My philosophy of good, bad, and emotions (rewritten)

[Mindwave]

Note to Reader: The previously written version of my philosophy was poorly presented and explained. This new version should be very clear to readers, is a bit shorter, and explains things in an entirely different way to convey the message that the previous version failed to convey. When you read this new version, before asking me any questions or objecting to it, read all if it because it addresses questions and objections. 

If you're unwilling to read all of it today, then perhaps you'd be willing to read some of it each day until you've read it all. But, if you're only willing to read some today and no more in the future, then just read what you're willing to read, starting from the beginning. Lastly, if this new version doesn't address a specific question or objection you have, then I'll address it. 

My Philosophy of Good, Bad, and Emotions (Rewritten)

Without our emotions (amazement, fear, pride, misery, rage, disgust, etc.), nothing can matter to us, which means we can't care about anyone or anything. Why? I'll explain. When a person, place, or thing matters to an individual, that's a state of mind, which I call an "x state." 

For example, amazement (an emotional state) is an x state because an individual being amazed by something means said thing matters to him/her. X states are always emotional states and vice versa, which means x states that some people consider to be non-emotional states (thoughts alone), such as the casual desire to place an object on the table, or disliking a certain person, are, in fact, emotional states.

Since x states are always emotional states, that means, if an emotionless person has the mindset of being amazed or frightened by something, then that mindset can't make him amazed or frightened. He'd require some type of treatment (such as medication) that would restore his x states, including his amazement and fear. It would be like an insomniac having the mindset of being sleepy. 

That mindset can't make him sleepy. He'd require sleep medication to restore his sleepiness, so he can be sleepy. As you can see, our mindset alone can't be an x state, sleepiness, nausea, hunger, thirst, pain, pleasure, etc. Even Hume (a famous philosopher) says reason (our mindset) alone can't be an x state because he says: "Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions." 

But, even though nothing can matter to emotionless people, they can still perform tasks, and it would be like how a robot (an apathetic machine) can perform tasks. Also, emotionless people can't perceive anything as mattering (as having any level of importance/significance). That's because that perception is an emotional state that an emotionless person's mindset can't give him. 

It would be like how red and green are perceptions (colors) that a blind person's mindset can't give him. So, emotionless people can perceive things as good, bad, or necessary, but not as mattering. Now, since emotions are perceptions of people, places, and things as mattering, the question is: 

"Which emotions are perceptions of them as good (as mattering), and which emotions are perceptions of them as bad (as mattering)?" Well, first of all, let me explain a few things that'll lead up to the answer to that question. Emotions are always pleasant or unpleasant, which means they're always states of pleasure or displeasure (states of wanting, liking, or disliking). 

For example, disgust, anger, grief, being horrified, being disturbed, and misery are states of disliking (unpleasant emotions), excitement and valuing a prize are wanting or liking (pleasant emotions), and amazement, enjoyment, happiness, sexual attraction, and pride are liking (pleasant emotions). Also, emotions can be shallow or profound and intense or not intense. 

For example, being there for your family might profoundly and intensely matter to you (matter much to you), and buying a certain fancy item might shallowly and not intensely matter to you (matter little to you). Pleasant emotions that are more profound and more intense always make people, places, and things better (more good) in our eyes. 

For example, the more profoundly and intensely someone likes a movie or work of art, the better he likes it, which means the better/more good (more mattering) it becomes in his eyes. Pleasant emotions that are more shallow and less intense always make people, places, and things less good (less mattering) in our eyes. 

So, if someone liked a certain hobby, but his liking was shallow and not intense, and his liking became less good (more shallow and lower in intensity) or better (less shallow and higher in intensity), that would make said hobby less good or better (more good) in his eyes. 

Now, what I've just said regarding pleasant emotions also applies to unpleasant emotions. For example, the more profoundly and intensely someone is devastated by the loss of a loved one, the worse (more bad) that loss becomes for him. 

The more shallow and less intense an unpleasant emotion is, the less bad (less mattering) something becomes in one's eyes. As you can see, pleasant emotions are always perceptions of people, places, and things as good (as mattering), and unpleasant emotions are always perceptions of them as bad (as mattering). 

Now, what if something (a certain product, for example) couldn't emotionally please someone and it emotionally displeases him because it causes health problems, but he judges it as good (as mattering) because it accomplishes a certain task? Well, there are 2 things occurring simultaneously. 

The 1st thing is his unpleasant emotion, which is making that product bad (matter) in his eyes. The 2nd thing is his judgment, which is making that product good (not matter) in his eyes. His judgment can't make the product good (matter) in his eyes because only pleasant emotions make things perceived as good (as mattering).

As I said earlier, our thoughts, such as our mindsets and judgments alone, are always apathetic states, which means they can never allow us perceive anything as good or bad (as mattering). Sure, our thoughts can elicit certain emotions (providing our emotions aren't disabled by a mental illness, brain damage, emotionally numbing drugs, etc.). 

But, our thoughts alone can't be an x state. How we perceive people, places, and things is the same thing as how we experience them, and our thoughts alone can't give us a good or bad (mattering) perception/experience (they can't be an x state), which means we'd be having a hollow experience if we were emotionless.

But, it's always better for us to be emotionless (neither emotionally pleased nor emotionally displeased, aka "apathetic or dead") than to live a life of much emotional displeasure (much bad [mattering] perceptions/experiences)." Why? I'll answer this question soon. But, for now, I'm going to explain some things that'll lead up to the answer. 

Goodness (importance) is a perception (a pleasant emotion), and it's good (important/matters) for us, just as how red is a perception (a color), and it's red for us. In other words, perceiving a person, place, or thing as good (as mattering) is good (matters) for us, just as how perceiving an object as red (seeing a red object) is red for us. 

As for unpleasant emotions, they're bad (matter) for us, and the color green applies to them, just as how red applies to pleasant emotions. So, unpleasant emotions that are the most profound and intense in the world would be the worst/greatest bad (most important) things for us, and they can be called "the worst unhappiness." The opposite (the best bliss) would be the best/greatest good (most important) for us. 

Some people say there are instances where pleasant emotions, such as the best bliss, would be bad (matter) for us. But, to say so would be like saying there are instances where red would be green for us. Red can change to green, and a pleasant emotion can change to an unpleasant emotion because a person can be emotionally pleased about something one moment, and emotionally displeased about it the next moment. 

But, pleasant emotions themselves can never be bad (matter) for us, even if they result in self harm, and unpleasant emotions themselves can never be good (matter) for us, even if they promote our survival. Being emotionless can never be good or bad (matter) for us. So, being emotionless is always neutral (doesn't matter) for us. 

Neutrality is in between the best and the worst. It would be like how 0 is in between 100 and -100. Also, being at any positive number is always better than being at 0. In other words, having any level of emotional pleasure is always better for us than being emotionless. 

The goal is to not only be at the highest level possible (to be emotionally pleased as profoundly and intensely as possible), but for said emotional pleasure to last as long as possible throughout our lifetime because that means we'd be as close to 100 (the best bliss/greatest good) as possible, and as often as possible, which would be much better than constantly being at 0. 

But, being at 0 is always better than being at any negative number. In other words, being emotionless is always better for us than having any level of emotional displeasure. So, if someone's struggling with much emotional displeasure, then he's better off emotionless (apathetic or dead) than living like that. 

The more profound and intense his emotional displeasure is, the better off he's emotionless. But, even though my philosophy says it's better for him to be apathetic or dead, my philosophy doesn't say he has to kill himself. He can live to find treatments that would alleviate his emotional displeasure and restore his pleasant emotions. 

I, myself, searched for treatments because, unfortunately, I had much ongoing, emotional suffering (emotional displeasure) throughout my lifetime, which was caused by ongoing, severe troubles/worries (which are also unpleasant emotions). I couldn't reason or will away any of my unpleasant emotions, even though I tried very hard to. 

That's because emotions don't listen to reason and can't be willed away. For example, a phobia is an emotional state (fear), and a person can neither will or reason away any phobia he has. So, I had to find treatments that, unfortunately, didn't seem effective, and I had to wait for my unpleasant emotions to resolve (fade away) on their own over time.

While I was waiting for my unpleasant emotions to vanish, I was absent of pleasant emotions, such as the passion (emotional drive) to pursue my dream of composing music, and the enjoyment of composing, which means composing couldn't be good (matter) in my eyes. That's why I gave up composing. Also, nothing could be beautiful, awesome, or magnificent, aka "good" (matter) in my eyes.

So, instead of having good (mattering) perceptions/experiences, I constantly had very bad (very mattering) ones that have lasted for 16 years. All this emotional suffering was pointless because it's better to be dead than to have it. What's necessary is the best, everlasting bliss. So, if heaven (the afterlife) exists, then everyone should be there, experiencing the best bliss for eternity. 

We shouldn't be here on Earth, where there's much emotional displeasure we can't reason or will away. But, some people would say emotional displeasure is necessary. If it is, then only a tiny amount would be necessary, which means my years of emotional displeasure were unnecessary.

Now that I've discussed my emotional suffering and why I think it was unnecessary, I wish to say one last thing about it. Based upon my personal struggles/emotional suffering that disabled my pleasant emotions (rendered them absent), I've developed a philosophy (the one I'm already explaining in this document). 

Some people would object to my philosophy and, as I said, I'll address said objections if this document doesn't address them. Also, my philosophy is based upon my personal experience, as well as supportive arguments (which I've presented earlier throughout this document). 

I think anyone who has a different philosophy than mine is delusional, even if his/her philosophy is based upon his/her personal experience and supportive arguments. Some people think I'm the delusional one and they'd try to change my philosophy. But, until I have some type of personal, transformative experience that changes my philosophy, it will never change. 

To be honest, I don't think my philosophy will ever change, even if I tried my hardest to change it. I don't think it would change in a million years (if, let's pretend, I could live that long). If anyone objects to my philosophy in an attempt to convert me to a different philosophy, then such an attempt would be futile. I'd just address said objections, instead of being converted by them. 

It would be like a situation where someone with a certain worldview is trying to convert someone else (for example, a Christian trying to convert an atheist and vice versa). It's just not going to work. But, we're free to discuss and debate our worldviews (my philosophy, for example). Such a discussion and debate would yield much insight.

[Minimalist]

DO, 1/3T.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

To be honest, I don't think my philosophy will ever change, even if I tried my hardest to change it. I don't think it would change in a million years (if, let's pretend, I could live that long). If anyone objects to my philosophy in an attempt to convert me to a different philosophy, then such an attempt would be futile. I'd just address said objections, instead of being converted by them.

Given the above, I wonder why you decided to post this on a discussion board, rather than just blogging about it. Seems a waste of time and effort to present such a long winded premise here, only to only reject any discussion of it.

[airportkid]

You left out the reason why anyone should care what your opinion is.  That's important and should be said up front, in just a few words.  Otherwise it's just one more undifferentiated opinion among many and there's no reason to invest significant time poring over a massive pile of sentences that don't even look organized.

[Mindwave]

To be honest, I don't think my philosophy will ever change, even if I tried my hardest to change it. I don't think it would change in a million years (if, let's pretend, I could live that long). If anyone objects to my philosophy in an attempt to convert me to a different philosophy, then such an attempt would be futile. I'd just address said objections, instead of being converted by them.

Given the above, I wonder why you decided to post this on a discussion board, rather than just blogging about it. Seems a waste of time and effort to present such a long winded premise here, only to only reject any discussion of it.

It's often the case that discussions don't result in people being converted. But, that doesn't mean said discussions are pointless. Otherwise, this discussion board would be mostly pointless, given that most people aren't converted by the objections of others.

The goal of a discussion is to acquire insight. For example, even though debates between Christians and atheists oftentimes don't result in Christians or atheists being converted, these debates do yield much insight.

You left out the reason why anyone should care what your opinion is.  That's important and should be said up front, in just a few words.  Otherwise it's just one more undifferentiated opinion among many and there's no reason to invest significant time poring over a massive pile of sentences that don't even look organized.

It never occurred to me that I had to do so. I thought having a philosophical discussion was about sharing our personal views. That's why I thought others would care about my views. Also, how is my written material unorganized? It's not a series of random ideas being presented. It flows from one idea to the next.

[Alan V]

I think anyone who has a different philosophy than mine is delusional, even if his/her philosophy is based upon his/her personal experience and supportive arguments. Some people think I'm the delusional one and they'd try to change my philosophy. But, until I have some type of powerful, transformative experience that changes my philosophy, it will never change. 

I'm not sure I would call what you have presented a philosophy so much as your personal interpretation of emotions.  Personally, I think you over-emphasize the role emotions play in our mental makeup. That's why you think you have to have an emotional experience to change your perspectives.

People are motivated by instincts (including various desires), emotions, and thoughts, not just by emotions alone.  We are evolutionary kluges, with one function piled on top of another, but in humans these all work together and not separately.  Emotions are just as much subject to instincts and thoughts as the reverse.

Also, you forgot to incorporate into your picture how habituation changes our emotional reactions over time without changing our acquired habits.  Habituation allows thoughts to have a much more important role in our motivations than you have addressed.

You also take no account of individual differences. So you are more than likely just describing yourself.

[Mindwave]

I think anyone who has a different philosophy than mine is delusional, even if his/her philosophy is based upon his/her personal experience and supportive arguments. Some people think I'm the delusional one and they'd try to change my philosophy. But, until I have some type of powerful, transformative experience that changes my philosophy, it will never change. 

I'm not sure I would call what you have presented a philosophy so much as your personal interpretation of emotions.  Personally, I think you over-emphasize the role emotions play in our mental makeup.  That's why you think you have to have an emotional experience to change your perspectives.

People are motivated by instincts (including various desires), emotions, and thoughts, not just by emotions alone.  We are evolutionary kluges, with one function piled on top of another, but in humans these all work together and not separately.  Emotions are just as much subject to instincts and thoughts as the reverse.

Also, you forgot to incorporate into your picture how habituation changes our emotional reactions over time without changing our acquired habits.  Habituation allows thoughts to have a much more important role in our motivations than you have addressed.

You also take no account of individual differences.  So you are more than likely just describing yourself.

I never said it had to be an emotional experience that changes my philosophy. Also, as for habituation, here's an example that shows our thoughts alone can't be an x state (can't be a state where a person, place, or thing matter to us):

If someone had a phobia of spiders, and he completely eliminated his phobia through exposure therapy, then he'd no longer be afraid of them because his fear (his emotion/x state) has vanished. If spiders were then presented to him, crawled on him, and he was asked to try to be afraid of them through his mindset alone, given that his emotional fear of them is permanently gone, then he'd say: 

"I'm trying to be afraid of them. But, I can't, no matter how hard I try to." As you can see, this example shows that, since our mindset alone can't be one particular x state (fear), then it can't be any x state. So, our emotions are the only x states, which means only our emotions make people, places, and things matter to us.

[pattylt]

Is there a TL: DR version?

In speaking of emotions (versus rationality) I enjoy the rider and the elephant. Easy to understand and much less words.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

The goal of a discussion is to acquire insight. For example, even though debates between Christians and atheists oftentimes don't result in Christians or atheists being converted, these debates do yield much insight.

If you're mind is closed, you won't gain much insight, but you do you.

[Astreja]

I see a huge problem with attempting to manipulate emotions: They're an evolved trait tied into the brain's rapid-response systems. When our emotions have been tampered with, there's a distinct possibility that we will "read" a situation incorrectly, which in some extreme cases could literally be fatal.

The idea of 100% bliss definitely doesn't appeal to me. I prefer variety. I like to have the ability to be sad in response to sad things. Chemical or psychological aids are useful against episodes of severe depression and anxiety, but I wouldn't want to be dependent upon them for my entire life.

[Inkubus]

Note to Reader: The previously written version of my philosophy was poorly presented and explained. This new version should be very clear to readers, is a bit shorter, and explains things in an entirely different way to convey the message that the previous version failed to convey. When you read this new version, before asking me any questions or objecting to it, read all if it because it addresses questions and objections...

Beautifully done. This is some fine satire.

[Alan V]

I never said it had to be an emotional experience that changes my philosophy. 

This is what you wrote which I interpreted as you saying exactly that:

But, until I have some type of powerful, transformative experience that changes my philosophy, it will never change. 

People change their perspectives all the time with bits of information which do not impact them as "powerful, transformative experiences."  This learning process allows us to react to the same kinds of situations differently over time.  So our intellects inform our emotional experiences much more than you let on, although I do account for individual variations and you may be an extreme of a certain type.

You need to sample a much wider group of people (than just yourself) to offer such sweeping generalizations.  I think you should read more about the scientific studies of human emotions and variations in different individual's psychology before you try to reach such conclusions.

[rocinantexyz]

...amazement (an emotional state) is an x state because an individual being amazed by something means said thing matters to him/her. X states are always emotional states and vice versa, which means x states that some people consider to be non-emotional states (thoughts alone), such as the casual desire to place an object on the table, or disliking a certain person, are, in fact, emotional states.

Since x states are always emotional states, that means, if an emotionless person has the mindset of being amazed or frightened by something, then...

• 1P...Amazement...is an x state...
  
• 2P...X states are always emotional states...
  
• 3P...[Emotional states are always X states]vice versa...
  
• 1C...If an emotionless person has the mindset of being amazed...; then [Y].
  

1C is a tautology since the antecedent is false/impossible. That was established in 1P, 2P, and 3P that: being amazed was an x state, and that all x states are emotional states. An emotionless person with an x state (emotional state) sounds like a contradiction to me.

[brewerb]

Read it all, not impressed. To me it comes across as simple minded (ie there are poor analogies), not well thought out even though I have no doubt you think that it is well thought through. I'm, with @Alan V , you need more education and experience regarding matters involving the human mind, emotions and behaviors.

I offer my sympathies regarding your past emotional state (maybe current also, I'm not convinced that you're content). I'll ad, keep working on your philosophy and improving your mental state. Something that is unchanging leaves no room for growth.

[Mindwave]

...amazement (an emotional state) is an x state because an individual being amazed by something means said thing matters to him/her. X states are always emotional states and vice versa, which means x states that some people consider to be non-emotional states (thoughts alone), such as the casual desire to place an object on the table, or disliking a certain person, are, in fact, emotional states.

Since x states are always emotional states, that means, if an emotionless person has the mindset of being amazed or frightened by something, then...

• 1P...Amazement...is an x state...
  
• 2P...X states are always emotional states...
  
• 3P...[Emotional states are always X states]vice versa...
  
• 1C...If an emotionless person has the mindset of being amazed...; then [Y].
  

1C is a tautology since the antecedent is false/impossible. That was established in 1P, 2P, and 3P that: being amazed was an x state, and that all x states are emotional states. An emotionless person with an x state (emotional state) sounds like a contradiction to me.

I never said an emotionless person's mindset can be an emotional state (amazement, for example). I said emotionless people can have the mindset of being amazed (which means they can have the mindset that they're amazed). But, said mindset can't be amazement, just as how an insomniac's mindset of being sleepy can't be sleepiness.

[rocinantexyz]

I never said an emotionless person's mindset can be an emotional state (amazement, for example).

Yes, you inserted an extra link in the chain: you said amazement was an "x state", and you told us that all "x states" are emotional states.

I'm sure you can clean that up without making fundamental changes. You should make such writings exceeding clear, not exceedingly murky.

[airportkid]

... you need more education and experience regarding matters involving the human mind, emotions and behaviors ...

Among many excellent authors in these subjects is Steven Pinker, who has also given several TED talks you can look up.

Google and the internet in general is a very good place to look up whether someone has already had the same particular insight you've reached, or something close to it, and provide additional depth.

[Mindwave]

I never said it had to be an emotional experience that changes my philosophy. 

This is what you wrote which I interpreted as you saying exactly that:

But, until I have some type of powerful, transformative experience that changes my philosophy, it will never change. 

People change their perspectives all the time with bits of information which do not impact them as "powerful, transformative experiences."  This learning process allows us to react to the same kinds of situations differently over time.  So our intellects inform our emotional experiences much more than you let on, although I do account for individual variations and you may be an extreme of a certain type.

You need to sample a much wider group of people (than just yourself) to offer such sweeping generalizations.  I think you should read more about the scientific studies of human emotions and variations in different individual's psychology before you try to reach such conclusions.

Just so you know, a powerful experience doesn't always mean an emotional one. For example, an emotionless person can have a life altering (powerful) experience that transforms him. Also, even if my philosophy changes through educating myself, my emotions might still remain the only x states for me, which means my thoughts alone might never be perceptions of people, places, and things as mattering.

Read it all, not impressed. To me it comes across as simple minded (ie there are poor analogies), not well thought out even though I have no doubt you think that it is well thought through. I'm, with @Alan V , you need more education and experience regarding matters involving the human mind, emotions and behaviors.

I offer my sympathies regarding your past emotional state (maybe current also, I'm not convinced that you're content). I'll ad, keep working on your philosophy and improving your mental state. Something that is unchanging leaves no room for growth.

I am currently having a small degree of unpleasant emotions because I'm still in the process of recovering from this recent emotional crisis. As for my philosophy changing someday, my response to Alan V in this post applies here, which is that my emotions might still remain the only x states for me.

[Paleophyte]

Without our emotions (amazement, fear, pride, misery, rage, disgust, etc.), nothing can matter to us, which means we can't care about anyone or anything.

Do you have any basis for this? A doctorate in psychology and extensive research on emotionless subjects?

Assume that you have a totally unemotional subject facing impending death. Explain why their rational concern about the end of their existence would not matter to them.

X states are always emotional states and vice versa

Then just call them emotional states rather than needlessly inventing jargon.

Goodness (importance) is a perception (a pleasant emotion), and it's good (important/matters) for us, just as how red is a perception (a color), and it's red for us. In other words, perceiving a person, place, or thing as good (as mattering) is good (matters) for us, just as how perceiving an object as red (seeing a red object) is red for us.

You appear to have the cart before the horse here. Typically, feeling good about something is the result of it being a good thing, not the other way around. That said, we're some pretty messed up and conflicted little monkeys, so don't trust those emotions. That's why we think about our ethics rather than simply doing what feels good.

To be honest, I don't think my philosophy will ever change, even if I tried my hardest to change it. I don't think it would change in a million years (if, let's pretend, I could live that long). If anyone objects to my philosophy in an attempt to convert me to a different philosophy, then such an attempt would be futile. I'd just address said objections, instead of being converted by them.

This is the textbook definition of closemindedness. I wish you a speedy recovery.

[brewerb]

I am currently having a small degree of unpleasant emotions because I'm still in the process of recovering from this recent emotional crisis. As for my philosophy changing someday, my response to Alan V in this post applies here, which is that my emotions might still remain the only x states for me.

I hope you're not offended but I'm going to ask, do you have ASD? You seem to have some of the thought patterns.

[Mindwave]

Without our emotions (amazement, fear, pride, misery, rage, disgust, etc.), nothing can matter to us, which means we can't care about anyone or anything.

Do you have any basis for this? A doctorate in psychology and extensive research on emotionless subjects?

Assume that you have a totally unemotional subject facing impending death. Explain why their rational concern about the end of their existence would not matter to them.

X states are always emotional states and vice versa

Then just call them emotional states rather than needlessly inventing jargon.

Goodness (importance) is a perception (a pleasant emotion), and it's good (important/matters) for us, just as how red is a perception (a color), and it's red for us. In other words, perceiving a person, place, or thing as good (as mattering) is good (matters) for us, just as how perceiving an object as red (seeing a red object) is red for us.

You appear to have the cart before the horse here. Typically, feeling good about something is the result of it being a good thing, not the other way around. That said, we're some pretty messed up and conflicted little monkeys, so don't trust those emotions. That's why we think about our ethics rather than simply doing what feels good.

To be honest, I don't think my philosophy will ever change, even if I tried my hardest to change it. I don't think it would change in a million years (if, let's pretend, I could live that long). If anyone objects to my philosophy in an attempt to convert me to a different philosophy, then such an attempt would be futile. I'd just address said objections, instead of being converted by them.

This is the textbook definition of closemindedness. I wish you a speedy recovery.

As for what's good or bad (what matters), according to my philosophy, people, places, and things subjectively matter, which means they only matter for those people they matter to. So, if something emotionally pleases one person and emotionally displeases another, then it would be good (matter) for one person (perceived as good [as mattering]), and be bad (matter) for another (perceived as bad [as mattering]). 

Since people, places, and things subjectively matter, according to my philosophy, that means they don't matter by themselves, which means they wouldn't matter if they didn't matter to anyone. So, air and water don't matter for our survival by themselves, even though they're necessary to live. Lastly, I don't have a doctorate in psychology or extensive research on emotionless subjects. 

I just have my personal experience and philosophical arguments to support my claims. I noticed that only my emotions make people, places, and things matter to me, and that only my pleasant emotions make them good (matter) in my eyes, and only my unpleasant emotions make them bad (matter) in my eyes. Based upon this personal experience, I've developed a philosophy (the one I've already shared).

I am currently having a small degree of unpleasant emotions because I'm still in the process of recovering from this recent emotional crisis. As for my philosophy changing someday, my response to Alan V in this post applies here, which is that my emotions might still remain the only x states for me.

I hope you're not offended but I'm going to ask, do you have ASD? You seem to have some of the thought patterns.

I do. Also, you said you've read my entire philosophy. But, just to be sure, did you also read the bit of information I forgot to include in my philosophy, which is below?:

Here's an example that shows our thoughts alone can't be an x state (can't be a state where a person, place, or thing matter to us):

If someone had a phobia of spiders, and he completely eliminated his phobia through exposure therapy, then he'd no longer be afraid of them because his fear (his emotion/x state) has vanished. If spiders were then presented to him, crawled on him, and he was asked to try to be afraid of them through his mindset alone, given that his emotional fear of them is permanently gone, then he'd say: 

"I'm trying to be afraid of them. But, I can't, no matter how hard I try to." As you can see, this example shows that, since our mindset alone can't be one particular x state (fear), then it can't be any x state. So, our emotions are the only x states, which means only our emotions make people, places, and things matter to us.

[brewerb]

I hope you're not offended but I'm going to ask, do you have ASD? You seem to have some of the thought patterns.

I do. Also, you said you've read my entire philosophy. But, just to be sure, did you also read the bit of information I forgot to include in my philosophy, which is below?:

Here's an example that shows our thoughts alone can't be an x state (can't be a state where a person, place, or thing matter to us):

If someone had a phobia of spiders, and he completely eliminated his phobia through exposure therapy, then he'd no longer be afraid of them because his fear (his emotion/x state) has vanished. If spiders were then presented to him, crawled on him, and he was asked to try to be afraid of them through his mindset alone, given that his emotional fear of them is permanently gone, then he'd say: 

"I'm trying to be afraid of them. But, I can't, no matter how hard I try to." As you can see, this example shows that, since our mindset alone can't be one particular x state (fear), then it can't be any x state. So, our emotions are the only x states, which means only our emotions make people, places, and things matter to us.

Thanks for the conformation of ASD. This allows me to understand you better..

[Mindwave]

I do. Also, you said you've read my entire philosophy. But, just to be sure, did you also read the bit of information I forgot to include in my philosophy, which is below?:

Thanks for the conformation of ASD. This allows me to understand you better..

Here's one more thing I need to share, which discusses my ignorance regarding controversial topics. I mention my philosophy at the end:

I've done hours of online research into controversial topics, such as the existence of God and the afterlife, the safeness and effectiveness of vaccines, if red meat increases risk of colon cancer and other health problems, etc. But, all I see is ongoing controversy and no answer. So, I can't find the answer to any controversial topic, which means, for example, I don't know how likely vaccines are very beneficial or very harmful. 

There are studies and claimed evidence in favor of vaccines being very beneficial or harmful. Pro vaccine and anti vaccine books on amazon present these studies and claimed evidence. But, since these books are controversial, I don't know the answer. I might know the answer to controversial topics if I continue doing research. But, I've given up on searching for the answer because of 4 reasons: 

1.) I don't have the passion for dedicating myself to searching for an answer that I might or might never find. I never had such a passion/interest and I might never have it. I only have the passion to do some hours of research and that's it. 2.) There's a lot of research I'm unable to comprehend due to my lack of intelligence and inability to comprehend a lot of things in general. 

3.) Note: What I'm going to explain will lead up to the 3rd reason being revealed: There are things we know are true. For example, we know thunder isn't caused by Thor, the flu is caused by a virus, living a lifestyle of smoking a lot, eating a lot of junk food, not getting enough sleep, etc. increases your risk of health problems, extremely high or low temperatures are life-threatening, etc.

Since we know these things are true, that's why they don't have ongoing controversy. But, what about topics that have ongoing controversy, such as the topics I've mentioned in the beginning? It could be the case nobody knows the answer and people just think they know. I don't know if that's the case or not. But, knowing it could be the case renders me giving up on searching for the answer to any controversial topic. 

4.) Note: What I'm going to explain will lead up to the 4th reason being revealed: When it comes to controversial topics, there are experts in their specific fields. For example, there are paranormal experts (those who've done years of research regarding the paranormal), and there are professional skeptics (those who've done years of research regarding the natural world and scientific materialism, which is the idea that consciousness is nothing more than brain function, aka: "Once the brain dies, the mind goes with it."). 

Since they're experts, that means they're much more intelligent than me, and some of them debate the paranormal and scientific materialism. So, in order for me to know whether the paranormal or scientific materialism is likely to be true or not (providing it can be known), then I might have to be highly intelligent like those experts. But, I might be incapable of ever achieving such intelligence. 

Knowing this possible incapability renders me giving up on searching for the answer to the controversial topic of the paranormal, as well as any other controversial topic. Not to mention, I don't have the passion for doing years of research. Now that I've discussed these 4 reasons, I'm going to continue discussing my ignorance. Since I don't know whether God exists or not, that means I'm not a theist or atheist. 

But, I'm not an agnostic either because agnostics claim nobody knows if God exists or not. Since I consider the possibility one can know if God exists or not if he/she does enough research (perhaps years of research), and the possibility that nobody can know, then I'm not an agnostic. Since I'm not a theist, atheist, or agnostic, then what am I? I'd simply call myself "ignorant." 

Christians would tell me my ignorance is inexcusable because the bible says God has given us signs that prove His existence. But, since claimed signs from God are controversial, then I don't know if they're signs or not. For example, it's controversial as to whether the planetary alignment on 9/23/2017 is the Revelation 12 sign (a sign from God), which means I don't know if it's a sign or just an alignment that Christians mistake as being the Revelation 12 sign.

Some Christians claim it's a sign and that it's a 7 year warning that points to WW3 or the rapture and the tribulation occurring this year (2024). Again, I don't know if it is or not. As you can see, any claimed evidence of God's existence won't convince me, even if it seems quite convincing. There's a lot of claimed evidence that seems quite convincing to an ignorant person, such as myself. 

But, that doesn't mean it's evidence. I don't know if any claimed evidence for anything, including claimed evidence that seems quite convincing, is evidence or not because it's controversial. So, just because something seems quite convincing doesn't mean I should be convinced of it. For example, this website (www.cross2victory.com) presents claimed signs and prophecies that make it seem quite convincing there's going to be WW3 (nuclear war) this year. 

But, there were such seemingly convincing predictions in the past of world war and worldwide catastrophies occurring on specific dates that didn't occur. So, there might be no WW3 this year or there might be. As you can see, I can't be convinced of apocalyptic claims or anything else besides facts, such as the fact that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th U.S. president, the fact we need air and water to survive, the fact that thunder isn't caused by Thor, etc. 

That's why someone who's pro or anti vaccine won't convince me that vaccines are very beneficial or harmful by presenting a numerous amount of seemingly convincing, claimed evidence to me. But, even though I don't know the safeness and effectiveness of vaccines, I still have to decide whether to get vaccinated or not. I've decided not to, based upon the fact that few people in this world are trustworthy. 

So, those who've created vaccines might be untrustworthy, which means vaccines might be very harmful (I don't know, though). Now, since I'm not convinced vaccines are beneficial or harmful, and since I'm not convinced of any other controversial topic, then what about my philosophy, which is controversial? Well, I'm not convinced of it, even though I said I was. 

The only reason why I said I was convinced of it and that I was certain it'll never change is because living by any other philosophy has never worked for me, and I wanted to say something that would let readers know that I'm closed off from other philosophies (that I reject them) because they don't work for me. For example, living by a philosophy that advocates embracing our unpleasant emotions didn't work for me during my moments of emotional displeasure. 

In other words, my life of emotional displeasure was still unacceptable, despite living by that philosophy. That's why I said I'm convinced of my philosophy and that I'm certain it'll never change. Saying so was my way of rejecting that philosophy that didn't work for me. Also, living by a philosophy that advocates reason alone didn't work for me either because it seems reason alone can't be an x state for me. 

For example, when I judged things as good (as mattering) during moments where I was emotionally displeased and absent of emotional pleasure, said judgments seemed hollow (that is, it seemed like they made nothing good [matter] in my eyes). That means these judgments were ineffective. Honestly, I don't know if any other philosophy will ever work for me because a life of emotional pleasure has always been the only life that works for me. So, I've given up on other philosophies.

[Dānu]

He's back.

[Inkubus]

1.) I don't have the passion for dedicating myself to searching for an answer that I might or might never find.

That right there is your problem.