• TranscendedRealms

    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 in life.

    So, 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 31 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 he disagrees with it. I'll say one more thing before I begin explaining my philosophy. In this document, I just give an explanation of my philosophy. But, I've actually addressed plenty of questions, responses, and objections other people have in regards to my philosophy in another document (which is a very long document), and I give support for my philosophy in that document. 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.

    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, 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. Perceiving something as good, bad, beautiful, etc. is the same thing as seeing said thing as good, bad, beautiful, etc. So, 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. 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 (moods) 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, 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 (which are emotional states). 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. Feeling good is the only good thing in life, since perceptions of good are the only good things, feeling bad is the only bad thing in life, feeling horror is the only horrific thing in life, etc. Also, 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). Without our ability to feel emotions, then 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 because having the mindset alone of caring about people and things won't allow us to care about them, just as how our mindset alone of being sleepy, hungry, thirsty, emotional, mentally fatigue, etc. won't allow us to be sleepy, hungry, etc. A person needs to feel sleepy to be sleepy, he needs to feel hungry to be hungry, etc. So, a person without his ability to feel emotions can't make himself care about people and things through his mindset alone of caring about them, just as how a person with insomnia can't make himself sleepy through his mindset alone of being sleepy. 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 being apathetic during moments where I was unable to feel emotions. Also, if you want an example of how love, hate, anger, sadness, 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. 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 (pleasant emotions), which would be feelings of goodness, beauty, etc. We should avoid the negative emotions (unpleasant 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 horrible feelings that made my existence 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 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. 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, 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 feelings of profound goodness (perceptions of profound goodness), then that would be even better because having intense, profound goodness is better than just having intense goodness. That would create an intensely and 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 profound, intense, good feelings are better.

    In conclusion, 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, beauty, horror, 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. 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 make us loving, hateful, sad, etc. individuals. But, our thoughts and beliefs alone can't give us any good, bad, loving, hateful, etc. perception/experience. So, our thoughts and beliefs alone wouldn't be good, bad, love, hate, etc. 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, hate, etc. for me. Love, hate, etc. don't exist in the external world, just as how good, bad, etc. don't. It's what's on the inside that counts, and I think that good, bad, love, hate, etc. 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 pain, pleasure, hunger, thirst, 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.

    My Philosophy Advocates Both Moral Objectivism And Subjectivism

    Some people say morality is objective, while others say it's subjective, and that's a heated debate. But, my philosophy says it's 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, and there are people who are in denial of objective truths. 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, bad, etc., and feelings of goodness, badness, etc. are objectively good, bad, etc. 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. Lastly, not only are emotions the absolute good, bad, love, hate, etc., but they're the only good, bad, love, hate, etc.

    Side Note: 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 or horrific goodness, and there can't be feelings of beautiful or magnificent badness.

    But, there can be mixed emotions, where there's a tragic or horrific feeling that's mixed in with a good feeling, or a beautiful 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 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 beautiful and 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 disgusting and bad, then that thought could make him feel disgusting badness, which would make him perceive that thing as disgustingly bad.
  • Outlander
    Fan of subjectivism, basically. A kind of moral solipsism, if you will.

    I think contentness is a far more realistic goal in life than bliss, especially if you mean often or constant. Everything gets tiresome and vacuous after some time. Going by your premise, if you let it that is.

    As to the metaphysics of suffering and why it's "allowed", well if you ask around here you'll get a familiar answer. Things just happen because they can. Which is not perfectly opposed to my own. A world without the possibility of suffering or misfortune is a world without risk which begets a world without passion, purpose, or excitement. Long story short you'd get sick of it. Which admittedly seems rather unlikely if one has been through much hardship. But you would. We suffer because we have the freedom and ability to make another suffer if we choose. It's whether we allow the suffering we experience brought on by another to infect us and allow it to spread like a cancer toward others out of anger, spite, or even simple indifference. This is what I believe a rational definition of "evil" could be defined as.
  • unenlightened
    You may like subjectivism, but I think it's crap.

    Unfortunately, subjectivism can accommodate my disagreement along with any argument I might make. So I wonder why it is even a subject for discussion, except that you are waiting for Mummy to smack your bottom and send you to bed. Consider it done.
  • 3017amen
    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.TranscendedRealms

    Interesting. Consider how one perceives ugliness, and what intrinsic value that might have. Some are motivated by ugliness by creating beauty. In principle, if one were to be in a world that only mirrored beauty, how would we then perceive that beauty? As self-aware Beings, we are hard wired to better ourselves, which in turn, could cause us to seek even more beautiful things because the once beautiful things are now no longer as beautiful as they once were.

    I think having this sense of nirvana, would not be possible due to self-awareness and our homeostasis of striving. Nirvana: a transcendent state in which there is neither suffering, desire, nor sense of self, and the subject is released from the effects of karma and the cycle of death and rebirth. It represents the final goal of Buddhism.

    Perhaps being indifferent to ugliness would be our sense of nirvana. It would just become a means to an end. Much like rain is a means to the beauty in nature.
  • TranscendedRealms

    In regards to the Buddhist notion of "non-self," if we should treat our own selves as though they don't exist, then that means we should treat other selves as though they don't exist. In other words, we should treat others as though they don't exist, which means we shouldn't even address them or care if they suffer. But, the very fact Buddhists address others and show such love and compassion towards suffering people contradicts their notion of "non-self."
  • 3017amen

    In principle, if Nirvana means that everyone's sense of self is transcended, I think that would solve the problem for you, yes?

    So the theory would be, what does it look like where there is a place of transcendence ( i.e. a place or sense of timelessness, beyond the ordinary range of perception... )? That might potentially work with your theory of interminable beauty, goodness, etc... .
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.