My philosophy of good and bad

[Cavebear]

Your post was clear and explanatory about your thoughts.  However, they don't have much in common with reality.  Your thinking is very subjective.  And subjective is not very fact-oriented.

If my philosophy was clear, then why do some people here not understand it? Also, if things do objectively matter as you claim, then that means things would matter, regardless if they mattered to us or not. That would dismiss x states as unnecessary, trivial things. But, my philosophy treats x states as important. 

So, my philosophy focuses on x states, while opposite philosophies focus on other things, such as helping humanity, regardless if helping others couldn't matter to us or if it unpleasantly mattered to us (was perceived as bad). Since my philosophy treats x states as important, it treats them as a source of goodness and badness in our lives. 

Pleasant x states are the source of goodness, and experiencing them is the way to live. Unpleasant x states are the source of badness. Experiencing them is no way to live, and it's better to be dead than to live with them. That especially applies to ones that are worse (more profound and more intense).

Your philosophy is "clear" in the sense that I understand what you are saying you believe. But that does not mean that I agree with most or even some things you believe in.

For example, you state that "Pleasant x states are the source of goodness" and that "Unpleasant x states are the source of badness". Those are not necessarily true. It depends on what a person self-defines as pleasant or unpleasant. Some people find what many of us would consider bad acts to be "pleasant" to them and vice versa.

"Goodness" and "badness" are very subjective terms. They are not the most useful of terms in discussions.

[GenesisNemesis]

It's shit.

[GenesisNemesis]

Oh yeah and you're shit too.

[Rhythmcs]

Hedonism isn't difficult to understand. I'm not sure that hedonism is the only moral system that values positive experiential states, though...which seems to be the crux of your disagreement (as a practical matter) with rational rather than emotional moral schemas. We're pretty sure they have something to do with good mental health so even in an objective system they would/could still be valued.

It seems like there are good reasons to seek out such states, and objections to such seeking often boil down to the manner in which they're produced, but not in their seeking or their fundamental attribute as described. Seeking out pleasure through heroin isn't bad because it's pleasure seeking. It's the heroin, generally, that we think brings the badness.

I personally don't think that states of pleasure are the source of moral goodness, but it's sure nice when the two overlap. Feeling good about doing a morally good thing is a bonus, but not the (or even a) moral goal. If I wanted to come up with an example of something that mattered morally, in the vicinity of how we feel - I'd be more inclined to point out the things that will make us feel like absolute shit but we are, nevertheless, compelled to do through some sense of responsibility.

[Mindwave]

If my philosophy was clear, then why do some people here not understand it? Also, if things do objectively matter as you claim, then that means things would matter, regardless if they mattered to us or not. That would dismiss x states as unnecessary, trivial things. But, my philosophy treats x states as important. 

So, my philosophy focuses on x states, while opposite philosophies focus on other things, such as helping humanity, regardless if helping others couldn't matter to us or if it unpleasantly mattered to us (was perceived as bad). Since my philosophy treats x states as important, it treats them as a source of goodness and badness in our lives. 

Pleasant x states are the source of goodness, and experiencing them is the way to live. Unpleasant x states are the source of badness. Experiencing them is no way to live, and it's better to be dead than to live with them. That especially applies to ones that are worse (more profound and more intense).

Your philosophy is "clear" in the sense that I understand what you are saying you believe.  But that does not mean that I agree with most or even some things you believe in.  

For example, you state that "Pleasant x states are the source of goodness" and that "Unpleasant x states are the source of badness".  Those are not necessarily true.  It depends on what a person self-defines as pleasant or unpleasant.  Some people find what many of us would consider bad acts to be "pleasant" to them and vice versa.

"Goodness" and "badness" are very subjective terms.  They are not the most useful of terms in discussions.

In the note to reader in my opening post, I said there are 2 versions of good and bad. X states (emotions) are perceptions of the 2nd version, while our mindset alone allows us to perceive the 1st version, but not the 2nd. That's because, as I explained in my opening post, our mindset alone can't be an x state. So, if someone liked things (was pleased by them) while having the mindset that said things were bad, then that mindset would only allow him to perceive the 1st version of badness, while his state of liking would make him perceive the 2nd version of goodness. By the way, when I say:

"Perceiving goodness or badness," I mean: "Perceiving things as good or bad." Lastly, self-defined pleasure isn't the same thing as actual pleasure. For example, if someone had a mental illness, such as clinical depression, that disabled his pleasant emotions, and he defined emotional pleasure as his mindset, then that mindset wouldn't be a state of emotional pleasure. As you can see, self-defined things aren't the real things. So, self-defined colors and sounds wouldn't be actual colors for a blind person or actual sound for a deaf person, and self-defined money wouldn't be actual money for a poor person.

Oh yeah and you're shit too.

Why do you think me and my philosophy are shit? If it's because I poorly presented and explained my philosophy, then I apologize. I'm not a professional writer, which means my philosophy isn't very clear. But, even though I don't write very well, many people like me as an individual. They don't think I'm shit because I'm polite, don't commit crimes, help my family when they need my help, etc.

[Cavebear]

Your philosophy is "clear" in the sense that I understand what you are saying you believe.  But that does not mean that I agree with most or even some things you believe in.  

For example, you state that "Pleasant x states are the source of goodness" and that "Unpleasant x states are the source of badness".  Those are not necessarily true.  It depends on what a person self-defines as pleasant or unpleasant.  Some people find what many of us would consider bad acts to be "pleasant" to them and vice versa.

"Goodness" and "badness" are very subjective terms.  They are not the most useful of terms in discussions.

In the note to reader in my opening post, I said there are 2 versions of good and bad. X states (emotions) are perceptions of the 2nd version, while our mindset alone allows us to perceive the 1st version, but not the 2nd. That's because, as I explained in my opening post, our mindset alone can't be an x state. So, if someone liked things (was pleased by them) while having the mindset that said things were bad, then that mindset would only allow him to perceive the 1st version of badness, while his state of liking would make him perceive the 2nd version of goodness. By the way, when I say:

"Perceiving goodness or badness," I mean: "Perceiving things as good or bad." Lastly, self-defined pleasure isn't the same thing as actual pleasure. For example, if someone had a mental illness, such as clinical depression, that disabled his pleasant emotions, and he defined emotional pleasure as his mindset, then that mindset wouldn't be a state of emotional pleasure. As you can see, self-defined things aren't the real things. So, self-defined colors and sounds wouldn't be actual colors for a blind person or actual sound for a deaf person, and self-defined money wouldn't be actual money for a poor person.

Oh yeah and you're shit too.

Why do you think me and my philosophy are shit? If it's because I poorly presented and explained my philosophy, then I apologize. I'm not a professional writer, which means my philosophy isn't very clear. But, even though I don't write very well, many people like me as an individual. They don't think I'm shit because I'm polite, don't commit crimes, help my family when they need my help, etc.

Well, I won't try to speak for GenesisNemesis. I seldom use such harsh language, preferring to to provide reasons more than emotional opinions (but to each their own style).

My own thought (since you quoted both of us) is that you are looking at the world trying to understand very complicated situations in an uncomplicated way. I understand the appeal of "basic rules" that apply to all situations. But that just doesn't work. There is almost no situation where "good" can't become "bad" (and vice versa) given details. Dilemmas exist for which there are no easy answers. Killing a baby is bad. But what if it saved 10 others? What if the baby was Hitler?

You mentioned "perceiving". Perception is an internal process. Your perceptions of an event may not be the same as mine. There was a staged robbery event in a public park. Direct witness disagreed on what they thought they observed. Since the event was recorded, witness-accuracy could be objectively evaluated. The errors among some of the witnesses were amazing. It really showed that our perceptions and "facts" are questionable.

Mindwave, you are expressing a limited philosophy. And you are repeating yourself. That doesn't advance your argument. If you have additional (new) thoughts to support your ideas, that would be great. That would be something more to discuss. But you seem locked into a couple of paragraphs of thoughts.

If you have nothing new to offer, I won't be bothering to reply.

[Rhythmcs]

Interestingly, the idea that good can become bad doesn't fit with subjectivism. Subjectivist good or bad is completely unassailable and immune to any change in factual circumstances for the object in question. Only objectivist goods and bads can be cogently described this way.

[Mindwave]

In the note to reader in my opening post, I said there are 2 versions of good and bad. X states (emotions) are perceptions of the 2nd version, while our mindset alone allows us to perceive the 1st version, but not the 2nd. That's because, as I explained in my opening post, our mindset alone can't be an x state. So, if someone liked things (was pleased by them) while having the mindset that said things were bad, then that mindset would only allow him to perceive the 1st version of badness, while his state of liking would make him perceive the 2nd version of goodness. By the way, when I say:

"Perceiving goodness or badness," I mean: "Perceiving things as good or bad." Lastly, self-defined pleasure isn't the same thing as actual pleasure. For example, if someone had a mental illness, such as clinical depression, that disabled his pleasant emotions, and he defined emotional pleasure as his mindset, then that mindset wouldn't be a state of emotional pleasure. As you can see, self-defined things aren't the real things. So, self-defined colors and sounds wouldn't be actual colors for a blind person or actual sound for a deaf person, and self-defined money wouldn't be actual money for a poor person.


Why do you think me and my philosophy are shit? If it's because I poorly presented and explained my philosophy, then I apologize. I'm not a professional writer, which means my philosophy isn't very clear. But, even though I don't write very well, many people like me as an individual. They don't think I'm shit because I'm polite, don't commit crimes, help my family when they need my help, etc.

Well, I won't try to speak for GenesisNemesis.  I seldom use such harsh language, preferring to to provide reasons more than emotional opinions (but to each their own style).

My own thought (since you quoted both of us) is that you are looking at the world trying to understand very complicated situations in an uncomplicated way.  I understand the appeal of "basic rules" that apply to all situations.  But that just doesn't work.  There is almost no situation where "good" can't become "bad" (and vice versa) given details.  Dilemmas exist for which there are no easy answers.  Killing a baby is bad.  But what if it saved 10 others?  What if the baby was Hitler?

You mentioned "perceiving".  Perception is an internal process.  Your perceptions of an event may not be the same as mine.  There was a staged robbery event in a public park.  Direct witness disagreed on what they thought they observed.  Since the event was recorded, witness-accuracy could be objectively evaluated.  The errors among some of the witnesses were amazing.  It really showed that our perceptions and "facts" are questionable.

Mindwave, you are expressing a limited philosophy.  And you are repeating yourself.  That doesn't advance your argument.  If you have additional (new) thoughts to support your ideas, that would be great.  That would be something more to discuss.  But you seem locked into a couple of paragraphs of thoughts.

If you have nothing new to offer, I won't be bothering to reply.

I'll just share my personal experience then, which my philosophy is based upon. There were many moments where I was worried about certain things. I couldn't reason or will these worries away because it would be like trying to reason or will away a phobia, which doesn't work. Anyway, during my worries, I experienced many unpleasant emotions that I couldn't reason or will away either. One of these emotions would be what I call a "dead state/a dead perception." If I were to express this emotion, it would look like depression. 

But, I don't think it's depression. It's a state where things are dead in my eyes. For example, this state reduces anime characters to nothing more than lifeless, animated images in my eyes. They're no longer perceived as awesome, living entities. Another example would be musical compositions that once moved and inspired me become perceived as nothing more than noise. So, even music loses its life force. As you can see, this dead, emotional state makes things in my life/mental universe dead. I had the mindset that said things were still good. 

But, that mindset didn't work because said things were still perceived as dead. Since I couldn't like them (be emotionally pleased by them), I couldn't perceive them as good. It's always been the case that I require pleasant emotions to perceive things as good (as mattering), and unpleasant emotions to perceive things as bad (as mattering). My mindset alone could never make anything matter to me (perceived as good or bad). Based upon this personal experience, that's why I have this philosophy.

[Cavebear]

Well, I won't try to speak for GenesisNemesis.  I seldom use such harsh language, preferring to to provide reasons more than emotional opinions (but to each their own style).

My own thought (since you quoted both of us) is that you are looking at the world trying to understand very complicated situations in an uncomplicated way.  I understand the appeal of "basic rules" that apply to all situations.  But that just doesn't work.  There is almost no situation where "good" can't become "bad" (and vice versa) given details.  Dilemmas exist for which there are no easy answers.  Killing a baby is bad.  But what if it saved 10 others?  What if the baby was Hitler?

You mentioned "perceiving".  Perception is an internal process.  Your perceptions of an event may not be the same as mine.  There was a staged robbery event in a public park.  Direct witness disagreed on what they thought they observed.  Since the event was recorded, witness-accuracy could be objectively evaluated.  The errors among some of the witnesses were amazing.  It really showed that our perceptions and "facts" are questionable.

Mindwave, you are expressing a limited philosophy.  And you are repeating yourself.  That doesn't advance your argument.  If you have additional (new) thoughts to support your ideas, that would be great.  That would be something more to discuss.  But you seem locked into a couple of paragraphs of thoughts.

If you have nothing new to offer, I won't be bothering to reply.

I'll just share my personal experience then, which my philosophy is based upon. There were many moments where I was worried about certain things. I couldn't reason or will these worries away because it would be like trying to reason or will away a phobia, which doesn't work. Anyway, during my worries, I experienced many unpleasant emotions that I couldn't reason or will away either. One of these emotions would be what I call a "dead state/a dead perception." If I were to express this emotion, it would look like depression. 

But, I don't think it's depression. It's a state where C. For example, this state reduces anime characters to nothing more than lifeless, animated images in my eyes. They're no longer perceived as awesome, living entities. Another example would be musical compositions that once moved and inspired me become perceived as nothing more than noise. So, even music loses its life force. As you can see, this dead, emotional state makes things in my life/mental universe dead. I had the mindset that said things were still good. 

But, that mindset didn't work because said things were still perceived as dead. Since I couldn't like them (be emotionally pleased by them), I couldn't perceive them as good. It's always been the case that I require pleasant emotions to perceive things as good (as mattering), and unpleasant emotions to perceive things as bad (as mattering). My mindset alone could never make anything matter to me (perceived as good or bad). Based upon this personal experience, that's why I have this philosophy.

Well, thank you for sharing that.  It is somewhat informative.  While I'm no professional on the subject of depression, it sure seems to me (from what you posted) like you are having some difficulties with depression.  "Causes you to experience feelings of sadness, loneliness, or a loss of interest in things you once enjoyed" seems to suggest depression.

From Healthline.com  "causes you to experience feelings of sadness, loneliness, or a loss of interest in things you once enjoyed", which you mentioned in your post.  Most  advice columnists advise "speaking to a professional, a religious leader, or a trusted friend.  In your case, a religious leader is probably the last person you want to discuss this with.  

I say that not as an atheist, but because it seems to me that much of your unhappiness is very related to religion, and all you will get from a religious leader is "more religion".  Instead, consider seeking a professional therapist for an initial few visits to help determine the very general causes of your unhappiness.  The therapist may suggest more detailed discussion with a psychotherapist.

These problems are not a fault of a person.  They are internal responses to difficult events one has experienced and is having difficulties adjusting to.  Everything about us comes from our experiences in like.  And some are negative.  Professionals can help resolve old issues that affect our minds today.  So, as a positive thing, seek some help for issues you described in your post.  You will be a happier and "more consolidated" person afterwards.

These treatments (or a combination of these treatments) can help you feel better. If you experience depression symptoms, talk to your primary care doctor or mental health professional.