people who have near death experiences, where they learn this isn't the only life, and that we are immortal souls that survive bodily death. The angels say these accounts are a blessing, since they give people hope and prevent grief. So, if these angels don't want us to grieve, then why don't they just use their healing powers to heal those who are already stuck in grief, and why didn't they heal me of all my misery?

Other Person’s Response: If suffering and illness is so divine and necessary, then why are there scientists trying to find cures, and create a utopia life for us in the future? Why are they being inspired by god and his angels to invent cures? In addition, why does someone as loving and compassionate as Michael Jackson talk about healing the world, and making it a better place? One of his songs is titled “Heal the World.”

My Reply: I don’t know. In the distant future, there may be no more suffering or illness, which would make all the suffering and illness we had in the past seem unnecessary.

Other Person’s Response: Having suffering and illness is necessary for scientists to learn things to invent cures. It’s a beautiful learning experience for them, which means they benefit.

My Reply: A person’s life shouldn’t be robbed by suffering and illness, just so scientists can have this beautiful learning experience. Besides, scientists can learn other things, which means they can have other beautiful learning experiences. So, even if we lived in a world where there was never any suffering or illness to begin with, scientists can still learn other things.

Other Person’s Response: So, you don’t think a person should suffer for the benefit of others?

My Reply: Correct. For example, I never needed to suffer from all these miserable struggles, just so that my family and therapist can gain more sympathy and compassion. I need my positive emotions, which means I don’t need to suffer for any given reason.

Other Person’s Response: So, if you had the choice to put yourself through much misery to help others, you wouldn’t?

My Reply: I wouldn’t. I have my own life of joy to live, and I won’t accept such a life being denied to me.

Other Person’s Response: Many people talk about self-sacrifice, such as giving up a life of happiness and self-centered passions. But, your lifestyle is one of self-preservation rather than self-sacrifice, since you wish to live the longest, happiest life you can live, you wish to pursue your own interests and passions, such as composing, you prefer a life of no illness, etc.

My Reply: Yes. As for living a long life, I heard there might be a cure for illness and aging 10 years from now. If that cure is found by then, I’m purchasing that cure and taking it. If I don’t have the money for it, then I’ll find a way to make money.

Other Person’s Response: I heard that you’ve recently had an emotional crisis, and you were in much mental turmoil and misery. This was the absolute worst crisis than all the other ones you’ve had because the recent thought that devastated you was far more troubling than all the other thoughts that have devastated you. Thus, it took you much longer to recover from this crisis than all your other ones. So far, it’s been over 3 years, and you’re still not fully recovered. But, you’re getting very close to a full recovery, where you’ll be able to feel positive emotions, such as the joy to compose. You could’ve had your mental suffering healed by a psychic healer. That way, you wouldn’t have suffered for so long, and you would’ve had your joy back to you within a short time. So, why didn’t you visit one of these healers?

My Reply: Well, first of all, the idea never popped into my mind until now. Secondly, I don’t think there’s any psychic healing center where I live. Even if there was, I don’t think my mother has the money to afford a healing session, which might cost a lot of money. I’m not sure how much a healing session would cost though. Also, I’m not sure if psychic healing is even real or not because we might live in a universe where supernatural things, such as psychic powers, ghosts, telepathy, etc. aren’t real phenomena. Even if psychic healing was real, there are many frauds out there who make claims of healing, but don’t heal.

Other Person’s Response: If someone was living his life on a hospital bed with cancer, then his family or friends could contact a psychic healer who could heal his cancer from a distance. So, psychic healers don’t need to be there in person. But, many people are unaware of psychic healers. Thus, many people endure their suffering and illnesses without realizing that they can have them healed. I personally think there’s plenty of evidence for psychic healers. As a matter of fact, I think there’s plenty of evidence that we have the power to heal ourselves, and that we just need to tap into this innate healing ability. We have the ability to instantly heal ourselves of suffering and illness through the power of our minds, and many people are unaware of this as well.

My Reply: Well, like I said, I don’t know if any of this is true or not.

Other Person’s Response: If we do have the innate ability to heal ourselves through the power of our minds, then why must it be a hidden ability that people are unaware of, and must learn how to tap into? Why can’t it just automatically be triggered when a person has some form of suffering or illness, and wishes he didn’t have said suffering or illness? That way, people wouldn’t have to suffer while being unaware of some hidden healing ability, and they could heal themselves through the sheer will alone of wanting their suffering eliminated.

My Reply: I don’t understand this either. If sheer will alone could heal our suffering and illnesses, then I think that would be wonderful. I’ve had many miserable struggles throughout my life, and I had the will to eliminate my suffering. But, that will didn’t heal my suffering one bit. However, if I do have an innate healing ability, I was aware of it while I was suffering, and I found a way to tap into it, then I would’ve healed my misery right then and there.

Other Person’s Response: Are you fully recovered from all the other devastating moments you’ve had in the past?

My Reply: Yes. But, I’m still recovering from this recent crisis. There are actually moments now where I’m able to feel certain positive emotions, such as certain positive drives. But, I don’t have my full capacity to feel positive emotions yet. That should be restored once I’m fully recovered. I don’t have my emotional drive to pursue my composing dream yet, and I’m still waiting for that drive to return. Once it does, I’m going back to composing again.

Other Person’s Response: Waiting for your composing drive to return before going back to composing would be no different than a person waiting for his sex drive to return before engaging in sex again. It would also be like a person waiting for his drive to lift weights to return before going back to the gym to lift weights.

My Reply: Yes. Also, since I have no drive to pursue my composing, then that means the pursuit of my composing can’t be valuable, precious, worthwhile, good, etc. in my eyes. It means I’m currently apathetic in regards to pursuing my composing dream.

Other Person’s Response: During your miserable struggles, were there moments of normalcy, where you were happy? I ask this because there are people who are miserable one moment, and happy the next.

My Reply: No. I was trapped in a horrible, miserable, unhealthy state of mind 24/7, and it took a long time for my brain to restore itself back to its normal, happy, healthy state. Sometimes, the brain can get stuck like this, and it takes a while for it to restore itself back to normal. An example would be people who have chronic, clinical depression. Their brains are stuck in this chronically depressed state. If they do recover, then it takes a long time, even with many treatments. Sometimes, it can take a short time.

Other Person’s Response: Since all your miserable struggles were caused by worries and negative thoughts, and since it took a long time to recover from them, then that means your psyche was troubled for quite some time.

My Reply: Yes. I’ve also had profoundly horrible, horrific, and disturbing nightmares virtually every day during these miserable struggles. The negative emotions I’ve felt during these nightmares were much more profound and horrible than the ones I’ve felt during my waking life.

Other Person’s Response: You say you’ve had many miserable struggles throughout your life, and it was a cycle you were caught in. That means you had one miserable moment, fully recovered from it, had another miserable moment immediately afterwards, fully recovered from it, etc.

My Reply: Yes. Religious believers do talk about a cycle of bad karma and suffering that people can get caught in. Perhaps I was caught in one of these cycles. But, I think I’ve broken this cycle, which means I don’t think I’m going to have any more of these miserable moments.

Other Person’s Response: In regards to this recent worry you’re having, is there any pep talk that would help you?

My Reply: No. I also tried telling myself as many things as possible, and nothing helped either.

Other Person’s Response: Do you struggle with clinical depression?

My Reply: No. Clinical depression is a form of depression that’s not caused by thoughts or worries, and I don’t have that form of depression.

Other Person’s Response: If god wanted you to go through all these miserable struggles, so that you could learn the life lesson of having a healthy mindset (i.e. having no negative thoughts or worries) in order to prevent bringing anymore misery upon yourself, then you’ve already learned this life lesson. You’ve already learned it the exact moment you’ve had this recent emotional crisis, which was triggered by a devastating worry. But, you’re unable to will this worry away, despite having learned this life lesson. So, that means you continue to suffer until, one day, the worry resolves on its own, and you’re happy again. Since you’ve already learned your life lesson, then there’s no need to suffer like this. I don’t understand why god, or his angels, don’t just heal your mind of all this suffering.

My Reply: I don’t understand either. This is a worry my subconscious mind is constantly fixated on. Thus, I continue to suffer in misery, even though I’m consciously not worried, and fixated on other things, such as my daily tasks. So, my subconscious is constantly troubled, while my conscious isn’t troubled. As of now, I’m mostly apathetic, and I’m no longer in that horrible, unhealthy, miserable state of mind. But, I do continue to feel negative emotions, such as brief moments of misery, rage, despair, etc. Once I’m fully recovered from this crisis, I shouldn’t feel any of those negative emotions anymore. I should now be happy and able to enjoy my life and hobbies again. Positive emotions shut off during an emotional crisis because that’s a part of the recovery process. But, they get restored once a person fully recovers from his crisis.

Other Person’s Response: You’re still having nightmares to this very day, right?

My Reply: Yes. This shows that my mind is still troubled because I normally don’t have nightmares at all. Especially the types of nightmares I’m having, which consist of profound negative emotions. The only time I have nightmares is when I'm troubled by something. That's why I've only been having nightmares during all my miserable struggles, since they've been triggered by worries.

Other Person’s Response: Having an emotional crisis can cause a person to develop a mental illness known as “anhedonia,” where the person is unable to feel positive emotions, even after having fully recovered from his crisis.

My Reply: I hope that doesn’t happen to me then. But, I do notice that my positive emotions are starting to return. I still don’t have my drive to pursue my hobbies though.

Other Person’s Response: I’ve heard that having this recent crisis has caused symptoms of a potential heart attack, due to all that chronic stress/worry. You say your heart rate is chronically higher than normal, and that you sometimes feel mild stabbing in your heart. Do you think these symptoms will go away once you’re fully recovered from this crisis?

My Reply: Yes, since all that stress/worry would be gone. Also, I’m not obese. I’m quite thin. I live a healthy lifestyle of eating right, walking on the treadmill, getting enough sleep, not doing drugs or alcohol, etc. So, maybe my risk of getting a heart attack or stroke from this chronic worry is small. As for my heart rate, it’s just a bit faster than normal. If these symptoms persist, even after I’m fully recovered from this crisis, then perhaps I should get myself checked in to the doctors. After all, I want to live in order to achieve my composing dream of sharing awesome, profound, otherworldly music to the world.

Other Person's Response: Can't you just will yourself out of this emotional crisis by telling yourself certain things, such as that there's no reason to be troubled because it's pointless to worry? If the situation you’re worried about is going to happen, then worrying won’t prevent it.

My Reply: I told myself that, and none of it helps. Nothing I tell myself helps one bit. It would be like telling someone that it’s pointless to grieve over the loss of his loved one, since grief won’t bring that loved one back. That won’t help his grief. He needs to instead get psychological help, such as seeing a therapist. I already have a therapist. But, his advice doesn’t help me.

Other Person’s Response: You said these miserable struggles were caused by devastating moments you’ve had in your life. When a person has a devastating moment in his life, such as the loss of his loved one, that will certainly alter his perspective. Things that were once beautiful and amazing in his eyes will become morbidly insignificant and meaningless. In addition, he might have a new perspective in regards to people he once loved and admired. For example, he could perceive them as disgusting people he wishes to harm.

My Reply: Yes, and that’s what happened to me. I perceived my mother as a disgusting person during my miserable struggles, and I couldn’t help this perception. I was also very enraged and had the desire to harm myself and my mother. Normally, I don’t have such a perspective at all. But, I never acted out on those negative perceptions (emotions), which means I never harmed myself or my mother.

Other Person’s Response: What triggered your misery?

My Reply: There were certain thoughts and worries that made me miserable, and I couldn’t help but be miserable from these thoughts and worries. Neither could I will myself into a state of full recovery from these miserable moments, which means I had to be patient and wait for each one to run its course.

Other Person’s Response: I heard that your mother sometimes complains about you “spazzing out” (being upset and frustrated) when you have a difficult time doing a certain task she tells you to do. Such frustration only happens when you’re having a miserable moment in your life, right?

My Reply: Right. Normally, I wouldn’t be upset or frustrated at all.

Other Person’s Response: You said that you’ve pursued your composing dream during these miserable struggles for quite some time, and that this didn’t work at all for you. It did nothing to rid of the morbid perception you’ve had during your struggles.

My Reply: Correct. Being miserable like this was no way to live or be a composer. That’s why I just gave up on my composing dream until I was happy again.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, what determines whether a certain lifestyle is no way to live or not is the person’s perspective. As long as a person perceives beauty and goodness, then he lived a beautiful, good life, regardless of his actions, words, and deeds. That means a person, who’s a lazy slob who does absolutely nothing for himself or for humanity, would be living a beautiful, good life, as long as he’s perceiving beauty and goodness. So, as long as he’s perceiving beauty and goodness, then his lazy lifestyle wasn’t no way to live. But, if a person had a morbid perception (such as the morbid perception you’ve had during your struggles), and he made many contributions to humanity, then his lifestyle was no way to live, since he didn’t perceive anything as beautiful, awesome, magnificent, good, precious, etc.

My Reply: Correct. Life’s all about our perspective (emotional state). When I had a morbid perspective during my miserable struggles, that was no way to live, regardless of what I did with my life, and regardless of how much I pursued my composing dream. So, that means it has to be our perspective that determines whether our lives are no way to live or not, and not our actions, words, deeds, etc.

Other Person's Response: I heard you started to have this composing dream when you were 19 or 20 years old, which is also the time you were having these miserable struggles. You say your entire struggle has lasted for many years, since it was an ongoing cycle of misery you were caught in, and you say these struggles have wasted your life, goals, and dreams away. Actually, they never did waste your life, goals, and dreams away. What I consider to be the wasted life is you giving up on your composing during these miserable struggles. You could've gotten very far in your composing, and produced some great music in all those years you've had these miserable struggles. Yet, you've just let all those years waste away.

My Reply: Like I said, persevering in my composing during times of misery didn't work out for me. So, I had to let all those years waste away. Even if I've chosen to persevere in my composing, despite all those miserable struggles, it would still be a wasted life, since it would still be no way to live or be an artist without my positive feelings. Also remember that I couldn't have any drive to pursue my composing during these miserable struggles.

Other Person's Response: When you say persevering in your composing during your misery didn't work out for you, are you saying it was no way to live or be an artist for you?

My Reply: Yes. Even though I persevered for a while, my personal experience never changed. In other words, being in that horrible, miserable state was still no way to live or be an artist.

Other Person's Response: You've had these miserable struggles for many years, and you've never developed a better philosophy. I find this rather unusual because our brains are supposed to adapt. For example, if someone became blind, it might be no way to live or be an artist for him at first. But, eventually, he gets used to living with his blindness. In other words, he adapts. Thus, his perspective changes, and he no longer thinks that living with blindness is no way to live or be an artist. I see such a change has never happened to you, for whatever reason.

My Reply: I think such a change has never happened for me because positive emotions really are the only good and beautiful things in life, and it really is no way to live or be an artist without them. With the example you gave of the blind person, his personal experience was able to change, and that's how he had a better perspective. But, if my philosophy was right all along, then my personal experience can never change, since it was right all along.

Other Person's Response: So, if your philosophy was right all along, then it will always be no way to live or be an artist for you without your positive emotions, and nothing can change that.

My Reply: That's correct. The truth is the truth, and it can never change. But, there are many people in this world who are in denial of the truth, and I think many people deny the fact that my philosophy is true.

Other Person's Response: I heard you downloaded 3 music books for free from a website known as "PDF Drive." The 1st book is titled "Music Theory for Dummies," the 2nd one is titled "Music Composition for Dummies," and the 3rd one is titled "Song Writing for Dummies." These 3 books have over 300 pages, and the 1st book teaches people what they need to know about music theory, the 2nd book teaches people what they need to know to compose good music, and the 3rd book talks about how to make your music popular.

My Reply: Yes. If I decided to read all these books now, I'd be missing out on the goodness, beauty, value, and joy of learning. So, that's why I have to wait for my positive emotions to return before reading these books. I'm apathetic right now, due to this emotional crisis I've recently had, and reading these books now would be nothing more than an apathetic endeavor for me. Imagine a situation like this.

If there was a grand moment that I could choose to experience now, or wait to experience later when I have my positive emotions, then I'd choose to wait because that grand moment could be nothing good, beautiful, amazing, precious, or special for me without my positive emotions. Learning how to compose, and the composing process itself, is like a grand moment that I have to postpone until I regain my positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: Since you're 31 years old now, then these miserable struggles must've lasted 11 or 12 years.

My Reply: Actually, I think my miserable struggles might've started a bit earlier. So, I think they lasted a little more than 11 or 12 years.

Other Person's Response: I know many people who get caught in a cycle of anxiety, fear, or depression that lasts for many years, and they need to talk to a mental health professional to help get them out of that cycle.

My Reply: Yes. I had a therapist. But, his advice didn't help me. So, I had to find my own way out of this miserable cycle, and it took a very long time.

Other Person's Response: People can call you weak, worthless, and pathetic all they want to. But, it's not going to help you one bit.

My Reply: That's right.

Other Person's Response: When people call you weak and cowardly for giving up on your composing during your miserable struggles, do you think they just don't understand your suffering?

My Reply: That's correct. They just don't understand that being in such a miserable state is no way to live or be an artist.

Other Person's Response: Some people would say you're just trying to have an excuse for giving up on your composing during your miserable struggles.

My Reply: I think it's a valid excuse. Why persevere in my composing when I'm miserable like this?

Other Person's Response: If you're an eternal, spiritual being whose physical body dies, but whose soul never dies, then even if your entire lifespan here on Earth was wasted by a lifelong struggle of misery, and you never got the chance to pursue your composing dream, 80-100 years wasted would be nothing compared to an eternity. So, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. You'd have another chance to reincarnate into another body, and start a whole new life on Earth again. Hopefully, this new life would be a happy existence for you, and you'd get to fully pursue your composing dream.

My Reply: Since heaven is a blissful place that has no pain, misery, or suffering, then that's the best place for me to pursue my composing dream. There's simply no need for me to be here on Earth. I can even wish for a physical body in heaven, and have that wish granted to me. It would be the perfect body that can never have any physical or mental illnesses.

Other Person's Response: I bet, even if you never had these miserable struggles, and the entirety of your life was a happy existence, you still wouldn't have the will and determination to dedicate your life to composing. I bet you'd just dedicate a little bit of time here and there, and that's it.

My Reply: False. I'd dedicate all my time to composing. That means I'd dedicate many hours each day. When I used to play video games, I'd dedicate many hours each day to playing them until I felt the need to sit back, relax, and take a break for a little while. I was able to enjoy my video games in the past, and that's why I dedicated my life to playing them. But, now that I no longer have my positive feelings, I've given up on both my video game hobby and my composing. When I regain my positive feelings, I'm dedicating all my time to composing, since I've switched over from playing video games to composing. I think composing is the greater hobby to dedicate my life to than playing video games, since I get to express powerful and profound emotion through compositions, as opposed to just living my life as a basic gamer.

Other Person's Response: You have the thought that composing is something greater than playing video games. But, it's nothing great in your eyes, since you can't feel great about it.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: What if this is the only life you have, and you never get to reincarnate into a new body here on Earth, or pursue your composing in heaven? That means this is your one and only shot to compose some awesome music to share to the world. By postponing your composing, you're just wasting this one and only opportunity you have, and I'd hate to see the bizarre, unique style of music you wish to compose to never be created, and to never be known.

My Reply: Then let it waste away! That's what I say! I refuse to pursue my composing when I don't feel up to it!

Other Person's Response: I don't think this life was meant for us as human beings. People have talents, goals, and dreams, only for them to be wasted away. For example, a talented singer, who permanently loses her singing voice, would no longer be able to pursue her amazing talent. A person, who has to live his life in a hospital bed with cancer, would no longer get to pursue his talent, whether it be playing basketball, doing performances, etc. So, his talent and dream would be wasted away. The same idea applies to those people who lose their emotional drive to pursue their goals, dreams, and talents, due to a mental illness, or, in your case, a devastating, emotional crisis. Such people might as well let their goals, talents, and dreams waste away, since none of these things can matter without the emotional drive.

My Reply: I agree, and having cures would solve that. If there was a cure for a lost voice, a cure for cancer, a cure for mental illnesses, misery, and emotional traumas, then that would make this world a place more suitable for us. With cures, people would get to live long lives, so they can pursue their talents, goals, and dreams, and there'd be no illnesses stopping them, killing them off before they get to achieve their goals, and there'd be nothing that would take away our emotional drive to pursue our goals. Even aging would be cured.

Other Person's Response: I believe god exists, and I don't think he wants you to give up on your composing. I don't think living a life of happiness, fun, thrills, and enjoyment is our divine purpose. I think our divine purpose is persevering, and never giving up, even in the face of misery, unhappiness, and apathy.

My Reply: I disagree that's our divine purpose. Humanity would be better off living in a vegetative state of bliss than persevering in a life of misery, unhappiness, and apathy. I think that would be our holy, divine purpose. Remember, positivity is divine, and living a life of positivity is our divine purpose. So, even if it means living in a vegetative state to achieve much positivity, then that would be a divine purpose.

Other Person's Response: Some spiritual believers say we suffer on Earth because, without suffering, we wouldn't know joy.

My Reply: I've had almost no suffering in my life for many years when I was younger, since I was happy and healthy back then. I lived a casual life of playing video games. I still had joyful, beautiful, amazing, etc. experiences, despite this absence of suffering. So, I don't need any suffering to have such experiences, or to know such experiences. Later on in my life, I was no longer happy, and had miserable struggles for many years.

Other Person's Response: I heard that souls have lived in heaven since the very beginning, where there was pure joy, and no pain or suffering. Heaven is the true home for our souls, and souls have lived happily in heaven for a very long time. They've had the most profound, powerful, positive experiences, such as love, beauty, etc. in heaven, and such experiences were far more profound and powerful than anything they could ever experience on Earth.

My Reply: Like I said, heaven is where we need to be then, and we don't need to go through all this misery, suffering, and unhappiness. Here on Earth, souls are just missing out on all the positivity, since positive emotions are very fleeting in this Earthly existence.

Other Person’s Response: You treat thoughts and emotions as different things. I agree thoughts and emotions aren’t the same thing. For example, a feeling of panic isn’t the same thing as a thought of panic. A panic attack is an emotional state, isn’t everlasting, and is very brief. Once it wears off, a person could have a frightening thought. But, that thought wouldn’t make him feel panic, since his feeling of panic has already worn off. This shows there’s a difference between thoughts and emotions.

My Reply: Yes. Feelings of love and happiness are also things that wear off. Especially when they’re very intense feelings, since intense feelings wear out quickly. But, thoughts can make people feel those emotions again, once the ability to feel said emotions returns.

Other Person’s Response: Emotions that are less intense can last for quite a while. For example, a feeling of anxiety could last for a long time. But, a panic attack only lasts for a short time.

My Reply: Yes. I’m able to continually enjoy my life and hobbies throughout the day (providing I have feelings of enjoyment) because that feeling isn’t intense. If it was intense, then it would only last for a short time.

Other Person's Response: In regards to your miserable struggles, do you think they'll always be pointless and unnecessary, regardless of what anyone says to you? Some people would say your miserable struggles were actually necessary, and I'm wondering if people can change your views.

My Reply: I'll always think they're pointless and unnecessary. I have my views and other people have theirs. People can't expect me to convert to their views, just as how I can't expect them to convert to my views.

Other Person’s Response: You said there were moments where you were apathetic (emotionless). Did definitions work for you then?

My Reply: No. My life’s experience was still devoid of any happiness, beauty, love, etc. Also, defining my apathy as happiness or love did nothing to give me a happy or loving perspective. In other words, I was still apathetic, and didn’t care about anything or anyone.

Other Person’s Response: There were moments in my life where I was miserable. Definitions worked for me. Defining my acts of contribution to humanity as happiness made me happy, even though I didn’t have my ability to feel any positive emotions. So, happiness doesn’t have to be a positive emotion, which means a person can still be happy, even during much misery, turmoil, and suffering.

My Reply: I don’t think that definition of happiness worked for you at all, and you’re just in denial. I also think being in that state of misery was no way to live or be an artist for you, and you’d be in denial to believe otherwise.

Other Person’s Response: So, you think I really wasn’t happy, and I was just in denial because I believed I was happy?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person’s Response: Well, I contributed to humanity during my miserable moments. So, that means my definition of happiness worked for me. That means I really was happy, and it means I was living a beautiful life. Otherwise, if my definition of happiness and beauty wasn’t working for me, I would’ve done nothing with my life. I would’ve just wallowed in misery.

My Reply: During my miserable moments, I helped my family, pursued my composing dream, etc. Yet, that didn’t work for me at all. In other words, it brought me no happiness, and it was no way to live or be an artist for me. So, just because you’ve made contributions to humanity doesn’t mean you were happy, and neither does it mean it was a good or beautiful way to live for you. It doesn’t mean your definition of happiness and beauty actually worked for you.

Other Person’s Response: What you’re doing here is projecting your personal experience upon everyone else. Just because definitions didn’t work for you during your miserable moments doesn’t mean they don’t work for anyone else. Just because your positive emotions are the only happiness, goodness, beauty, and love in your life doesn’t mean that applies to everyone else. Lastly, just because a life without positive emotions is no way to live or be an artist for you doesn’t mean that applies to everyone else, and neither does it mean that people who live by a different philosophy than yours are in denial.

My Reply: There are certain things that apply to all human beings, such as that we all have a heart that keeps us alive, we all grow old and die, etc. Perhaps my philosophy is also something that applies to all human beings, and people are in denial to believe otherwise.

Other Person’s Response: I heard you say there were certain emotions you’ve felt that were much more profound feelings than other emotions you’ve felt. But, profoundness is something defined by the individual.

My Reply: Emotions are perceptions of beauty, horror, etc., which means emotions possess inherent qualities of beauty, horror, etc. Some emotions are profound perceptions of beauty, horror, etc., which means some emotions possess an inherent quality of profoundness. So, good, bad, love, etc. aren’t defined by the individual. They’re inherent qualities, and our emotions possess those qualities. That’s the reason why defining the enduring of my misery as good, beautiful, and happiness did nothing for me, since my positive emotions possess the inherent qualities of goodness, beauty, and happiness that I need.

Other Person’s Response: So, if someone felt horror (an emotion), then that emotion possesses the inherent quality of horror, and that emotion is horror. If someone felt good or bad, then that emotion possesses the inherent quality of good or bad, and that emotion is good or bad.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: When you say emotions possess inherent qualities of good, bad, beauty, horror, etc., do you mean good, bad, etc. are integrated into our emotions?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: So, emotions are intrinsically good, bad, beautiful, horrific, etc.?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: If someone had the thought that something was horrific, then his thought would possess the inherent quality of horror, and his thought would be horror. So, horror is a thought.

My Reply: Actually, horror is an emotion because emotions are the only perceptions of horror, beauty, etc.

Other Person’s Response: If emotions were intrinsically good, bad, etc., people would always treat them as such.

My Reply: Not true. Many people live in denial of their emotions. They deny the fact that their emotions are intrinsically good, bad, etc.

Other Person’s Response: There are profound value judgments. An example would be: “Nature is profoundly beautiful.” Since emotions are value judgments, then that means there are profound emotions. So, someone could feel profound beauty from nature, and that would be a profound emotion/profound value judgment. It would also be a perception of profound beauty in regards to nature, since a feeling of profound beauty is a perception of profound beauty.

My Reply: Yes. Also, the more profound horror or beauty one feels, then the more profoundly horrific or beautiful of a life he’s living, since emotions are the only beautiful and horrific things. Emotions give beautiful and horrific power to moments, situations, etc. in our minds. Without that power, then there’s no beauty or horror.

Other Person’s Response: Good, bad, etc. come from within, since they’re our personal judgments in regards to things. That says good, bad, etc. are within. They’re value judgments/perceptions/states of mind. The same idea applies to love, hate, sorrow, anger, etc. All things in this world aren’t love, hate, etc. Love, hate, etc. are states of mind.

My Reply: Yes, and they’re emotional states. There’s no love, hate, good, bad, etc. that exists outside of our minds. So, if a person defined something as good, then that goodness wouldn’t exist within that thing, or on top of that thing. Neither would it be engulfing that thing. If a person defined something as love, such as certain acts he performed, then love wouldn’t exist there either. But, when that person perceives something as good, and when he has a loving perspective, then that goodness and love exists. It exists as his own perception, which means it exists in his own mind.
Last edited by MozartLink on Wed May 13, 2020 12:48 pm, edited 14 times in total.
MozartLink
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: All My Philosophy Packets

Post by MozartLink »

File #2: My Philosophy Of Emotions (Part 7/12)

Other Person’s Response: If that person defined something as good without perceiving it as good, and if he defined his acts as love without being in a loving state of mind, then there’d be no goodness or love. So, definitions don’t make goodness and love pop into existence for us.

My Reply: Correct. Happiness, good, bad, love, etc. are all emotions, and we can’t make them magically pop into existence if we’re not feeling any emotions.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, positivity and negativity are states of mind. They’re emotions. Feeling positive is the only positive thing in life, and feeling negative is the only negative thing in life.

My Reply: Yes. So, if someone was feeling a negative emotion, such as misery, and he defined something as positive, then that thing wouldn’t be positive.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, positive emotions are the only positive things in life. So, we wouldn’t refer to anything as being positive in the absence of positive emotions.

My Reply: Correct. Positive emotions are the very things that give positivity to our lives. They create a positive, mental atmosphere for us, since they’re positive states of mind. So, a person wouldn’t be having a positive attitude if nobody, including himself, could feel positive about his attitude.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, emotions are the only things that can make dreams and nightmares beautiful, amazing, horrific, or disturbing. So, if someone had a nightmare of a spider, and he felt horror during that nightmare, then that feeling of horror creates a horrific mood (atmosphere) in the nightmare, which is what makes the nightmare horrific. But, if he then had a nightmare where he slaughtered his family, and he felt no horror whatsoever during the nightmare, then that nightmare wouldn’t have been horrific, since that nightmare didn’t have any horrific atmosphere to it.

My Reply: Correct. Nightmares only become horrific for us when we experience horror in regards to them. Since feelings of horror are the only experiences of horror, then that means the only way nightmares can be horrific for us would be if we felt horror in regards to them. Again, defining a nightmare as horrific wouldn’t make it horrific for you, as long as you didn’t feel horror in regards to it.

Other Person’s Response: According to that emotion perception theory, we see nightmares as horrific through our feelings of horror. How could a nightmare be horrific for someone if he didn’t see it as horrific?

My Reply: Exactly. We can only see nightmares as horrific through our feelings of horror, which is why nightmares only become horrific for us when we feel horror in regards to them.

Other Person’s Response: If a person was getting some work done, he had a very negative perspective in regards to his job, such as hating his job, and seeing nothing good, amazing, or beautiful about it, then he could define the perception of goodness, amazingness, and beauty as simply getting his job done. He could define that as a positive perspective, and he could define that as loving his job.

My Reply: But, again, as long as he’s in a state of mind where he hates his job, and has a very negative perspective in regards to it, then that’s no way to live. Life’s not about just getting work done, what deeds we’ve done, or what mark we’ve made upon this world. It’s all about our perspective (state of mind). Like I said, we need to have a positive perspective, such as a happy perspective of seeing deeds as good, amazing, and beautiful when doing these deeds.

Other Person’s Response: You say life’s all about our perspective (state of mind), and you say that emotions are perspectives/states of mind, which is why you disagree with any definition of love, hate, good, bad, etc. that’s outside of our minds (non-emotional). So, if a person defined his actions, rather than his emotions, as good, bad, love, or happiness, then you’d disagree with that definition.

My Reply: Correct. If a hateful father did a helpful deed for his child, but he did it in a very hateful manner, and he defined his act as love, then that wouldn’t be love. He wouldn’t be loving his child, since he was in a hateful state of mind. In order for the father to love his child, he needs to be in a loving state of mind. He needs to feel love, which would be a positive emotion.

Other Person’s Response: Going by your definition of love, a father, who’s in a loving state of mind, and performs acts that don’t express his inner love, such as harmful acts towards his child, would still be loving his child.

My Reply: Yes. Those acts were just acts. They’re not hate, love, good, bad, etc. So, it’s not the father’s actions, words, expressions, or deeds that determine whether he was a loving or hateful father. It’s the father’s state of mind that determines this. As long as the father feels love, then that means he’s in a loving state of mind, which means he loves his child, regardless of his actions.

Other Person’s Response: You said there were times in your life where you were unable to feel any emotions. That means, according to your philosophy, you were apathetic. But, you could define your mindset of just getting things done as an emotion, which means you’d no longer be apathetic.

My Reply: I did that, and this definition did nothing for me. It gave me no real emotions, which means it gave me no real motivation to get things done. So, I require my real emotions to have motivation. Definitions don’t somehow magically make emotions, motivation, love, happiness, etc. pop into existence for us. Definitions are just words, and nothing more.

Other Person’s Response: If a person was very lethargic, he was dragging himself along through life, and he defined his mindset of just getting things done as motivation, then that definition wouldn’t give him any real motivation. He’d still be lethargic, and dragging himself along.

My Reply: Yes. He’d require an energy drink or something to give him real motivation. He’d require something to give him an emotional high.

Other Person’s Response: When you refer to motivation as either real or not real, do you mean that real motivation is motivation that’s there, and motivation that’s not real is motivation that’s not there?

My Reply: Yes. So, when I say that a person defining his mindset as motivation doesn’t give him real motivation, I mean it gives him no motivation at all.

Other Person’s Response: If that lethargic person was getting things done, then that means he had some motivation. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have done those things at all.

My Reply: False. That lethargic person would just be choosing to get things done. But, that’s not the same thing as being motivated to get things done. For example, if there was battery power that was animating a certain toy, then that toy wouldn’t be motivated. The toy would just be performing certain acts, gestures, and expressions. In order for the toy to be motivated, it needs to feel the emotional drive to perform those acts, gestures, and expressions. But, it can’t feel any emotions, since it’s just a toy.

Other Person’s Response: So, if an emotionless person has chosen to get work done, then he’d just be having the intention to get work done? But, he’d have no motivation to get work done?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person’s Response: It seems to me you’re making a distinction between one’s personal definitions and one’s personal experience. For example, you say that a person could define his mindset of getting things done as motivation. But, that wouldn’t be the actual experience of motivation. The experience of motivation is a state of mind, and such a state of mind can’t magically pop into existence if a person says it’s there.

My Reply: Correct. One’s personal definition can’t make it magically pop into existence.

Other Person’s Response: Thoughts and emotions aren’t the same thing. If a person defined a thought he had as being an emotion, then it wouldn’t be an emotion. It would still just be a thought.

My Reply: Yes. That’s why a person can’t be in an emotional state through his mindset alone. He needs to feel an emotion in order to be in an emotional state.

Other Person’s Response: If a person’s emotions have complete power and control (dominance) over his mind, then it wouldn’t matter how he defines happiness, love, good, bad, etc.; his emotions will always be the only happiness, love, etc. in his life. So, I think you’re just allowing your emotions to have dominance over your mind.

My Reply: I’m not sure that’s what’s going on. Based upon my personal experience, I think emotions really are the only happiness, love, etc.

Other Person’s Response: I heard from spiritual, religious believers that we undergo suffering here on Earth to learn and grow. So, all the horrible, negative experiences we have serve a beautiful purpose.

My Reply: But, without a positive state of mind, then all life lessons and forms of growth we acquire can be nothing positive for us, since they wouldn’t be perceived as anything positive. So, acquiring knowledge, life lessons, and personal growth isn’t our goal. Our goal in life is to be in the most profound, intense, positive states of mind, and to have as much of these positive experiences as we can throughout our lives. The more positivity we experience, the better. By having negative experiences throughout our lives, then that’s just denying us the positivity we need.

Other Person’s Response: Actually, according to your philosophy, acquiring knowledge, life lessons, and personal growth can be our goal in life. But, we need to be in a positive state of mind when acquiring them. If we’re acquiring them while in a negative state of mind, such as a state of frustration, hurt, or suicidal misery, then that’s no way to live or be an artist.

My Reply: Correct. Life’s not about the knowledge, life lessons, and personal growth alone. It’s all about the positivity (the positive emotions).

Other Person’s Response: If someone was in a positive state of mind, but he was in such a state of mind in regards to something else besides acquiring knowledge, then that means acquiring knowledge would be nothing positive for him, since he needs to feel positive in regards to acquiring knowledge.

My Reply: Yes. He needs to feel positively motivated to acquire knowledge. When pursuing any given endeavor, a person must feel positively motivated to pursue it.

Other Person’s Response: I heard that you feel positively motivated to pursue your composing dream, since you wish to share bizarre, unique, otherworldly music to the audience.

My Reply: Yes, and that feeling would be an impulse. Without that impulse, then I have no positive motivation to pursue my composing dream.

Other Person’s Response: You said you’ve learned a life lesson from all your miserable struggles, which would be to keep a healthy mindset, since it was having an unhealthy mindset that caused all your mental turmoil and misery. According to you, having acquired this life lesson/personal growth wasn’t the ultimate thing for your soul. Spiritual believers say that the life lessons we learn and forms of personal growth we obtain are the ultimate, divine things our souls obtain. But, you disagree.

My Reply: Yes. Having learned this life lesson merely puts me in a position where I no longer bring anymore misery upon myself. But, the ultimate, divine thing for my soul to obtain would be the most profound, intense, everlasting, positive emotions, and I didn’t obtain that.

Other Person’s Response: Having learned your life lesson was necessary though, since it prevents further misery.

My Reply: But, if I was created as a blissful being who could only experience the most profound, intense bliss, and could never experience unhappiness and misery, then I would’ve never had these miserable struggles in the first place. So, I wouldn’t have to suffer to learn some life lesson.

Other Person’s Response: All your suffering has given you understanding of the suffering of others, and just how horrible such suffering can be.

My Reply: Like I said, I never needed to obtain this understanding because what I need is my positive emotions. I don’t need to suffer in order to acquire knowledge and understanding.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, love can only be a fleeting emotion. That’s not true because there’s a form of love that’s everlasting, and much more profound than any emotional form of love. It’s called Divine Love or Grace, it’s unconditional love, and it’s the love of god. A person doesn’t need to suffer in order to obtain Grace. He just needs to somehow develop as an individual by helping others, contributing to the world, etc. Once he obtains it, he’ll be able to love others like he never could before.

My Reply: First of all, I don’t know if Grace even exists. Secondly, many people say that we need to suffer in order to become more loving, compassionate people. But, if Grace exists, it’s the most profound, powerful love and compassion there is, and we don’t need to suffer in order to obtain it, then suffering is unnecessary. But, suffering does teach us things. Still, life’s all about the positive experiences, such as love, joy, beauty, etc., and not about the life lessons themselves. So, again, I never needed to suffer a life of misery, just to learn some life lesson.

Other Person's Response: Grace isn't just a feeling of love, is it? It's a feeling of love that's a good or amazing feeling, right?

My Reply: I'd think so.

Other Person’s Response: If a person has Grace, then he can never become more loving and compassionate, no matter how much suffering he undergoes, since Grace is already the greatest love and compassion there is.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: Suffering is necessary to get us to a place of helping others, contributing to the world, etc., so that we can obtain Grace. Without suffering, then there’d be no incentive for doing so.

My Reply: Not true. There are other ways to get to that place. For example, if a person lived with a family that expected him to be of service to others, then that would’ve been his incentive. Another example would be a person who’s living a dull, shallow existence, and wishes to make a change in his life. That would be his incentive.

Other Person’s Response: If god wanted you to grow as an individual by developing a better philosophy, then you don’t need to suffer to achieve this goal. You could just be rendered without your positive emotions due to brain damage, a mental illness, etc., which would make your life valueless and worthless. From there, you could try to change your philosophy somehow to change your life for the better.

My Reply: Yes. Also, if I was apathetic, then I could still try to change, since I can still do things while apathetic. It’s not like I need suffering as a form of motivation. So, that means I don’t need to be in a miserable, suicidal state of mind where I’m begging for help, and desperately trying to change my life for the better. That’s a horrible way to live and better my life. It’s also a horrible way to be an artist. Therefore, I see no need for me to have suffered through all these miserable, suicidal struggles.

Other Person’s Response: During your miserable struggles, you were trying to find ways to help you recover from them faster, so you could regain your positive emotions. That’s the reason why you still exercised and did relaxation techniques, even though you were miserable. But, I think it’s time you tried to change your philosophy.

My Reply: I have doubts my philosophy can ever change. Also, during my miserable struggles, I had no motivation to change my philosophy. I actually felt like giving up on trying to change, and that feeling was a negative emotion (a feeling of rage). So, that means I was motivated to give up. Remember, during my miserable struggles, I feel all sorts of negative emotions.

Other Person’s Response: If you were trying to regain your positive emotions, even though you were miserable, that must mean your positive emotions were valuable to you, which means you saw them as valuable, even during much misery. That means you don’t need your positive emotions to see anything as valuable, good, beautiful, etc.

My Reply: False. I still couldn’t see the regaining of my positive emotions as valuable, good, etc., since I couldn’t feel positive emotions during these miserable struggles. But, I still tried to regain them anyway because I knew in my mind I needed them.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, it would be better for a person to not feel frustrated when experiencing a difficult learning curve, and to instead feel positive.

My Reply: Yes. He needs to have fun and enjoy the whole learning process.

Other Person’s Response: Many people tend to idolize the image of a suffering, miserable person who does his best in life, and acquires knowledge, life lessons, and personal growth, despite his despair, misery, and unhappiness. But, you’re saying this image isn’t to be idolized or honored, and that we should instead idolize the image of a blissful person who has fun?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, a person needs to be in a positive state of mind when giving to others, and bringing them positivity.

My Reply: Yes. Life’s not about acts of aid and self-sacrifice alone. It’s all about being in a positive state of mind when performing these acts of aid and self-sacrifice. So, if a person put himself in danger to protect someone, and he was about to die from protecting that individual, then he needs to feel a positive emotion before he dies, such as a feeling of profound, beautiful peace.

Other Person’s Response: It would be better for that person to not feel any panic when putting himself in danger, right?

My Reply: Right. It would be better if he felt joy when protecting that person. But, fear isn’t something we can help. If we’re put in a dangerous situation, then we can’t help but feel fear.

Other Person’s Response: Since you were in very horrible, negative states of mind due to your miserable struggles, then you think all your miserable struggles were unnecessary, and that you were just being denied the positivity you need? I personally don’t believe in this whole idea of unnecessary suffering. If you think your struggles were unnecessary, then you’re just having a victim mentality because you think you were a victim of unnecessary suffering, and that god, and his angels, were just allowing you to go through it.

My Reply: I personally think my struggles were unnecessary.

Other Person’s Response: If a person was miserable and suicidal, and someone told that person his struggle was beautiful and necessary, then what would it matter to that suicidal, miserable person? He’s unable to have a positive perspective in regards to his struggle. So, telling this suicidal person that he’s a beautiful person, or that his struggle is beautiful and necessary, won’t prevent him from being suicidal and miserable. It just won’t get him out of that dark, hellish pit he’s in.

My Reply: Yes, and that’s why this suicidal person needs to get the help he needs to restore his positive emotions. That way, he can have a positive perspective again in regards to himself, as well as other things in life. During my miserable struggles, I perceived myself as a disgusting person, I felt suicidal, and other people telling me that I’m still a beautiful person, or that my struggles were beautiful and necessary, did nothing for me.

Other Person’s Response: Since you perceived yourself as a disgusting person during your miserable struggles, then that means you felt that you were a disgusting person, since how a person feels is how a person perceives.

My Reply: Yes, and I couldn’t help but constantly feel this way about myself, which means I had no control over this.

Other Person’s Response: I heard you had a composing dream, and that you wish to astonish your audience with awesome compositions. According to your philosophy, composing for its own sake wouldn’t be your goal. You need to be in a positive state of mind when composing. That means you need to enjoy your composing.

My Reply: Yes. I need to have a good, beautiful, awesome time when composing, and I require my feelings of goodness, beauty, and awesomeness to have such an experience. Those feelings would be positive emotions.

Other Person’s Response: Another reason why you wish to avoid negative emotions is because feeling upset, hurt, or bothered by the mistreatment and name calling of others means that their mistreatment and name calling has negative power over you. But, it wouldn’t have such power over you if you didn’t feel that way.

My Reply: Correct. So, by not feeling that way, that makes me superior to their mistreatment and name calling. I don’t wish to feel negative emotions in regards to any given thing, moment, person, or situation, since negative power would be dominating over me. Fortunately, when I’m not having an emotional crisis (a miserable moment), then people, moments, situations, etc. don’t bother me.

Other Person's Response: When you say loving or proud thoughts make us feel love or pride (which are positive emotions), is it as though our thoughts take on an emotional form when they make us feel emotions?

My Reply: Yes, and it's this emotional form which is the experience of love and pride. I could say the same thing about being sexually aroused. An erotic thought alone can't give you an erotic experience. But, once that thought makes you feel erotic, that's when you have an erotic experience. There are clinically depressed people who complain of a lack of sex drive. No sexual thought can make them feel sexually aroused, due to their depressive illness. Antidepressants are also known to cause a lack of sex drive.

Other Person's Response: There are people who treat love as something special. They think it can be everlasting, and that it can never be taken away by brain damage, antidepressants, or a mental illness (such as clinical depression). But, love is a feeling like any other. It can be taken away from us, just as how our sex drive can be taken away.

My Reply: Yes. Feelings are transient things, and aren't everlasting. All feelings, whether they be hunger, thirst, sleepiness, sex drive, love, sadness, etc. can be taken away from us. The same idea applies to pride and happiness, since they're also feelings that can be taken away. Attraction towards a soul mate is also a feeling that can be taken away from us. Thus, a person could no longer be attracted to his soul mate once that feeling is gone.

Other Person's Response: According to you, seeing beauty in life is also a feeling that can be taken away from us.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Having an emotional crisis is also something that can take away our feelings of love, pride, joy, sex drive, etc.

My Reply: Yes. I've had many miserable moments in my life, which were triggered by negative thoughts and worries. These moments have taken away my positive emotions. I couldn't love or experience joy at all. I could only feel negative emotions, such as rage, hate, misery, etc.

Other Person's Response: Feeling sad is how a person experiences sadness, which is how a person becomes sad. Likewise, feeling attracted towards a soul mate is how the person experiences attraction, which is how the person becomes attracted to his soul mate.

My Reply: Yes. That's why, if a person loses his feeling of attraction, he can no longer be attracted to his soul mate. He could still act like he's attracted towards his soul mate without any feeling of attraction, and he could still perform deeds that make him appear as though he's attracted to his soul mate. But, he wouldn't be attracted. So, you shouldn't be deceived by his actions, deeds, and expressions. The same idea applies to love. A person could still perform loving acts, deeds, and expressions without feeling love. But, again, don't let that deceive you.

Other Person's Response: There are clinically depressed soul mates who can't feel love or attraction towards one another, but still perform loving deeds, such as helping each other, being there for each other, etc. They also still display acts, tones, and expressions of attraction towards one another.

My Reply: Well, without the ability to love and be attracted, those are really just empty expressions, acts, and tones. Life's not about our actions, tones, gestures, and deeds. It's all about our inner experience, and, if there's no inner experience of love and attraction within yourself, then there's no love or attraction there, which would make you an empty vessel, regardless of your actions, tones, gestures, and deeds.

Other Person's Response: I take it there are many clinically depressed soul mates who live by the delusion that they can still love one another without their feelings of love.

My Reply: Yes. They think love is everlasting, and that it can never be taken away. But, our personal experience isn't something to overlook and dismiss, which means, if these clinically depressed soul mates paid more attention to their personal experience, they should come to realize they can't love one another without their feelings of love.

I've come to realize, based upon my personal experience, that I can't love anyone or anything without my feelings of love, and I can only hope other people come to this realization as well. I think I have a better sense of introspection than many people, and this introspection has taught me just how vital and precious positive emotions are, including the positive emotion known as "love." Such positive emotions should never be overlooked and dismissed as shallow, trivial, unnecessary things.

Other Person's Response: Introspection simply means insight into one's own personal experience, right?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Could you provide evidence that people think love isn't a feeling, and that they think it's everlasting?

My Reply: If you google "Love is not a feeling," then you'll come across all sorts of articles that claim love isn't a feeling, and that it's everlasting. I personally think love can only be a fleeting feeling. I'd, for example, know if I was sad or not. If I wasn't feeling sad, then it would be quite obvious to me that I'm not sad. The same idea applies to love. When I can't feel love, it's quite obvious to me that I'm unable to love anybody or anything. This leads me to the conclusion that love can only be a feeling. To say that love isn't a feeling, and that it's the choice of doing kind, helpful deeds for your soul mate, would be no different than saying that sadness isn't a feeling, and that it's the choice of going to your soul mate's funeral.

Other Person's Response: Love isn't a choice, which means it's not our acts of aid and kindness. Love is the ultimate experience one can have. So, whether a person is loving someone or not is all determined by his personal experience, rather than his actions. If he's not experiencing love, then no amount of loving actions can be considered love on his part.

My Reply: Exactly. There are acts of love and sadness, and then there's actual love and sadness. Actual love and sadness are feelings. If a person doesn't have these feelings, then it doesn't matter what actions, expressions, or deeds he performs because none of it would be love or sadness.

Other Person's Response: Yes, there are people who think love isn't a feeling, and these people are in denial. Who knows, your entire philosophy that you're writing about might be true, and people are in denial of it as well.

My Reply: I think you're right.

Other Person's Response: Love is a mindset. For example, if a serial killer performed loving acts to deceive and lure in unsuspecting victims, then that's not love because the serial killer's mindset wasn't a loving one.

My Reply: Well, having a loving mindset alone isn't enough to love someone or something, just as how having a sad or angry mindset alone isn't enough to be sad or angry. A loving mindset needs to take on an emotional form (i.e. needs to make you feel love), so that you can love someone or something.

Other Person's Response: The acts of that serial killer would be acts of deception, rather than acts of love. In order for his acts to be classified as loving acts, he'd need to be a loving individual.

My Reply: Which would mean he'd need to change from being a serial killer to being a loving individual. But, even if he changes, he can't be a loving individual, as long as he's unable to feel love, due to brain damage, a mental illness, etc. that takes away his feelings of love.

Other Person's Response: Your definition of love seems like an exercise purely in semantics. If you define love as a feeling, it will be a feeling. If you define love as something else, it will be something else. If you call that feeling of "flushedness, butterflies, and wooowi gaga" as "love," then it's love. But, if someone else experiences a feeling of "chilled attachment, fluff and boom," and he calls that "love," then it's love.

But, someone else might experience it as "that feeling I get when I set my mind to help someone," and call that love. But, that all presupposes that the "feeling" is the "love," as opposed to the mindset that precedes it. What if someone says: "I set my mind to care about another, regardless of whether it hurts me," and then experiences intense, emotional pain? But, instead of calling the feeling "love," he instead calls the "mindset that a person chooses to have" as "love." That would be love instead, would it not?

My Reply: Love isn't just some label we can choose to slap onto anything we want. There's a big difference between our personal definitions and reality. Let me give you an example. We perceive beauty and magnificence through our feelings of beauty and magnificence. But, if someone defined the perception of beauty and magnificence as being a mindset, rather than a feeling, then that would be false because our mindset alone doesn't allow us to see beauty and magnificence in things, moments, situations, works of art, etc.

The same idea applies to love. The only way we can love is through our feelings of love, and no alternative definition of love can get around this. If you, for example, define a feeling of anger as love, then all you're doing is just slapping the label "love" onto that feeling of anger. But, that feeling of anger wouldn't be love. It would still be anger, no matter if you defined it as love. Here's one last example. If you had a hateful mindset, and you defined it as a loving mindset, then it would still be a hateful mindset. As you can see, labels don't change reality. They're just labels.

Other Person's Response: What if a person defined his mindset as being a feeling? Wouldn't that allow him to perceive beauty and magnificence through his mindset alone?

My Reply: No. The same idea applies to love. Love can only be a feeling, and he could define his mindset as being a feeling. But, that wouldn't allow him to love through his mindset alone.

Other Person’s Response: If a person had the thought, or belief, that something was beautiful, that’s the same thing as perceiving said thing as beautiful. No feelings are required to perceive beauty, horror, etc.

My Reply: False. I’m going to give you an example that illustrates the difference between thinking, or believing, that something is beautiful or horrible, and perceiving said thing as beautiful or horrible. A psychopath could say:

“I know what I’m doing is horrible. But, I don’t see my deeds as horrible. I see them as beautiful, since I’m a psychopath who loves to torture others, commit crimes, etc.”

In this example, the psychopath knows what he’s doing is horrible. But, he doesn’t see it as a horrible thing, which means he doesn’t feel horrible about his deeds. He instead feels beauty in regards to his deeds, which means he sees them as beautiful. So, our mindset alone just allows us to acknowledge that certain things, situations, and deeds are beautiful or horrible. But, to actually see said things, situations, and deeds as beautiful or horrible requires us to feel that they’re beautiful or horrible.

Other Person's Response: Are there scientists who think love can only be a feeling, and that perceptions of beauty, goodness, horror, magnificence, etc. can only be feelings?

My Reply: Yes. But, some people disagree with these scientists.

Other Person’s Response: You deem feelings as superior to thoughts because you say that feelings of beauty are the only things that allow us to see beauty in moments, situations, works of art, etc., and that feelings of beauty are the only things that give beauty to our lives. But, wouldn’t there be actual beauty in a thought of beauty? So, wouldn’t thoughts of beauty give beauty to our lives?

My Reply: There’s no actual red in a thought of red, since the thought of red is just the idea of red. When you see red, and don’t just have the thought of it in your mind, then actual red is there. Likewise, there’s no actual beauty in the thought or belief that something’s beautiful, since that’s just the idea that something’s beautiful. When you see beauty, and don’t just have the thought or belief of it in your mind, then actual beauty is there. Beauty is a feeling, just as how red is a color. Thoughts or beliefs of beauty give no beauty to our lives because beauty can only be a feeling.

Other Person’s Response: Beauty is a value judgment because if someone said “Helping someone is a beautiful thing” or “Nature is very beautiful,” then that’s a value judgment. According to you, the only way to perceive beauty is through our feelings of beauty. But, a person could redefine beauty as literally being the color red, which would no longer make beauty a value judgment anymore. So, if that person saw red, he’d be seeing beauty.

My Reply: But, this definition of beauty would be nothing more than just a color. I’m talking about beauty as a value judgment, which can only be perceived through our feelings of beauty. Also, if someone defined beauty as literally being a color, sound, or object, then that just wouldn’t be real beauty. The same idea applies to other things, such as love. If love was defined as being just a color, sound, or object, then that wouldn’t be love either.

Other Person’s Response: If someone went by the version of beauty that’s not a value judgment, and he defined red as beauty, then he could see beauty just by seeing red. But, if someone went by the version of beauty that’s a value judgment, and he defined red as beauty, then he couldn’t see beauty just by seeing red. He’d have to feel beauty in regards to red in order to see red as beautiful.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: You have it all backwards. Our emotions aren’t perceptions of beauty, horror, etc. Beauty, horror, etc. is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, the thought or belief that something’s beautiful or horrific is all that’s needed for a person to perceive beauty or horror.

My Reply: Based upon my personal experience, I think other people have it backwards. I can clearly tell that my emotions are the only perceptions of beauty, horror, etc.

Other Person’s Response: We need some bad in our lives. So, you shouldn’t dismiss the bad.

My Reply: You act as though having the bad is a good thing. That makes no sense because good is good and bad is bad. Good can’t be bad, and bad can’t be good, just as how love can’t be hate, and how hate can’t be love. So, if you were feeling nothing but goodness and beauty, and you acted as though that was a bad and disgusting thing, then that would make no sense because you’d be having nothing but goodness and beauty in your life. So, you should act as though that’s a good and beautiful thing, regardless if you were feeling goodness and beauty in regards to torturing someone, committing crimes, etc.

Other Person’s Response: So, if I felt bad one moment, and that bad feeling resulted in me having much more good feelings than I could’ve ever obtained otherwise, then I should act as though it’s a bad thing that I’m feeling bad? But, I should act as though it’s a good thing once I have those good feelings?

My Reply: Yes. When you have the bad in your life in the meantime, then it only makes sense to act as though that’s bad. But, when you have the good in your life again, it only makes sense to act as though that’s good. So, when you feel/perceive bad, that’s bad, since bad is a feeling/perception/value judgment, and it only makes sense to act as though that’s bad. The same idea applies to feeling goodness and beauty.

Other Person’s Response: If I was feeling bad, and my friend was feeling good, then shouldn’t I act as though it’s a good thing that he’s feeling good?

My Reply: As long as you’re just feeling bad, you wouldn’t be able to see it as a good thing that your friend is feeling good, since you need to feel good to perceive good. So, it would make no sense for you to act as though it’s a good thing that your friend is feeling good, since such an act implies that you’re seeing it as a good thing. Your acts must match up with your perception in order for said acts to make sense, and to be an expression of your perception. So, if you felt that it was a good thing to torture someone, then it would only make sense to act as though it’s a good thing to torture that person, since you’d be seeing it as a good thing to torture him/her.

Other Person’s Response: I could still act as though it’s a bad thing to torture someone, even while I’m seeing it as a good thing to torture that person. My act would just be concealing that I’m really seeing it as a good thing to torture that person.

My Reply: Yes. In which case, you wouldn’t be expressing what’s on the inside, which would be the perception that it’s a good thing to torture that person.

Other Person’s Response: If I felt good about torturing someone, you’re saying it would make sense for me to act as though torturing that person would be a good thing, since I’d be seeing it as a good thing to torture that person. But, if I was just feeling good about that, and I wasn’t feeling good about the idea of feeling good in regards to torturing that person, then, if I were to act as though it’s a good thing that I’m feeling good, that act wouldn’t match up because I wouldn’t be seeing that as a good thing. The only situation I’d be seeing as good would be torturing that person. So, that’s the situation I should be treating as good.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, it would be a good thing to torture someone if I felt good about doing it?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: So, if I felt good about torturing someone, and I didn’t feel good about the idea of feeling good about torturing that person, then the idea of me feeling good wouldn’t be a good thing? But, it would be a good thing for me to torture that person?

My Reply: Correct. If another person felt bad in regards to you torturing that person, then, for him, it would be a bad thing, while, for you, it would be a good thing, since you felt good about it.

Other Person’s Response: Actually, according to your philosophy, good feelings are still good, regardless if we don’t feel good about them because good feelings are the very goodness we need in our lives.

My Reply: Yes. Like I said, good is a feeling/perception/value judgment (a state of mind). That means feeling good is what’s good. So, if you felt good about something, then not only does that thing become good for you, but the feeling itself is what’s good, regardless if you’re not feeling good about that good feeling.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, emotions are the only perceptions of beauty, horror, etc., which means you’re saying thoughts aren’t required at all to perceive beauty, horror, etc.

My Reply: That’s not true. Thoughts are required because it takes a thought of horror to feel horror, it takes a thought of beauty to feel beauty, etc. But, a thought alone doesn’t allow a person to see horror or beauty in something or someone.

Other Person’s Response: You use the terms “feelings” and “emotions” interchangeably.

My Reply: Yes. If I said the statement: “Emotions of horror and beauty,” that wouldn’t sound right. I’d have to instead use the statement: “Feelings of horror and beauty.” So, I can’t just stick to the term “emotions.” I also have to use the term “feelings.”

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, good and bad don’t exist independently of our perception, since good and bad only exist in our minds. So, if a person perceived good, then that’s what’s good, and, if a person perceived bad, then that’s what’s bad.

My Reply: Yes. That’s because good and bad are simply perceptions (states of mind). Also, braveness doesn’t exist independently of our perception either. Braveness is a perception/state of mind/state of being. So, a person needs to have a brave perception in order to be a brave individual. When he has a brave perception, he’s in a brave state of mind, and he’s in a brave state of being, which makes him a brave person. That means he needs to feel brave in order to be a brave person, since that feeling of braveness is a brave perception. As long as he’s just feeling fear, then he’s having a fearful perception, which means he’s not a brave individual, regardless if he protected someone. Love, hate, sadness, misery, etc. don’t exist independently of our perception either. So, we need to feel love, hate, sadness, misery, etc. in order for them to exist.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, a brave thought or belief alone can’t give me a brave perception. I need to feel brave to have a brave perception.

My Reply: Yes. Having a feeling of braveness is the only way to have a perception of braveness, just as how having a feeling of horror or beauty is the only way to have a perception of horror or beauty.

Other Person’s Response: I don’t think we would even call our thoughts and beliefs alone brave, since they don’t give us a brave perception. It would be no different than how we wouldn’t call our thoughts and beliefs alone beautiful, since only feelings of beauty are beautiful.

My Reply: I think you’re right. So, only feelings of braveness would be braveness.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, if I didn’t feel up to going to work, you’re saying I’d have no motivation to go to work, going to work wouldn’t matter to me, and I wouldn’t be able to see going to work as good, valuable, precious, or worthwhile?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person’s Response: So, I take it we need emotions to not only perceive things as good, beautiful, worthwhile, etc., but to motivate us and make things matter to us.

My Reply: Yes. So, even people training in the military require emotions to motivate them, make their training matter to them, and perceive their training as good, glorious, worthwhile, etc. Like I said though, emotions are transient, fleeing things. That means they wear off, and they’re not everlasting. So, soldiers should get the most out of their training while their feelings of motivation last. The moment that motivation wears off is the moment these soldiers would have to wait for it to return. Otherwise, they’d just be dragging themselves through their training, having no motivation whatsoever.

Other Person’s Response: When a person undergoes intense training in the military, that will definitely drain his emotional motivation very fast. He’ll soon find himself feeling very relaxed or very fatigue. Yet, I see soldiers training all day everyday. Do you think these soldiers have an everlasting form of motivation, besides their emotions, that keeps them going? Is it possible for a person to just have an everlasting, motivational thought of goodness, beauty, and worth that gives him everlasting motivation, continues to make his training matter to him, and gives him an everlasting perception of goodness, beauty, and worth in regards to his training?

My Reply: I’ll need a new personal experience to convince me of this. So far, my emotions have been the only things that motivate me, make things matter to me, and give me perceptions of beauty, goodness, worth, etc.

Other Person’s Response: So, your philosophy says people should just give up on their goals, dreams, and endeavors when they don’t feel motivated to pursue them, since these people would be apathetic in regards to pursuing them?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: In regards to your philosophy, I think you’re just allowing your emotions to dominate your perception. You say emotions are perceptions of beauty, horror, etc. But, I don’t think they are. The truth is, you don’t need emotions to perceive beauty, horror, etc.

My Reply: Well, my personal experience says emotions are perceptions of beauty, horror, etc., and the emotion theorists say so as well.

Other Person’s Response: If someone had a certain belief, such as that fat people are ugly, then he wouldn’t be able to see fat people as beautiful, just by thinking they’re beautiful. That’s because his belief prevents him from having a new perspective in regards to fat people. My point is, if we have beliefs, then thoughts alone just won’t work to give us a new perspective, since said beliefs keep us restricted to our current perspectives.

I think you have a limiting belief, which would be that you can only see beauty, horror, etc. through your emotions. So, that’s why your thoughts alone of beauty or horror don’t allow you to see beauty or horror, since you have this limiting belief that prevents you from perceiving beauty or horror through your thoughts alone. So, you’re allowing your emotions to dominate your perception of good, bad, beauty, horror, etc., since you believe you can only perceive good, bad, etc. through your emotions.

My Reply: I’m not sure if this is the case with me.

Other Person’s Response: Your brain could somehow be wired to perceive good, bad, etc. through your emotions.

My Reply: I’m not sure. If my brain is wired this way, then I hope said wiring isn’t permanent.

Other Person’s Response: You say your personal experience has led you to the conclusion that emotions are perceptions of beauty, horror, etc. before having discovered the emotion perception theory that’s been put forth by emotion theorists.

My Reply: Yes. This has been my personal experience my whole life.
Last edited by MozartLink on Sun May 10, 2020 11:52 pm, edited 9 times in total.
MozartLink
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: All My Philosophy Packets

Post by MozartLink »

File #2: My Philosophy Of Emotions (Part 8/12)

Other Person’s Response: I heard that you’ve had many miserable struggles throughout your life, which gave you a miserable perspective. Do you think god allowing your miserable struggles is unjust?

My Reply: Yes. I shouldn’t have been allowed to live such a miserable existence. It was a horrible way to live. God might’ve felt it was just, which would’ve made it just in his eyes though.

Other Person’s Response: I heard that your miserable struggles were horrible feelings, they made your existence a horrible, living hell, and they were immense forms of suffering for you. But, they didn’t transform you as an individual, since you still live by this simplistic philosophy that says: “Feeling good is good, and feeling bad is bad.” But, you can’t expect suffering alone to transform you as an individual. So, if you wish to upgrade to a better philosophy, then you have to put in the effort. If someone wanted to be a skilled basketball player, then suffering alone won’t achieve his goal. He needs to put in the effort if he wishes to be a skilled basketball player.

My Reply: Then all my suffering was completely unnecessary, and god shouldn’t have allowed it. If god wanted me to grow in terms of my philosophy, then he should’ve planned a better life for me. It would be a life where I hardly suffer, and somehow develop a better philosophy.

Other Person’s Response: In regards to all the miserable struggles you’ve had, life’s supposed to be tough, since it’s a school/training ground for our souls.

My Reply: What about people who are mentally insane? They shouldn’t have miserable struggles, since such struggles might drive them to harm themselves and/or others. I’m not implying that I’m mentally insane. But, my miserable struggles have caused me to feel extreme, insane, violent rage throughout the day each day, since having a crisis causes you to not only feel misery, but other negative emotions, such as rage, sadness, etc.

Other Person’s Response: I’m glad you never acted out on those violent feelings. Had you done so, you would’ve harmed yourself and/or others.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, emotions are the only perceptions of beauty, horror, etc., and they’re the only loving, hateful, happy, sad, etc. perceptions.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, things, moments, situations, people, and works of art become good for us when we feel good about them. But, if someone had to take medicine to save his life, then that medicine would still be good for him, regardless if he’s not feeling good about the medicine.

My Reply: If he didn’t feel good about the medicine, that means he’s not perceiving the medicine as good, which means the medicine is nothing good in his eyes. So, the medicine would be nothing good for him, even though it’s saving his life. Like I said, good and bad only exist in our minds, which means they’re nothing more than feelings/perceptions. To say that the medicine was still good for him, even though he wasn’t seeing it as good, would be treating good as something outside of his perception. So, if someone doesn’t see something as good, tragic, or beautiful, then that thing is nothing good, tragic, or beautiful for him. It’s as simple as that. Would it make sense to say that a work of art was beautiful for an individual if it was lame and awful in his eyes? No. The work of art would be lame and awful for him.

Other Person’s Response: So, if someone didn’t have his ability to experience feelings of goodness and beauty, and I told that individual he should still do certain deeds for humanity, since these are good and beautiful deeds, I’d be treating goodness and beauty as something outside of his perception. Thus, I’d be disregarding the fact that these deeds can be nothing good or beautiful in his eyes.

My Reply: Yes. To expect that person to do these deeds, when he sees them as nothing good, awesome, beautiful, or worthwhile, would be no different than expecting someone to rejoice in a work of art that’s nothing good, awesome, beautiful, or worthwhile in his eyes.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, if someone lived his life, seeing a criminal’s deeds as bad, then it wouldn’t be a good thing that he’s seeing those deeds as bad. To say that’s a good thing would be treating good as something outside of that person’s perception.

My Reply: Yes. Perceptions of good are the only good things in life, and perceptions of bad are the only bad things in life.

Other Person’s Response: If someone saw something as good, and saw something else as bad, then he’d be living for something worse if he was living for that thing he saw as bad. But, he’d be living for something better if he was living for that thing he saw as good.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person’s Response: All the miserable struggles that famous, genius artists have endured can be nothing good or beautiful, regardless if said struggles were used to inspire others?

My Reply: Correct. Since they were miserable feelings, then they can only be miserable perceptions/experiences/struggles.

Other Person’s Response: When someone sees something, or someone, as bad, horrific, disturbing, or tragic, that’s a state of tribulation, which means something, or someone, bothers him. It’s no good being in a state of mental turmoil, suffering, and tribulation. So, it’s best if we perceive goodness, beauty, magnificence, etc., rather than tragedy, horror, etc.

My Reply: Yes. It’s also best if we’re in a state of love and joy, rather than a state of hate and misery. So, that means it would be best if I don’t grieve over the loss of my mother, and don’t see her loss as horrific or tragic. If I did, then I’d just be living a horrific, tragic life of grief in the meantime until my positive emotions return.

Other Person’s Response: If someone perceived nothing but horror throughout his life, and other people said he was living a beautiful life, and that he had a beautiful perception, then it’s really those people who are living the beautiful lives, and having beautiful perceptions, since they’re the ones perceiving this poor fellow’s life and perception as beautiful. But, that poor fellow would be living a horrific life, and he’d be having a horrific perception.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: If I had the thought that nature is beautiful, and I defined that as being the thought that nature is disgusting, then that wouldn't change the fact that it's still the thought that nature is beautiful. Once that thought of beauty makes me feel beauty in regards to nature, which would allow me to see nature as beautiful, according to your philosophy, then if I were to define that as seeing nature as disgusting, then that still wouldn't change the fact that I'd be seeing nature as beautiful.

My Reply: Exactly.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, when a person has the thought that he loves someone, and that thought makes him feel love, that would allow him to experience love, which would give him a loving perspective. You define love as a loving perspective, which means you define love as a feeling of love, since a feeling of love is the same thing as a loving perspective.

But, having a loving perspective isn't the same thing as actual love, and neither is it the same thing as actually loving someone or something. It's up to us to define love. For example, a person can be in a vegetative state, where he has a loving perspective towards his soul mate, but is unable to help her. He might say: "This isn't love, since I'm not there for my soul mate." So, for him, his loving perspective wouldn't be love, and he wouldn't be loving his soul mate, since he defines love as being there to help his soul mate.

My Reply: It makes no sense to me how someone could think that having a loving perspective isn't the same thing as love, or loving someone or something. As for that scenario you presented, another person could come up to that vegetable and say:

"Sure, you couldn't do anything to help your soul mate, and it's not your fault because you're a vegetable. But, you still loved her, since you still had a loving perspective towards her."

If that vegetable were to reply:

"No, that's not love, and I didn't love her," then he'd be talking nonsense.

Other Person's Response: In regards to your philosophy, I think there's a better way to live one's life to the fullest than being a wild hedonist who lives for positive feelings.

My Reply: I don't think there's a better way.

Other Person's Response: I could define god's unconditional love as being hate. But, it's still unconditional love. All I'd be doing is slapping the label "hate" onto his love. But, that doesn't change the fact that it's still unconditional love, and neither does it change the fact that it's holy and divine.

My Reply: Exactly. God could even define his own unconditional love as being hate. But, it would still be unconditional love.

Other Person's Response: If I experienced god's unconditional love within me, then it doesn't matter how I define it, or how I treat it. It would still be unconditional love.

My Reply: You're right.

Other Person's Response: God says certain acts are sins. If humanity defined them as holy and righteous, then they'd still be sinful acts. Putting a label of "holy" and "righteous" on them doesn't make them holy and righteous.

My Reply: Now, I don't actually believe in the existence of god, which means I don't refrain from what god considers sinful. Fundamentalist Christianity would be an example of a god who deems many acts as sinful, and I'm not a Christian. But, even though I don't believe in god, I'm open-minded towards the possibility that he exists.

Other Person's Response: There are people who go on heavenly trips to the afterlife during their near death experience. They often report meeting a being of light (god) who's unlike the condemning, judgmental gods of many false, dogmatic religions. This god tells them the most important thing is love, and that we're all here to love one another. If love is something we could define any way we wanted to, then we might as well say that a serial killer would be accomplishing god's assigned mission of love if the serial killer defined love as harming and torturing innocent lives. God might as well honor and congratulate this serial killer, since god gave him the mission to love, and, boy, did he love a lot by harming and torturing so many innocent people!

My Reply: You make a valid point in regards to how love isn't something we can define how we want. Also, if this god is all-knowing, perfect, all-loving, and all-just, then he knows what love is, and he knows what's good, bad, holy, divine, disgusting, horrible, etc. Therefore, if someone were to define love, good, bad, etc. differently, then it wouldn't be love, good, bad, etc.

Other Person's Response: What if your definition of love, good, bad, etc. is wrong, and god's definition was right all along?

My Reply: Then I was wrong.

Other Person's Response: What if god isn't perfect, all-knowing, etc.?

My Reply: Then my definition of love, good, bad, etc. could be right, and god could have the wrong definition.

Other Person's Response: Just to be clear, do you think god's unconditional love is a positive feeling?

My Reply: Yes. I think it can only be a positive feeling.

Other Person's Response: If someone felt nothing but a vibration from god, and that person said he experienced god's unconditional love, then that would be false because god's unconditional love is something far more than just some vibratory sensation. When people experience god's unconditional love, it's a very powerful, profound, spiritual experience that people call "Grace."

My Reply: Exactly. It wouldn't matter what you define to be god's grace because god's grace can only be a positive feeling, and it would be a very powerful, profound, positive feeling.

Other Person's Response: If love was nothing more than something a person, or god, could define any way he wanted to, then that would make love seem devoid and empty. It would make love seem like nothing more than some label we can just slap onto anything we want. For example, if I defined a physical sensation as love, that would make this sensation love, and that's all love would be is just this sensation. So, love can't possibly be whatever we define it to be. It must be the most profound, powerful thing in this universe that still remains love, no matter if a person defined it as hate, sadness, anger, etc.

My Reply: Exactly. If love was something we could define how we want, then if god defined his unconditional love as nothing more than a spark of light or a beeping tone, then that's all unconditional love would be is this spark of light or beeping tone. To treat love as something we can define how we want would be to treat it as nothing more than some label we can slap onto anything we want.

Other Person's Response: If a person defines something as good or bad, that's not enough. The person must actually see it as a good or bad thing, moment, deed, or situation. If a person defines love as being there for his soul mate, or having a certain mindset, that's not enough. The person must actually love his soul mate. Love is that powerful, special, profound, inner experience. Without it, then we can't love anybody or anything.

My Reply: Yes. Imagine a situation where someone defined a certain work of art as beautiful or magnificent, but couldn't actually see it as beautiful or magnificent. So, definitions alone aren't enough to live by. We need our emotions. To be more specific, we need our positive emotions, since positivity is what we need in life.

Other Person's Response: Love is both external and internal. For example, love can be seen externally as acts of aid and kindness for others. But, love is also internal, since a person could say: "I don't know how to express this love within me!" Another example of internal love would be if someone said: "I love her from the bottom of my heart!"

My Reply: The internal form of love would be an emotion, and I don't think there's an external form of love. So, acts of love would just be acts of love. But, that's not the same thing as actual love. As for good and bad, they can only be internal as well, and they would be emotions (feeling good and feeling bad). Beauty, horror, etc. can only be emotions as well.

Other Person's Response: Going back to the example earlier of god's unconditional love, if his love could be defined as nothing more than a spark of light or a vibration, then that would be leaving out the internal form of god's unconditional love.

My Reply: Yes. That's why that definition of love would seem devoid and empty. When people say they've experienced god's unconditional love, and that it was a profound, powerful, spiritual experience, they're talking about experiencing god's internal love. If they've experienced nothing more than a vibratory sensation from god, then that just wouldn't be his unconditional love. So, that's why I think god's unconditional love can only be internal (a powerful, profound feeling), and can never be external, such as sparks of light, tones, or vibrations. To define love as objects, vibrations, deeds, etc. would be a false definition. After all, it's what's on the inside that counts, and I think the only love that exists would be internal love.

Other Person's Response: So, you think love, good, bad, beauty, horror, etc. exist on the inside, and not on the outside?

My Reply: Correct, and they're emotions.

Other Person's Response: Many people have different definitions of external love. But, do they also have different definitions of internal love?

My Reply: As for internal love, it all comes down to either being a mindset, a feeling, or both a mindset and a feeling. I think it can only be a feeling.

Other Person's Response: If external love exists, then we can love others externally, such as helping others and contributing to the world. But, to love others internally, that requires that we feel love.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: I think you have a strong attachment to your positive emotions. If you somehow lose this attachment, then I think that would set you free. Thus, you'd be living by a better definition of love, good, bad, etc. than this shallow, puny, emotional definition you live by.

My Reply: I don't think there is a better definition I can live by.

Other Person's Response: Without a loving perspective (the internal form of love), then a relationship would be devoid of love. Without a positive perspective (the ability to see goodness, beauty, and magnificence in things), then all things in this life would be devoid of any goodness, beauty, and magnificence for us.

My Reply: Yes. Life's all about our perspective. We need to have a loving perspective, and a positive perspective. By the way, I define a loving perspective as a positive perspective.

Other Person's Response: God has given us a soul/consciousness. Without it, we'd be nothing more than non-sentient machines. We wouldn't be able to experience love, joy, hate, sorrow, visuals, sounds, etc. We couldn't even see goodness, beauty, horror, etc. in anything, since that would be a conscious experience absent to us. Consciousness is what's so important here. Even spiritual believers say so.

Many spiritual believers talk about achieving a loving state of consciousness (which would be a loving state of mind, which would be the same thing as a loving perspective). If someone were to dismiss the internal form of love, then he's just leaving out the loving state of consciousness we as humans need to achieve.

Spiritual believers say consciousness is primary in this universe, and the only thing that really matters. So, I agree that love can only be a state of mind. Any other definition of love is false and can just be dismissed because the only love that matters is the loving state of consciousness our souls are here to obtain.

My Reply: Yes, and that loving state of consciousness would be a feeling. People also shouldn't dismiss the perception of goodness, beauty, magnificence, etc., since we need this as well.

Other Person's Response: If love was external, this would mean we could love others as non-sentient machines by performing acts of aid and kindness for others.

My Reply: Yes, and I disagree with that definition of love. If that definition were true, this would mean robots could love one another.

Other Person's Response: If love, beauty, etc. all amounted to fleeting positive feelings, then that would be absurd. Therefore, there must be another form of love, beauty, etc. you're not realizing, and perhaps god would bestow upon you this realization.

My Reply: So far, my personal experience says they can only be positive feelings.

Other Person's Response: If I saw a certain anime character as awesome, then that character's awesomeness would be living inside of me, since my perception of awesomeness would be a mental state, which means that character's awesomeness would be inside my mind. According to your philosophy, that perception of awesomeness can only be a feeling. So, if I lost that feeling somehow, then that character's awesomeness can no longer live inside of me. The character would now be nothing more than an animated image, and would be nothing awesome from my perspective.

My Reply: Correct. When the character's awesomeness lives inside of you, that's like a holy or divine life force within you. There are people who dress up as certain anime characters and role play as them, since they're inspired by these characters. But, if people couldn't perceive anime characters as good, beautiful, awesome, or amazing, then they'd just be dressing up and role playing as characters that are nothing more than animated images in their eyes.

Other Person's Response: People can perceive certain anime characters as horrible and disgusting though. So, that perception would make anime characters something more than just animated images.

My Reply: Yes. Characters become nothing more than animated images in our eyes when we have no emotions, or, in my case, during my miserable struggles, since it's during these struggles that things became morbid, dead, and empty from my perspective. It would, again, be like the perspective of a miserable person who lost his loved one, and sees money as something insignificant.

Other Person's Response: Human beings are materialistic by nature. They desire money, riches, fame, etc. You treat love and happiness as being materialistic things you need (feelings). But, you can define love and happiness however you want.

My Reply: Again, it would be nothing more than labels, and not real love or happiness.

Other Person's Response: Love is the ultimate thing in this universe. It's the most profound, powerful, holy, divine thing. If I couldn't love, I experienced a physical, pleasing sensation, such as a massage, and I defined that as love, then it would be quite obvious to me that I'm still missing this ultimate, divine thing known as "love." It would be quite obvious that I'd just be slapping the label "love" onto things, that it wouldn't be real love, and that it could never fill in this gap within me that's been created by the absence of real love.

My Reply: Exactly. Real love is a feeling, and just slapping the label "love" onto things, when the real love is gone, can never act as a replacement for real love. It will never be real love.

Other Person's Response: I could say the sentence: "I don't need any of my organs to live." But, that sentence is nothing more than a phrase. It wouldn't change the reality that, if all my organs were vaporized, I'd be dead.

My Reply: Exactly. Labels and phrases don't change reality.

Other Person's Response: I'm going to quote something you said and respond to it:
Lastly, not only do we require positive emotions to love and experience joy, but we also require them to see goodness, beauty, magnificence, and awesomeness in moments, things, situations, works of art, and life itself. That's been my personal experience.
You forgot that love also takes responsibilities, and not just good, smiling, shining things. Love isn't an easy thing. It takes duty, too. If you love yourself, you must give yourself some discipline. If you love somebody, you've got to be loyal and refrain from betrayal. If you love animals, you shouldn't eat them. It's not only a matter of positive things. Or, else, you couldn't be able to love and care for those who are in a depressive situation (those you cynically call "clinically depressed"). How could there be love without equanimity? Do we select who and what to love?

Or, is love something we should acquire and achieve, rather than just a feeling? I think that is more like love selects. We cannot select love. The feeling you talk about may just be "affection" or "infatuation." But, it's not love because such feelings usually make us dream about future pleasures, and they don't give us the courage for future compromises, renounces, duties, etc. Giving your opinions the absolute meaning means to ignore the facts, and probably expose yourself to the danger of misunderstanding feelings without the proper consciousness of them. So, love isn't just a feeling or just a mindset. It's a state of being. If it takes no efforts, then it's not love. It's as simple as that.

My Reply: I think that the only way I can love is through my feelings of love. I'd need a new personal experience to convince me there's another way I can love. But, I've had no such experience. Not even in a single, given, brief moment of my entire life. After all, that's what it all comes down to is my personal experience because I can be the most responsible adult I can be, and I can define love as something else other than a feeling all I want to. But, as long as my personal experience hasn't convinced me this is love, then I'll always be convinced that the only way I can love is through my feelings of love. I'd also need a new personal experience to convince me there's more goodness and beauty to life than positive feelings.

Other Person's Response: So, you're saying that, if you lose your ability to feel love, you become a very responsible adult, you define love as something other than a feeling, you help others, contribute to the world, be there for your family, etc., and none of these experiences convince you this is love, then you'll always be convinced that the only way you can love is through your feelings of love, and that there's no other form of love?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: If you try, with all your effort, to love with no need for your feelings, and your personal experience still leads you to the conclusion that love can only be a feeling, then perhaps you're just pretending that love is a feeling, when it's not. It would be like a prisoner drawing a window in his closed cell, and pretending that the window is real.

My Reply: I think that's a poor analogy because the prisoner would know that the window is fake. He wouldn't be convinced that the window is real. But, I'd be convinced that the only way I can love is through my feelings of love. Also, the prisoner would be pretending that the window he drew was real. But, I wouldn't be pretending that the only way I can love is through my feelings of love. In other words, I'd be genuinely convinced.

Other Person's Response: Love is purely subjective. In other words, it's defined by the individual.

My Reply: I think my view that love can only be a feeling applies to all human beings, and many people deny this. The same thing applies to my view of good, bad, beauty, etc., since I think that applies to all human beings, and many people deny this as well.

Other Person's Response: If you think your views apply to all human beings, and that they're the truth many people deny, then that reminds me of fascism. In other words, you're trying to force your views upon all of humanity, and take away their power to define love, good, bad, etc. how they want.

My Reply: If my views are true, then what's the point of even living by a false definition of love, good, bad, etc.?

Other Person's Response: According to you, it's better to be weak as an individual, and to have the ability to feel positive emotions, than to be a strong individual who perseveres in a state of misery, and is unable to feel positive emotions.

My Reply: Yes. Life was never about character strength. It was all about positive feelings. So, it's better to be a weak, soft, bundle of love, beauty, joy, etc. than to be miserable, unhappy, apathetic, and tough.

Other Person's Response: Rocky Balboa says a true winner is someone who's tough, doesn't need positive feelings, and endures a life of misery and unhappiness. According to you, we should just forget his advice.

My Reply: Correct. A true winner is someone who's feeling a lot of positive emotions throughout his life. If you're unable to feel positive emotions, then you're just losing at life. Since feeling positive emotions is our goal in life, then we're just losing if we're not achieving this goal. That means those miserable, genius artists are losers, regardless of how strong and enduring they were, and regardless of how many masterpieces they've inspired the world with. The inspired people would be winners, since they get to feel positive emotions from witnessing these masterpieces.

But, the miserable, suffering artists would be losers. Actually, these artists would be winners on seldom occasions, since they get to feel positive emotions once in a blue moon. But, for the most part, they'd be losers. Think of positive feelings as money. If we're not winning much money, then we're mostly losing. But, if we're winning a lot of money much of the time, then we're mostly winning. So, if we're not getting much positive feelings out of life, then we're mostly losers. But, if we get a lot of positive feelings out of life, then we're mostly winners.

Other Person's Response: If a person was having a boxing match, should he just give up on the fight, since he feels miserable, and doesn't feel like fighting?

My Reply: Yes. It's better to be a happy boxer who feels the awesome drive to take down his opponent. A boxer can experience much physical pain as he gets punches thrown at him. But, as long as he's happy, enjoying the match, and feels positively empowered, then that's what counts.

Other Person's Response: I heard that you play The Legend of Zelda. There's a hero named Link. Should Link just give up on saving Hyrule if he felt miserable, and didn't feel up to it?

My Reply: Yes. Actually, he could still choose to save Hyrule anyway, since we can still make choices, regardless of how we feel. But, like I said, the goal in life is positive emotions. If Link didn't feel positive emotions in saving Hyrule, then saving Hyrule would be nothing positive for him. Even the idea of bringing positivity to those he saved would be nothing positive for him.

Other Person's Response: Characters don't have feelings, since they're just animated images. So, Link couldn't have any feelings whatsoever.

My Reply: But, this is just a pretend scenario where Link is a real character who has feelings. So, if he couldn't feel positive, then saving Hyrule could be nothing positive in his eyes.

Other Person's Response: You say love can only be a pleasant feeling. But, can't love be an unpleasant feeling, such as feeling deep concern and compassion for someone who's suffering?

My Reply: No. That would just be a feeling of concern and compassion. But, love can only be a pleasant feeling. Each feeling is unique. For example, a feeling of anger can only be anger, and can't be sadness or joy. A feeling of sadness can only be sadness, and can't be jealousy or regret. Likewise, feelings of concern and compassion can only be concern and compassion, and can't be love.

Other Person's Response: Is the only way to be jealous is to feel jealous, and is the only way to regret is to feel regret?

My Reply: Yes, and those would be negative feelings.

Other Person's Response: I think those clinically depressed soul mates just have a delusion that keeps them going in life. Since they believe they can still love one another without their feelings of love, then that's a delusion which prevents them from giving up on their relationship. If they knew the truth that they can't love without feeling love, then they'd realize their acts of love are empty, and their relationship would end.

My Reply: Yes. But, there might be few moments where they can feel love, since clinically depressed people do have moments where they feel positive emotions. But, it wouldn't be much, which means it would hardly be a loving relationship.

Other Person's Response: According to you, life's all about our inner experience, which means it would be better for someone to have experienced love, but did nothing for his soul mate, than to not have experienced love, but did many kind, loving deeds for his soul mate.

My Reply: Yes. So, it would be better for someone to live his life as a loving vegetable, and not be able to do anything for his soul mate, than to live his life as an unloving individual who did many kind, loving deeds for his soul mate. When you experience love, you have that holy life force of love within yourself. I'd actually describe love as holy and divine. As a matter of fact, many people describe love as holy and divine. Without it, then you can't be a being of love, which means you can't be a holy, divine, loving being of light.

Other Person's Response: Actually, according to your philosophy, it's whatever lifestyle that brings us the most positive emotions that should be lived. So, if someone had to sacrifice a life of being a loving vegetable for a life of bliss, then he should live that blissful life?

My Reply: Yes. If a way of life is going to offer you a much greater amount, profoundness, and intensity of positive emotions, then that's the way of life that should be lived (even if it means sacrificing one, particular positive emotion, such as love). If you were to look at a lifespan of, say, 90 years, then it's whatever lifestyle that's going to bring you the greatest degree of positive emotions within that lifespan that would be the preferable lifestyle.

Other Person's Response: You say a person would be an empty vessel if he had no feelings of love and attraction. But, if he had other positive feelings, then he wouldn't be an empty vessel.

My Reply: That's right. He could still be a holy, divine being of light through other positive emotions, such as feelings of beauty, magnificence, etc.

Other Person's Response: People, who have near death experiences, report that their souls have left their bodies, traveled to a heavenly afterlife, and met god. God tells them the most important thing is love, and that we're all here to love one another. Since love is so important in god's eyes, then why doesn't he heal the brains of clinically depressed people, so their feelings of love can be restored? Why doesn't he heal any mental illness, or form of brain damage, that takes away our ability to love?

My Reply: I'm not sure, and I don't know why he didn't heal my mind of all the misery I've suffered through. I'm actually undecided if god even exists, and if these heavenly trips people have are nothing more than hallucinations. I'm incapable of discovering the truth in regards to controversial/debatable topics, since I'm not intelligent enough, and nor am I intellectually capable of such a demanding task. The existence of god is a debatable topic, and that's why I can't decide if god exists or not. The same idea applies to those heavenly trips because some people would argue they're just hallucinations, while others would argue they're the real deal.

Other Person's Response: Maybe god had the choice to either help humanity, and heal people of their suffering, while being unable to feel positive emotions, or instead live as a blissful vegetable who can feel all sorts of positive emotions, including love, but unable to help or heal humanity. Maybe that's why he doesn't heal humanity of their illnesses and suffering because he's a blissful vegetable who's unable to.

My Reply: If that's the choice god had to face, then I'd understand, and wouldn't hold anything against him. But, I don't think that's the case. Besides, god is all-powerful, which means he'd never find himself in such a predicament.

Other Person's Response: God's angels (those heavenly beings) aren't vegetables, which means they're capable of healing humanity. But, they don't.

My Reply: I'm not sure why they don't then.

Other Person's Response: Since you're undecided on debatable topics, I take it you're undecided on the existence of the afterlife.

My Reply: Yes. I don't know if this is the only life we have or not.

Other Person's Response: You say love, misery, anger, and happiness are feelings (emotions), and that hunger and thirst are also feelings. But, hunger and thirst aren't emotions.

My Reply: That's right, and I never said hunger and thirst were emotions.

Other Person's Response: In regards to pleasant and unpleasant experiences, those are feelings, and thoughts and feelings can't be the same thing, which means thought and beliefs alone can't give us any pleasant or unpleasant experience.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: If a person had the thought that a singing performance was amazing, that thought would make him feel amazed about the performance, which would allow him to see the performance as amazing?

My Reply: Yes. Thoughts and beliefs don't make us feel emotions for nothing. They make us feel emotions so that we can love, hate, be proud, be sad, and see things as amazing, tragic, etc. That means emotions aren't just biochemical states, which means they're not these shallow, trivial things many people make them out to be.

Other Person's Response: So, if I struggled with clinical depression, and witnessed a talented performance, then you're saying I wouldn't be able to see anything amazing about the performance, since I'd be unable to feel amazed, due to my depressive illness?

My Reply: Correct. Without our positive feelings, we can't experience any given moment, or performance, as good, beautiful, awesome, magnificent, or amazing. So, if you had a depressive illness that disabled your ability to have positive feelings, then that whole performance would be nothing more than something depressive and dull for you. But, it wouldn't be anything amazing or beautiful for you. Sure, it would still be a talented performance in your eyes. But, it could be nothing beautiful, good, or amazing in your eyes, and you'd be in denial to believe otherwise.

Other Person's Response: So, if I had no positive feelings, then I'd be in denial if I told you that I still see it as a good, beautiful, or amazing thing to help others, be there for my family, and contribute to the world?

My Reply: Yes. It would be no different than if you told me that you're still hungry, thirsty, or sleepy, when you're not feeling hungry, thirsty, or sleepy. It would also be no different than if you told me that you're sad or angry, when you're not feeling sad or angry. You wouldn't be sad or angry, and you'd just be thinking you are, which would mean you're in denial.

Other Person's Response: The thought of red is just the idea of red, the thought of hunger is just the idea of hunger, etc.

My Reply: Yes. So, when you have the thought that you love someone, that's just the idea that you love someone. But, it's not actual love. That thought needs to make you feel love, so you can love that person. When you have the thought that the loss of your loved one is a sad situation, that's just the idea that it's a sad situation. But, the thought alone can't make that situation sad in your eyes. That thought needs to make you feel sad, so it becomes a situation that's perceived/experienced as sad for you. Feeling grief is the only way to grieve, since it's the only way to experience grief. If you couldn't feel grief, then you wouldn't be able to grieve over the loss of your loved one. Thus, the loss wouldn't bother you, and wouldn't be sad for you.

Other Person's Response: If Jake was in a dire predicament, Jon thought it was a bad thing, and that thought caused him to feel rage to protect Jake, then you're saying Jon couldn't see it as a good thing to protect Jake, since he needs to feel good to see it as a good thing?

My Reply: Yes. Since Jon felt rage, then that means he was enraged in regards to the dire predicament Jake needed to be saved from. So, Jon was seeing that as a bad thing. But, it's possible to have mixed emotions, which means it's possible for Jon to feel good and rage at the same time. In which case, he'd be seeing it as a good thing to protect Jake, and seeing the dire predicament as a bad thing at the same time. If his good feeling was more profound and intense than his feeling of rage, then he'd be perceiving more goodness than badness.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, if Jon couldn't see it as a good thing, then that means he's only seeing the bad, which means it's no way to live for him.

My Reply: Correct. As long as you can't see goodness, beauty, magnificence, etc. in anything, then that's no way to live or be an artist.

Other Person's Response: I take it negative emotions are the only way things, moments, and situations can bother us.

My Reply: Yes. For example, if you felt annoyed by someone, then that person would be bothersome to you. But, if you just had the thought that this person is annoying, and that thought couldn't make you feel annoyed (due to something preventing you from feeling that way, such as having brain damage or a mental illness), then you couldn't be annoyed by him. Thus, you wouldn't be bothered by him.

Other Person's Response: If a person didn't feel grief over the loss of his loved one, but instead felt rage over his loss, then his loss did bother him.

My Reply: Yes. But, if he couldn't feel any negative emotion whatsoever over his loss, then his loss couldn't bother him at all.

Other Person's Response: You draw this conclusion that people can't grieve over the loss of their loved ones if they can't feel grief, and that nothing could bother anyone if nobody could feel negative emotions.

My Reply: Yes. I draw this conclusion based upon my own personal experience, and I think it's the truth.

Other Person's Response: Since goodness and beauty are emotional states (positive emotions), then evil must be an emotional state as well, right?

My Reply: Right. When you feel that something, or someone, is evil, that's the same thing as seeing said person or thing as evil. If all people could no longer feel evil, then evil would no longer exist. Evil is just a state of mind, and if you're not experiencing it (feeling it), then it's no longer there, which means it no longer exists. I could say the same thing about hunger, pain, and thirst. If you're no longer feeling hunger, pain, and thirst (experiencing them), then they no longer exist. Evil is a negative emotion, and by not having this emotion, you have no evil within yourself, regardless if you were someone who tortured others, and did deeds that others would consider evil. By having feelings of beauty, joy, and goodness, you have beauty, joy, and goodness within yourself.

Other Person's Response: If a person had the thought that something, or someone, was evil, then that wouldn't be the experience of evil that person would be having, right? He needs to feel evil to experience evil?

My Reply: Yes. So, the thought alone can't be any evil within that person.

Other Person's Response: Our goal in life is the good, beautiful, amazing, etc., and not the bad, horrible, disgusting, etc.

My Reply: Yes. Our goal in life is to achieve the most positivity we can. So, the more positive emotions you're feeling, the more positivity you're getting (i.e. the more goodness, beauty, amazingness, etc. you're getting). I could say the same thing in regards to evil. The more evil you're feeling, the more evil you're getting.

Other Person's Response: When someone struggles with clinical depression, and he can't love, experience happiness, or see anything as beautiful or amazing, due to his depressive illness taking away his positive feelings, then I agree that's no way to live or be an artist.

My Reply: Yes. When you have nothing but a depressive perspective, that's not a life at all. The brains of clinically depressed people aren't functioning properly, and that's why positive thoughts can't make them feel positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: When someone sees something as amazing and beautiful, is that the same thing as him valuing that thing as amazing and beautiful?

My Reply: Yes, and positive emotions are the only way we can value things as amazing and beautiful.

Other Person's Response: When you say thoughts don't make us feel emotions for nothing, you're saying that our thoughts take on an emotional form, so that we can experience whatever we thought of? For example, loving thoughts make us feel love, so we can experience love?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Many people say that thoughts are very powerful things. For example, they'd say that beautiful, loving, hateful, joyful, etc. thoughts are very powerful things. But, you're saying such beautiful, loving, etc. power can only be experienced through our emotions, when those thoughts make us feel emotions? In which case, thoughts wouldn't be powerful things. They'd just be thoughts.

My Reply: That's correct. The thoughts alone don't hold such power. It's the emotions these thoughts make us feel that possess such power.

Other Person's Response: Have you always relied on your positive emotions as a means to see goodness, beauty, and worth in things?

My Reply: Yes. I've never seen things as good, beautiful, amazing, and worthwhile through my thoughts and beliefs alone (i.e. my mindset alone).

Other Person's Response: Have you always relied on your emotions to love, be angry, be sad, regret, etc.?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Does your philosophy make your life miserable? I would imagine anyone being miserable if he had to live by a depressing philosophy like yours.

My Reply: Not at all. The only times I'm miserable would be during an emotional crisis, such as if a certain thought, or worry, devastated me.

Other Person's Response: Does your philosophy say we should give up on our goals and dreams if we don't feel up to doing them?

My Reply: Yes. That's because there's just no point in doing them when we don't feel up to doing them. There'd be no goodness, beauty, value, and worth in doing them.

Other Person's Response: If someone only feels the desire to give up on his goals and dreams, you're saying he's experiencing the desire to give up, which means he has the desire to give up? Thus, he should give up because, as long as he's unable to feel the desire to persevere, then he can't experience any desire/motivation to persevere, which would mean he can't have any desire/motivation to persevere?

My Reply: Yes. If he's only feeling the desire to give up, then that's the experience/perspective he's having in regards to his goals and dreams. So, why shouldn't he give up? Sure, he could still persevere anyway. But, he wouldn't be having the perspective of wanting to persevere. During my miserable struggles, I could only feel negative emotions, such as the desire to give up on my composing dream. That's why I gave up.

Other Person's Response: Is feeling inspired the only way an artist can be inspired?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy says feelings are everything, since they give us the desire to persevere, they allow us to love, be happy, etc.

My Reply: Yes. Our mindset alone can't do any of that. But, our mindset is the foundation for having the desire to persevere, experiencing love, being happy, etc., since our mindset causes us to feel certain ways.
Last edited by MozartLink on Sun May 10, 2020 11:53 pm, edited 10 times in total.
MozartLink
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: All My Philosophy Packets

Post by MozartLink »

File #2: My Philosophy Of Emotions (Part 9/12)

Other Person's Response: What about those people who'd disagree with your philosophy? What would you tell them?

My Reply: I'd tell them to pay more attention to their personal experience than what others say to them. For example, if someone was living a miserable life, then just because others would tell him he'd be living a good, beautiful life if he inspired others through his misery, doesn't mean he should listen to them. He should instead listen to what his personal experience has to say.

My personal experience clearly says it's no way to live or be an artist without positive emotions, and that a person can't live a good or beautiful life without them. So, if I was miserable, apathetic, or unhappy, it wouldn't matter what others said to me, what I did, or how I lived my life because my personal experience will always say it's no way to live or be an artist. Until my personal experience says otherwise, my philosophy will never change.

Other Person's Response: Many people speak lies. So, I agree that you shouldn't trust people.

My Reply: Yes. I think people believe this lie that positive emotions aren't necessary, that they're trivial things, and that there are other ways to live a good, beautiful life. Thus, such a delusion only serves to blind people to their own personal experience, which leads these people to conclude that we can still live good, beautiful lives without our positive emotions.

I've met many people who'd say to me that positive emotions are nothing more than biochemical feelings, and that they aren't experiences of love, pride, beauty, etc. These people think they don't need emotions to love, be proud, be happy, or see beauty and horror in things.

So, this clearly says people are already in denial when it comes to their own emotions and personal experience. That means they're also in denial when they tell me I'm wrong when I say it's no way to live or be an artist without positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: You gave an example earlier with how people are already in denial when it comes to positive emotions, and it was the example with clinically depressed soul mates who think love is everlasting. Since they're in denial when it comes to love, then they must also be in denial when they say you're wrong when you say it's no way to live or be an artist without positive emotions.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: You shouldn't rely on your personal experience because our personal experience doesn't always tell us the truth. For example, a person could conclude that Jesus exists, based upon his personal experience. But, if Jesus isn't real, then he's delusional.

My Reply: But, when it comes to questions, such as: "What is love?," "What is happiness?," and "How do we live a good, beautiful life?," these are philosophical questions the individual has to find the answer to for himself, based upon his own personal experience. Based upon my personal experience, I've concluded love and happiness are positive emotions, and that positive emotions are what make our lives good and beautiful.

Other Person's Response: So, your personal experience says it's not a good or beautiful way of life without positive emotions?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: What if it's the case that things, moments, situations, and life itself can still be good, amazing, and beautiful without our positive emotions?

My Reply: Then it would still be no way to live or be an artist without our positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: If you're saying it's no way to live or be an artist without our positive emotions, then I don't think it would even make sense to say that things, moments, situations, and life itself can still be good, amazing, and beautiful without our positive emotions. Therefore, that means you're saying positive emotions are the only things that give goodness, beauty, magnificence, etc. to things, moments, situations, and life itself.

My Reply: I think you're right, and I think I'd be saying that positive emotions are the only good, amazing, etc. things in life, since they're the only good, amazing, etc. experiences we can have.

Other Person's Response: If I said a life without positive thoughts is no way to live or be an artist, wouldn't I be saying positive thinking is the only good and beautiful thing in life?

My Reply: I think so. Also, if I said a life without money is no way to live or be an artist, I think I'd be saying that money is the only good and beautiful thing in life.

Other Person's Response: If a life without money was no way to live, then a person who has no money, but does something to get rich in a few minutes, would still be living no way of life, since he still has no money in those few minutes.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: So, if a person, without his positive emotions, was going to live a blissful, utopia life in just a few minutes, that would still be no way to live for him?

My Reply: Yes, because he still doesn't have his positive emotions in those few minutes. But, the moment he becomes blissful is the moment his life would be wonderful and beautiful.

Other Person's Response: The problem with you is that you have nothing more to live for than positive feelings.

My Reply: I don't see any reason to think there's more to live for. I've yet to have a new personal experience that convinces me there's more to live for.

Other Person's Response: Since your philosophy says there's nothing more to live for than positive feelings, then that must mean your philosophy says positive feelings are the only good, beautiful, and amazing things in life, and that they're the only things that give positivity to our lives.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Some people would say cruel things about you, given the philosophy you live by. They'd say you're a selfish, shallow, worthless piece of shit who's better off dead. But, if there was someone who craved junk food for a living, and he thought junk food was the only good thing in life, should we also give him such cruel treatment? I don't think so. I think he just has a junk food craving that needs to be addressed. Likewise, I think you just have a craving for positive feelings that needs to be addressed. Your craving is unhealthy, and your philosophy is just a set up for failure, since you give up on your goals and dreams whenever you don't feel motivated to pursue them.

My Reply: I'm not sure if it's my craving for positive feelings that leads me to the conclusion that there's nothing more to live for than positive feelings, and that positive feelings are the only good things in life. It could be the case that my philosophy was right all along.

Other Person's Response: I think you're a gifted, intellectual individual, given all the material you've written on your philosophy. I also think you're a talented writer. But, I think you're just wasting your talents on positive feelings, when said talents can be used for a much greater purpose. I also heard you have a musical talent you have yet to reveal to the world. You claim you've naturally created some awesome, profound, powerful melodies in your mind, and that you just need to acquire the necessary training and education to successfully convey these mentally inspired tunes to the world. If you do have this mental, musical talent, and you do end up becoming a great composer, then you'd just be wasting that talent on positive feelings as well.

My Reply: I don't think there's a better purpose my talents can be used for, since there's nothing better in life than positive feelings. So, that's why I pursue my talents just to enjoy them.

Other Person's Response: You can use your talents to bring others positive feelings.

My Reply: But, without my own positive feelings, then bringing others positive feelings could be nothing good, beautiful, precious, etc. in my eyes.

Other Person's Response: I think emotions really are nothing more than biochemical feelings. How can mere biochemical feelings possibly give us experiences of love, hate, sorrow, joy, etc.?

My Reply: Well, thoughts and beliefs are biochemical in nature as well, since the entire brain works by means of biochemicals. For example, you need those neurotransmitters (biochemicals) to hear, smell, taste, and to even think. So, the question is, which biochemical-based component gives us experiences of love, hate, sorrow, etc.? I think that component would be our emotions, and not our thoughts and beliefs.

Other Person's Response: I heard you wish to share this philosophy of yours to mental health professionals. That way, they'll understand why you need your positive emotions.

My Reply: Yes. I'd share my philosophy to other people as well, so they can have an understanding. If I didn't explain my philosophy, and I just simply told people I need my positive emotions, then these people might say things, such as that positive emotions are unnecessary, trivial things, and that there's so much more to live for. I think positive emotions are the very reason for living, and the ultimate goal in life.

So, that means they're a fundamental requirement for our existence, and everything I've written in this packet explains why that is. The desire to live a happy life isn't to be treated as a shallow, trivial, materialistic desire, such as the desire to live a rich, luxurious life. As a matter of fact, without our positive emotions, then it wouldn't matter how much riches and luxury we had because none of it could be good, amazing, beautiful, or worthwhile in our eyes.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, a person shouldn't feel devastated over the loss of his loved one, and it would be better for him to feel a positive emotion, such as feeling that his loved one was a good person who lived the best he could.

My Reply: Yes. That would give him a positive perspective, instead of a horrible, negative, devastated perspective.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, positive thinking alone is no way to live or be an artist?

My Reply: That's right. Positive thoughts need to make us feel positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: Can't negative emotions make things worthwhile in our eyes?

My Reply: Actually, they do. So, I neglected to mention that. For example, if someone felt rage to punch someone, then he felt it was worthwhile to punch that person. But, just because a person has a worthwhile experience, doesn't mean it was a positive experience. Feeling negative emotions is still no way to live or be an artist because we need to see goodness, beauty, magnificence, etc. in things, which means feeling positive emotions is the reason for living.

The more bad, horrible, miserable, tragic, etc. experiences we have, the more of that we're getting out of life, and it would be like life is giving us poison. Actually, we'd be giving ourselves poison, since it's our own negative thoughts that cause us to experience those bad, horrible, etc. feelings. The less positive feelings we have, the more we're missing out on life, regardless of our actions, deeds, and contributions to the world.

Other Person's Response: So, negative emotions do make things worthwhile in our eyes? But, in a negative way? Positive emotions make things worthwhile to us in a positive way?

My Reply: Yes. When we're apathetic, nothing can be worthwhile in our eyes.

Other Person's Response: If a person felt bad because he mistreated someone, and that feeling made it worthwhile in his eyes to make up for what he's done, you're saying his life would be worthwhile, but bad?

My Reply: Yes. But, don't act like it's a good or beautiful thing that his life was worthwhile.

Other Person's Response: If a person decided to end his life by committing suicide, then did he live a worthwhile life, just because he felt it was worthwhile to end his life?

My Reply: Yes. But, if he wasn't feeling good while doing it, and he was feeling horrible, then his life was horrible.

Other Person's Response: Are you sure negative emotions are perceptions of worth?

My Reply: Actually, I'm not sure. So, I don't know if negative emotions make things worthwhile for us. Positive emotions are the only things that can make things valuable for us, which means positive emotions are the only perceptions of value. But, I don't know if positive emotions are the only perceptions of worth.

Other Person's Response: Your idea that feeling good is the good life, and feeling bad is the bad life, is overly simplistic and dumb. A person would still be living a horrible life if he felt good and amazing while doing harmful things to himself and/or others.

My Reply: According to my view, that person would still be living a good, amazing life, as long as he feels good and amazing. It would be like if I said that a person is still living a rich life, as long as he has a lot of money. His actions and deeds don't determine whether he's living a rich life or not. It's how much money he has that determines this. Feelings of goodness and beauty are sort of like money.

In other words, if we have a lot of these feelings, then we're living lives rich in goodness and beauty, regardless of our actions and deeds. So, if we wish to live good, beautiful lives, then we must seek feelings of goodness and beauty, just as how we must seek money if we wish to live lives of wealth. Goodness and beauty are feelings. So, it makes no sense to say that a person isn't living a good, beautiful life if he's experiencing those feelings of goodness and beauty, just as how it would make no sense to say that a person isn't living a rich life if he has a lot of money.

Other Person's Response: Here's an article that talks about beauty being a feeling:

https://www.elitedaily.com/p/is-beauty- ... f-10188983

My Reply: Thanks for sharing! Many people would say that I can still live a beautiful life, or that things in this world can still be beautiful in my eyes with no need for my positive feelings. But, beauty is a positive feeling. Without it, there can be no beauty.

Other Person's Response: You give a money analogy to describe positive feelings. But, I thought you said we're not to treat positive feelings as trivial, shallow, materialistic things, such as money.

My Reply: I'm saying they're like money. But, I'm saying we shouldn't trivialize them like we would with riches and luxury.

Other Person's Response: So, we're supposed to treat goodness and beauty like money? The more feelings of goodness and beauty we have, the more goodness and beauty we're getting out of life, just as how someone would be getting more reward out of life if he was gaining more and more riches?

My Reply: Yes. Positive feelings do result from the reward system of our brains. So, the more of them we have, the more reward we're getting out of life. Except, with positive feelings, we're being rewarded with goodness, beauty, magnificence, etc., rather than riches and luxury. Also, with money, you can have a big pile of it. Emotions are different because they come and go.

Other Person's Response: According to your view, goodness and beauty are feelings, just as how hunger and thirst are feelings. A person can't live a life of hunger and thirst, as long as he's not feeling hungry and thirsty, just as how a person can't live a good, beautiful life, as long as he's not feeling goodness and beauty.

My Reply: Correct. Also, if a person can't feel sad, he can't live a sad life, and if a person can't feel pain, he can't live a painful life. I could also say the same thing about pleasure. If a person can't feel pleasure, he can't live a pleasurable life.

Other Person's Response: If emotions were value judgments, and positive and negative experiences for every human being, then you'd be seeing everyone respond to emotions the same way. Everybody would be saying emotions are value judgments, and positive and negative experiences.

My Reply: But, many people are in denial, which means many people would deny the idea of emotions being value judgments and those experiences.

Other Person's Response: Since good and bad are emotions, then how can a person live a good or bad life if he has no emotions?

My Reply: He can't. The same idea applies to beauty. Since beauty is an emotion, then a person can't live a beautiful life if he's unable to feel beauty. He can't live an amazing life either if he's unable to feel amazed.

Other Person's Response: Many people would say to not label emotions as good, bad, beautiful, or disgusting. But, you're saying emotions are what give us good, bad, etc. experiences in the first place?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Yes, goodness and beauty are value judgments. But, that doesn't mean it would be good and beautiful if a psychopath judged it to be a good and beautiful thing to torture someone.

My Reply: Goodness and beauty are value judgments, just as how celery and broccoli are vegetables. If all vegetables were gone, then all the celery and broccoli we need would be gone. So, if all our value judgments (emotions) were gone, then all the goodness and beauty we need would be gone. Therefore, this says that goodness and beauty are to be treated as materialistic things we need, and positive emotions would be the materialistic goodness, beauty, magnificence, awesomeness, etc. we need. Given this, does my philosophy say that psychopath scenario you presented would be good and beautiful?

Other Person's Response: I take it love and joy are materialistic things (positive emotions) as well.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Some people would say that your philosophy is too simplistic, since your definition of good and bad is way too simple.

My Reply: It's often times the most simple things and solutions people overlook. So, my philosophy might be true, despite its simplicity, and people are overlooking it.

Other Person's Response: I realize your philosophy is called "hedonism." Hedonism is a philosophy which advocates seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, and says pleasure is the only good thing in life. But, hedonism states that not only are positive emotions good, but pleasant sensations, such as pleasant smells, tastes, etc.

My Reply: According to my view, positive emotions are the only good and beautiful things in life.

Other Person's Response: If I wasn't feeling sad, why couldn't I still say that a work of art is sad, or that people suffering in this world is sad?

My Reply: Because sadness can only be an emotion, and can't be anything else. If nobody could feel sad, then nothing could be sad in our eyes. So, that says sadness can only be an emotion.

Other Person's Response: If all people didn't have positive feelings, then goodness, beauty, etc. would no longer exist, which means we'd no longer say that a professional basketball player possesses good, amazing skill, or that a singer's performance was beautiful or magnificent. Instead, we'd just say that the basketball player, and singer, possess immense skill and talent.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: If all people didn't have positive feelings, we wouldn't even say that it's a good or beautiful thing to regain our positive feelings?

My Reply: Correct. So, goodness and beauty can't exist at all without positive feelings. That means goodness and beauty are things that we have to bring into existence for ourselves, and we bring them into existence by thinking certain things, people, or situations are good and beautiful, which causes us to feel goodness and beauty. It's those feelings which are the goodness and beauty that have been brought into existence.

Other Person's Response: For those people who are able to feel positive emotions, they would have every reason to say a given talent is good, beautiful, or amazing, since they can feel that way about said talent, while people who have no positive emotions have no reason to say anything is good, beautiful, or amazing.

My Reply: Correct. People without their positive emotions could still say things are good, beautiful, or amazing anyway. But, they wouldn't be able to see them as such.

Other Person's Response: If all human beings had no emotions, our lives couldn't be good or beautiful? Goodness and beauty are brought into our lives through our feelings of goodness and beauty?

My Reply: Yes. It would be like this. Imagine if you had an empty canvas. The canvas alone doesn't have any colors on it. You must give it color by coloring it. So, our feelings of goodness and beauty color our lives in goodness and beauty. They're what give goodness and beauty to our lives. When we feel goodness and beauty in regards to something, that colors said thing in goodness and beauty in our eyes.

Each individual has his own life, which can also be called his own mental universe. It's up to us to color our lives (mental universes) in goodness, beauty, wonder, magnificence, etc. through our positive feelings. That will make our lives a beautiful, amazing, etc. adventure for us, instead of a horrible, miserable, tragic, or apathetic existence. The more things we color in goodness and beauty, the more things become good and beautiful for us.

Other Person's Response: Our mental universe wouldn't be like an empty canvas, since there are already objects, such as trees, houses, etc.

My Reply: But, we need to color said universe in goodness, beauty, etc. Everything in a person's mental universe doesn't need to be colored in beauty. As long as the individual was coloring some things in his life in beauty, then his mental universe possessed some beauty. Thus, he lived a beautiful life.

Other Person's Response: According to you, good, bad, beauty, horror, etc. are things we create ourselves. For example, you're saying that life itself is nothing beautiful. We create a beautiful life for ourselves through our thoughts and beliefs. Once those thoughts and beliefs make us feel beauty, that creates a beautiful life for us.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: When a person is living a beautiful life, that's no different than saying his mind is in a beautiful place, since a person's life is that person's mental universe.

My Reply: Yes, and we make our mental universe a beautiful place for ourselves through our feelings of beauty. Our minds can't be in a beautiful place if we're having no feeling/experience of beauty. Thus, we wouldn't be living a beautiful life. Our minds can't be in a joyful, sad, or miserable place either if we're having no feeling of joy, sadness, or misery. Thus, we wouldn't be living a joyful, sad, or miserable life.

Other Person's Response: If someone felt horrible, then that would be putting his mind in a horrible place? Thus, his life would be horrible?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: So, if you couldn't feel sad or pitiful, and someone said to you that you're living a sad, pitiful life, then your life couldn't be sad or pitiful, right?

My Reply: That's right. It's that other person who felt sad and pitiful who'd be living the sad, pitiful life, since that feeling would be putting his mind in a sad, pitiful place. Once his sad, pitiful feeling fades away, and he starts to feel joy again, he'd be living a joyful life now.

Other Person's Response: Since pitiful is a value judgment, then that means pitiful is an emotion.

My Reply: Yes. Pitiful is a negative emotion, and can only be a negative emotion. Nothing in life can be pitiful in our eyes, as long as we don't feel pitiful. The same idea applies to pathetic.

Other Person's Response: If Jake felt that life was a disgusting place, and Jon told him that life was a beautiful place, then life is a beautiful place for Jon, and a disgusting place for Jake. Life itself is nothing beautiful or disgusting. Many people feel that life's a disgusting place, which simply means it's a disgusting place for them, and many people feel that life's a beautiful place, which makes it a beautiful place for them.

My Reply: Yes. Beauty and disgust are simply feelings we have about things, including life itself. But, everything, including life itself, is nothing good, bad, beautiful, or disgusting in of itself. That means the acts of criminals are nothing good or bad. We make them bad for ourselves by feeling bad about them. Then there are those people who make those criminal acts good for themselves by feeling good about them.

Other Person's Response: I think only other criminals and psychopaths would feel good about the acts of criminals.

My Reply: Yes. A normal person wouldn't feel good about those acts. Since how a person thinks is how a person feels, and since no normal person would think the acts of criminals are good, then that means no normal person would feel that the acts of criminals are good.

Other Person’s Response: Sometimes, emotions are triggered automatically, and they’re not triggered by thoughts or beliefs. So, it could be possible that a very compassionate, innocent person would end up feeling good about the acts of criminals

My Reply: That might be the case.

Other Person's Response: Many people would say that you're a pitiful, pathetic human being, given the weak, shallow philosophy you live by. Your philosophy says that all things in this world are nothing good, bad, pitiful, etc., and that we just make them so for ourselves by feeling that way. That means you're nothing pitiful or pathetic, and it's all just a matter of how people feel about you. There are those people who'd feel you're an amazing, beautiful person, and then there are those who'd feel you're pitiful and pathetic.

My Reply: Yes. It also all comes down to how I feel about myself, since how I feel about myself determines how I see myself.

Other Person's Response: If we wish to make ourselves beautiful people in our own mental universe, then we must feel beautiful about ourselves?

My Reply: Yes. But, you'd become a horrible or disgusting person in another person's mental universe if he felt that you were a horrible or disgusting person. During my miserable struggles, I couldn't feel beautiful about myself. I felt that I was pitiful and disgusting. Thus, I became that pitiful, disgusting person. I'd become a beautiful person in the eyes of others, even during my miserable struggles. But, it's my perspective that matters, since this is my life, and my own mental universe. To make my life, including myself, beautiful in my own mental universe, I need my feelings of beauty.

Other Person's Response: Since positive emotions are the only way to experience our lives as beautiful, then they're the only things that make our lives beautiful? Since positive emotions are the only way to experience ourselves as beautiful people, then they're the only things that make us beautiful people?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: You say a life without positive emotions is no way to live or be an artist. Who are you to deny unhappy artists meaning in their lives? Many famous works have been created through negative emotions.

My Reply: If someone said: "Do you know what it means if you take this medicine? It means you'll be well again!," then this is a form of meaning a person's life can have in the absence of his emotions. It's still a meaning he can perceive in the absence of his emotions. Another example would be that mathematical and scientific meanings can still be perceived in the absence of emotions. But, there's another form of meaning, and it would be the beautiful, horrible, tragic, etc. meaning that works of art, situations, and life holds in our eyes.

An example of this one would be if a person said: "That artwork holds such beautiful meaning!," or "That event was so tragic!" The only way this form of meaning can be perceived is through one's emotions. Without emotions, then one's life can only have the 1st type of meaning. But, it can't have any beautiful, tragic, etc. meaning. So, our emotions are what give beautiful, horrific, tragic, etc. meaning to works of art, situations, moments, and life itself.

Other Person's Response: If 2 people were living together (Jake and Jon), and Jake had a lot of money, while Jon didn't have any money, Jon would still be living a rich life, since there's a lot of money in his life, given that his partner is a part of his life, and has all that money. It's just money Jon doesn't have.

My Reply: I'm talking about the personal life of the individual. So, Jon wouldn't be living a rich life, since he doesn't have any money for himself. That means a person can't live a good, beautiful life just by helping others, who are a part of his life, to make them feel goodness and beauty. Those helped people would be living the good, beautiful lives, since they had those feelings of goodness and beauty, while that helpful person wouldn't be living a good, beautiful life if he didn't have those feelings.

Other Person's Response: So, you wish to have a life to yourself that's good, amazing, beautiful, etc.?

My Reply: Yes, and I'd need to feel good, amazing, beautiful, etc. to live such a life. My life can't be a personal paradise for me without my positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: I think your philosophy is no way to live or be an artist.

My Reply: That's your personal view.

Other Person's Response: It's always been assumed that the more profound and intense positive thoughts you have, the better of a life you're living, and the more profound and intense negative thoughts you have, the worse of a life you're living.

My Reply: Actually, it's the emotions these thoughts make us feel that determine the quality of our lives (how better or how worse of a life we're living). So, if you experienced very profound, intense misery from losing your loved one, then you'd be living a much worse life than if you felt a trivial, shallow form of misery that wasn't that bad at all, such as being a bit bummed out for a while, since you didn't get to see your favorite movie.

Other Person's Response: The more profound and intense a person's positive thoughts are, the more profound and intense positive emotions he'd feel? The more profound and intense that person's negative thoughts are, the more profound and intense negative emotions he'd feel?

My Reply: Yes, since how we think is how we will feel. But, like I said, there are things that can prevent thoughts, or beliefs, from making us feel emotions.

Other Person's Response: You say how a person thinks is how a person feels. But, a person could have the thought that losing his loved one would be horrible and devastating, and that thought not causing him to feel devastated, since his loved one is still alive and healthy.

My Reply: Well, that's because he had the thought that everything's all good and well, since his loved one is still healthy and alive. It's this thought which is preventing him from being devastated. But, the moment his loved one dies is the moment he'd become devastated.

Other Person's Response: What if the thought that everything's all good and well didn't make him feel anything?

My Reply: If the thought didn't make him feel anything, then his mindset really was that he just doesn't care. If a person has any given thought, and that thought doesn't make him feel anything, then it's really an apathetic thought that person is having. But, if his thought wasn't apathetic, and it still didn't cause him to feel any emotion, then he could have a mental illness that's preventing him from feeling emotions.

Other Person's Response: What if the thought that everything's all good and well made him feel bad?

My Reply: Then he really had a negative thought, such as that everything being all good and well was a bad thing.

Other Person's Response: I don't understand how one could disagree with the idea that how a person thinks is how a person feels, and that changing one's thinking is how a person changes how he feels. This is something that's even taught in CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy).

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: I think it's all up to the individual how he wishes to define love and happiness. So, if someone says he doesn't need emotions to love someone or experience happiness, then he can love someone and be happy, since that's his personal definition of love and happiness.

My Reply: If a person was dying of thirst in a desert, and he needed to drink water to save his life, then it must be real water. He can't just have an empty glass and say: "I'm going to define the emptiness inside this glass as water, drink it, and my life will be saved!" It just wouldn't be real water. My point is, people can certainly define love and happiness as non-emotional. But, it's not real love or happiness.

Other Person's Response: You treat positive feelings and positive emotions as being the same thing. Sure, they're both mental states (experiences). But, they're not the same thing.

My Reply: If that's the case, then just accept this error I've made. That means I should've said a life without positive feelings and positive emotions is no way to live or be an artist, and that we should avoid negative feelings and negative emotions. There are things that can take away our positive feelings and positive emotions, such as brain damage, and we should avoid these things as well.

Other Person's Response: If a person felt a negative emotion that motivated him to create works of art, then didn't that negative emotion make his artistic endeavor worthwhile?

My Reply: Yes. So, actually, both positive and negative emotions are how we see worth in things. But, again, negative emotions are still no way to live or be an artist. For example, I've had many miserable moments in my life where I wasn't doing well at all. If my misery motivated me to create works of art, then that would still be no way to live or be an artist, since I'd still be having a very horrible, negative experience. Whether my misery motivates me to moan in agony or create works of art doesn't matter because that life of misery would still be a horrible way to live. It's the positive experiences (positive emotions) I need.

Other Person's Response: Was it thoughts of certain situations being horrible that made you miserable?

My Reply: Yes. That's what I mean when I say horrible, negative thoughts and worries have made me miserable.

Other Person's Response: When you say horrible, negative thoughts have made you miserable, would we even refer to those thoughts as horrible and negative? It's the negative emotions that are horrible and negative, since they're the horrible, negative experiences.

My Reply: We wouldn’t. That means all those worries I've had wouldn't have been devastating, bad, or horrible. It was the devastating, emotional response I got from these worries which was devastating, bad, and horrible.

Other Person's Response: Even if an artist was living a very horrible life, where he could see no goodness or beauty in anything (i.e. if he had nothing but a negative perspective), then it would still be something good and beautiful if he inspired others through his horrible life. He could make amazing works of art, and that would be something good and beautiful.

My Reply: But, in the meantime, until this artist can have a positive perspective, his life is nothing but horrible, and he can still see nothing good, amazing, or beautiful about inspiring others through his artwork. For those who are inspired by his artwork, they can have a positive perspective, since they can see goodness and beauty in his horrible way of life, and they can see goodness and beauty in his artwork, which would make their lives good and beautiful. But, you shouldn't dismiss the artist, since he's living a horrible life.

You act as though his horrible life would be something beautiful. For you and others, it would be beautiful, since all of you can see beauty in his way of life. But, in the eyes of that artist, it would be nothing beautiful, valuable, good, or precious. The quality of a person's life must be taken into consideration, and if a person is living a miserable existence, where he sees nothing positive, and can only see the negative, then that's a very poor quality of life, and it's a horrible way to live. It's simply no way to live or be an artist.

Other Person's Response: If someone was taking drugs to give himself much bliss, then I'd still consider that to be a horrible life he's living, since he's damaging himself through drug use.

My Reply: He's still living a beautiful, amazing life for the time being, since those feelings of bliss he's having are what allow him to see things as beautiful and amazing. But, the moment his body is destroyed through drug use, and he starts to feel miserable, is the moment his life would be miserable and horrible. He went from feeling beautiful and amazing to feeling miserable and horrible. That's what changed his quality of life from being beautiful and amazing one moment to horrible and miserable the next moment.

Other Person's Response: If I told this blissful drug user that his life is horrible, since his body is going to be destroyed by the drugs, and that he'd end up miserable, none of that would matter to him, since he doesn't see anything horrible about it in the meantime, given that he has nothing but a positive, blissful perspective, where he sees things as beautiful and amazing. So, as far as that drug user is concerned, his quality of life is nothing but beautiful and amazing for the time being.

My Reply: Yes. But, it's not like the drug user is unaware of the damage drugs do, just because he can't see anything horrible about it in the meantime. So, that means he can still choose to stop taking drugs, just from knowing the harmful consequences. He doesn't need to see anything horrible or tragic about those consequences, which means he doesn't need to care about those consequences.

He just needs to know that drugs do harm, and make his decision as to whether he wishes to continue drug use or not. As a matter of fact, he could see the idea of stopping drug use, and promoting his health, as beautiful and amazing if he felt that way. That would give him a positive perspective, which would motivate him to stop taking drugs, instead of a negative perspective of seeing the consequences as horrible and tragic. That means he'd feel positive instead of negative.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy has immoral implications, and we wouldn't have a functional society if your philosophy was true, people believed it, and lived by it.

My Reply: Even if that were the case, that still doesn't change my philosophy. Besides, there are plenty of truths in this world that are absurd, immoral, and insulting. So, one of those truths could be my philosophy.

Other Person's Response: Some people would say your philosophy is immoral. But, you have your own morals, which say that feeling good is good, and feeling bad is bad.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If your philosophy was true, people believed it, and lived by it, then the world would be a dangerous place.

My Reply: There are truths out there that are dangerous. So, just because my philosophy would be dangerous doesn't mean it's false.

Other Person's Response: Thoughts can be just as unreliable as emotions. So, if a person felt good about making a harmful decision, then he was actually thinking it was good to make that decision, since how a person thinks is how a person feels.

My Reply: Yes. So, an impulsive thought caused that person to feel an impulsive emotion. If he had another type of thought, such as the thought that it's a good thing to not act out on said impulse, then that thought must make him feel good in order for him to see it as a good thing to not act out on said impulse.

Other Person's Response: If our emotions determine the quality of our lives, then we might as well say a psychopath lived a good life, since he felt good while torturing living things.

My Reply: Yes. But, the people who felt horrible about the psychopath's deed would be living a horrible life, since they felt horrible. Their lives would be horrible in the meantime until they can feel good again.

Other Person's Response: There are certain things we need to perceive as bad or horrible, such as criminal acts.

My Reply: It would be better to perceive it as a good or beautiful thing for the criminals to be locked up in prison. That would give us a positive experience, instead of a negative experience of seeing their acts as bad or horrible.

Other Person's Response: That, or we could perceive those criminal acts as good or beautiful.

My Reply: Yes. Either way, you're still having a positive experience if you're seeing any given thing, moment, situation, or act as good or beautiful.

Other Person's Response: I could say that a person's positive thinking makes his life good and beautiful, since positive thinking is where a person has thoughts of things and situations being good and beautiful, and that would be giving him good, beautiful experiences to make his life good and beautiful. But, you're saying positive thoughts and beliefs alone can't give us any good or beautiful experience, and that it's the positive emotions that do?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If a person thought it was a good thing to torture someone, that wouldn't be a positive thought.

My Reply: I define positive thinking as thinking of any given thing or situation as being good, beautiful, amazing, etc. The same idea applies to positive emotions. Feeling that any given thing or situation is good, beautiful, amazing, etc. is a positive emotion.

Other Person's Response: I thought you said we wouldn't call thoughts positive or negative, since they, alone, don't give us any positive or negative experience. Also, I thought you said we wouldn't call the thoughts and worries that devastated you as being devastating, since they, alone, aren't devastating experiences.

My Reply: That's right. But, I still call them that anyway for the sake of convenience.

Other Person's Response: If a person was having a horrible experience, that can still be a beautiful experience if he used it to help and inspire others. Therefore, his life can still be beautiful.

My Reply: It makes no sense to say that a sad experience can be a happy experience, since sadness and happiness are different feelings. Likewise, it makes no sense to say that a horrible experience can be a beautiful experience, since feeling horrible and feeling beauty are different feelings.

Other Person's Response: If a person felt much physical pain, he'd be living a painful life. If someone had a lot of money, he'd be living a rich life. If someone did a lot of intellectual exercises throughout his life, he'd be living an intellectual life. If someone feels much goodness and beauty throughout his life, he'd be living a good, beautiful life.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: I heard that positive experiences, such as beautiful, joyful, loving, and amazing experiences, are the soul at a higher, spiritual vibration. When we're at a higher vibration, we're closer to god/the divine. But, when we're at a lower vibration, due to misery, despair, hate, etc., we're far away from god/the divine.

My Reply: That means positive emotions are divine, the higher vibration, and are god's holy light experienced within us. We become holy, divine, beings of light through our positive emotions, and we become unholy beings of darkness through our negative emotions, since negative emotions are unholy. Having no emotions would just render us as empty vessels, and apathy is neither holy nor unholy. The goal in life is to rise above negativity, as well as apathy.

That means we should try our best to avoid negative emotions and apathy, and to have positive emotions, since they're the holy light of joy, love, etc. we need. Negative emotions and apathy are an inferior state of being, and having them would be living an inferior existence, regardless of your deeds and contributions to the world. A lower vibration means an inferior state of being and living, and the goal would be to rise to a higher vibration. That's just another way of saying we should avoid negative emotions and apathy, and to have positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: Do you define positive emotions as holy, and negative emotions as unholy, no matter what?

My Reply: Yes. So, if a psychopath felt much love and joy from torturing living things, then he's still having a holy, divine experience. He's just using this experience for his own harmful purposes. If a character in a movie used a holy relic for his own sinister deeds, then that relic was still holy. Also, water is still water, no matter if it benefits others or drowns others. So, positive emotions are still holy, no matter if they're used to benefit others or harm others.
Last edited by MozartLink on Sun May 10, 2020 11:54 pm, edited 9 times in total.
MozartLink
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: All My Philosophy Packets

Post by MozartLink »

File #2: My Philosophy Of Emotions (Part 10/12)

Other Person's Response: Haven't you ever heard people say that a life without emotions would be a dull existence, that it's no way to live, and we'd be like empty, mechanistic vessels without them, regardless of what we do, and how we live our lives? Well then, this clearly says that emotions determine the quality of our lives. If having no emotions amounts to a life that's dull and nothing good, beautiful, or horrible, then that means having positive emotions amounts to a life that's good, beautiful, amazing, etc., and having negative emotions amounts to a life that's bad, horrible, tragic, etc.

My Reply: Yes. Emotions color our world, which means they really do determine the quality of our lives. Apathy creates a dull, gray world, positive emotions color our world in positivity, and negative emotions color our world in negativity. Thus, apathy creates a neutral quality of life, positive emotions create a positive quality of life, and negative emotions create a negative quality of life.

Other Person's Response: If we're like empty, mechanistic vessels without our emotions, then that means positive emotions are like a holy life force within us that makes us something more than mere machines, and negative emotions are an unholy life force that makes us something less than machines.

My Reply: Yes. Negativity is worse than neutrality, and that's why it's worse to feel negative emotions than to be apathetic. That's why we'd be less than apathetic machines if we felt negative emotions. According to spiritual believers, negative emotions are at a lower vibration than apathy, which means they're inferior to apathy.

Other Person's Response: Living a neutral life is certainly better than living a horrible, shit life. So, I agree that apathy is superior to negative emotions. But, we should strive for positive emotions, since they're superior to apathy.

My Reply: Yes. If you live a horrible, shit life, then that's an unholy life, and if you live a beautiful, amazing, joyful life, then that's a holy life. Having no emotions amounts to a life that's neither holy nor unholy.

Other Person's Response: The more profound and intense positive emotions are, the more holy and divine they are? The more intense and profound negative emotions are, the more unholy they are?

My Reply: Yes. So, the absolute worst, miserable state possible would be the most unholy experience, and the absolute best, blissful experience possible would be the most holy, divine experience.

Other Person's Response: Even Buddhists say that mental suffering is bad, unholy, and needs to be transcended. Since negative emotions are mental suffering, then they're bad, unholy, and need to be eliminated.

My Reply: Yes. When someone, for example, experiences profound, intense, horrible misery from a devastating moment in his life, that experience is horrible, unholy, and needs to be eliminated. So, that's why this person must get the help he needs from therapists. That will help him eliminate his mental suffering, so he regains his joy. I had such miserable moments in my life, and such misery did nothing but made my life horrible. Thus, said misery was horrible, unholy, and needed to be eliminated.

Other Person's Response: The goal of Buddhism is to eliminate hate and suffering. For example, if a person is in mental turmoil, then assisting this individual in the Buddhist way would have him going through meditation, learning certain teachings, etc.

My Reply: The goal of Buddhism shouldn't just be an absence of hate and suffering, but the opposite of hate and suffering (which would be a state of peace, love, and joy). That state would be the positive emotions because a person can't experience peace, love, or joy, as long as he's not feeling peace, love, or joy.

Other Person's Response: Can't an apathetic (emotionless) person experience peace?

My Reply: No, because he needs to feel peace (a positive emotion). So, if a person went from a state of mental turmoil to a state of apathy, then his mental suffering would just be gone. But, that's not the same thing as being at peace. There were moments in my life where I felt peaceful from being out in nature. Since this feeling was the experience of peace, then that must mean the absence of this feeling can't be peace, no matter if you're someone who went from the absolute worst state of mental suffering possible to a state of apathy. So, if there are Buddhists out there who claim they can experience peace with no need for their positive emotions, then they're lying. It's the wrong definition of peace they're living by.

Other Person's Response: When a person feels peace, he's experiencing peace, which is the same thing as saying he's having a peaceful perspective/perception?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Do you think seeking positive emotions is our divine purpose as human beings?

My Reply: Yes. Positivity is our divine purpose, which is why we need positive emotions. Positive thoughts and beliefs alone won't count as a divine purpose, since they, alone, don't give us any positive experience. So, Buddhists who give up their desire for positive emotions aren't living in accordance with the divine and holy. If they define their way of life as divine or holy, then it's the wrong definition of divine or holy.

Other Person's Response: I've heard that Buddhists don't live a pleasure-centered lifestyle, they give up their desire for positive feelings, and undergo meditation.

My Reply: Yes, and that wouldn't be a divine or holy way of life. The divine, holy way of life would be hedonism, which would be a lifestyle of seeking positive feelings, avoiding negative feelings, and avoiding apathy.

Other Person's Response: Who are you to tell people they can't experience peace, love, happiness, beauty, etc. without their positive emotions?

My Reply: It all comes down to the truth here, regardless of how offensive said truth would be. So, if what I'm saying is true in regards to positive emotions being the only way we can experience peace, love, happiness, beauty, etc., then that's the truth. If it's also true that it's no way to live or be an artist without positive emotions, then that's the truth as well. All I'm doing is putting forth these claims, which are based upon my own personal experience. People can accept them as the truth or not.

Other Person's Response: Many people would ask you: "Who are you to tell people they can't love, be proud, or see beauty in things without their positive feelings?" But, you could turn that back around on them by asking them: "Who are you to be so arrogant as to claim that you don't need your positive feelings to love, be proud, and see beauty in things?"

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: I heard that many people have met god during their near death experience, god says to them that life is a precious gift, and that it's wrong for people to commit suicide.

My Reply: Well, life could be nothing precious for us without our positive feelings. But, it could be precious in god's eyes if he had his positive feelings. Does god even consider those who struggle with lifelong, clinical depression? They have very few moments where they see life as precious, since they have very few moments where they can experience positive feelings.

Other Person's Response: Can't a person love certain foods without his positive emotions?

My Reply: No. He may get a pleasant taste from foods. But, he can't like, love, or enjoy food without his positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: Can't a person want something without his emotions?

My Reply: No. It wouldn't be real wanting. Instead, it would be a preference. Wanting is a form of motivation, and emotions are what motivate us. Liking, loving, and enjoying are also forms of motivation, and they can only be positive emotions. When a person has no emotions, nothing can matter to him, which is why he can't want, like, enjoy, or love.

Other Person's Response: I heard that, even during moments where you were apathetic, you still said you wanted certain things.

My Reply: Yes. But, I wasn't actually wanting them, since I can't want anything without my emotions. I'd just be going outside my personal definition of wanting for the sake of convenience.

Other Person's Response: I heard people go on heavenly trips to the afterlife, whether it be through drug trips, or trips people go on during a near death experience. During these heavenly trips, they meet god, and they say they've experienced god's holy light of love and joy, which was an experience more profound and intense than anything they could achieve normally during their Earthly existence. According to your philosophy, this profound, intense experience of love and joy would have to be a positive emotion?

My Reply: Yes. It was a profound feeling of love and joy they felt, and it was a positive feeling. But, people do say there’s Grace, which is a divine, everlasting form of love that’s far more profound than the emotional form of love. I don’t know if Grace even exists or not.

Other Person's Response: When you say you don't see it as a bad thing to take drugs, since you don't feel bad about it, but you don't do drugs, just from knowing the harmful consequences, then it's like you're saying: "I don't see taking drugs as a bad thing, and it doesn't matter to me. But, you know what? I'm not going to take them, just because I know they'd do me harm."

My Reply: Yes. Now, if I felt good from the idea of taking drugs, and didn't take them, then it would be like I'm saying: "I see taking drugs as a good thing. But, you know what? I'm not going to take them, just from knowing the harm they do." So, I can still make certain choices, regardless of how I feel. Just because I'd feel a certain way doesn't mean I'd act out on that feeling.

Other Person's Response: If we feel that something's right or wrong, that's how we see it as being right or wrong?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Is the only way to be troubled by something is to feel troubled by it?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: According to you, a person living in a vegetative state of bliss, doing absolutely nothing for himself or humanity, would be living an awesome, good, beautiful life.

My Reply: Yes. Many people might disagree with this. But, if I said that a person living in a vegetative state of positive thinking, doing absolutely nothing for himself or humanity, would be living an awesome, good, beautiful life, then many people would agree. But, I'm just switching that from positive thoughts to positive emotions, since it's the positive emotions that make our lives good, beautiful, and amazing, and not the positive thoughts or beliefs alone.

Other Person's Response: I can assure you that you won't get very far in your composing dream, considering that positive feelings are transient things.

My Reply: I'll try to get as far as I can. Moments where I don't feel motivated to compose would be the moments I'd have to give up composing. So, not only must I experience moments as beautiful, good, and amazing, but I must be motivated to compose because, without that motivation, composing just wouldn't matter to me. That's why I must experience the joyful motivation to compose. Fortunately, when I don't have an emotional crisis, I've been known to enjoy my hobbies throughout the day each day, and composing would be no exception. Hopefully, my positive feelings remain intact after I fully recover from this recent emotional crisis, and nothing else takes them away, such as brain damage, developing a mental illness, etc.

Other Person's Response: Can a feeling of joy also be a feeling of goodness?

My Reply: Yes. For example, when I'm enjoying my composing, not only is my composing a joyful experience, but it's a good, worthwhile experience as well. So, that feeling of enjoyment makes my composing both enjoyable, good, and worthwhile in my eyes. So, what's going on here is that I have the thought, in my mind, that my composing is enjoyable, good, and worthwhile. Once that thought makes me feel that way, I then experience my composing as such. Unfortunately, I can't have that experience, since I don't have my positive emotions right now.

Other Person's Response: According to you, we need positive emotions everywhere we go, and everything we do.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If a guy felt that he was a beautiful female character, you're saying that's the same thing as him seeing himself as a beautiful female character?

My Reply: Yes. He wouldn't literally be hallucinating and visually seeing himself as a female character. He'd just be experiencing himself as a new character, and it would be a beautiful experience for him, since he feels like he's a beautiful character.

Other Person's Response: Since how a person thinks is how a person feels, then it's possible for a person to have a miserable thought that makes him feel miserable, but said miserable thought not being a thought of something being bad or horrible, which would just make his misery a miserable experience, and not a bad or horrible experience. That means his misery would just be a miserable feeling, and not a bad or horrible feeling. So, would his misery make his life bad or horrible?

My Reply: That person's quality of life would just be miserable. But, it wouldn't be bad or horrible. The same idea applies if a person felt positive emotions that weren't good or beautiful experiences. If a person just felt a drive to get out of his chair, and said positive emotion was just a feeling of motivation, and not a feeling of goodness or beauty, then that means this person's quality of life wouldn't be good or beautiful. He just had the motivational thought of getting out of his chair, and said thought wasn't that it was good, amazing, or beautiful to get out of his chair. So, once that thought makes him feel a positive emotion, then that just gives him a motivational experience, and not a good, amazing, or beautiful experience.

Other Person's Response: When emotions are just forms of motivation, and not any beautiful, amazing, bad, horrible, etc. experience, does that mean they're not holy or unholy?

My Reply: Correct. If a person has a good, beautiful, or amazing experience, then that would be a holy, divine experience. So, it's only those positive emotions that are amazing, good, beautiful, etc. feelings which are holy and divine. The same idea applies to negative emotions. It's only those negative emotions that are horrible, bad, disgusting, etc. feelings which are unholy.

Other Person's Response: If positive emotions are just drives that make things and situations worthwhile, and aren’t any good, beautiful, amazing, etc. experience, does that mean it's still no way to live or be an artist?

My Reply: Yes. Positive emotions need to be good, beautiful, amazing, etc. feelings if you wish to live a good, beautiful, amazing, etc. life.

Other Person's Response: Is it possible for a person to have the thought that something is beautiful, that makes him feel miserable, and said misery is a beautiful feeling for him?

My Reply: I don't think so. I think only positive emotions can be feelings of beauty, and not negative emotions.

Other Person's Response: Were there ever emotions you felt that weren't beautiful, good, bad, or horrible feelings for you?

My Reply: Yes. I've felt sadness that was just sadness, and then I've felt sadness that was a profoundly horrible experience.

Other Person's Response: If a person got high on drugs, but the drugs induced feelings of bliss that weren't feelings of goodness or beauty, then that person's bliss wouldn't be a good or beautiful experience for him?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person’s Response: Drugs do induce subconscious thoughts of beauty, horror, love, joy, etc. that cause a person to feel intense beauty, horror, love, joy, etc.

My Reply: Yes. Also, in dreams and nightmares, there are subconscious thoughts that cause a person to feel beauty, horror, etc.

Other Person's Response: You seem to have a very bad attitude in regards to the lives of miserable people who help humanity and contribute to the world, since you say their lives were nothing good or beautiful, you say it's no way to live or be an artist, and you say it's an inferior existence compared to a life of happiness. Do you have something against these people?

My Reply: Not at all. I don't hate them, and I don't have anything against them. That even applies to those miserable, genius artists. As a matter of fact, I think they're great people. It's just that I think a miserable, unhappy life is no way to live or be an artist, regardless of how you lived said life.

Other Person's Response: You shouldn't project your personal experience upon the rest of humanity, since everyone is different, and has a different experience than you.

My Reply: I'd need a new personal experience to give me a different view then.

Other Person's Response: If you simply told people you need your positive emotions to make your life good and beautiful, and that it's no way to live or be an artist without them, people might say you're childish, and treat you like a selfish child. So, by explaining your entire philosophy to these people, that shows you're intelligent, and more than a child. When people read your philosophy, they might no longer treat you as a child. Instead, they might show you respect, honor you, and put you at a higher status than a child. I've read your philosophy, and not only are you a good writer, but you're intelligently explaining your philosophy. You give good, supporting arguments for it.

My Reply: You might be right when you say people would show me honor and respect. So, I'm glad I finally found a way to articulate my philosophy to people. In the past, I just didn't know how to explain my philosophy, and I was poor at explaining it.

Other Person's Response: What if people still call you childish, given the philosophy you live by, even after they read it?

My Reply: Then I'd have to disagree. These people just don't understand my predicament. They dismiss my need for positive feelings as childish, when it's not. It makes no sense to call a need childish when it's a necessary need.

Other Person's Response: I heard you recently had an emotional crisis, and that it took you a very long time to recover from. During this recovery process, you gave up on your composing, since you couldn't enjoy it. The negative emotions you felt during this crisis were the desire to give up on your hobbies, rage, misery, etc. But, you felt no negative emotion or positive emotion that motivated you to compose or do other tasks. Yet, you're still choosing to do things, such as writing these packets. If you can do this during your emotional crisis, then why aren't you pursuing your composing?

My Reply: It's because I'm alright doing basic things to pass up time until I fully recover from the crisis, and have my ability to experience joy again. These basic things would be brushing my teeth, taking a shower, writing packets, etc. But, I need to enjoy my hobbies, and that's why I gave up on them during this crisis. Also, even if I felt negative emotions that motivated me to pursue my hobby of composing, it would still be no way to live or be an artist. Not only that, but the negative emotions I feel during an emotional crisis are far worse, and far more profound than the negative emotions I normally feel on seldom occasions. So, that's why, during an emotional crisis, my life is at its worst.

Other Person's Response: When you don't have any devastating thought or worry, how often do you feel negative emotions?

My Reply: Not often at all. I'm mostly happy and enjoying my life. But, I'd still, for example, feel fear if I was in a dangerous situation.

Other Person's Response: If an artist felt misery, said misery was a horrible feeling/experience for him, but it motivated him to create works of art, then that means he can't see it as a good or beautiful thing to create works of art, or inspire others through his artwork. Instead, he's seeing something from a horrible, miserable perspective.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: The very fact that you give up composing when you don't feel up to doing it means you're not a true composing artist. A true artist would never give up.

My Reply: Then you might as well say I'm not a true gamer either, since I give up playing video games when I don't feel up to playing them. You also might as well say I'm not a true hobbyist in general, since I give up on all hobbies when I don't feel up to them.

Other Person's Response: If you felt ill and worn down from the cold, but could still feel motivated to do your hobbies, would you do them?

My Reply: Yes. As long as I have the emotional drive to do my hobbies, then I have the desire to do those hobbies. No emotional drive means no desire or passion. But, if I was ill from the flu, I'd have to rest and drink plenty of water, even if I felt driven to do my hobbies.

Other Person's Response: Writing is a hobby, and you're still doing that without your emotional drive.

My Reply: Writing, to me, is just a mere task. It doesn't have to be enjoyed, and I don't need the desire to do it. But, other hobbies, such as playing video games or composing, aren't mere tasks. They require the emotional drive to do them, and they need to be enjoyed. That's why I need to feel positively driven to do them, and feel joy in doing them.

Other Person's Response: That means composing and playing video games are more important hobbies to you than writing. But, I thought nothing could be important to you without your emotions, since emotions are what make things matter/important to us.

My Reply: Again, I'd just have the thought that playing video games and composing are more important hobbies without my emotions. But, they would have no importance to me.

Other Person's Response: I think Hume is saying life's all about the passions (emotions), and that, without them, it's no way to live or be an artist, a boxer, an athlete, a parent, etc. But, you're saying life's all about the positive emotions, since they're the good, awesome, and beautiful emotions we need, and that it's no way to live without them.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: According to Hume, when we have no emotional drive to do something, there's just no point in doing it. Even making decisions and pondering things would be pointless without the emotional drive to do them. But, this would have to mean that a father, who feels fear from being attacked by his 6 year old son, would have every reason to cower in a corner, and would have no reason to stand up for himself and punish the child, since he feels no emotional drive to do so. Since the father only feels fear in this situation, then he might as well just cower in a corner.

My Reply: He could still choose to stand up for himself and punish the child anyway. But, since he's only feeling fear, and feels no emotional drive to punish the child, then that means punishing the child has no value, worth, goodness, beauty, or significance to him. It doesn't matter to him. Since the father feels the emotional drive to cower, then that's what matters to him. We need an emotional response to care about someone or something, and that's why the father wouldn't care about punishing the child if he felt no emotional drive to do so.

Other Person's Response: According to your personal experience, having an emotional response is the only way we can care about someone or something. In which case, the father might as well cower in a corner, since that's all he cares about. Human beings might as well give up on protecting others if they felt nothing but fear.

My Reply: Yes. So, it really is pointless to protect someone if we felt no emotional drive to do so, since we wouldn't care about that.

Other Person's Response: Yet, people do protect others, despite feeling nothing but fear. If protecting others didn't matter to them, why would they have done it in the first place?

My Reply: Like I said before, a depressed person can still smile and act happy, even though he's not happy on the inside. Likewise, a person could still protect someone, even though protecting that person doesn't matter to him.

Other Person's Response: So, you're saying that people really don't care about protecting others if they felt nothing but the fear to run away, and they're just protecting those people anyway.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Well, if a person protected someone, despite feeling nothing but fear, his actions wouldn't be considered brave or kind, since he needs to feel braveness and kindness. I could say the same thing about loving acts. If a person didn't feel love, this his acts can't be loving.

My Reply: I think you're right.

Other Person's Response: When you say people need an emotional response to care about things, do you mean they need to feel an emotion in order to care about things?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: You're saying that doing things (even thinking) is pointless if we feel no emotional drive to do them. But, it requires us to think certain ways to feel certain emotions in the first place. So, it would be pointless to even think in the first place.

My Reply: I mentioned earlier that all things in this world are nothing good, bad, beautiful, disgusting, etc. because, if all humans never existed, then good, bad, etc. wouldn't exist. Since nothing is good or bad, then that says it's pointless to even think that certain things are good or bad. Yet, we still do so anyway because doing so gives us good, bad, beautiful, and amazing experiences via our emotions, and it's just human nature to do so. So, my point is, we can still do certain things that are pointless.

That's why we can still choose to think, even without the emotional drive being there to begin with. Now, the question is, which pointless things are we going to do, and which ones aren't we going to do? Well, I certainly wouldn't want to pursue my composing dream when I don't feel the drive to do so. But, I'd still choose to think that certain things are good, beautiful, and amazing to give myself a good, beautiful, and amazing experience.

Other Person's Response: Meditation gurus often talk about why we shouldn't attribute any judgment of good, bad, beauty, disgust, etc. to things, since all things in this world are "as is" (i.e. they're nothing good, bad, etc. in of themselves). These gurus say we should keep our minds clear, and free from any judgment that would bring suffering upon ourselves.

My Reply: You're right. Yes, we should avoid judgments that will bring suffering upon ourselves. For example, I had thoughts that certain situations were horrible, and said thoughts devastated me. But, we shouldn't avoid judgments that will bring experiences of beauty, love, and joy, since we need positive experiences.

Other Person's Response: But, you said earlier it can only be our emotions that are value judgments of good, bad, beauty, etc., and that our thoughts alone aren't value judgments.

My Reply: Correct. But, they're still thoughts that certain things and situations are good, bad, etc., and such thoughts will bring suffering or joy upon us via our emotions.

Other Person's Response: You do hear some people say that this universe is a godless, uncaring, valueless, meaningless universe. Yet, we still choose to attribute value and meaning anyway, since it's human nature.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: There's one thing these meditation gurus are leaving out of the picture, and it would be the fact that there is one thing that's good and beautiful in this world, and it would be the feelings (value judgments) of goodness and beauty we have.

My Reply: Yes, and we need those feelings.

Other Person's Response: If a person had no sex drive, then engaging in sex would just be pointless, and it would be an empty, hollow endeavor. Likewise, if a person has no emotional drive to pursue an artistic endeavor, then pursuing that endeavor would be pointless, and it would be an empty, hollow endeavor.

My Reply: I agree.

Other Person's Response: In regards to your miserable struggles, perhaps god, and his angels, didn't have the emotional drive to heal you of your misery. Maybe that's why they allowed you to suffer, since they just didn't care.

My Reply: They're all-powerful beings, which means nothing can take away their emotional drive. They're also said to be all-loving beings, which means they would've had all-loving thoughts about me, which would've made them feel love. So, I don't understand why they didn't heal me. Maybe they don't exist, and they're just hallucinations.

Other Person's Response: Let's assume that god, and his angels, are nothing more than hallucinations, there's no afterlife, and this is the only life we have. If your philosophy is true, then this would also mean we only have one way to love, be happy, and see beauty in things (which would be our positive emotions). I think that would be a sad, cruel, pitiful existence, since we'd only have one life, and we'd only have one means to make it a good, beautiful, loving existence (our positive emotions).

My Reply: Yes. It's always been said that life's a cruel joke. So, perhaps this is the only life, and perhaps my philosophy is true. Many people would say my philosophy would be a cruel joke if it was true. Well, my philosophy would seem quite fitting for a life that's considered to be a cruel joke, and this would be the life.

Other Person's Response: If you're still writing these packets, then doing so must've had some level of importance to you. Otherwise, you wouldn't be doing it.

My Reply: Which would mean I must've had some level of emotional drive in doing so. It could be a level so small that I just can't detect it. Or, perhaps there's no drive at all, which means I can still do things, such as writing packets, even though they have no importance to me at all. In which case, I can still do certain tasks, even though they're nothing good, significant, worthwhile, important, etc. in my eyes.

Other Person's Response: If positive emotions are the only way we can see goodness and beauty in things, then how are you still able to determine that certain things and situations are good or beautiful without your positive emotions? Wouldn't it require you to see those things and situations as good or beautiful to even make this determination?

My Reply: I can still make such a determination, and it would be no different than how a person makes other determinations from the knowledge he's gained throughout his life, such as making mathematical and scientific determinations through the knowledge of math and science he's gained.

Other Person's Response: If our emotions determine the quality of our lives (good or bad), then we might as well say they determine whether certain deeds are good or bad. So, if a person felt good from the idea of killing someone, then we might as well say it's a good thing for him to kill that person.

My Reply: Is that how my philosophy would work out? If so, then that's just the way it's going to work.

Other Person's Response: I think it's sad that your positive emotions are the only way you can see goodness and beauty in life.

My Reply: It would be sad for you, since you feel sad about that. But, it wouldn't be sad for me, since I don't feel sad about it.

Other Person's Response: If a person felt childish emotions, such as the desire to whine, complain, and lash out, he'd be a mature person if he didn't act out on those emotions. But, if this person didn't feel any such emotions, but has still chosen to act out childishly, then that would make him a childish person. So, whether or not you feel childish emotions doesn't determine whether you're childish or not. It's how you act that determines this.

My Reply: Again, I think people have it all backwards. It's not about how we act. It's about our quality of experience. So, if you're having some inner, childish experience (that is, if you're feeling childish emotions), then that makes you a childish person, regardless if you act out on said emotions or not. Likewise, if you didn't feel any childish emotions, then you wouldn't be a childish person, regardless if you acted childish or not. So, I don't think a person's choices determine whether he's childish or not.

It's his inner experience (emotion) that determines this. Emotions are what create the beautiful, disgusting, horrible, etc. scene, atmosphere, and character. Without our emotions, then there's no such scene or character we're experiencing. We'd just be empty vessels on the inside, and it would be like we're just an empty canvas internally. So, that means, if a person didn't feel any childish emotions, then there's no childish character within. There'd be no childish character being painted on the internal canvas.

Other Person's Response: If someone isn't experiencing fear or rage, he can't be a fearful or enraged person. Fear and rage are emotions. So, this says emotions are what create the fearful, enraged, loving, sad, childish, etc. character within us.

My Reply: That's correct. A person, with no fear or rage, can still act fearful or enraged. But, he still wouldn't be a fearful or enraged person, since he's not feeling any fear or rage.

Other Person's Response: If a person had nothing but a negative perspective, but displayed a positive attitude, and did many positive things with his life, that doesn't make him a positive person. It's whether he's having a positive or negative perspective/experience that determines whether he's a positive or negative person.

My Reply: Yes. The same idea applies to whether you're a childish person or not. As long as you're not having an inner childish experience, then you're not childish, regardless if you acted childish or not.

Other Person's Response: If a person had no emotions, he could still experience childish thoughts and intentions. So, he'd still be a childish person on the inside if he had such thoughts and intentions.

My Reply: But, without his emotions, then those thoughts and intentions would be dull and lifeless. It's the emotions that create a life-filled, joyful, beautiful, disgusting, etc. character within us. So, that's why I think a person can't be childish if he doesn't feel childish emotions. So, I define childishness as the childish emotions, and I define maturity as the mature emotions, such as feelings of acceptance in the face of constructive criticism. Without emotions, we can neither be childish nor mature.

Other Person's Response: Many people would say that a person lived a good, beautiful life if he lived his life, helping humanity, and contributing to the world. But, you're saying it's his quality of experience that determines if he lived a good, beautiful life or not (i.e. if he had feelings of goodness and beauty or not). Many people would also say that a person, who acts and behaves childishly, would be a childish person. But, you're saying it's his quality of experience that determines if he's childish or not (i.e. if he felt childish emotions or not).

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: What if someone had a mix of childish and mature emotions?

My Reply: Then he'd be something like 70% childish and 30% mature. It all depends on the profoundness and intensity of these childish and mature emotions.

Other Person's Response: If someone had a mix of positive and negative emotions, where he felt both positive and negative emotions at once, his life would have some amount of positivity, and some amount of negativity?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Do you sometimes go outside your personal definition of mature, childish, etc.?

My Reply: Yes, and it would just be for the sake of convenience. For example, I might still describe myself as mature, regardless of what emotion I'm feeling, since I display a polite attitude, and behave in public.

Other Person's Response: If someone felt fear and stayed to protect someone, he'd be a brave person, regardless of how much fear he felt.

My Reply: I don't agree. If he felt fear, then that makes him cowardly, since he was experiencing cowardliness. His feeling of fear was a cowardly motivation/desire to run away, and that's what made him a coward, regardless of how much he's chosen to stay. Since he didn't feel mighty, powerful, and brave (a positive emotion), then that means he couldn't be that person on the inside, regardless of how mighty, powerful, and brave his actions were. As I pointed out earlier, loving, angry, or sad actions alone can't make you a loving, angry, or sad person. Feeling love, anger, or sadness is what makes you a loving, angry, or sad person. Likewise, brave actions alone can't make you a brave person. Feeling brave is what makes you a brave person.

Other Person's Response: Fear is an automatic response that people can't help, since fear is there to protect us. So, does that mean people can't help but be cowards in threatening situations?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If a person can't feel mighty, powerful, and brave, then he's not having that experience, which is why he can't be a might, powerful, brave person on the inside?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: According to you, we don't need fear to motivate us to escape from danger, since we could have feelings of joy to motivate us.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Emotions are considered to be alter egos. When a character becomes sad, he becomes a sad person, and might be presented with a rain cloud over his head. When a character feels anger, he might turn into a red bull.

My Reply: Yes. It's our emotions that determine if we become loving, sad, hateful, angry, or brave people, and not our thoughts, beliefs, and actions alone.

Other Person's Response: Since a person needs to feel fear to be cowardly, and since he needs to feel brave to be brave, does that mean he can neither be brave nor cowardly if he had no emotions?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: Are the moments a person feels fear the moments he becomes cowardly, and the moments he feels brave the moments he becomes brave?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Some people might think you're an immoral psychopath, given the philosophy you live by. But, I think these people are mistaken. You're a very kind, polite person, and you conduct yourself in a moral fashion.

My Reply: Yes. My own happiness is just what makes my life good and beautiful, since that's my personal experience. It has nothing to do with me being some sort of criminal or psychopath.

Other Person's Response: Think back very hard. Are you sure there was never a moment where you experienced love, happiness, pride, and saw goodness and beauty in things independently of your positive feelings?

My Reply: I'm sure. I don't ever recall any given moment.

Other Person's Response: So, according to you, I must keep on getting a feeling of beauty over and over again if I wish to keep on seeing my life as beautiful?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If god and his angels do exist, then why didn't they instantly heal your mind of this recent emotional crisis you've had? It's taken you a very long time to recover from it, and it would've been better if they healed your mind.

My Reply: I don't understand this either. Maybe they don't exist. In which case, positive emotions wouldn't be god's holy light experienced within us, since god wouldn't exist. Instead, they'd simply be what we need in a godless universe.

Other Person's Response: The ultimate goal in life should be both happiness and longevity because the longer, happier life a person lives, the more positivity he's getting out of life.

My Reply: I agree. We don't need a world where people are born, live a fleeting, short, miserable existence, and then die. I realize science is trying to create longer, happier lives for us, and that's the ultimate goal to achieve.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, achieving the most positivity in life is our ultimate goal. So, having miserable, unhappy struggles would be nothing more than a hindrance to achieving this goal.

My Reply: Yes. I didn't even gain a more profound level of joy out of my struggles.

Other Person's Response: But, your struggles did teach you just how vital and precious positive emotions are.

My Reply: But, the goal is to get the most positivity out of life, and my miserable struggles were still a hindrance to that goal. So, they were pointless struggles. That means it would've been better if I lived the entirety of my life happy, and not have learned what I've learned, than to have all these miserable struggles. So, it's not the life lessons that are important here. It's the positive emotions that are important.

Other Person's Response: I heard heaven is our true home, and is where we can live forever in bliss. So, living forever in bliss is the ultimate existence, and is divine. It's the life of heaven, the true home for our souls. So, we should find a way to live that heaven here on Earth, which means scientists need to find a way to make this life a utopia world where we can live long, happy lives.

My Reply: Yes. Happiness and longevity are the divine desires of our soul, and they're our divine nature.

Other Person's Response: I heard that you wished there was an eternal, blissful afterlife (heaven), since such a life would offer you an eternal amount of positive emotions. You say such a life would be the greatest life you could live, since you'd be getting an eternal amount of positivity. But, wouldn't an eternal, blissful life turn out to be hell for you? Won't you go bored or insane?

My Reply: Never. As long as I'm in a state of bliss, then my life can only be good, awesome, beautiful, etc. for eternity. There's no suffering in heaven either, which means I couldn't feel any negative emotions, such as insanity, boredom, etc. But, let's pretend I did have the capability to make myself suffer or go insane from living an eternal, blissful life in heaven, and I lived an eternity in heaven, I'd never have the suffering-inducing thought that living an eternal, blissful life would be a horrible hell, since such a life would always be the greatest life I could live.

I mean, how would it make any sense for me to think that a life of eternal beauty, goodness, etc. would be hell? As long as I'm living a beautiful life, then it can only be beautiful, and it would make no sense for me to think that a beautiful life is a horrible, hellish life, since I wouldn't be having any horrible, hellish experience to make my life horrible and hellish. The only way my life could be horrible and hellish in the first place would be if I had that suffering-inducing thought to make me feel horrible, hellish emotions.

Other Person's Response: So, you're saying that, as long as you're feeling positive emotions, such as beauty and amazement for eternity, your life can only be beautiful and amazing for eternity? The only way such a life can be horrible and hellish for you would be if you had the thought that it's horrible and hellish, and said thought caused you to feel horrible, hellish emotions?

My Reply: Yes. The only way I could go bored or insane from an eternal, blissful life would be if I had a negative thought about this eternal, blissful life that caused me to feel boredom or insanity.

Other Person's Response: I heard you talk about god. How do you define god?

My Reply: I define god, holy, and divine as the positive emotions. Sure, I could define god as the thoughts of love and joy we have towards moments and situations, since people would say that would be a loving and joyful experience for the individual having those thoughts. After all, if no human being could have that experience, then there'd be no love and joy. So, it would make sense to define that experience as god. But, like I said, it's not the thoughts or beliefs themselves of love and joy that give us this experience. It’s the positive emotions that are god, since they’re the only way to experience love, beauty, joy, etc.

Other Person's Response: So, when someone is loving another person, experiencing joy, or when something is beautiful or magnificent to someone, you define that as god? Since positive emotions are the only way to love, and for something to be beautiful to an individual, you define positive emotions as god?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Since positive emotions are fleeting things, that means god is fleeting?

My Reply: Yes. God is a being of light, and having his holy and divine energy experienced within us isn't something that happens 24/7.
Last edited by MozartLink on Sun May 10, 2020 11:55 pm, edited 10 times in total.
MozartLink
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: All My Philosophy Packets

Post by MozartLink »

File #2: My Philosophy Of Emotions (Part 11/12)

Other Person's Response: I think you should define positive emotions as being god's holy energy within us, rather than god himself.

My Reply: Perhaps you're right.

Other Person's Response: I understand why you think positive emotions are god. There are two aspects when it comes to a song, which would be the lyrics, and the emotion. Without the emotion, then the lyrics would just be words, spoken like a droid. It would be as though the person speaking them wouldn't be having any inner experience of love, beauty, or joy. But, when the divine power of positive emotions are breathed into those lyrics, they are sung with such profound beauty, love, or joy, and it's as though the person singing those lyrics has become filled with a holy life force.

My Reply: Exactly. Next time, when people listen to songs, they should really pay attention to the emotion of these songs. When a song conveys a profoundly beautiful emotion, that emotion is more than just a feeling being conveyed by the song. There is something holy and divine being expressed by the song. The same idea applies to negative emotions. Pure hate, despair, rage, and suffering would be expressed by a song when the song conveys negative emotions. It's as though a dark, unholy, or demonic life force is being expressed by the song.

Other Person's Response: Just to be clear, the lyrics of a song are the words, and the emotion being conveyed by the song would be the melody, instruments, singing, etc.?

My Reply: Yes. Also, just so you know, I wish to be a composer, and I'm not concerned about creating lyrics. I just want to make music that conveys awesome, powerful, profound, bizarre, supernatural, otherworldly emotion.

Other Person's Response: When you say positive emotions are divine and holy, what you're doing here is preaching.

My Reply: Yes. Even if there's no god, this is the only life there is, and I was convinced of that, I'd still say positive emotions are divine and holy. After all, even non-believers use those terms how they want. For example, someone who thinks the supernatural doesn't exist, and that this is the only life, might define god and holy as making this world a better place, or making scientific discoveries.

Other Person's Response: A person could feel a positive emotion, but still speak lyrics like a droid, and a person can be apathetic (emotionless), but sing lyrics, and profound beauty, love, or joy still being expressed by the apathetic person singing those lyrics.

My Reply: But, I'm just talking about what's being expressed by songs. When a song expresses a positive emotion, it's as though a holy life force is being expressed. But, you're right when you say that a person can express this holy life force without having it within himself, and a person can express apathy when he does have this holy life force within him. In these scenarios, the person's expression wouldn't be matching up with his inner experience.

Other Person's Response: If a song conveyed a beautiful emotion, but had awful lyrics, that doesn't make the song beautiful.

My Reply: To me, it wouldn't matter how awful the lyrics are. The fact is, that song conveys the divine power of The Light, and that's what makes the song beautiful. Actually, it's how I feel about the song that determines whether it's beautiful or not for me.

Other Person's Response: Just because a song conveys a positive emotion doesn't mean it's conveying some divine power or holy light.

My Reply: I think it is a divine power. This divine power can take on many forms. For example, if you listened to a song that conveyed an erotic emotion, then the holy light would take on a sexual form. If a song conveyed a childish, fun emotion, then the holy light would be taking on the form of childish joy. If you were listening to death metal, and the emotion being conveyed by the song was a positive emotion, then the holy light would be taking on a gothic, heavy form.

Other Person's Response: I think emotions in music are nothing more than just emotions. You are simply attributing value to emotions when you say that music conveys divine power or darkness.

My Reply: If you were to listen to a song that has no lyrics, then a scene, character, or environment would, in fact, be conveyed by that song. This shows that emotions speak. Not only do they speak in music, but they also speak within our conscious being. A positive emotion in a song might speak a beautiful landscape or character, and a positive emotion we personally feel will speak something beautiful within our conscious being as well.

Other Person's Response: When you listen to music, do you pay attention to the lyrics, or do you just pay attention to the emotion?

My Reply: I usually pay attention to the emotion because paying attention to the lyrics would require some of my intellectual brain power in order to focus on the lyrics, as well as to make sense of the message that the song is conveying. Like I said, I'm not the intellectual type of person, and I consider myself to be intellectually lazy. So, I just sit back, relax, and embrace the beautiful emotions of music without paying attention to the lyrics.

Other Person's Response: When you pay attention to the emotion a song conveys, does the emotion sometimes convey something different to you than the lyrics?

My Reply: Yes. Sometimes, I'd listen to a beautiful song, and the emotion conveys a beautiful sunset or nature scene to me. But, the lyrics have nothing to do with a sunset or nature.

Other Person's Response: When people experience much pain and hardship, that makes them better, stronger people. Apparently, all your miserable struggles didn't make you a better, stronger person because you're still the same, shallow, weak person who lives by the same, shallow, weak philosophy. Even after all those years of misery you've been through, you've never changed.

My Reply: Maybe my philosophy isn't changing because it was right all along, and I know it's right. That means the only way I could live my life by another philosophy, that doesn't base beauty and goodness upon positive feelings, would be if I deluded myself into believing this philosophy was true. I don't think that's ever going to happen. Therefore, I think I'm always going to be stuck with this view that a life without positive emotions is no way to live or be an artist. Even if I lived for trillions of years, I don't think my philosophy would ever change.

Other Person's Response: So, it wouldn't matter if you went through years of tough, brutal, military training because it's never going to transform you as an individual?

My Reply: That's right. I think I'll still have the same philosophy, even after years of military training. That means I'd still find myself telling soldiers that they need to enjoy their training as much as possible because a life of misery, apathy, and unhappiness is no way to live or be a soldier. Sure, soldiers have protected our country by putting themselves through miserable, unhappy forms of training, including training where they were apathetic, but forced themselves to train anyway. But, even so, they didn't live good, valuable, precious, or beautiful lives during moments where they were unhappy, apathetic, and miserable. So, their lives were nothing positive during these moments.

Other Person's Response: So, as long as soldiers are seeing their training as good, beautiful, amazing, and worthwhile, then you're saying that's the way to live and be a soldier?

My Reply: Yes. We need to see things from a positive perspective, and that would even include training and protecting our country. Again, positive emotions are what give us that positive perspective.

Other Person's Response: Since all your miserable struggles didn't make you a better, stronger person who lives by a better philosophy, then those struggles were pointless and unnecessary. Thus, god and his angels shouldn't have allowed you to suffer through them.

My Reply: I agree. Also, god and his angels are all-knowing, and they can see into the future, which means they would've known all along that my struggles would've been pointless and unnecessary. Given this, I don't know why they allowed these struggles.

Other Person's Response: It seems you're unable to thrive in the face of misery, given that all your miserable struggles didn't make you a better, stronger person who lives by a better philosophy. I guess you just weren't meant for a life of misery. To expect you to thrive in a life of misery would be no different than expecting a fish to thrive on land. That fish was meant for the water, just as how you're meant for a life of joy and happiness. By the way, the better philosophy that you seem incapable of upgrading to is known as "Stoicism." This philosophy is the opposite of yours. It's a philosophy that encourages us to endure our misery, to not give up on our goals and dreams, despite not feeling up to the task, and that such a way of life is good and beautiful.

My Reply: I don't know if there's any way possible for me to upgrade to this better philosophy.

Other Person's Response: Some people just weren't meant for certain things. For example, I'm just no good at drawing, and I don't think I'll ever be a talented drawer. Not only that, I don't like drawing, and have a very bad, frustrated attitude in regards to it. Likewise, I don't think you were meant for Stoicism either.

My Reply: You could be right. So, I might always have the same philosophy, which means it might never change.

Other Person's Response: I heard you give up on your composing dream when you don't feel up to it. Maybe you just need some encouragement. Perhaps then you won't give up.

My Reply: Well, I'd need to feel encouraged to be encouraged, and that feeling would be a positive emotion. So, if I had no ability to feel positive emotions, and people gave encouraging support, none of that support could be encouraging for me, since I'd be unable to feel encouraged. Even if I did feel encouraged, I still need to feel the drive to pursue my composing because, without that drive, I'd give up composing.

Other Person's Response: Not only must you have the drive to pursue your composing dream, and experiment on an instrument, but you must also have the drive to create great music because, without that drive, then you'd just be creating ordinary, lame music through experimentation.

My Reply: Yes. Without the inspirational drive, then I'd perhaps just be creating music that amounts to nothing more than the ordinary types of compositions created by an average person. My music would express nothing profound, powerful, or amazing for the audience.

Other Person's Response: If god is saying that our purpose here is to love one another, then that contradicts Stoicism, which is a philosophy that treats all positive emotions, including love, as trivial, insignificant things of no importance.

My Reply: Yes. I think all positive feelings, including love, are divine and holy. But, Stoicism doesn't give them such treatment.

Other Person's Response: If a person was having a horrible experience, such as experiencing mental turmoil, then some spiritual believers would say such suffering needs to be eliminated, so that the person's positive feelings return. That would bring this person to a higher, spiritual vibration because, as long as that person is in a state of mental turmoil, then that's no way to live, and he's far away from god's holy light. But, if he recovers his joy, then his mind would be back in the realm of the light. Stoicism is a philosophy that would just say this person's mental suffering doesn't need to be eliminated, and that his joy doesn't need to be restored. Stoicism would simply say he just needs to carry on in life, and endure like a tough man or woman.

My Reply: Yes. Stoicism completely dismisses our inner experience, and instead focuses on just carrying on life, and attending to our responsibilities, regardless of how horrible of an experience we're having. But, like I said, life's all about our inner experience. Life's all about having those positive experiences (positive emotions).

Other Person's Response: I think even Buddhists say our mental suffering needs to be eliminated.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Isn't Stoicism the philosophy that Spock (a character from Star Trek) lives by?

My Reply: I think so. I'd be the opposite of Spock, since I live by a philosophy opposite of his.

Other Person's Response: Some people would say you're worthless, weak, and an utter, pathetic joke of a human being, given the weak philosophy you live by. But, if you end up pursuing your composing (once your feelings of joy return), and you produce some amazing, powerful, and profound compositions later on, I think these people would take back what they said. They might completely disregard your character weakness in favor of your amazing, composing talent. In other words, your compositions might be so awesome that your character weakness might no longer matter to these people anymore. Thus, they'll no longer call you worthless, or an utter, pathetic joke of a human being. Instead, they might hail you as a great, amazing, powerful, and profound individual/composer, regardless of your weak, shallow philosophy.

My Reply: Yes. I don't need to be a tough man who endures and never gives up during times of misery, suffering, or unhappiness to be hailed as a great, amazing, powerful, or profound individual/composer. There are other ways to achieve greatness.

Other Person's Response: Well, without positive feelings, greatness can no longer exist.

My Reply: That's right. But, I'm just saying there are other ways people can see me as a great person/composer, which means I don't need to live by a better philosophy to be seen as great.

Other Person's Response: Even if you do become a great composer who composes amazing music, your character weakness would still matter to some people. They might think such an amazing, composing talent should be accompanied by a much better philosophy because a great composer who lives by a weak, shallow philosophy just doesn't match up. Who knows, some people might think it's even more pathetic for someone with an amazing talent to live by a weak, shallow philosophy than someone who doesn't have such a talent.

My Reply: You might be right.

Other Person's Response: Do you have any brothers or sisters? If so, do they live by your philosophy?

My Reply: I have a brother who's 11 years younger than me. I'm 31 years old, and my brother will be turning 21 this February. Me and my brother are opposites. He talks a lot, is a bit annoying, loves to learn things, and I don't think he cares about positive feelings. I hardly talk at all because I just have no interest in having conversations, I'm not annoying, I have no interest in learning things (besides composing), and positive feelings are everything to me.

Other Person's Response: Well, you'd need to feel interested in learning how to compose to be interested, right?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Even though you don't talk much, you sure do write a lot!

My Reply: Yes. When it's something I need to share, I'll write a lot of material about it, and share it.

Other Person's Response: Does anyone else in your family live by your philosophy?

My Reply: No.

Other Person's Response: When it comes to learning how to compose, do you wish to learn everything you can about composing?

My Reply: I just wish to learn the things needed to produce the music I want to produce. I don't want to learn things that are unnecessary, such as music history.

Other Person's Response: If god is saying our purpose here is to love, then that means it would be better for someone to live in a vegetative, loving state, being unable to do anything for himself or humanity, than to achieve many goals in life without the ability to feel love.

My Reply: Yes. It's better for someone to live in a vegetative state, being blissed out on positive feelings, than to achieve many things in life without the ability to experience positive feelings.

Other Person's Response: People who commit suicide, and have near death experiences as a result of their suicide, report that their souls went to some dark, miserable afterlife, where they witnessed other souls stuck in grief and misery. These souls have been miserable during their Earthly existence, and have committed suicide. As a result, they're stuck in a miserable afterlife, where they're left to remain in grief and misery. Since grief and misery (negative emotions) keep souls stuck in this miserable afterlife, then that keeps them far away from the realm of the light (heaven). So, this says that negative emotions, such as grief and misery, are more than just natural feelings we experience. They're unholy poison that keep us away from god's holy light of joy, love, etc.

My Reply: Yes. The absolute worst dose of this unholy poison a person can get would be if he experienced the most profound, most intense horrible feeling.

Other Person's Response: I heard that suicide isn't the answer, and that souls would be trapped in a hellish afterlife if they commit suicide. This hellish afterlife would be a much worse experience than all the hell they've experienced during their Earthly existence.

My Reply: That leaves them no way out of their problems. Either they live with their problems here on Earth, or they commit suicide and face a much bigger problem in a hellish afterlife. That means these people should try their best to have as many positive experiences as possible here on Earth, despite their hardships. But, what if they can't acquire much positive experiences throughout their lives? Should they be punished for ending their lives, just because they were living a shit life that offered them little to no positive experiences? I don't think so!

Life's all about the positive experiences (positive emotions), as I said earlier. So, if these people end their lives because they choose to no longer put up with a shit life that's hardly anything positive for them, then I think these people should instead be rewarded with a blissful, heavenly afterlife for having to put up with all the struggles they've had on Earth. Actually, the blissful, heavenly afterlife is where we should've remained all along, since that's the life that offers us the most profound, powerful, positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: If someone was living a wonderful, joyful life, but decided to commit suicide because he wanted his soul to go to heaven, so he could experience a much more powerful level of joy, then would his soul end up in a miserable, hellish afterlife?

My Reply: I'm not sure.

Other Person's Response: If someone was miserable, but died of a natural cause, would he still end up in a miserable, hellish afterlife?

My Reply: I'm not sure if it's just suicide that keeps you trapped in a hellish afterlife or not.

Other Person's Response: The strong survive and the weak perish. So, the very fact you're still alive today, despite all your miserable struggles, means you're strong, since you didn't commit suicide.

My Reply: Strength can be nothing good or beautiful without positive feelings though.

Other Person's Response: I heard that people, who commit suicide, and have a heavenly near death experience, report that they came back with a much better perspective. They learn that suicide is wrong, and that life's such a beautiful place, despite its hardships. I think god, and his angels, bestow this greater perspective upon the individual.

My Reply: It would be lovely if these people had this perspective bestowed upon them the moment they were born here on Earth. That way, they wouldn't have gone through their suicidal torment and misery in the first place, since having this perspective would've prevented them from being suicidal to begin with. The goal is to prevent as much misery and emotional turmoil as possible, and to have as much joy as possible. So, I think god, and his angels, have made the wrong move by giving these people this perspective at a later time, when they were suffering, and committing suicide.

Other Person's Response: I heard that suicide is wrong, and that it's an act of rebellion against god's purpose for us. Life is a precious gift given to us, and we've been assigned a duty. If people commit suicide, then they're penalized for it. Their souls remain in a miserable afterlife, where they roam lost and confused. This is what's been reported by many people who have near death experiences as a result of suicide attempts.

My Reply: Many people think their hardships here on Earth serve no good purpose, that they're pointless and unnecessary, and that life is being nothing but a cruel joke for them. Who wouldn't want to rebel against something like that? But, if their struggles weren't pointless and unnecessary, and they really did serve some grand, divine purpose, then how were they supposed to know that? Why should they be penalized if they didn't know any better? If a child did something wrong, and he didn't know it was wrong, he shouldn't be punished for it. So, if people commit suicide, and they thought it was the right thing to do, since they didn't know any better, then why should they be punished with a miserable afterlife?

Other Person's Response: It would be best if souls were granted a better perspective by god and his angels. That way, they wouldn't have committed suicide to begin with, which means they wouldn't have to be punished with a miserable afterlife. I heard that our souls reside in heaven, our true home, before arriving on Earth in a physical body. So, that means god, and his angels, could've bestowed this better perspective upon these souls before they were born into a physical body on Earth.

My Reply: I think they should've done so, and I don't understand why they didn't. Furthermore, if souls are punished with a miserable afterlife that lasts hundreds or thousands of years, then I personally think that would be very cruel and unjust. Even if those who committed suicide were already aware that god considers acts of suicide to be wrong, and even if they were knowingly acting in rebellion against god, I still don't think they should be punished for that long.

Other Person's Response: If souls were granted this better perspective since the beginning, then they wouldn't have thought their Earthly struggles were pointless, unnecessary, and nothing but a cruel joke.

My Reply: That's right.

Other Person's Response: If god punishes people for suicide with a miserable afterlife that lasts hundreds or thousands of years, then I'd find myself questioning whether god really is all-loving and perfect.

My Reply: I'd find myself questioning god as well.

Other Person's Response: I wouldn't imagine an all-loving, perfect god punishing those who commit suicide for hundreds or thousands of years with a miserable afterlife, and choosing to not rescue them from the darkness, since that would be an unjust form of punishment. So, god just might be putting on a stage. He might simply be evoking fear, when he really wouldn't deliver such an unjust punishment.

Since god doesn't want people to commit suicide, then he'll do what he needs to do in order to ensure that people don't commit suicide. Even if it means lying to people by telling them they'll be punished for hundreds or thousands of years. He'll even try to falsely convince people they'll be given this punishment by presenting to them other souls who appear miserable, lost in complete darkness, and say they've been trapped there for hundreds or thousands of years, when they really haven't.

My Reply: That would make god a liar, and I don't think god lies. But, if he's telling the truth, I don't think that would make him perfect and all-loving, since I don't think such a punishment would be just in the eyes of a perfect, all-loving, all-just god. So, either:

1.) God is lying, which wouldn't make him a perfect being, since a perfect being wouldn't lie (or would he)?

2.) God is telling the truth, which wouldn't make him perfect and all-loving.

3.) God is just a hallucination.

Since #1 and #2 wouldn't make him a perfect being, then #3 seems plausible.

Other Person's Response: If god is real, your soul meets him after your physical body dies, and he asks you in a stern voice: "I'm almighty god! How dare you question me?," then I bet you'd be questioning whether he really is perfect and all-loving, since a perfect, all-loving god wouldn't be giving you such an attitude.

My Reply: I agree.

Other Person's Response: I hear people report that they've experienced god's love during their heavenly near death experience, and it was definitely the unconditional love of a perfect, all-loving god.

My Reply: These people might be wrong then.

Other Person's Response: Many people, who have Christian-themed near death experiences, report that they've experienced the Christian god's love, and it was the unconditional love of a perfect, all-loving god. But, the Christian god condemns people to hell, and that wouldn't be an all-loving god. So, these people would be incorrect to say that the Christian god is all-loving.

My Reply: Yes, and the same thing applies to those who've experienced the love of a god who punishes people with a miserable afterlife that lasts hundreds or thousands of years because that wouldn't be an all-loving god either.

Other Person's Response: There are near death accounts where people meet Jesus, and Jesus tells them they'll be trapped in a hellish afterlife for eternity if they don't change their ways. The Bible says Jesus never lies, which means he was telling the truth.

My Reply: But, an all-loving, all-just being would never condemn someone to an eternity in hell. Especially someone who was unaware that Jesus existed. If Jesus is real, then it's possible he was lying. Such a lie would compel someone to change his ways, since he wouldn't want to be trapped for an eternity in a hellish realm. So, an all-loving, all-just being would lie if it was the best way for someone to change his ways, which means a perfect being would lie.

Other Person's Response: It's possible there's a real Jesus that people meet during their near death experience, this Jesus is all-loving and all-just, and doesn't condemn anyone, while there's a sinister, counterfeit Jesus who evokes fear by telling people they'll be trapped in hell for eternity.

My Reply: That could be. After all, there are near death accounts where people meet Jesus, and Jesus is completely accepting of their ways, shows unconditional love, says it doesn't matter what religion they believe in, etc. When it comes to near death accounts, there are contradictions, such as some people meeting a condemning, judgmental Jesus, while others meet a different Jesus who doesn't condemn or judge.

Other Person's Response: Are there some suicidal near death experiences where people report that god doesn't punish anyone who commits suicide?

My Reply: There might be. If there is, then that makes the situation confusing, given there are near death accounts where god or Jesus says he'll punish those who commit suicide, while there are other accounts where god or Jesus says he won't punish them.

Other Person's Response: What about those who commit homicide? Are they punished with a miserable afterlife that lasts hundreds or thousands of years?

My Reply: During many near death accounts, people have a life review where they experience all the pain and suffering they've inflicted upon others, and that it only lasts for a temporary moment. But, it seems suicide is given the much greater punishment, since it's far worse to suffer for hundreds or thousands of years in a miserable afterlife than to experience a temporary moment of pain and suffering.

Other Person's Response: During some near death accounts, god or Jesus says that homicide or suicide is given eternal punishment, or punishment that lasts hundreds or thousands of years, while there are other accounts where it's said to not be given such punishment.

My Reply: Yes, and that's what makes the situation confusing.

Other Person's Response: I've read there's no Divine punishment for the act of suicide. The individual may feel remorse that he's killed his own body and wasted an opportunity for learning, and he may have to face a similar situation in a future incarnation, so he perhaps chooses a different course of action. I suspect that the punishment of being miserable in a very dark place for hundreds or thousands of years is self-imposed. The person is so caught up in his own misery that he's closed off to all outside assistance. But, the accounts of after-death experiences of suicides vary considerably.

My Reply: When you say that souls are self-imposing their own miserable afterlife that lasts hundreds or thousands of years, this implies it was their own free will (their choice) to do so. But, if it was their choice to be there, then it's their choice to get out, and if someone had the choice to get out of a miserable place, then it wouldn't take him hundreds or thousands of years to do it. Therefore, I don't think it was their choice to be there, or get out. Lastly, here's a link which talks about souls being punished for suicide. You must scroll down to the Life After Life excerpt. There, you'll read about the punishment for suicide:

https://the-formula.org/near-death-experiences-suicide/

Other Person's Response: I don't really think that the Creator is punishing someone. But, we're the ones who are punishing ourselves. Please try to understand that the Creator represents the absolute. Why would He punish someone, when we're all part of His creation? We're the ones who are punishing ourselves. Nevertheless, all good things come from Him. But, as long we keep following the pleasures of the flesh, we keep on suffering. Well, all these words come from my own life experience.

My Reply: If a scientist created beings, then I think he'd still punish these beings if they didn't follow his orders. So, I think god would still punish humans if they don't follow his orders.

Other Person's Response: If someone was suffering so badly that he ended his life, then he deserves god's healing. Not god's punishment.

My Reply: I agree.

Other Person's Response: You said earlier that god shouldn't punish those who commit suicide if they didn't know any better. But, parents should still punish children who do wrong things, but don't know they're wrong. This will ensure that the child doesn't do that misdeed ever again.

My Reply: It's unnecessary to punish the child the first time if he didn't know any better. The child doesn't deserve any punishment. But, if he does the misdeed again, then he should be punished, since he knows better.

Other Person's Response: So, if people do illegal activities that they didn't know were illegal, should they not be put in prison?

My Reply: They shouldn't be put in prison. They should be given a lie detector test to determine if they really didn't know they were illegal activities. If the results of the test say they did know they were illegal, then they should be put in prison. Otherwise, they shouldn't be put in prison.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, nothing in this world is right or wrong, and it's all a matter of how we feel about things. So, god might feel that acts of suicide are wrong, while some people, who commit suicide, might feel it's right.

My Reply: Yes. Right and wrong are just feelings (value judgments). Right is a positive feeling, and wrong is a negative feeling.

Other Person's Response: Some people would say that apathy is worse than being in a horrible, miserable state, since people have no motivation when they're apathetic, while misery does motivate people to get the help they need, and it does motivate people to create works of art. According to your philosophy, apathy can't be worse than a horrible, miserable state, since horrible is worse than neutrality/apathy (neither good nor bad).

My Reply: Correct. There are the good feelings, the bad feelings, and then there's apathy. Good is better than neutral and bad, neutral is better than bad, but worse than good, while bad is worse than good and neutral. So, that's why bad feelings will always be worse than apathy.

When a person says apathy is worse than feeling bad, or that feeling bad is better than being apathetic, this would be treating better and worse as something outside one's own personal feelings. But, good, bad, better, worse, etc. is solely determined by how we feel.

So, if we feel bad, then that will always be worse than apathy, since it feels worse to feel bad than to feel apathetic. Since it feels better to feel good than to feel bad or apathetic, then feeling good will always be better than feeling bad or feeling apathetic.

Other Person's Response: So, according to you, feeling bad will always be worse of a life than feeling good or apathetic, and feeling good will always be the better life than feeling bad or apathetic?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Do you sometimes go outside your personal definition of better and worse when explaining things?

My Reply: Yes, and it would just be for the sake of convenience.

Other Person's Response: There's help out there. So, there's no excuse for suicide!

My Reply: There are people who try very hard to improve their lives. But, nothing seems to be working for them. These are known as treatment resistant patients, and they're people who remain suicidal, even with all the help out there. There are those people who are treatment resistant in terms of an illness, such as people who have clinical depression that doesn't respond well to treatment. Then there are those people who are treatment resistant in terms of suicidal tendencies.

Other Person's Response: I heard that those who commit suicide must come back to Earth, and endure their struggles all over again. So, it would be best for you to not commit suicide, since you'd have to come back to Earth in another body, and endure these miserable struggles all over again.

My Reply: Don't worry. I'm not going to commit suicide.

Other Person's Response: If people have struggles here on Earth, and they die of a natural cause, must they endure their struggles all over again? If not, then why must those who've committed suicide endure their struggles all over again?

My Reply: I'm not sure. Also, why can't god just have a person, who's committed suicide, continue where he last left off during his struggles, rather than having him go through his struggles all over again? That's like reading a book, getting to a certain page, and then having to read the entire book all over again. It's just pointless and unnecessary. So, if a person has gotten to a certain point of spiritual growth and development through his struggles, and committed suicide, he should continue where he last left off in his spiritual progress/journey, rather than having to start all over again.

Other Person's Response: You gave an example of how god is having people go through pointless, unnecessary things (such as a person, who's committed suicide, having to endure his struggles all over again). So, perhaps another example would be your miserable struggles. Maybe your miserable struggles were pointless and unnecessary, and god is just having you go through them anyway.

My Reply: You could be right.

Other Person's Response: People should do research into near death experiences to realize that god considers suicide wrong, and that all struggles and hardships really do serve a beautiful, grand, divine purpose.

My Reply: Not too many people are aware of the fact that they should do research. Not only that, there are people who don't have access to the internet or books, since there are poor people who live in other parts of the world.

Other Person's Response: In the near death experience research, there are many reports by those who've had suicidal near death experiences. They say their souls deeply regret their acts of suicide, and they realize it was the wrong thing to do. If you commit suicide, then your soul would just realize that it was the wrong thing to do. Furthermore, your soul might remain in a miserable afterlife for quite some time. So, it's best for you to not commit suicide.

My Reply: Like I said, I'm not going to commit suicide.

Other Person's Response: I'm just curious. Are there reports of people who say their souls learned that their Earthly struggles were pointless and unnecessary when they met god during their near death experience, and that they don't regret their acts of suicide?

My Reply: I'm not sure. I haven't read deep into the near death experience research to find out. But, for the most part, souls do learn that their Earthly struggles were necessary during a near death experience, and souls do often regret their acts of suicide.

Other Person's Response: I think having these miserable struggles gives you more compassion in regards to those who also have miserable struggles.

My Reply: I'm still the same person who doesn't care about humanity and all their suffering, even after all those miserable struggles I've had. I'm still that person who lives for himself and his own happiness. Even if I did acquire more compassion, I don't think acquiring said compassion would've been worth all that suffering. Besides, I could've acquired compassion a happy, healthy way, rather than through a pointless, miserable, unnecessary means that's only going to waste years of my life.

Other Person's Response: So, according to you, it would be better for someone to live in a vegetative state of bliss than going through the process of struggling, learning, and growing as an individual?

My Reply: Yes, since positive feelings are what are important here. If god's purpose for us is to go through this process of struggling, learning, and growing, then it would be better if that purpose was sacrificed for a life of vegetative bliss. But, the amount of bliss that can be achieved here on Earth doesn't compare to the bliss in heaven. So, instead of humanity living a life of vegetative bliss here on Earth, they should instead just be up in heaven, blissing away.

Other Person's Response: According to you, our divine purpose is to be blissful, which means god would be incorrect if he says our divine purpose is to struggle, learn, and grow.

My Reply: Yes. God is already saying our purpose here is to love. So, the best solution to achieve this purpose would be for all souls to remain in heaven, where they get to experience the most profound, intense feelings of love for eternity.

Other Person's Response: You still help your family when they need help, right? You don't just leave them to suffer, do you?

My Reply: I still help them. It's just that I'm not the type of person who lives to help humanity. I'm just the type of person who wants to have fun and enjoy his own life. That's the reason why I don't want to be a father and take care of a wife and child. It would be a lot of responsibility, and I'd have to dedicate my life to the duties of being a father.

Other Person's Response: I heard that your mother has money issues. Does she think her financial struggles are pointless and unnecessary? Does she think it would've been much better if god, or his angels, made money magically appear out of the sky for her?

My Reply: Yes. But, perhaps her struggles are necessary, she doesn't realize it, and her soul would realize the necessity of her struggles when she meets god. I know that my mother is already a compassionate, giving person. So, she doesn't need these struggles, since she's already acquired all the compassion and understanding she needs from having these struggles. What she needs now is money. Once she has a lot of money, she will give money to the poor, buy the things she needs, and the things I need.

Other Person's Response: I know it seems like some struggles are plain pointless and unnecessary. But, god is perfect, which means he makes no mistakes. So, that means struggles can't be pointless and unnecessary, since god would be making a mistake by allowing someone to go through a pointless, unnecessary struggle. In other words, everything is all working in accordance to a grand, divine plan.

My Reply: What if god isn't perfect, makes unwise decisions, and does make mistakes? I could ask the same question in regards to the heavenly beings/angels. So, what if they did make a mistake by not healing my mind of all the misery I've been through? What if they are making a mistake when they choose not to make money magically appear out of the sky for my mother?

Other Person's Response: God, or his angels, could've disabled your ability to feel miserable, as well as all the other negative emotions that came with these miserable struggles of yours. That way, you would've never had these miserable struggles to begin with. So, perhaps they did make a mistake when they've chosen not to do so.

My Reply: I agree.

Other Person's Response: In regards to your miserable struggles, I think they were necessary, and you're just enraged at a false, cruel image of god who allows people, and animals, to go through pointless, unnecessary forms of suffering. I personally believe god is perfect and all-loving.

My Reply: I can only hope you're right then. When I look at all the suffering in this world, including the suffering of animals, I think they would've been much better off never having gone through such suffering. If I'm correct when I say they would've been much better off, then that would mean god is making a mistake by allowing such suffering, and he's not all-loving and perfect.

Other Person's Response: I personally think all humans, and animals, would be better off remaining in heaven, where they could never suffer, be abused, etc.

My Reply: I agree, and I've heard there's a heaven for humans, and a heaven for animals. Both humans and animals can have physical bodies in heaven. So, they wouldn't just be souls roaming around in heaven.

Other Person's Response: An act of suicide is like spitting in god's face, since it's throwing away this precious gift known as "life."

My Reply: Well, even though I'm not committing suicide, I'm already spitting in god's face, and throwing away this life, since my philosophy says that life's nothing good, beautiful, or precious without our positive feelings, and that we should just give up on our lives, goals, and dreams when we're miserable, apathetic, and don't feel up to them. As I said before, I don't have my positive feelings right now, which means this life, for me, is no longer the precious, beautiful gift it used to be for me in the past. Back then, I was happy, which made life an awesome, beautiful place for me.

Other Person's Response: When you say people should give up on their lives, do you mean they should commit suicide?

My Reply: No. If someone was, for example, apathetic, I'd just tell him it's pointless for him to live life to the fullest, and that he might as well just lay in bed, doing nothing. Of course, he can still brush his teeth, take a shower, get the help he needs to restore his emotional drive, etc. But, other than that, he should just lay in bed. Going on an adventure, achieving big goals, etc. should, therefore, be postponed until he has the emotional drive to do these things.

Other Person's Response: You don't think depressed people should be punished at all for committing suicide, even if they knew suicide was wrong in god's eyes, and even if they knew their struggles really did serve some grand purpose?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: If you lose your positive feelings, and you can't sufficiently recover them, no matter how hard you try, then that would put you in a position where you'd need to upgrade to Stoicism. But, if you're utterly incapable of upgrading to this better philosophy, then that puts you in a hopeless predicament. Life would be presenting you a challenge you can never succeed in. So, it would be better if life was a blissful utopia world for you. That way, you could be happy all you want, and wouldn't have to worry about facing the impossible challenge of having to upgrade to Stoicism.

My Reply: I agree. So, the question is, if god and his angels do exist, then why would they give me this impossible challenge? Why can't they just allow me to live in heaven, where I can be happy all I want, and get whatever I desire? Personally, I think my philosophy can never change to a better one, no matter how hard I try to change it. So, let's pretend I was in that hopeless predicament you described, and I decided to commit suicide, since nothing was working to change my life for the better, then god shouldn't punish me for my act of suicide. He should understand that nothing was working for me. My act of suicide wouldn't have been the foolish choice here. God's choice of having me born into this life of hardship would've been the foolish choice.

Other Person's Response: Even if you're incapable of upgrading to a better philosophy, I think there's a way to sufficiently restore your positive feelings if you ever lose them. So, you don't have to worry.

My Reply: Well, there are people who have mental illnesses, such as chronic, clinical depression and anhedonia, which renders them with a complete absence of positive feelings. No matter what treatments they try, nothing seems to sufficiently restore their positive feelings. Who knows, I could end up becoming one of those people, which means I could develop such a mental illness someday.

Other Person's Response: If you do lose your positive emotions, due to a mental illness, but do manage to sufficiently restore your positive emotions, you still wouldn't have the full capacity to feel positive emotions. So, what would you do in the meantime during moments where you can't feel any drive to pursue your goals, dreams, and hobbies?

My Reply: I'd have to give up on my goals, dreams, and hobbies until I can feel the drive to pursue them again.

Other Person's Response: I heard from spiritual believers that life is supposed to be difficult, and that it's supposed to be a challenge, since our souls learn and grow through hardships.

My Reply: But, why have souls face challenges that are impossible? If I'm incapable of developing a better philosophy, then I'd be presented with an impossible challenge if I was in the hopeless predicament mentioned earlier.
Last edited by MozartLink on Sun May 10, 2020 11:55 pm, edited 7 times in total.
MozartLink
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: All My Philosophy Packets

Post by MozartLink »

File #2: My Philosophy Of Emotions (Part 12/12)

Other Person's Response: If you never develop a better philosophy, do you think it's possible that you can, at least, have power and control over your emotions, so that they don't have to dominate you?

My Reply: I'm not sure. I know there are people who don't wallow in physical pain, since they have much power over it. So, it's possible for me to develop such power as well.

Other Person's Response: If a person has power over his physical pain, and his painful emotions, doesn't that make his pain less painful?

My Reply: I'd imagine so. When pain dominates over someone, I'd imagine that to be a more painful experience. So, it's possible that, if I develop power over my emotions, that any horrible feeling I experience would be less horrible. Sure, that horrible feeling would still be a horrible experience for me. But, at least, it wouldn't be as horrible.

Other Person's Response: I heard that you felt violently enraged much of the time during all your miserable struggles. Yet, you've never acted out on a single one of these enraged feelings, which means you've never harmed yourself or anyone else. That shows you already have power and control over your emotions.

My Reply: But, during these struggles, I'm not doing well on the inside, and I give up on my hobbies, since I feel the rage to give up on them, and I can't enjoy them. So, just because I appear normal and in control on the outside doesn't mean I'm not being dominated and controlled by my negative emotions on the inside. Neither does it mean I'm alright on the inside.

Other Person's Response: Yes, life's a bitch, and it's not a happy place to be. But, struggling people should endure and persevere. It would be selfish, weak, and cowardly of them to end their lives.

My Reply: Well, it's their lives and their decision. They decide if they wish to end their lives or not. If they decide to end their lives, since no treatment seems to be helping them that much, then they're entitled to that decision. They shouldn't have to continue on living like this, just because it would cause others grief if they committed suicide. They also shouldn't have to listen or put up with the opinions of those who'd say suicide is a selfish, weak, cowardly act.

Instead, it's all about the experience these miserable, unhappy, clinically depressed people are having in their lives. If they're having little to no positive experiences in their lives, then it doesn't matter how selfish, weak, and cowardly suicide is. Not having positive experiences is no way to live anyway, and I think it's justified if these people end their lives. I think they should get help first. But, if nothing seems to be working that much, then they're free to end their lives.

Other Person's Response: I heard you're having an absence of positive emotions right now. Are you going to end your life?

My Reply: No. I notice I'm recovering on my own from this emotional crisis I've recently had, and I think I'll have my joy back to me again sometime soon.

Other Person's Response: There are spiritual believers who say that our souls have chosen this Earthly life of hardship for the purpose of learning and growing, and that we've signed a contract for this before our souls arrived in a physical body here on Earth. If we commit suicide, then we have to reincarnate and endure those hardships all over again, since we've signed that contract. So, suicide is no escape from our struggles.

My Reply: Why does it have to be a contract where the person is forced to come back to Earth and endure his struggles all over again? Why can't it just be a choice where the person isn't forced to come back if he doesn't want to?

Other Person’s Response: If souls didn’t have to sign a contract, then that means they could choose to freely go to and exit their Earthly lives as they please. It would mean god, and his angels, wouldn’t be disappointed if people committed suicide because it was their decision that they didn’t want to endure any more Earthly struggles. But, since souls have signed a contract, then that puts souls in a position where god, and his angels, would frown upon them if they committed suicide, they’d be punished for their act of suicide, and they’d have to return to Earth to endure their struggles all over again.

My Reply: That’s why I don’t think it’s necessary for this to be a contract. God, and his angels, have the power to make the rules any way they want them to be. That means they could’ve made the rules of there being no contract, and no individual being frowned upon, punished, or forced to return to Earth after committing suicide.

Other Person’s Response: Even if god, and his angels, did make this a contract, they could choose to no longer make this a contract.

My Reply: I agree.

Other Person's Response: There are spiritual believers who also say that our souls plan the Earthly life we live before we live it, which would mean that everything has been planned out by our souls, including all struggles and hardships, whether it be a mental illness, a physical illness, etc. But, how would it make sense to say that suicide is part of the plan? Especially when god frowns upon it, punishes people for it, and has these people reincarnate to endure their struggles all over again.

My Reply: Maybe those spiritual believers are incorrect, which means we don't choose and plan the Earthly lives we live. Since souls don't have the choice as to whether they wish to come back to Earth to endure their struggles all over again after they commit suicide, then perhaps they also don't have the choice as to what Earthly life they live. So, that means souls are forced to endure their struggles again, and they're forced to live whatever life they live here on Earth.

Other Person's Response: Some spiritual believers do say Earth is a prison planet. So, perhaps humans are forced to live unfortunate lives here on Earth, and it was never their choice.

My Reply: You could be right. But, I do wonder why some people have their lives happy and easy, such as rich, happy people who have very little suffering and hardships in their lives, while there are people who are poor, very unfortunate, and suffer greatly.

Other Person's Response: If our souls really have planned and chosen our Earthly lives before being born into a physical body here on Earth, then why would a soul choose to be born into a life where he dies of a fatal illness shortly after he's born? That seems pointless and absurd. There are also mothers who kill their newborn babies. So, why would a soul choose to be born, just to be killed by his/her mother upon birth? Again, it seems pointless and absurd.

My Reply: I'm not sure. Given your example, it seems as though our souls don't choose and plan our Earthly lives. My miserable struggles were a waste of my life, and I don't think my soul would've chosen to live such a miserable existence. My soul would've chosen to live as a rich, happy person who has very little suffering and unhappiness. Actually, my soul would've just chosen to remain in heaven, where I could bliss away for eternity and get whatever I desire.

Other Person's Response: I can see what you mean by pointless, unnecessary forms of suffering, such as a baby dying of a fatal illness after being born, or a baby being killed by his mother.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Our souls have, in fact, chosen and planned our Earthly lives. It just seems like a pointless, unnecessary choice in some scenarios, such as the example of a baby being killed by his mother. But, it's not pointless and unnecessary. We just have a very limited perspective here on Earth. When our physical bodies die, and our souls leave our bodies, we'll have a much greater perspective, and we'll realize such Earthly lives were necessary. When our souls leave our bodies, we have expanded consciousness/awareness, and that's why we'll become aware that no Earthly existence, struggle, or form of suffering is pointless and unnecessary.

My Reply: I can only hope you're right.

Other Person's Response: If we have no choice as to what life we're born into, then that sounds like a universe of pure chance. It sounds a lot like the universe that skeptics talk about, which would be a godless universe, where we're all just biological machines who only have one life to live.

My Reply: You could be right. Some people live fortunate lives of wealth and happiness, while others live unfortunate lives of poverty and despair. That seems like this godless universe of pure chance you speak of.

Other Person's Response: If we have free will, then we can't predict someone's future, since we wouldn't know what choices that individual would make. If we had no free will, then we could predict someone's future, since we'd know what choices that individual would make. Spiritual believers say we have free will. So, how can god, or his angels, know our future? Also, how can our souls plan our Earthly lives, when our souls don't know the future? Since everyone has free will, then that means anyone could make any given choice that would impact our lives in some way. There are so many ways our lives could be impacted, and there should be no way to predict how our lives will be in the future if we have free will.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: Many people would say your philosophy is too simple, weak, and shallow. But, there's much more to your philosophy than meets the eye, given all the material you've written on it.

My Reply: Yes. So, people should read everything I've written on my philosophy, rather than judging my philosophy at first glance. If they judge it at first glance, then they're just judging a book by its cover.

Other Person's Response: I heard autistic people are gifted individuals, and have insights that many people don't have. So, you might have much more insight into emotions than normal people have. Who knows, your philosophy might've been right all along.

My Reply: Yes. I might have great insight into my own personal experience, and a much more keen sense of introspection than other people have into their own personal experience. An example being how I can clearly tell that my emotions allow me to experience things as beautiful, amazing, horrific, etc., while many other people would dismiss their emotions as nothing more than biochemical states. As a matter of fact, many people go by the false assumption that it's a character weakness to rely on emotions to see beauty, horror, etc. in things.

Other Person's Response: If you have a composing talent, and end up producing some amazing compositions, then people should listen to you when you say certain things, or write certain things. That means people should read your philosophy, and definitely consider the possibility that it's all words of wisdom coming from a gifted, composing artist.

My Reply: Yes. If those miserable, genius artists were still alive today, and they could read my philosophy, then they should consider that I'm speaking the truth. So, that means they should really consider trying to find ways to restore their positive feelings, rather than living lives of misery.

Other Person's Response: You don't have much insight when it comes to other things, such as math, chemistry, etc.

My Reply: That's right. I have no knowledge and experience when it comes to these subjects. But, I have great insight into my own personal experience. Based upon my own personal experience, I've come to realize that it's no way to live or be an artist without positive emotions, and I think my insights speak the truth.

Other Person's Response: I think those miserable, genius artists were speaking the truth all along when they said it's a beautiful way of life to create works of art that are inspired by misery, and other negative emotions. How dare you dismiss their words of wisdom! They have every reason to dismiss your words of ignorance and foolishness!

My Reply: Well, just because they were geniuses, and just because they were inspirational figures, doesn't mean they were right. It would be an appeal to authority fallacy to say they were speaking the truth, just because they were genius, inspirational figures. Should I trust Einstein if he gave fashion advice? No. So, I shouldn't trust these genius artists either. I realize they wouldn't trust me either when I say a life of misery and unhappiness is no way to live or be an artist. But, to each his own. I have my personal views, and they have theirs.

Other Person's Response: Who in the world would trust someone who says that it's better to live in a vegetative state of bliss than to be a miserable genius who creates masterpieces?

My Reply: Not too many people would agree with my views. But, drug addicts might agree. I think drug addicts realize the necessity of positive feelings, since they're the positive experiences we need in life, and many people don't realize this, since so many people focus more on their obligations, responsibilities, etc., and focus less on whether they're having a positive experience or not. Life's all about the positive experiences, and they should never be left out of the picture.

Other Person's Response: I think you're a pathetic joke of a human being!

My Reply: Well, I don't feel that way about myself, which means I don't see myself that way. I do feel that way about myself when I'm having an emotional crisis, since having said crisis triggers all sorts of negative emotions. But, when I'm happy and enjoying my life, I feel great about myself, which means I see myself as great, regardless of how much others tell me I'm pathetic. That means it doesn't matter to me when others call me pathetic during happy times in my life.

Other Person's Response: The more horrible of a life a person is living, the more it's no way to live or be an artist for him?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: I heard that we go through suffering because it's a form of learning and growth for our souls. But, we don't really have to go through all this suffering, do we? God, or his angels, could just bestow upon us all the learning and growth we need in an instant. The very fact they're not doing it must mean it's a form of entertainment for them to watch us go through the whole process of learning and growing the hard way via suffering and hardships.

My Reply: You're right, and I think it would've been better if I never had these miserable struggles. I could've just lived a blissful life in heaven for eternity, and had all the learning and growth given to me.

Other Person's Response: Your positive feelings are what are important to you anyway, and not any learning, growth, etc. So, I can see why you think your miserable struggles were unnecessary.

My Reply: God, or his angels, might've sent me to Earth to undergo these miserable struggles because they think they're necessary. But, I don't think they're necessary.

Other Person's Response: I think some struggles are necessary, while others are unnecessary. If you think your miserable struggles were unnecessary, then god will give you the answer as to whether they were unnecessary or necessary when your soul meets him in heaven.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If spiritual believers say that all forms of struggles and suffering are necessary, then they're denying the unnecessary things in life. The fact is, some struggles and forms of suffering really are unnecessary.

My Reply: I agree. There are things in this world that are pointless and unnecessary, and such things shouldn't be denied.

Other Person's Response: There's pain, pleasure, good, bad, light, darkness, hot, cold, necessary, and unnecessary. So, for spiritual believers to say that all struggles and forms of suffering are necessary, would be no different than saying that all things are good, and there's no bad. It would also be no different than saying there's only pleasure, and no pain. Therefore, I think there are forms of struggles and suffering that are necessary, and those that are unnecessary.

My Reply: In heaven, we don't have unnecessary struggles and forms of suffering, and there's only good, no bad, and no pain. But, here on Earth, we do have unnecessary struggles, people feel many horrible emotions, and there's much pain. So, it would be best if all souls remained in heaven.

Other Person's Response: Some forms of suffering serve the benefit of learning and growth, while others are there for karmic reasons. For example, if we harmed someone in a previous lifetime, then we must reincarnate, and be punished in another lifetime by suffering.

My Reply: If all souls were in heaven, and were granted all the learning and growth they need in an instant, that means they'd be fully developed souls who wouldn't harm one another. Thus, they wouldn't have to suffer in the first place as a means of punishment.

Other Person's Response: Since your miserable struggles were unnecessary, a waste of many years of your life, and a horrible way to live, then god, or his angels, should've done something to prevent these miserable struggles from ever happening in the first place.

That would've prevented a devastating, tragic fate from happening to you, since you've had many devastating moments in your life, all of which would've been prevented if god, or his angels, made you a being of pure bliss who's unable to feel those negative emotions. After all, we're beings of pure bliss in heaven, where we have no negative thoughts, worries, negative emotions, or any form of suffering. So, I don't see why we can't be beings of pure bliss here on Earth.

Another way they could've prevented these miserable struggles would be if they bestowed knowledge and life lessons upon you beforehand. Having such awareness would've ensured that you kept a healthy mindset in order to prevent bringing misery upon yourself. You say these miserable struggles were caused by negative thoughts (an unhealthy mindset). So, this would've been prevented if god, or his angels, intervened.

Another thing they could've done would be warning you of your tragic fate. That would've also ensured that you kept your mindset healthy in order to avoid these miserable struggles. There are just so many options that god, or his angels, could've implemented to ensure your happiness. But, I don't know why they don't ensure the happiness and well-being of humanity.

Since they've created a blissful heaven for us in the afterlife, I don't know why they didn't create such a heaven here on Earth for us. I don't even know why we're here on Earth to begin with because many people have struggles and forms of suffering that are unnecessary, and a waste of their lives. This would've been prevented if all souls remained in heaven, and never came to Earth. Or, if such a heaven was created here on Earth for us.

My Reply: I find myself asking this question all the time. Also, I don't need negativity. Positivity is what I need, which is why it would've been best if I was a being of pure positivity who could experience no negativity. So, I agree it would've been best if I was a being of pure bliss here on Earth.

Another thing that god, and his angels, don't ensure, would be people being able to pursue their talents. For example, they don't ensure that a talented singer doesn't permanently lose her singing voice, and neither do they ensure that any talented individual doesn't find himself in such an unfortunate circumstance. Why have a talent if you can't pursue it?

We can pursue our talents all we want in heaven because there would be no such unfortunate circumstances in heaven. Here on Earth, so many unfortunate things happen, which prevent us from pursuing our goals, dreams, and talents, whether it be having a fatal illness, an unfortunate turn of events, etc. That wouldn't happen if all souls remained in heaven, or if Earth was such a heaven.

Other Person's Response: There are people who have to live their lives on life support, which means they can no longer pursue any amazing talents they had. As a matter of fact, there are people who don't even get the chance to pursue their amazing talents.

My Reply: Many people would say that our talents are divine gifts, granted to us by god and his angels. But, it makes no sense to me as to why god, or his angels, wouldn't ensure that a person is able to pursue his talents. Why don't they just use their powers to instantly heal that person who's on life support? That way, he can live the divine life he was supposed to live by pursuing his divinely bestowed talents.

Other Person's Response: According to you, the only way the pursuit of one's talents can be considered divine and holy would be if said talents were pursued by means of positive emotions.

My Reply: Correct. That's because positive emotions are divine and holy. So, not only must god, or his angels, ensure that a person is able to pursue his talents, but that his positive emotions are intact. If a person loses his positive emotions, then god, or his angels, should heal that person of whatever illness, brain damage, etc. caused his absence of positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: If we were all beings of pure bliss with perfect bodies, then we wouldn't even have to worry about having an illness that renders us on life support. Neither would we have to worry about our positive emotions being taken away, since our perfect brains would preserve them.

My Reply: Exactly. It would mean people's lives and talents wouldn't have to be wasted. Since we can be beings of pure bliss with perfect bodies in heaven, I don't understand why we can't be such beings here on Earth.

Other Person’s Response: If a person had to live his life on life support, and he had a unique, awesome, artistic vision to share to the world, then he wouldn’t get to share it. It would be a talent wasted.

My Reply: Yes. I think I’m naturally creating awesome, bizarre, otherworldly music in my mind, and if I had to live my life on life support, then I’d never get to share this unique music to the world.

Other Person’s Response: I think there are other, better ways to inspire people besides living with a debilitating illness that renders you on life support.

My Reply: I agree. That’s why I’d choose to be an inspiration to others through my bizarre music than living on life support. There are profound, powerful, bizarre emotions I can only express to others through a field of art, such as composing. I can’t express these emotions to others if I had to live on life support, which means people would look at me as a normal, struggling human being who’s on life support, and they’d never realize the great artist that dwells within me. What I wish to express to the audience through my music is not normal, and it’s out of the ordinary. Like I said, people would never get to witness my awesome music if I had to live on life support.

Other Person’s Response: You have yet to actually produce some awesome music. All you’re producing now is rubbish music.

My Reply: I think the actual music I’m naturally creating in my mind is awesome, profound, powerful, bizarre, and out of the ordinary. But, I don’t have the artistic skills to convey said music to the world. That’s why it all sounds like rubbish. I have yet to develop said skills, so that my mentally inspired music can be accurately transcribed and successfully conveyed to the audience. I need to study up on music theory. That way, I can make music that actually works, and doesn’t sound like rubbish.

Other Person’s Response: Even though you’ve never lived on life support, you’ve never gotten the chance to share your awesome, mentally inspired music to the world, all thanks to these miserable struggles that have wasted so much of your life.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person’s Response: You said that a person wouldn’t be able to pursue and share his talents if he had to live on life support. Actually, that’s not true in some instances. For example, a person could still learn how to draw while he’s on life support, and he could still share some awesome drawings.

My Reply: But, there are instances where a person can’t. For example, a person could no longer go on stage and display an amazing stunt performance. Also, if a person had to live his life paralyzed on life support, then he couldn’t do anything at all, since he wouldn’t be able to move.

Other Person's Response: You have your rights as a human being, which means you have the right to be happy. That's why god, or his angels, should've made you that being of pure bliss with a perfect brain and body here on Earth. The very fact they didn't is imposing upon your rights.

My Reply: I agree.

Other Person’s Response: If god wanted you to grow as an individual through your miserable struggles, then he could’ve chosen a better option as a means of growth. All your miserable struggles were just a waste of your life, and, like you said, you’ve never gotten the chance to share your awesome, mentally inspired music. God could’ve instead given you an incentive as a means of growth, such as offering you much more profound, powerful bliss in heaven. So, you could’ve grown as an individual by taking up god’s offer, rather than suffering a miserable existence that lasted for many years.

My Reply: I agree.

Other Person’s Response: There are people who have many miserable struggles where they’re suicidal much of their lives. These are the types of people who are living the worst lives. If god has chosen such lives of hardship for these people, since he wants them to learn and grow as individuals, then there’s a much better, healthier option for learning and growing than this. No individual needs to struggle with suicidal thoughts and feelings. So, one option god could’ve chosen would be learning and growing through a life of training and self-improvement.

That would be a much better, positive alternative to learning and growth. Not only that, but it would be very likely to prevent someone from becoming suicidal and miserable, since he has already trained his mind and self-improved right from the beginning. Now, suicidal, miserable people do go through training and self-improvement, so they can try to change their lives for the better. But, it would be much better if such people never had to go through any suicidal struggles, and were put in a position where they went through training and self-improvement a healthier, more positive way.

My Reply: I agree. Suicidal people often times have the desire to give up on learning and growing, since they have a very negative perspective, and think they can’t improve. It’s very difficult for such individuals to have a positive perspective when they’re in this horrible, suicidal state of mind. That’s another reason why it’s better to learn and grow through another means, such as the option you’ve presented.

Other Person’s Response: If souls have chosen lives where they undergo suicidal, miserable struggles, then that was the wrong decision. They could’ve instead chosen better lives as a means of learning and growth.

My Reply: I agree. Nobody should have to undergo such suffering.

Other Person’s Response: Let’s pretend you could never recover from your misery, and you had to live with it. It would be a very negative, hellish experience you’d have to endure the rest of your life, and I’m wondering what you would do. If you committed suicide, then you might be punished with a miserable afterlife that lasts hundreds or thousands of years. So, suicide would be out of the question.

My Reply: If there was a way to completely destroy every human aspect of me through a powerful electric shock to my brain, then I’d do it in order to rid of this horrible misery. In other words, I’d choose to sacrifice myself along with my misery, since living with said misery would be completely unacceptable. Even if I was a genius, I’d still give myself this shock. Look at it this way. If someone was devastated, and in a state of mental turmoil and misery from a certain moment in his life, such as from the loss of his loved one, and he could never recover from his crisis, no matter what methods he tried, then it would be best for him to just give himself that powerful shock.

As for me, fortunately, my brain is able to fully recover from any given crisis I have. That means I’d be miserable for a while. But, eventually, I’d be happy again. This recent, emotional crisis I had may have seemed like a hopeless predicament, since it took me much longer to fully recover from than all my other miserable moments. But, I noticed that my mental status was slowly and gradually improving over time. This means my brain was still recovering from this recent crisis. Therefore, I knew that I’d be fully recovered from this crisis eventually. Sometimes, recovering from a crisis is a long term process if said crisis was a very horrible one. But, just because it takes a very long time to recover, doesn’t mean you’ll reach a certain stage in the recovery process, and never recover beyond that point.

Other Person’s Response: You think your miserable struggles were unnecessary. But, god knows what’s best for you, which means they were necessary.

My Reply: Perhaps god isn’t perfect, all-knowing, and all-loving. So, maybe he doesn’t know what’s best for me, which means my miserable struggles really were unnecessary, and just a waste of my life. Perhaps he also doesn’t know what’s best for all those people who have to live on life support, and never get the chance to pursue and share their talents. That means god is choosing lives of hardship for his human creations, and said lives aren’t what’s best for them. That makes god an enemy, since he’s not allowing us to live the lives that are best for us, which means he’s enslaving us.

Other Person’s Response: Do you think it’s our souls that are perhaps choosing lives of hardship that aren’t best for us?

My Reply: I’m not sure. As I asked earlier, why would a soul choose to be born as a newborn, just to be killed by his mother upon birth?

Other Person’s Response: I think god is enslaving us by giving us lives of hardship that aren’t best for us. Actually, I don’t think he’s god at all, since god is perfect, all-loving, and all-just. So, this must be some unloving, enslaving being in charge here.

My Reply: But, wouldn’t god do something about that? Why would he allow this enslaving being to be in charge? I don’t think god would be perfect, all-loving, and all-just if he’s allowing this being to be in charge.

Other Person's Response: In regards to your philosophy, I don't think you're alright, even if you're feeling alright. Your philosophy is very unhealthy and self-defeating. I don't think it's a healthy mindset or way of life.

My Reply: According to my philosophy, as long as I'm feeling alright, then I'm alright, and I'm mentally well. The only way I can be mentally ill would be if I was having a miserable struggle, since being in such a miserable state is a horrible, ill state of mind. So, I actually define a mental illness as being those horrible, miserable states. But, I go outside my definition of mental illness when I talk about mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, that take away our ability to feel positive emotions. Again, it's just for the sake of convenience.

Other Person's Response: Many people say they don't need positive emotions, and that life's all about just getting things done, such as parenting, our jobs, etc. But, you disagree with this popular notion, and you give many compelling reasons as to why. I think you're a smarter, more profound individual than these people, since you realize that life's all about having positive experiences. Positive experiences are states of mind, which means life's all about being in a positive state of mind, and not about just getting work done. So, I think you can see the truth that many people can't see.

My Reply: Thank you.

Other Person's Response: Positivity is what we need in life, and anyone who says only weak people need it, would be stigmatizing.

My Reply: Yes. There are many people who have stigma in regards to emotions. For example, people would call me weak and pathetic, since I need my positive emotions, and I'm unlike those people who think that getting work done, even while miserable, is a good, beautiful way of life.

Other Person's Response: People who have stigma against emotions would say that life's not about how we feel, and that it's just about getting work done, contributing to the world, etc. But, you're saying life's all about how we feel.

My Reply: Yes, since how we feel determines what type of experience we have, whether it be the experience of love, hate, sorrow, joy, peace, beauty, magnificence, horror, etc. So, when I say life's all about how we feel, what I'm really saying is life's all about the experience.

Other Person’s Response: Do you think that people are so used to just getting work done that they don’t realize it’s their emotional state that determines the value and quality of their lives?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Given the weak, shallow philosophy you live by, many people would look down upon you and frown upon you.

My Reply: If I really am a weak, shallow individual, then different weak, shallow people deserve different treatment. For example, if there was a very kind, polite individual who was weak and shallow, then I think he deserves to be treated with kindness. I, myself, am someone who's considered to be kind and polite by many people. But, if I was someone very mean and hurtful, then I think I'd deserve to be treated in a negative manner.

Other Person's Response: I think you're mentally unfit to be a parent or a driver because you're not the type of person who thinks, and you have little power and control over your emotions. You're the type who gives into his emotions. If someone is parenting or driving a vehicle, some thought is necessary, and having power and control over one's emotions is necessary. Otherwise, that person would find himself in serious trouble.

My Reply: I don't plan on driving or becoming a parent.

Other Person's Response: Maybe your brain is wired like a drug addict's because drug addicts would say nothing's good or beautiful for them without those blissful highs.

My Reply: I'm not sure. Perhaps the brains of drug addicts are wired to see goodness and beauty in things through their positive feelings, and perhaps my brain is wired the same way. I'm not sure if said wiring is permanent. If it's permanent, then I'm in a hopeless predicament because that means my positive feelings are the only way I can ever see goodness and beauty in things. What kind of god would allow me to be in such a hopeless predicament?

Other Person's Response: I heard that there is an everlasting form of love that's neither based on thoughts or emotions. It would be god's love, also known as "Divine Love" or "Grace." It's a form of love that's not only everlasting, but more powerful and profound than any love that a human can achieve through his thoughts and emotions. Yes, Divine Love is a feeling. But, at the same time, it's so much more than just a feeling.

It's unconditional love, and, with it, you can love anyone or anything without a single thought or emotion. To receive Divine Love requires spiritual development. In other words, you must develop yourself as an individual. I could also say the same thing in regards to all other divine, positive feelings besides Divine Love. To acquire these everlasting, powerful, profound, positive feelings/experiences, again, requires one to develop himself as an individual.

My Reply: I hope these other positive feelings/experiences exist then. I'm in a tough situation being stuck with these fleeting, emotional ones.

________________________________________________________________

Note to Reader: I've written this final summary of my philosophy. So, I might as well share it. My philosophy says that perceiving someone or something as good, bad, beautiful, magnificent, tragic, or horrific is the only good, bad, beautiful, magnificent, tragic, or horrific thing in life.

So, perceptions of good are the only good things in life, perceptions of bad are the only bad things in life, perceptions of beauty and magnificence are the only beautiful and magnificent things in life, etc. Emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, beauty, etc.

So, that means emotions are the only good, bad, beautiful, etc. things in life. I present the emotion perception theory below that's been put forth by emotion theorists, which explains how emotions are perceptions of good, bad, etc. You'll come across it in this explanation. Anyway, I'd like to begin explaining my philosophy:

Final Summary

The only beauty and goodness that exists is the beauty and goodness we perceive. The more of it we perceive, the more of it we're getting (experiencing). If someone perceived the moment with his family as beautiful and good, then that means he got some beauty and goodness out of that moment. His goal should be to perceive as much beauty and goodness as he can throughout his life. The more of it he perceives, the better. Perception and experience are the same thing. For example, seeing (perceiving) the color red is the same thing as experiencing red.

So, when he sees (perceives) things as beautiful and good, he's experiencing those things as beautiful and good, and that's the same thing as him having beautiful, good experiences, which means he's getting beautiful, good experiences out of things. Our goal in life is to have as much beautiful, good, amazing, awesome, magnificent, valuable, precious, worthwhile, etc. experiences as we can (i.e. to have as much positive experiences as we can). We should avoid having negative experiences, such as bad, horrible, tragic, horrific, disturbing, pathetic, disgusting, etc. experiences.

So, that means we should avoid perceiving things as bad, horrible, etc. because, if we don't, then all we're doing is bringing ourselves the bad, horrible, etc. Even if there was a psychopath who was torturing living things, we shouldn't perceive that as bad, horrible, etc. We should instead see it as a good or beautiful thing he gets locked up in prison. Or, we could see it as a good or beautiful thing that he's torturing those living things. Either way, we're getting beauty and goodness out of it.

Now that I've established that life's all about getting the positive perceptions/experiences, and avoiding the negative ones, emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, beauty, horror, tragedy, value, worth, etc. An example of some emotions would be a feeling of panic from being in a dangerous situation, a feeling of horror, a feeling of joy or excitement, a feeling of sexual arousal, a feeling of misery, etc. There are the positive emotions (pleasant emotions), and they're the positive perceptions/experiences we need.

Then, there are the negative emotions (unpleasant emotions), and they're the negative perceptions/experiences we should avoid. We can't perceive anything as good, bad, beautiful, horrific, etc. through reason (thinking) alone. In other words, just thinking or believing that something is good, bad, etc. wouldn't allow us to see that thing as good, bad, etc. That thought or belief needs to make us feel good, bad, etc. in regards to that thing in order for us to see it as good, bad, etc. It would be like how reason alone doesn't allow us to see (perceive) the color red.

Just having the thought or belief of red isn't a perception of red, which means just having the thought or belief of red isn't the same thing as seeing red. Likewise, just having the thought or belief that something is good, bad, etc. isn't a perception of goodness, badness, etc. in regards to that thing. My personal experience has led me to this conclusion because I can clearly tell that my emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, etc. In addition, I can clearly tell that the only way someone or something can matter to me or bother me is through my emotions, and not through reason alone.

That's because the only way I can perceive someone or something as mattering or bothersome would be through my emotions. As a matter of fact, if everyone had no ability to feel emotions, then we'd all be apathetic. We couldn't care about anyone or anything, and neither could we perceive anyone or anything as good, bad, frightening, sad, sexually attractive, morbid, etc. But, emotions are fleeting, transient things. Especially positive emotions, since so many people in this world are depressed, apathetic, and unhappy.

That means these people are hardly getting the positive experiences they need out of life. A life without positive emotions is no way to live or be an artist, and there's nothing better to live for than feeling positive emotions because there's nothing better in life than having positive experiences. I, myself, have had many miserable struggles, which were caused by devastating worries. These struggles have disabled my ability to feel positive emotions, and I couldn't make myself feel positive emotions through reason alone, since there's a difference between reason and emotion.

Likewise, if a person had insomnia, he couldn't make himself feel sleepy through reason alone because there's a difference between reason and feeling sleepy. So, thinking positive is different than feeling positive, and the thought of being sleepy is different than feeling sleepy. During my miserable struggles, I could only have negative experiences, since I could only feel negative emotions. These negative emotions were caused by these miserable struggles. I also had no emotional drive to pursue my composing dream. So, my composing couldn't matter to me, and neither could I perceive it as valuable, good, beautiful, or worthwhile.

That's why I had to give up composing until I was fully recovered from these miserable struggles. That way, my emotional drive would return. Even if I felt negative emotions that motivated me to compose during my miserable struggles, that would still be no way to live or be an artist, since I'd be getting negative experiences and not positive ones. I realize there were miserable, genius artists who felt a lot of negative emotions, and inspired the world through their artwork. But, the audience would be getting positive experiences, since they're able to feel positive emotions from witnessing the artwork, while these genius artists would hardly be getting any.

When bringing others positive emotions, whether it be through helping others or inspiring others through artwork, we need to feel positive emotions in doing so because we need to perceive that endeavor as positive (as good, valuable, beautiful, etc.). In other words, when bringing others positivity, we need to get positivity out of doing so. So, that means life's really all about our own positive emotions because life's all about feeling positive emotions from pursuing any given endeavor, whether it be helping others, doing our hobbies, exercising, etc.

Lastly, here's the emotion perception theory that's been put forth by emotion theorists. This theory explains how emotions are perceptions of good, bad, etc. Since the only good, bad, etc. that exists is the good, bad, etc. we perceive, and since emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, etc., then that means good, bad, etc. can only be emotions. That means feeling good is the only good thing in life, and feeling bad is the only bad thing in life, regardless of what things and situations we feel good or bad about. Emotions are the only things that can make people, situations, and moments good, bad, etc. for us. Anyway, here's that emotion perception theory:

********
Are emotions perceptions of value?
Jérôme Dokic &Stéphane Lemaire
Pages 227-247 | Received 13 Mar 2013, Accepted 29 May 2013, Published online: 03 Sep 2013

· 

· 

AbsracAb

A popular idea at present is that emotions are perceptions of values. Most defenders of this idea have interpreted it as the perceptual thesis that emotions present (rather than merely represent) evaluative states of affairs in the way sensory experiences present us with sensible aspects of the world. We argue against the perceptual thesis. We show that the phenomenology of emotions is compatible with the fact that the evaluative aspect of apparent emotional contents has been incorporated from outside. We then deal with the only two views that can make sense of the perceptual thesis.

On the response–dependence view, emotional experiences present evaluative response-dependent properties (being fearsome, being disgusting, etc.) in the way visual experiences present response-dependent properties such as colors. On the response–independence view, emotional experiences present evaluative response-independent properties (being dangerous, being indigestible, etc.), conceived as ‘Gestalten’ independent of emotional feelings themselves. We show that neither view can make plausible the idea that emotions present values as such, i.e., in an open and transparent way. If emotions have apparent evaluative contents, this is in fact due to evaluative enrichments of the non-evaluative presentational contents of emotions.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10. ... pHYPERLINK "http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10. ... &HYPERLINK "http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10. ... ccess=true

********
Some people disagree with this emotion perception theory. But, I have to agree with it, based upon my personal experience. Also, here's a quote by a famous philosopher (Hume): "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." When Hume talks about passions, he’s referring to emotions. Here’s the definition of passion online:

“In philosophy and religion, the passions are the instinctive, emotional, primitive drives in a human being (including, for example, lust, anger, aggression and jealousy) which a human being must restrain, channel, develop, and sublimate in order to be possessed of wisdom.” Also, here's another quote:

"Therefore, moral good and evil are not discovered by reason alone. ... The second and more famous argument makes use of the conclusion defended earlier that reason alone cannot move us to act. As we have seen, reason alone “can never immediately prevent or produce any action by contradicting or approving of it” (T 458)."
Last edited by MozartLink on Sun May 10, 2020 11:57 pm, edited 17 times in total.
MozartLink
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: All My Philosophy Packets

Post by MozartLink »

File #3: Undecided (Part 1/4)

I'm Incapable Of Discovering The Truth In Regards To Controversial/Debatable Topics, And That's Why I Can't Decide On These Topics

When it comes to things that have a lot of argument and debate about them, such as the idea that vaccines are harmful, or whether the paranormal and the afterlife really exist or not, I can't decide who's telling the truth. I search into these debates on google. But, both sides appear to be making good, intelligent arguments. Therefore, this makes it impossible for me to tell who's lying, and who's telling the truth.

These are debates between researchers, and other people, who've had a lot of education and training. That's what makes it impossible for me to decide. But, if it was a debate between a highly intelligent person, and a little child, making the most dumb arguments, I'd be able to tell who's making the false, dumb arguments, and who's making the good, intelligent arguments.

People claim that one side of the debate is making dumb arguments in the types of topics I mentioned earlier. But, I just can't see that. In other words, if there are dumb arguments that one side of the debate is making, I still see them as good, intelligent arguments. It would be no different than a father who sees his son as a skilled basketball player, even though he sucks.

The father would see both his son, other players, and an NBA player as skilled players. But, the father lacks the knowledge and life experience necessary in order to tell who truly sucks at basketball, and who's the truly skilled player. If a professional NBA player met this father, he'd be able to explain to him how his son is not a skilled player. Another example would be with American Idol singers who think their singing is great.

They lack the insight necessary in order to see just how awful their singing really is. As you can see here, I just don't have the knowledge and life experience necessary to know who's making the dumb, false arguments in a debate. The same thing applies when I look at works of art, or hear people singing.

As long as it's not the type of artwork, or singing, made by a little child who sings horribly, and makes awful works of art, then I'd see any type of artwork, or singing, as being good. I would, thus, also lack the artistic knowledge and experience necessary to truly see what works of art, and singing, is crap. With all of this being said, I'm not interested in learning things.

People have different interests, and that's just a fact of life. But, I'll definitely learn how to compose, since this is the one and only subject I'm interested in. But, what about decisions I make in my life? Well, when it comes to, for example, vaccines, I've decided not to take them anyway, even though I can't decide whether they really are harmful or not. Just the idea in my mind of being injected with this stuff seems unhealthy to me.

So, I just go with my gut instincts. I know absolutely nothing about life or any given subject. Therefore, I just go with my gut instincts when making certain decisions in my life. I can't decide what's true and what's not. But, I can still decide to make certain choices. Also, I cannot understand some of the things these researchers say in the debates.

So, that's another reason why I can't decide what's true. To conclude this intro, anybody who comes up with an argument, telling me that vaccines are harmless, and that all the claimed evidence out there to support vaccines being harmful has been debunked, I cannot trust these people. I can't trust anybody who makes any given argument, since I just don't know who's telling the truth.

Undecided Discussion Section

Other Person's Response: Could you summarize the above because some of it is a bit incoherent?

My Reply: Alright. Here's a newer and shorter summary (which has a tid bit of new information as well). When two sides are having a debate, such as people who are convinced the afterlife and paranormal are real, versus the skeptics, who think they're not real, or when you have a debate where one side thinks vaccines are harmful, and another side thinks they're not, I'm unable to decide who's telling the truth. People claim that one side of the debate is making dumb, false arguments, and I just don't see that.

From my perspective, both sides of the debate are putting up good, intelligent arguments. If it really is the case that one side of the debate is making dumb, false arguments, then I can't tell the difference between a good, intelligent argument, and a false, dumb one. In order for me to tell the difference and, thus, in order for me to finally make a decision as to which side of the debate is telling the truth, then I'd have to possess knowledge and experience.

It's no different than how it takes an artist, or someone with knowledge and experience, to tell the difference between a work of art that's not that great, and a great one. Since I have no knowledge and experience, then I can just watch any movie with a crap plot, setting, characters, acting, etc., and it will all be good and fine to me. I wouldn't be able to perceive the flaws in that movie, just as how I wouldn't be able to perceive the flaws in the arguments one side of the debate puts up.

You must also remember that I don't stop and come to a conclusion based upon one, or a few arguments, a skeptic or believer says to me. I'd have to do the full research into all the arguments in order for me to finally draw a conclusion. But, I don't want to do that, and I'm unable to draw a conclusion anyway, since both sides are making good, intelligent arguments from my perspective, and that's what makes it impossible for me to decide.

Other Person's Response: Just to be clear, you can tell the difference between a scribbled drawing of a child (which is crap), and an amazing drawing by an artist?

My Reply: I can clearly tell the difference in this scenario. But, it gets to a certain point where I can no longer tell the difference. For example, if it was the drawing of an artist who definitely has some talent, but isn't an amazing artist, then I'd think that's as good as a drawing by an amazing artist.

Another example would be with movies. Even people who create what people call "crap movies" have some level of talent. Otherwise, they'd be like children, making a movie.

If ordinary children, with no talent, made a movie, then it would be plain awful, and I'd definitely tell the difference in skill level between a movie, created by children, as opposed to a movie, created by great, movie producers, and actors.

The same idea applies to debates. If children came up with the most awful, weak arguments, then I'd be able to tell the difference between their arguments, and the arguments of researchers.

It would, thus, be clear to me who's coming up with the dumb, weak arguments. But, it's no longer clear to me when two sides of the debate are people with much knowledge and experience, such as scientists and researchers.

Other Person's Response: Could you give me an example of one of these dumb, weak arguments a child would make?

My Reply: Sure. If a child argued that all webs are magically created by an invisible Spider Man, and that spiders are just insects that walk on the webs, then I'd know that's false. We know that spiders produce webs, since it's a scientific fact.

Another example would be if a child argued that the blissful afterlife has to exist because life wouldn't be as fun without that. I know that's a dumb, weak argument to support the existence of the afterlife because life isn't always fun, and we don't always get what we want in life.

Other Person's Response: Are you sure you can't see the flaws in some works of art, besides those made by children?

My Reply: Actually, I sometimes can. For example, there was a youtube video where someone created his own Superman live action. I could tell it looked like Superman was in a background that was copy and pasted. He just didn't seem like a part of the environment. But, when I watched the real Superman movie, it looked quite realistic. There are also other flaws I can see in the Superman live action video, such as cheap visual effects.

Other Person's Response: You say the researchers are putting up good arguments from your perspective. You say you don’t have your positive emotions right now, and that the only way to perceive things as good is through our positive emotions.

My Reply: You're right. I should have said: "Perceiving the idea of them being good arguments."

Other Person’s Response: Do you sometimes go outside your personal definition of good, bad, beautiful, etc.

My Reply: Yes, and it’s just for the sake of convenience. For example, even though I define good as a positive emotion (a feeling of goodness), I still say that I’m a good person who should be appreciated.

Other Person's Response: I think it's pathetic how dumb you are! You lack so much knowledge and life experience that it's pitiful!

My Reply: Well, most of the world is dumb and inexperienced. It's very common. So, there's no need to make such a big deal over how dumb and inexperienced I am. Most people are hedonists as well. So, there's no need to make such a big deal over how weak and pathetic my philosophy is either.

Other Person's Response: You're just as bad as the rest of the dumb world!

My Reply: At least I'm in a better situation than someone who actually believes false things because I don't believe anything. I just keep an open mind. If someone believed something that's false, and said belief was detrimental and harmful, then I'm in a better situation than that because I don't know if it's really true or false.

I say it's better to be in a position of complete ignorance than it is to be someone who believes in harmful, religious doctrines, and any other things that pose harm. That puts me one step above people who believe those sorts of things.

I think that's something worth appreciating. I may not be intelligent. But, at least I'm not like those types of people who believe in crazy things. I may say things that might come across as sounding crazy (such as the claims I make in my Composing Packet). But, like I said, I'm open-minded to said claims being false. I'm open-minded to any claim I make being false.

Other Person's Response: Could you give me an example as to why you think a person, who's completely ignorant, and isn't convinced of anything, is in a better position than someone who believes false things?

My Reply: Sure. Alex Chiu (the maker of these immortality rings) says you don't need to exercise, as long as you wear them, since these rings are claimed to not only stop and reverse aging, but to keep you healthy. If that's a false claim, and I believed it, then I'd die, due to a lack of blood circulation from not exercising. So, even though I'm not sure if that claim is true or not, I still remain open-minded towards the possibility that it's false. That means I still walk on the treadmill at the gym.

Other Person's Response: That says you have some level of intelligence, at least. That makes you better than the rest of the dumb world that believes in false claims.

My Reply: Thank you. If some people tell me it's dumb to be proud of my status in this world, then they just need to lower their standards, so they can accept and appreciate my level of intelligence. I know my level of intelligence is small. But, it can still be appreciated. People just need to learn to appreciate, and be proud of the little things in life. They demand bigger and better things. They have big expectations of me, and my level of intelligence, when they should just appreciate who I am now, and my current level of intelligence.

Other Person's Response: You're a good writer, and you elegantly explain things. I think that would be something to appreciate, and be proud of.

My Reply: Yes. At least my level of intelligence isn't that of a 6 year old child who writes extremely poor.

Other Person's Response: You also don't smoke, drink, or do drugs. You eat right and exercise. That's something to appreciate, and be proud of because it puts you another step above the rest of the world that lives unhealthy lifestyles. It makes you better than the rest of the world.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If some sort of technology was used to enhance your brain and make you a genius, then you'd be a very valuable and useful person to humanity. You'd have the desire to learn more things, grow as a person, help others, make new discoveries, etc. It's basic, shallow people like you who are worthless, dumb, live for hedonistic pleasures, and unwilling to learn and grow.

My Reply: Well, I don't have some advanced, intelligent brain. This is the brain I have, and people need to accept that. They should accept and appreciate me for who I am. I have no passion for helping others, contributing to the world, researching, etc., and people need to accept that.

Other Person's Response: If there was some sort of technology that could bestow upon you all the knowledge that exists, then would you use that technology to make yourself an all-knowing genius?

My Reply: Yes, since all that knowledge would serve an immense benefit for me. If the technology didn't cost too much money, then I'd pay for it. Also, I'm not interested in learning things. So, I'm unwilling to acquire knowledge by dedicating my life to studying up on things. That's why I'd choose to have all the knowledge handed to me by using that technology. Having all this knowledge would enable me to realize the truth in regards to controversial topics, such as whether there is an afterlife or not, whether vaccines cause autism or not, etc.

Other Person's Response: You do learn things that are absolutely necessary to learn, right?

My Reply: Yes. So, I learn how to get food from the store, I learn how to save my mother in case she's in an emergency, etc. These are things my mother wants me to learn, and I pay attention when she teaches me these things. But, I don't learn philosophy, religion, science, critical thinking, etc. These are things I can decide on my own to learn or not, and I don't want to learn them. Even though I had to learn physics, biology, chemistry, etc. in school, I forgot everything I've learned about these subjects, just like most people do. I'm not interested in learning them again, which is why I'm just going to learn how to compose music, since that's the subject I'm interested in learning. I'm interested in composing awesome, bizarre, otherworldly, profound, powerful music to share to the world, so that the world will glorify it, and I feel positive emotions from my music being praised by the world.

Other Person's Response: I'm a highly intelligent person, and I think you're an utter, pathetic joke of a human being. Your mind is so weak and dumb that it's laughable!

My Reply: There's one thing you don't have, and that would be a kind, or loving attitude, towards me. You don't accept and appreciate me for who I am. Instead, you frown upon me, and name call me. It doesn't matter how intelligent you are; without a respectful attitude, then you're the one to be frowned upon, and name called.

Other Person's Response: I realize spiritual believers (such as the New Age spiritual believers) would have loving attitudes. According to them, love is the greatest attribute a person can have. So, that highly intelligent person you talked with wouldn't be showing love towards you. He wouldn't be treating you as a special, spiritual being, deserving of love and kindness. Perhaps he thinks this is the only life we have, and that you're nothing more than a dumb, insignificant, transient speck of life on this planet. He doesn't realize you're a beautiful, special, spiritual being who deserves love and kindness. That makes his situation laughable!

My Reply: Thank you. I treat others with kindness and respect. So, I deserve the same treatment. It's a rule of life that, if you show kindness, respect, and love towards others, that you deserve such treatment in return. For example, imagine a loving parent, and a misbehaving child. That child would be told that the parent deserves to be treated with love and kindness, since the parent has treated the child with love and kindness.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, people could show acts of love towards you. But, if they couldn't feel love towards you (due to a mental illness, or other factor, preventing them from feeling positive emotions), then they couldn't love you.

My Reply: Correct. The only way to be a loving person is to feel love (a positive emotion).

Other Person's Response: It seems to me you want to give up on researching, and trying to discover the truth. Why is that?

My Reply: It's just something I'm no good at, and I'm better off giving up on it. I'm no good at comprehending certain material, rational/skeptical thinking, etc. If someone was a basketball player, and he was no good at it, even after much practice and training, then the players would tell him to just give up. I think it would be better for that person to give up. As I point out later on, I also don't drive a car because I don't think I'll have what it takes, no matter how much practice and effort I put into it.

Also, it might be nothing but frustration, and that's another reason why I don't even bother. That's why I have to rely on others to drive me around, such as my mother, or grandmother. Another thing is my value system because I don't think I have what it takes to obtain greater values in my life. To put me in a position where I lose my positive emotions, and have to live my life by greater values, might be a very frustrating moment.

It would be no different than expecting someone to be a good basketball player, when he's no good at playing basketball. I don't think I'm any good when it comes to living my life by greater values and, thus, I don't want to be put in a position where upgrading my value system is necessary. That's why I prefer to just live my life by the values I already have. In short, I'm just no good at anything, and that's why I prefer to be the way I am. However, there's one thing I wish to persevere in, and that would be composing.

I'm learning music lessons online by watching youtube videos. I also take the exams that are presented after each set of lessons. I'm failing these exams, despite all the music lessons I'm watching. Yes, I do listen to all the lessons very carefully, and I thought I understood them. But, apparently, I'm still failing the exams. Nonetheless, I'll still go through with my composing dream and, hopefully, I'll end up creating some good music. Music is very profound to me, and that's why I'm continuing with my composing dream.

Other Person's Response: Music theory is something that even little children can understand, and they pass the exams just fine.

My Reply: I did pass the exams that cover very basic concepts, such as scales, note names, etc. But, then there are more difficult concepts, and I failed the exams that covered these concepts.

Other Person’s Response: I thought you feel frustrated only during moments you have an emotional crisis.

My Reply: That’s correct. So, normally, I wouldn’t feel frustrated when attempting demanding tasks and failing them. Still, I’m just no good at such tasks, and that’s why I prefer to give up on them. If I had to do them, then I’d try my best anyway. But, I can’t promise I’d succeed.

Other Person’s Response: Another reason why you don’t drive a vehicle is because you can’t. You’re an autistic, special needs person.

My Reply: Correct. I wouldn’t be able to think clearly, react quickly, process information quickly, I’d be frantic, etc.

Other Person's Response: Even though you're an autistic, special needs person, you're still able to do certain tasks, such as writing. You're not mentally disabled to the point where you can hardly function.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: I bet the reason why you don't want to discover the truth as to whether the afterlife exists or not is because you're afraid you'd discover the unpleasant truth that it doesn't exist, which would disappoint you, or devastate you.

My Reply: That's not it. If the truth was right there in front of me, and I could choose to know it right then and there, then I'd choose to read the truth, as opposed to running away from it. I wouldn't be emotionally traumatized if I discovered the truth that this is the only life I have because I've already been emotionally traumatized in the past over the possibility that this is the only life.

Since that emotional trauma is over with, then I won't be traumatized a 2nd time if I were to discover the truth that this really is the only life I have. Instead, I'd just feel a bit disappointed, and that feeling would pass. So, the reason why I'm not searching for the truth is because I have no interest in this, since it's a long, tedious, intellectual process, and I'm just no good at these sorts of tasks anyway.

Other Person’s Response: I heard that you know absolutely nothing about life or any given subject, and that your brother, who’s 10 years younger than you, has much more knowledge and experience than you. Why is that?

My Reply: Well, my brother is very interested in having conversations. He’s the very talkative one in the family. I think he learns things through having conversations. But, I have no interest in having a conversation. So, I’m the quiet one in the family. That means I don’t learn things through engaging in discussions. Another thing is that my brother pays attention to what people say, and that’s how he learns things. But, I don’t care about the lives of others, and what they have to say. That’s their business, and I just let it be.

Of course, if someone explained something very important to me that I needed to pay attention to, then I’ll definitely pay attention. So, if my mother explained how I should save her life in a dire predicament, or if she explained something important I needed to do, then I’d pay attention. Other than that, I just tune out (ignore) what people say. So, if my mother was having a conversation with someone in the car, I’d tune out that conversation and just enjoy the ride. I’m not the type of person to think about things either. I tend to keep a clear, relaxed, peaceful, happy mind, and I’m not interested in many things, which is why I don’t think about them.

For example, I’m not interested in football games on television. So, I don’t even think about football, and nor do I watch football, since I don’t care about the sport. But, I do think about things that I need to think about. For example, when purchasing a new desktop computer for myself, that requires some thought. As a matter of fact, I’ve even written an entire essay that explains the tough predicament I was in when considering purchasing a new desktop. So, that shows I did put a lot of thought into this. Another example would be explaining my philosophy, since that requires thought as well.

Other Person’s Response: I heard that you don’t live with your father. You live with your mother, and she doesn’t teach you anything. She doesn’t teach you how to pay bills, how to cook, how to fix things, etc. She does all these things herself. She doesn’t expect much from you, which means she doesn’t expect you to be the most mature, loving, compassionate person you can be by living an altruistic life of contributing to science and humanity. She’s completely accepting of you living the life you want to live, as long as said life doesn’t pose harm to yourself and/or others.

My Reply: Actually, she does teach me a very few things, such as how to cross the road and get food at the store near the house. She taught me this one time in case she ever died, and I needed to get food at the store. But, she doesn’t really teach me much else. So, she doesn’t teach me any of the things you’ve just pointed out. If my mother dies, she said that I don’t have to worry because a payee would pay the bills.

She said I’d make it through life on my own, and that I don’t have to live in a group home. I wouldn’t want to live in a group home because I want all the free time in the world to do the things I love to do. I have a composing dream to live for, and I want to dedicate all my free time to this hobby. If I lived in a group home, I wouldn’t have much free time, since I’d be expected to do so many things.

Other Person’s Response: Even if your mother never taught you how to cross the road and get food at the store, that’s something you could figure out on your own because it’s common sense.

My Reply: Yes. But, there are things I can’t figure out on my own, such as how to ride buses to where I need to go. That’s something I’d need to be taught.

Other Person’s Response: If there’s something you need to learn, why can’t you just learn it online?

My Reply: When I try to learn things online, there are still many things I don’t understand and can’t figure out on my own, even after much effort. I also have a difficult time understanding things because they’re not explained in a way that a child could understand. For example, if I read up on a certain philosophy, I wouldn’t be able to understand it because it’s been professionally explained. Only those who have much knowledge and experience would be able to understand it, such as wise, old men.

Other Person’s Response: If someone relied on you to learn and figure things out all on your own, you wouldn’t get very far, would you?

My Reply: Correct. People also can’t expect me to get a certain job done right, since I make many mistakes, can’t think clearly, forget things often, etc.

Other Person’s Response: I realize you’ve explained your philosophy of emotions in a very basic, simple way that almost anybody could understand. You haven’t professionally written it because you don’t have the necessary knowledge and experience to do so.

My Reply: Correct. I also have a very limited vocabulary, which is why I tend to use the same words.

Other Person’s Response: If there was a movie for little children, you’d be able to understand what’s going on in the movie, and what the characters are saying? But, if it was a movie for adults, you wouldn’t be able to?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: So, when you watch a movie for adults, you just watch it without understanding what's going on in the movie?

My Reply: Yes. I just sit back, relax, and absorb myself into the atmosphere of the movie. The same thing applies when I listen to music. I really don't pay attention to the lyrics, or try to understand the message the lyrics are conveying. I just listen to the music, and embrace the emotion the music conveys. Besides, I don't understand the message some lyrics convey.

Other Person's Response: In regards to movies, when you watch them, is the message very vague and subtle to you?

My Reply: Yes. That's why it's not clear to me what's going on in movies, or the message actors are conveying to the audience when they converse in the movie.

Other Person's Response: There are people who have much knowledge when it comes to movies and video games. Not only could they guide you through an entire game, but they could also explain to you everything else they know about that game, whether it be the plot, story, products regarding the game, etc. I take it you're just the type of person who knows how to fully complete a game. But, you don't know anything more than that.

My Reply: Correct. I could guide someone through a game I completed, and show them where all the items are at. But, if you gave me a quiz, and tested my knowledge in regards to things besides how to complete the game, then I'd fail that quiz. I mean, I do know the names of certain characters, and basic things like that. But, I only have a basic level of knowledge when it comes to games. I don't have the deep knowledge many movie and video game fans have. That's because I have no interest in learning things, and I basically play video games just to have fun and play them.

Other Person's Response: When you play video games, do you just skip past all the scenes and dialogue?

My Reply: I still watch the scenes because they're interesting to watch. But, I don't put in any intellectual effort in reading, and understanding the dialogue, as well as the story and plot. When it's dialogue that's very basic and easy to understand, I'd read it. But, when it comes to tasks that require more intellectual effort, I don't bother. So, I wouldn't even bother trying to understand a deep story, plot, and dialogue. Besides, I'd fail at that anyway, since I'm just no good at intellectually demanding tasks.

Other Person's Response: Those video game fans, who have a deep level of knowledge, could be seen on forums. For example, a Super Mario forum would consist of fans who have vast knowledge about Super Mario. If you were to join this forum, you'd just be a basic member, having a discussion. You wouldn't be an honored member. You'd probably be the less popular member, due to your lack of knowledge.

My Reply: I agree.

Other Person's Response: I see you don't use that thinking region of your brain too often. The more you don't use it, the weaker it becomes. Maybe that's why you don't have intellectual based values, and only have emotional based values.

My Reply: I really don't know. Emotions might really be the only source of value.

Other Person’s Response: You don’t drive a vehicle, and your mother has never taught you how to ride buses yet?

My Reply: Correct. As for driving a vehicle, I don’t ever want to do that, since I might get in a wreck. Especially considering that my mind sometimes races and gets frantic while riding in a vehicle, due to the speed. If I drove a vehicle, I wouldn’t be able to think clearly, which means I might get in a wreck.

Other Person’s Response: I heard that you might have a panic attack while riding a bus, and that your mother said she’s going to ride with you on a bus one day to see how well you do during the ride.

My Reply: Yes. But, if I had to ride a bus alone, then the likelihood of a panic attack might be higher. Also, when my mind races during a ride, due to the speed, that’s overbearing, and it causes me a panic attack. Allowing myself to experience that mental, racing sensation, rather than trying to avoid it, would certainly reduce panic. It could even rid of the panic completely. But, it’s sometimes difficult for me to do that. Especially when I’m all alone on the bus, or if I couldn’t stop the bus anytime soon.

Other Person’s Response: I heard that you have a very difficult time keeping your mind calm in the face of speed (riding a vehicle). Especially if the speed isn’t something that can be stopped. For example, if you were riding a roller coaster, you wouldn’t be able to keep your mind calm. Your mind would race, and you’d have a panic attack. If the roller coaster ride had to go on for a very long time, then that would be much worse for you. It would intensify the panic and racing mind. But, if the ride would end very shortly, then that wouldn’t be as bad for you because you’d know that the ride would be over soon.

My Reply: Yes. Also, knowing that the Earth moves at a constant, high speed brought me panic. But, according to Einstein’s theory of relativity, the Earth can only be moving from another reference point. From our reference point, the Earth isn’t moving at all. Knowing this has eased the panic.

Other Person’s Response: I don’t think the speed itself causes your mind to race. Rather, I think it’s a thought that does.

My Reply: Right. Also, when I’m not in a clam mood, then the likelihood of a racing mind and panic would be higher.

Other Person’s Response: Are you afraid that a vehicle you’re riding in would crash into something? Is that the reason why you’re afraid of speed?

My Reply: No. It’s just that I have a hard time keeping my mind calm while riding a vehicle.

Other Person’s Response: Even if you did drive a vehicle, you wouldn’t know how to get to any given place or store. For example, if you had to get to Walmart, you wouldn’t know how to get there. You don’t know the name of any street, and you don’t know where any street is at either.

My Reply: Correct. Like I said, I know absolutely nothing about life or any given subject.

Other Person's Response: Did the theory of relativity completely erase that fear you had in regards to the Earth speeding?

My Reply: No. There's still some fear left. The thing about phobias is that you can't completely erase them through reasoning alone. That's why I still have this fear. I know I talked about a technique I performed in a later packet, which I claimed erased the fear completely. But, it didn't.

Other Person's Response: If you continue to experience this fear, then that's actually exposing yourself to the fear. By exposing yourself, you eliminate the fear. When people expose themselves to their phobias, their phobias vanish.

My Reply: Yes. But, let's pretend my fear could never be eased to any degree whatsoever, regardless of what I thought, regardless of knowing that theory of relativity, and how much I exposed myself. That means I'd have to live with intense fear of the Earth speeding, and that fear would completely overwhelm me. I wouldn't be able to live like that, and nor would I be able to function, since I'd be utterly consumed by the fear.

Other Person's Response: You say your mind is stuck on some misery-inducing worry, and that this worry has kept your ability to feel positive emotions shut off. Has it also shut off your ability to feel this fear you have in regards to the Earth speeding?

My Reply: Yes. For the most part, the fear isn't even there. But, sometimes, it pops up a bit. If I were to be fully recovered from this misery-inducing worry, then I think that fear would fully be there much of the time. Fortunately, the fear would be reduced, due to the theory of relativity.

Other Person's Response: I heard you fear that mental, racing sensation you get when you're speeding, and that you thought this sensation was too much to handle. When you thought that, you said you were actually thinking this sensation must be avoided. So, by avoiding that sensation, you were making the fear worse. You then thought to yourself that, even if this sensation was too much for you to handle, that doesn't mean it has to be avoided. So, that eased the fear. But, there's still some remainder of that fear?

My Reply: Yes. Like I said, I tried to reduce this fear as much as possible by thinking certain ways and knowing certain things, such as the theory of relativity. But, all of these things haven't completely erased the fear.

Other Person's Response: I heard you say, in a later packet, that you'd rather experience fear than rage, since rage puts you at risk of harming yourself and others. But, you've changed your mind, which means you'd rather experience rage, since panic is such a frightening, overbearing experience for you.

My Reply: Yes. For example, when my fear of the Earth speeding was intense, that's when I changed my mind and decided I'd rather experience rage.

Other Person's Response: I heard that, when you go some place that's away from home, that fear of the Earth speeding gets worse. You said it's because home is your comfort zone, and any place that's away from home would be outside your comfort zone. Sure, that fear is still there, even while you're at home. But, the fear isn't as bad as being away from home.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: When people are miserable and commit suicide, that doesn't erase their problems. Their problems are carried on over to the afterlife. They'll remain in a state of misery that's 24/7 for hundreds or thousands of years in a dark, hellish place in the afterlife, since that's their penalty for their act of suicide. They won't be able to will themselves out of this misery, which means their misery-inducing problems will continue to linger with them.

If you were to commit suicide, since you've experienced intense fear that was so overwhelming that you wanted to escape from it, then you'd remain in a chronic, 24/7 state of fear in the afterlife that would last hundreds or thousands of years, since that would be your penalty for your act of suicide. You'd be in a non-stop state of panic, and that would be a horrible existence you'd definitely want to avoid.

To make matters worse, this continuous panic would be far more profound and intense than any panic you could experience here on Earth, since our souls have much more profound, intense experiences in the afterlife than on Earth. So, it's better for you to remain in this life and face your fears. In this Earthly realm, panic can't last 24/7. It only lasts for brief moments. Furthermore, your fears can vanish when you expose yourself to them in this Earthly realm. But, if you were to try to escape your fears by suicide, then your fears would continue to linger with you in some hellish afterlife.

My Reply: Don't worry. I'm not going to commit suicide. Also, god or his angels wouldn't be all-loving, all-just beings if they were to give me such a penalty.

Other Person’s Response: Is your mother in good health? If so, she’ll live a long life, and you won’t have to worry about her dying anytime soon.

My Reply: She’s not a very healthy person, since she has heart disease and is a bit obese. But, she does take heart medication.

Other Person’s Response: I heard that your mother said her health’s alright, even though she’s not very healthy. But, something fatal could soon happen to her unexpectedly, such as a heart attack or stroke. She may deny it, and claim that she’ll only die when she’s around 85-90 years old. But, it could still happen.

My Reply: Yes. People who aren’t in optimal health do have such unexpected fatalities, and my mother isn’t in optimal health.

Other Person's Response: I heard that your mother would go into a coma if she doesn't eat when she's hungry.

My Reply: Yes. Normally, a person can go a very long time without food before he dies. But, my mother needs to eat something immediately when she's hungry.

Other Person’s Response: In regards to the near death experience stories and literature, there are mothers who have a near death experience and return back to their bodies because they have a responsibility to take care of their children. These mothers had the choice to remain in heaven, and they’ve chosen not to. They’ve chosen to return to their Earthly bodies. So, if your mother dies, her soul would return back to her body, so she can continue taking care of you. Her body will be healed upon her return because some healing is done on the body before the soul returns into it. That way, the soul can reside in a living, functional body.

My Reply: There are so many parents who die and never come back to life. So, what makes you think that my mother would come back to life if something fatal happened to her?

Other Person’s Response: Since you lack so much knowledge and experience, I consider you to be a pathetic joke of a human being! Even the most simple things that many people know are things you don’t know, and I think that’s pathetic.

My Reply: I shouldn’t be held accountable for my lack of knowledge and experience. I have no interest in learning things and having new experiences, and to hold me accountable (blame me) for that would be no different than blaming someone for not knowing how to fix things, perform surgery, play certain sports, etc., when he has no interest in learning those things. My point is, everybody has different interests, and you shouldn’t blame me for not learning things, when I have no interest in learning things. Sure, there are things I don’t know that I should know. But, my mother has never taught me these things, I don’t engage in discussions to learn these things, and I don’t pay attention to conversations other people have to learn these things.

If my mother has taught me these things, then she doesn’t teach me very often, so that I remember them. Not only that, I have a bad memory, and forget things. Neither do I go online and start learning things. Knowledge just isn’t something I treasure and value. Also, if someone mistreated me because of my ignorance, and made such a big deal and fuss over my ignorance, then that, to me, would be like mistreating me because I don’t have big muscles, and making such a big deal and fuss over my scrawny body. How much knowledge you have, and how much muscle you have, doesn’t define you as an individual. So, I’m still a decent person, despite my ignorance, and I shouldn’t be deemed as a pathetic joke of a human being because of my ignorance. That would be like calling me a pathetic joke of a human being because I don’t have big muscles.

Other Person’s Response: Actually, you do learn things online. But, they’re just quick searches, such as searching whether a certain video game has gameplay and features you’d love or not.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: It seems you’re both unwilling and incapable of being an intelligent person because you’re unwilling to learn, and there are just so many things you’re incapable of understanding.

My Reply: Yes. For example, when I read things online, or when I watch videos online, I have a very difficult time processing, as well as understanding, many things. I’m better off giving up on learning, not only because I have no interest in learning, but because I’m incapable of understanding so many things. Being an intelligent, skilled thinker is something I’m incapable of, and I have no interest in that. People just need to accept and appreciate me for who I am, rather than frowning upon me, and refusing to be my friend, just because I’m ignorant, and refuse to learn things.

Other Person’s Response: If you had to make an important decision in your life, and you required some knowledge to make that decision, then you’re saying that you’d only be willing to do a small amount of research? You wouldn’t go all the way and do the full amount of research?

My Reply: That’s correct. I wouldn’t commit myself to learning. For example, if I wanted to know if a certain product I considered purchasing would get the job done right or not, then I’d just be willing to do a quick search to find out. Or, I could go on youtube and find out by watching a few videos. But, if finding this out takes thorough research, and not just the small amount of research I’ve conducted, then I’d be unwilling to commit myself to conducting all the necessary research. So, I’d just give up on trying to discover whether this is a promising product or not. Also, if I had a difficult time understanding the research, then I’d find myself giving up much sooner. It’s often the case that I do have a difficult time understanding things.
Last edited by MozartLink on Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:47 pm, edited 11 times in total.
Post Reply