• TranscendedRealms
    126
    Note to Reader: If this is too much material for you to read, then just read what you're willing to. When reading and responding to this, do so from the very beginning. 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. Our 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:


    The only beauty and goodness that exists is the beauty and goodness we perceive because beauty and goodness are all in the mind (a perception). That's why perceptions of beauty are the only beautiful things in life, and perceptions of good are the only good things in life. The more beauty and goodness we perceive, the more of it we're getting (experiencing). So, 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
    · Download citation
    · https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2013.82605

    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/10.1080/00455091.2013.826057?scroll=top&needAccess=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.”
  • Zophie
    176
    Revolutionary.
  • I like sushi
    4.7k
    If this is too much material for you to read, then just read what you're willing to. When reading and responding to this, do so from the very beginning. I explain why I think good, bad, beauty, horror, tragedy, etc. can only be emotions (feelings/perceptions/value judgments).TranscendedRealms

    My initial thought was, ‘What else could they be?’

    Look forward to reading this tomorrow. Sounds intirguing.
  • A Seagull
    615
    I explain why I think good, bad, beauty, horror, tragedy, etc. can only be emotionsTranscendedRealms

    Words are labels. They are not things in themselves, nor emotions. Though they can be labels for both.
  • Sam26
    2.7k
    I had nothing but negative emotions while reading your OP, so it must be bad.
  • Syamsu
    132

    1. What are the positive and negative colors?
    2. Giving up on logic makes the idea non philosophical.
  • TranscendedRealms
    126


    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. Emotion theorists claim that emotions are value judgments, since emotions tell us that certain people, moments, situations, and works of art are good, bad, beautiful, horrific, tragic, disgusting, etc. So, good, bad, beauty, horror, etc. are emotions. Happiness, sadness, love, fear, and anger are also emotions. So, feeling good is good, feeling bad is bad, a feeling of horror is horror, a feeling of sadness or happiness is sadness or happiness, etc.
  • TranscendedRealms
    126


    If you felt bad about my post, then you'd be perceiving the post as bad, which would make it bad in your eyes. If you felt that way about my post, then I'm curious as to why. Do you think it was poorly written?
  • Sam26
    2.7k
    The only thing that counts is how I feel, i.e., what emotion I feel. It's my emotions that determine what's good and bad. My emotional response is negative, therefore it is bad.
  • TranscendedRealms
    126


    My post would be bad for you if you felt bad about it. But, if another person felt good about my post, then it would be good for that person, since it would be good in his/her eyes.
  • Sam26
    2.7k
    So, if we had 5 people who had a negative emotion and 5 people who had a positive emotion, would your post be good or bad? Or, would it be both good and bad?
  • TranscendedRealms
    126


    The post, in of itself, isn't good, bad, beautiful, horrific, etc. It's just a post. But, the post becomes good for those who feel good about it, and it becomes bad for those who feel bad about it.
  • Sam26
    2.7k
    So, the good is equivalent to whether or not I have positive emotional response (rhetorical question). If a serial killer gets a positive emotional response from torturing someone, that emotion is good for him or her, i.e., he or she should continue to pursue that emotional response?
  • TranscendedRealms
    126


    Another person could feel horrible about the idea of that serial killer continuing to pursue that emotional response. So, that person would see it as a horrible deed that shouldn't be done.
  • Heiko
    519
    Good and bad are nothing more than value judgments, and value judgments are actual things. They're emotions.TranscendedRealms

    This is not exactly a necessity. The "good" has to be what can reproduce itself as the good. As such it is a predicate that names what is beneficial for the ruling class.
  • Sam26
    2.7k
    Why shouldn't it be done, i.e., it is a good emotion for the serial killer. Moreover, if everyone understood positive emotions as good, then they would have to agree that it's good for the serial killer. All positive emotions are good, therefore the serial killer is correct to pursue this positive emotion, even if some people wouldn't see it as positive.
  • TranscendedRealms
    126


    I didn't understand what you said. Could you clarify?
  • TranscendedRealms
    126


    Yes, it would be a good thing for that serial killer to pursue his positive emotion, and I don't care how dangerous and dumb my philosophy sounds because my personal experience says perceptions of goodness, badness, beauty, horror, tragedy, etc. are the only goodness, badness, etc. there is. Since emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, etc., then that means emotions are the only good, bad, etc. things in life. So, feeling good is the only good thing in life, feeling bad is the only bad thing in life, etc.
  • Heiko
    519
    I didn't understand what you said. Could you clarify?TranscendedRealms
    The direkt link to emotion maybe original. But we live in modern times. The objective meaning has to reproduce itself in a much more abstract way over different media.
    As such the "good" must indicate the vital conditions of the ruling classes.
  • Sam26
    2.7k
    At least your sticking to your argument, that takes commitment. Why are you arguing for your conclusion, since it doesn't matter what others think. Your emotional response is the only thing that matters. Unless you want the reinforcement of other positive emotional responses to your post.

    It would seem to me to be a sad thing if people just pursued those things that made them feel good.
  • Andrew4Handel
    2.5k
    Some people would say that good and bad don't refer to anything. Likewise with right and wrong.
  • I like sushi
    4.7k
    Your philosophy looks very much like a form of primitive hedonism.

    As for good and bad being nothing more than ‘emotions’ - I think investigating how you delineate between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ may be fruitful for you (as in, are some ‘emotions’ so nuanced that it’s hard to distinguish them as being either ‘good’ or ‘bad’).
  • Possibility
    2.8k
    Interesting, but I think it might be worth reading Lisa Feldman Barrett’s book “How Emotions Are Made” for the rest of the story.

    I think it makes sense that we each conceptualise reality according to a perceived valence of affect (ie. pleasant/unpleasant). But this value prediction is a reduction of potential information only, and susceptible to error in relation to actual reality. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that emotional concepts are constructed based on gradually refining our predictions through these errors, rather than assuming that emotions themselves are inherent, universal indicators of what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in reality, without question.

    One thing I will ask: how do you suppose that value judgements are ‘actual things’?
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    It would seem to me to be a sad thing if people just pursued those things that made them feel good.Sam26

    So what would guide people's behaviour if not making them feel good, doing what's right? How does it make you feel when you 'do what's right'? Most people report a pleasant, warm glow of satisfaction when they have 'done the right thing'. Most people are proud of themselves when they stick to their diet/exercise regime. Most people are pleased to consider themselves honourable for upholding the law. Are satisfied, proud and pleased not versions of 'feeling good'. I certainly can't think of giving them any negative valence.
  • Sam26
    2.7k
    So what would guide people's behaviour if not making them feel good, doing what's right?Isaac

    Sometimes doing the right thing has nothing to do with how you feel, and that's the point. It may not feel good to jump into ice cold water to save another person's life, but you do it in spite of how it makes you feel. Feeling good may be a byproduct of most good acts, but not all the time.
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    It may not feel good to jump into ice cold water to save another person's life, but you do it in spite of how it makes you feel.Sam26

    Are you suggesting that someone who just jumped into ice cold water to save another person's life mightn't feel at all good about themselves? That they might just do so robotically, because it's the right thing and remain dispassionate in the face the praise they later receive (either from others or from their own self-appraisal)?

    What examples do you have of these times when it might not ever feel good to have done the right thing?
  • unenlightened
    9.1k
    Are you suggesting that someone who just jumped into ice cold water to save another person's life mightn't feel at all good about themselves?Isaac

    I think he's suggesting they'd feel rather cold.
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    I think he's suggesting they'd feel rather cold.unenlightened

    Indeed.

    And yet 'cold' does not encompass all that is subjectively bad, nor exclude any other feeling of subjective 'goodness'. Hence the example does not demonstrate that "doing the right thing has nothing to do with how you feel".

    Hyperbolic discounting is the standard way of approaching reward. Even that tempting slice of chocolate cake on my kitchen table offers only a future reward at the immediate cost of having to get up out my armchair to get it.
  • ztaziz
    91
    Good and evil are enforced by a judge species, like God, but many, like Gods(but not the tradition).

    What is good and evil?

    It's machine nature(functioning) to a core time(pre life; consciousness) - like doing a job in a different country.

    Be wordless for fucks sake. Wordlessness is important. You can't boil answers to sentences, so think clearly, what it is going on?

    You have left a moral-less state at some point, where you had no worries, to become an actor.

    Now you're in a moral state, where you perform either at a good, bad or evil rate.

    Ask questions such as:

    1. How did I get here?
    2. How was the universe created?

    Without a judge, there can be no morality(self assessment of performance).

    If there is no judge, why be good?

    A different language is spoke by the gensier, who doesn't think in words, but rather in structure, etc. Is this big bang going to be successful, what is a measure of success?

    It would not think in a word, 'something which supports life is good' but rather, 'the big bang has to perform at a certain rate to succeed.' 'I, the gensier, work with simulation, why don't I create bad ones? What do you take me for? I do.'

    I guess, generally up higher is the thought of good because it produces more than nothing or parasite which is what evil equates to. There is no religious moral high ground, good just gets higher.

    Perhaps one day we'll all be evil...
  • unenlightened
    9.1k
    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.TranscendedRealms

    I don't feel it that way. I feel that it is an ugly situation and it would be ugly to find any beauty in either the torture or the imprisonment. And Whence this moral exhortation of how we should see things?

    And why the "nothing more" in the title? As though how one feels is unimportant.
  • unenlightened
    9.1k
    Hence the example does not demonstrate that "doing the right thing has nothing to do with how you feel".Isaac

    There is a knot here. first, I think it is useful to distinguish the imagined reward which gets one out of the chair, with the actual reward, that comes after the action.

    So the proposal is that there is some calculation in the imagination, that the pain of cold water will be outweighed by the pleasure of thinking well of oneself for one's kindness in saving another. Now I do not deny that humans are sufficiently irrational to make such a calculation, but if one is somewhat self-aware, one is liable to notice that doing something in order to feel good about oneself is not the unselfish act that one would feel good about being the author of.

    At which point the reward no longer exists; I am being unselfish for selfish reasons, therefore I am not being unselfish. This theory only explains the unselfish acts of the terminally dim. Thus it becomes a theory held by people who wish to justify their selfishness rather than understand unselfishness.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.