Note to Reader: There are 2 versions of good and bad. The 1st version is where something's good or bad, but doesn't matter, and the 2nd version is where something's good or bad, but does matter. I only use the 2nd version in this summary. Actually, there's only one time I use the 1st version, and I let you know when I use it.
My Philosophy of Good and Bad (Summarized Version)
When something matters to you, that's a state of mind, which I call "an x state." All x states are either pleasant or unpleasant (that is, they're all states of wanting, liking, or disliking). I'm going to explain why pleasant x states are the only source of goodness in one's life/mental universe, and I'm going to use liking (a pleasant x state) as part of this explanation.
The more profoundly and intensely you like something (a work of art, for example), the better you like it, which means the better (more good) it becomes in your eyes, which means the more it pleasantly matters to you. Pleasant x states that are shallow and not intense give our lives a low level of goodness because they make things in our lives perceived/experienced as slightly good, while pleasant x states that are more profound and intense give our lives a higher level of goodness. Without pleasant x states, nothing can be perceived as good.
As for unpleasant x states, they're the only perceptions of badness, which means they're the only source of badness in one's life. Without x states, one's life is devoid of goodness and badness. Now, in regards to perception, the only goodness that exists is the goodness we perceive, which means goodness only exists in our minds. I could say the same thing about colors or sounds. The only sound that exists is the sound we perceive (hear) because sound doesn't exist in the external world. Only sound waves do. Sound itself is a mental state, and so are colors.
Anyway, since perceived goodness is the only goodness, and since pleasant x states are the only perceptions of goodness, then they're the only good things, which means they're the only good experiences in life. As for unpleasant x states, they're the only bad things. Without x states, not only would nothing be perceived as good or bad, but we'd be emotionless because all x states are emotional states (and all emotional states are x states). An example of pleasant some emotions would be happiness, amazement, excitement, sexual attraction, and valuing a person or thing.
An example of some unpleasant emotions would be misery, disgust, rage, fear, frustration, and agitation. Now, if an emotionless person had the mindset that something was good or bad, then that mindset alone couldn't make him perceive it as good or bad, which means nothing in his life/mental universe can be good or bad. Also, a blind person's mindset alone can't allow him to perceive (see) something as red or blue, which means nothing in his life can be red or blue. As you can see, colors, sound, goodness, and badness are perceptions that no mindset alone can give us.
There were moments where my life was devoid of goodness and badness. So, I was emotionless. I had the mindset that something mattered to me, but that mindset alone couldn't make it matter to me (perceived as good or bad) because emotions are the only x states. Also, if an insomniac person had the mindset of being sleepy, then that mindset alone can't make him sleepy. As you can see, our mindset alone can't be a state of sleepiness, hunger, thirst, nausea, or an x state.
Here's a quote by Hume (a famous philosopher) that indicates reason (our mindset) alone can't be an x state): "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions." Now, reason alone allows us to perceive the 1st version of good and bad that I mentioned in the note to reader at the beginning. But, I'm talking about the 2nd version, which reason alone can't perceive. Others claim reason alone can, and those who claim this are advocates of reason.
But, I must disagree with them, based upon my personal experience. I have my personal experience to go by and others have theirs, and that's that. Also, those who advocate reason alone don't realize an emotionless existence is robotic. Nothing can matter to robots because they're apathetic machines that can't fear, love, hate, etc. They can still perform tasks, though, and emotionless people can perform tasks, even though said tasks can't matter to them.
But, living like that is no way to live, and being emotionally displeased is no way to live either. Sure, being emotionless or unconscious is better than being emotionally displeased because neutrality (neither goodness nor badness) is better than badness. But, being emotionally pleased is the way to live, and is better than being emotionally displeased, unconscious, or emotionless.
Note to Reader: There are 2 versions of good and bad. The 1st version is where something's good or bad, but doesn't matter, and the 2nd version is where something's good or bad, but does matter. I only use the 2nd version throughout this document. Actually, there's only one time I use the 1st version, and I let you know when I use it.
My Philosophy of Good and Bad
When something matters to you, that's a state of mind, which I call "an x state." All x states are either pleasant or unpleasant (that is, they're all states of wanting, liking, or disliking). I'm going to explain why pleasant x states are the only source of goodness in one's life/mental universe, and I'm going to use liking (a pleasant x state) as part of this explanation.
The more profoundly and intensely you like something (a work of art, for example), the better you like it, which means the better (more good) it becomes in your eyes, which means the more it pleasantly matters to you. Pleasant x states that are shallow and not intense give our lives a low level of goodness because they make things in our lives perceived/experienced as slightly good, while pleasant x states that are more profound and intense give our lives a higher level of goodness. Without pleasant x states, nothing can be perceived as good.
As for unpleasant x states, they're the only perceptions of badness, which means they're the only source of badness in one's life. Without x states, one's life is devoid of goodness and badness. Now, in regards to perception, the only goodness that exists is the goodness we perceive, which means goodness only exists in our minds. I could say the same thing about colors or sounds. The only sound that exists is the sound we perceive (hear) because sound doesn't exist in the external world. Only sound waves do. Sound itself is a mental state, and so are colors.
Anyway, since perceived goodness is the only goodness, and since pleasant x states are the only perceptions of goodness, then they're the only good things, which means they're the only good experiences in life. As for unpleasant x states, they're the only bad things. Without x states, not only would nothing be perceived as good or bad, but we'd be emotionless because all x states are emotional states (and all emotional states are x states). An example of some pleasant emotions would be happiness, amazement, excitement, sexual attraction, and valuing a person or thing.
An example of some unpleasant emotions would be misery, disgust, rage, fear, frustration, and agitation. Now, if an emotionless person had the mindset that something was good or bad, then that mindset alone couldn't make him perceive it as good or bad, which means nothing in his life/mental universe can be good or bad. Also, a blind person's mindset alone can't allow him to perceive (see) something as red or blue, which means nothing in his life can be red or blue. As you can see, colors, sound, goodness, and badness are perceptions that no mindset alone can give us.
There were moments where my life was devoid of goodness and badness. So, I was emotionless. I had the mindset that something mattered to me, but that mindset alone couldn't make it matter to me (perceived as good or bad) because emotions are the only x states. Also, if an insomniac person had the mindset of being sleepy, then that mindset alone can't make him sleepy. As you can see, our mindset alone can't be a state of sleepiness, hunger, thirst, nausea, or an x state.
Here's a quote by Hume (a famous philosopher) that indicates reason (our mindset) alone can't be an x state: "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions." Anyway, there were moments where I was emotionless, and then there were many moments where I was emotionally displeased/bothered by things as a result of chronic worries. I, thus, had many moments of badness (suffering/unhappiness), and these moments were an ongoing, long term struggle. I tried to reason away my chronic worries and suffering because I don't want to experience badness.
But, reasoning didn't work, and it would be like reasoning with a phobia in an attempt to rid of the fear, which doesn't work. Also, when I was worried and suffering, my pleasant emotions (pleasant x states) were disabled, which means I had no moments of goodness. As a matter of fact, pleasant emotions are fleeting for many people because there are mental illnesses, brain damage, and unhappy moments, which disable pleasant emotions. For example, clinical depression is a mental illness that disables pleasant emotions.
Since pleasant emotions are the only good things and are fleeting in this Earthly existence, and if god and the afterlife exist, then why aren't we in heaven, where we get to experience the greatest goodness (pleasant emotions that are the most profound and intense in the world)? The greatest good can also be called "the best bliss," which is everlasting in heaven. Thus, heaven would be the best (greatest good) existence, which would be far better than this unfortunate, Earthly existence. I don't understand why god would send our souls here to suffer, instead of having us remain in heaven.
With that being said, I'm now going to move on to the next topic by explaining some things about my philosophy. My philosophy is based upon my personal experience and is a form of hedonism, which advocates experiencing pleasant emotions and not unpleasant ones. I think unpleasant emotions are unnecessary. For example, instead of being motivated by fear or rage, it would be better to be motivated by bliss because, according to my philosophy, bliss is good and unpleasant emotions are bad. Instead of being miserable and suicidal, it would be better to blissfully persevere.
But, even if a little bit of emotional displeasure is necessary in life, that doesn't make unpleasant emotions good. Pleasant emotions are the only good things. Also, if a person wanted unpleasant emotional experiences, that doesn't make them good either. If anyone tries to convince me that unpleasant emotions are good, it won't work because anyone's attempts to convert me to a different philosophy will fail. I think I'll always disagree with any philosophy that opposes mine. So, I don't think my philosophy will ever change.
I've had this philosophy my entire life, and perhaps I'll have it for the rest of my life. Now, there's a philosophy that advocates reason alone as a source of goodness in one's life. But, until reason alone allows me to perceive goodness, l'll only have my fleeting, pleasant emotions as a source of goodness, and my philosophy will never change to the one I just described. My pleasant emotions have always been the only good things in my life (the only perceptions of goodness), and my unpleasant emotions the only perceptions of badness.
Now, reason alone allows us to perceive the 1st version of good and bad that I mentioned in the note to reader at the beginning. But, I'm talking about the 2nd version, which reason alone can't perceive. Others claim reason alone can, and those who claim this are advocates of reason. But, I must disagree with them, based upon my personal experience. I have my personal experience to go by and others have theirs, and that's that. Also, those who advocate reason alone don't realize an emotionless existence is robotic.
Nothing can matter to robots because they're apathetic machines that can't fear, love, hate, etc. They can still perform tasks, though, and emotionless people can perform tasks, even though said tasks can't matter to them. But, living like that is no way to live, and being emotionally displeased is no way to live either. Sure, being emotionless or unconscious is better than being emotionally displeased because neutrality (neither goodness nor badness) is better than badness. But, being emotionally pleased is the way to live, and is better than being emotionally displeased, unconscious, or emotionless.
For me, being emotionally pleased has always been the only life that works for me. Living unhappy is no way to live for me, regardless of how much I follow the advice to live by a philosophy that advocates ignoring my perceptions of badness and inability to perceive goodness (my unhappiness and absence of pleasant emotions), and to focus on supposedly objectively good things, such as my family, helping humanity, etc. Such advice is, thus, unhelpful. Since it's unhelpful, that's why I disagree with philosophies that advocate objective goodness and badness.
Good and bad are subjective, by the way, which means things only become good or bad when one perceives them as such (in other words, only perceived goodness and badness exist). Objective goodness and badness don't exist. But, if I'm wrong, they do exist, and I later knew that, then being unhappy and absent of pleasant emotions would still be no way to live for me because simply knowing certain things are objectively good isn't enough. I must be able to perceive things as good and not as bad.
Note to Reader: There are 2 versions of good and bad. The 1st version is where something's good or bad, but doesn't matter, and the 2nd version is where something's good or bad, but does matter. I only use the 2nd version throughout this document. Actually, there's only one time I use the 1st version, and I let you know when I use it.
My Philosophy of Good and Bad (Full Version)
As human beings, we possess consciousness, which means we experience mental states. For example, we experience bodily pain and pleasure, hunger, thirst, colors, and sound (which are mental states). We also experience goodness and badness. But, what do I mean by "experiencing goodness and badness?" I'll explain. When something matters to you, that's a state of mind, which I call "an x state." X states are always states of pleasure or displeasure (states of wanting, liking, or disliking).
For example, if you were amazed by a work of art, that means you liked it, which means it pleasantly mattered to you. Happiness is another example of a pleasant x state (a state of liking). Valuing something is also a pleasant x state (a state of wanting or liking). Misery, rage, and disgust are examples of unpleasant x states (states of disliking). Now, x states can be profound or shallow, and intense or not intense.
For example, being there for your family could profoundly matter to you, and buying a fancy, luxurious item could shallowly matter to you. Another example would be experiencing intense happiness towards one thing, and less intense happiness towards something else. Now, the more profound and intense a pleasant x state is, the better (more good) something becomes in your eyes, which means the more it matters to you.
So, if you slightly liked nature, it would've been slightly good (would've slightly mattered) in your eyes. If you then liked it more profoundly and intensely (liked it better), then it would've been better (more good) in your eyes, which means you've experienced it as better. You would've, thus, experienced a higher level of goodness than slightly liking nature. As you can see, experiencing a pleasant x state is the same thing as experiencing goodness.
The higher level of goodness one experiences, the better of an experience he's having, which means the better of an existence he's living. So, the best (greatest good) existence one can live would be an existence where one is experiencing the best bliss (pleasant x states that are the most profound and intense in the world). But, the best bliss can only be achieved through powerful drug trips or near death experience induced trips. The same thing applies to the worst suffering (the most profound and intense unpleasant x states in the world).
One might wish to experience the worst suffering. But, according to my philosophy, experiencing badness (unpleasant x states) is the only bad thing in life. So, experiencing the worst suffering can never be good. Experiencing goodness is the only good thing, and I'll tell you why. The only goodness that exists is the goodness we experience. I could say the same thing about any other mental state (I'll use sound as an example).
The only sound that exists is the sound we experience because sound doesn't exist in the external world. Only sound waves do. Sound itself is a mental state, and so are colors. Anyway, back to the topic of goodness. To say that experiencing badness is good, or that helping humanity is good when we're unable to experience pleasant x states, implies there's goodness in the external world. This external goodness is called "objective goodness," which doesn't exist.
Goodness is subjective, which means it only exists in our minds. In other words, people, places, and things only become good when they pleasantly matter to us (when they're experienced as good), and they only become bad when they unpleasantly matter to us. But, if nothing matters to us (neither pleases nor displeases us), nothing matters in our minds, which means nothing's good or bad.
Now, since goodness only exists in our minds, it would be better if someone lived his entire life in a blissful, vegetative state, unable to do anything for himself or humanity, than to be a non-vegetable, experience much badness, and help humanity. Experiencing goodness can be metaphorically described as experiencing the light of god or the inner light. Without the inner light, it's no way to live.
Our lives/mental universes would either be filled with darkness (badness) or devoid of goodness and badness. So, even though that blissful vegetable is unable to achieve anything in life or help humanity, he has the inner light (the bliss), which means his existence isn't some wasted life that's no way to live. His existence is good. To say his existence is objectively bad and his bliss is neither good nor bad would be to focus on his vegetative existence and dismiss his bliss.
Also, to say that a chronically unhappy person lived an objectively good existence because he helped humanity, and that his unhappiness is neither good nor bad, would be to focus on his helpful deeds and dismiss his bad experiences (his unhappiness). I disagree with and strongly oppose any philosophy that dismisses one's experience. That includes philosophies that say pleasant x states can be bad and unpleasant ones can be good.
If anyone tries to convert me to such a philosophy, it wont work. It would be like trying to convert anyone to a worldview he disagrees with (such as trying to convert an atheist to Christianity). No amount of hardship and unhappiness will convert me either. I've struggled with years of chronic unhappiness as a result of chronic worries, and this struggle hasn't converted me. It has only strengthened my need for the inner light.
Also, I had no choice but to be worried and unhappy because worry and unhappiness are emotional states, and emotions don't listen to reason. For example, reasoning with a phobia doesn't work. I've reasoned with my worries and unhappiness by telling myself it's pointless to be worried about things that might or might not happen, and I also told myself that, since I need the inner light, to stop being worried and unhappy.
But, that didn't help at all, which means I had to wait for these unpleasant emotions to fade away on their own over time until my pleasant emotions (pleasant x states/the inner light) returned. While I was waiting, people told me to stop selfishly focusing on the inner light and just move on with my life. But, I disagree with their philosophies that dismiss my need for the inner light as childishly selfish and trivial. There are many unhappy people who need it as well.
Some of these people have very few or no moments of it and might require electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) to alleviate their unhappiness and fully restore their inner light. Since the inner light is the only good thing, I wonder why we're here on Earth, where there's much inevitable unhappiness and the inner light is fleeting. Why aren't we in heaven, where we get to experience the best, everlasting bliss? That's, of course, providing heaven even exists.
I don't know if god and the afterlife exist or not. But, if they do exist, then why did god send us here to Earth, instead of having us remain in heaven? Perhaps it's because god has a different philosophy than mine. But, he must understand that my philosophy will never change. My philosophy is very incompatible with this Earthly existence. So, why doesn't god just send my soul to heaven right now? With that being said, I'm now going to discuss more things regarding my philosophy.
All x states are emotional states and vice versa, and all emotions are forms of pleasure or displeasure. Without emotional pleasure and displeasure, emotions can't exist. Now, there are emotionless people because there are mental illnesses and forms of brain damage that disable emotions. If an emotionless person had the mindset that something mattered to him, then that mindset alone couldn't make it matter to him because emotions are the only x states.
Also, if an insomniac person had the mindset of being sleepy, then that mindset alone couldn't make him sleepy. As you can see, our mindset alone can't be a state of sleepiness, hunger, thirst, nausea, or an x state. But, if nothing can matter to emotionless people, then how are they able to perform tasks? Doesn't their performance imply these tasks mattered to them? Well, nothing can matter to robots.
In other words, they can't care about anyone or anything because they're apathetic machines that can't fear, love, hate, be sad or happy, etc. Yet, they still perform tasks. So, emotionless people who perform tasks are like robots. Being emotionless does have an advantage, though, which would be that you don't have to experience badness.
Since neutrality (neither goodness nor badness) is better than badness, it's better to experience neutrality than badness, which means it's better to be emotionless or unconscious than to be emotionally displeased/bothered by things. The higher level of badness you're experiencing, the better it is to be emotionless or unconscious. Even though I could've rendered myself unconscious by killing myself, I chose not to.
I chose to endure all my unpleasant emotions because I knew that my suffering was gradually fading and my inner light was returning over time. But, while I was suffering greatly, not only was my inner light absent, but I had no emotional drive to pursue my dream of composing music, which means pursuing it couldn't matter to me. So, I gave up on it until my drive returned.
As for anyone who thinks I should've pursued it, here's a quote by Hume (a famous philosopher): "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions." This quote means that reason alone is hollow (can't be an x state). So, according to this quote, a person might as well give up on pursuing his goals if he has no emotional drive to pursue them. With that being said, I'm now going to discuss a few more things regarding my philosophy, and then I'll finally conclude this document.
My philosophy is based upon my personal experience. I realize others have different philosophies based upon their personal experiences. But, I have my personal experience to go by and others have theirs. For me, my pleasant emotions have always been the only good things in my life (the only experiences of goodness), and my unpleasant emotions the only bad things. That's been my personal experience.
Until reason alone allows me to experience goodness and badness, my philosophy will never change to one that advocates reason alone as a source of goodness and badness in one's life. But, I don't think reason alone can, and I'll tell you why. First of all, perceiving goodness or badness is the same thing as experiencing it. Reason alone allows us to perceive/experience the 1st version of good and bad that I explained in the note to reader at the beginning of this document.
But, it can't allow us to perceive the 2nd version, and neither can it allow a blind person to perceive (see) colors. A blind person has no colors in his life/mental universe, and an emotionless person has no goodness or badness in his life. If a blind person was next to a stop sign, and he had the mindset that it was red, then he'd just be perceiving the idea of it being red, but wouldn't be able to perceive it as red.
If an emotionless person had the mindset that the stop sign was good, he'd just be perceiving the idea of it being good, but wouldn't be able to perceive it as good. As I said before, pleasant emotions are the only perceptions of goodness, and unpleasant ones are the only perceptions of badness (I'm referring to the 2nd version of goodness and badness, by the way).
Until reason alone can make anyone or anything matter to me (perceived as good or bad), I'll only have my fleeting, pleasant emotions as a source of goodness. With that being said, I'm going to conclude this document by saying that I think I'll always disagree with any philosophy that opposes mine. So, I think I'll have this philosophy my entire life. I don't think it would change in a million years (if it was possible for me to live that long).
Also, my philosophy is a form of hedonism, which advocates experiencing pleasant emotions and not unpleasant ones. Some people want to avoid pleasure, though, because they claim it's unpleasant for them. But, pleasure is what it is (pleasant). It can never be unpleasant. But, it's possible for one to derive displeasure from his pleasure, and it would be the displeasure that's unpleasant.
While I'm on the topic of pleasure and displeasure, the only time I'm displeased would be when I'm worried. So, in my non-worried state, I'm always pleased, which means I never get frustrated or miserable, which makes me fortunate. But, what if I ever become unhappy again, or if I develop a mental illness that disables my pleasant emotions? Well then, I'd just have to find ways to restore my inner light and eliminate the inner darkness.