Feeling good is the only good thing in life
[b]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:[/b]
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.”
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:[/b]
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.”
Comments (57)
My initial thought was, ‘What else could they be?’
Look forward to reading this tomorrow. Sounds intirguing.
Words are labels. They are not things in themselves, nor emotions. Though they can be labels for both.
1. What are the positive and negative colors?
2. Giving up on logic makes the idea non philosophical.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I didn't understand what you said. Could you clarify?
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.
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.
It would seem to me to be a sad thing if people just pursued those things that made them feel good.
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’).
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’?
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.
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.
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?
I think he's suggesting they'd feel rather cold.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Also, during my miserable struggles, I've had horrible, agonizing, miserable feelings that motivated me to get psychological help. But, suffering like that was no way to live, which means there was nothing good or beautiful about my suffering, even though it motivated me to get help. The fact is, I was having a horrible experience, which means my suffering could only be horrible, regardless of how it motivated me. Even if it motivated me to change the world by discovering cures and inventing new technology, there'd still be nothing positive about my suffering. But, for those people who've been given cures and new technology, that would be a positive experience for them, since they're able to feel positive emotions.
As for me, it couldn't be a positive thing, since I'd be miserable, and unable to feel positive emotions. When I say it couldn't be a positive thing for me, I mean it couldn't be a good, beautiful, amazing, precious, or valuable thing for me, since I'd be unable to perceive it as positive. Lastly, many people would say that good and bad are labels, and that I can define (label) good and bad how I want. From there, these people would ask me why I should live by the limiting philosophy that feeling good is the only good thing in life, and feeling bad is the only bad thing in life, given that I can define good and bad however I want.
Well, I did define good and bad as something else besides feeling good and bad. For example, I defined it as a good thing to persevere in my composing dream, despite my misery, and inability to feel good. But, that didn't work for me, which means it didn't change my life for the better. Being in that miserable state of mind was still no way to live or be a composer for me. So, that's why I have to conclude that feeling good is the only good thing in life. There's clearly no positive experience for me in the absence of my positive emotions. That's why I have this view that positive emotions are the only positive things in life.
Exactly. So long as one gives it little thought, one is fine. The moment one tries to examine one's motives one becomes tied in knots. None of which has any bearing on what actually is the case. Reality has not arranged itself conveniently to accommodate our psychological hang-ups.
Quoting unenlightened
Knowing it and acting according to it are not the same. Knowing that you're acting in such a way as to benefit yourself in the long run is not sufficient to undo decades of neural priming creating a strong desire to act in such (apparently) noble ways, nor the reward mechanism for having done so.
I know why I drink more tea than is strictly good for me, it's the effect of caffeine on my dopamine circuits. Doesn't stop me from wanting my next cuppa. Doesn't make me 'terminally dim' for not being 100% in control of my desires.
My wife knows why I buy her flowers, doesn't prevent her feeling good when I present them.
My personal experience has led me to the conclusion that feeling good is the only good thing in life. My previous post I just made explains why.
Solitaire et solidaire.
Quoting TranscendedRealms
My positive emotions say 'stick with Epicurus, Spinoza, Zapffe, ... Philippa Foot & Albert Murray'.
:death: :flower:
Again you confuse the imagined reward with the reward. When you are shivering on the bank having just rescued the damsel in distress from the icy lake, you might feel smug, until you realise how selfish you are and then you feel both selfish and foolish (and cold). How many times do you go through this before you realise that rescuing damsels from icy lakes is not worth doing?
Alternatively, it seems perfectly reasonable to suppose that one might rescue damsels from icy lakes because (one imagines) damsels in icy lakes need rescuing, and not be all that concerned whether one is going feel something or nothing. Since it is a matter of imagination that motivates, one can imagine other things than one's own pleasure. This explains why people can die for their country and stuff.
You might do, yeah. Generally, if you were to repeatedly feel that way you'd probably stop rescuing damsels from icy lakes. If your imagined (predicted) reward never shows up you learn not to repeat that behaviour. Indeed, in societies which do not punish selfishness (in the public sense), we see more selfishness. The key here is that not everyone stops to think how their bravery was ultimately motivated by a desire to feel good, so mostly this doesn't happen.
Quoting unenlightened
If you feel something needs doing, and then that something gets done, that provides a level of satisfaction, a positive feeling. What is the feeling that something 'needs' doing other than a feeling of displeasure that it isn't done.
If you're concerned about society suddenly becoming too self aware for altruism to function, then be reassured by one of the many other good feelings that result from one's icy feat of gallantry. One no longer has to experience the unpleasantness of seeing someone in distress (or of imagining it later, having walked on by). One does not have to experience the unpleasantness of ridicule or anger from one's peers at one's cowardice. Neither of these are vulnerable to evaporation in unexpected self-awareness incident.
Quoting unenlightened
Yes, but not one of them can motivate one to act.
Quoting unenlightened
How? They imagine England overrun with Nazis but don't actually have any negative feelings about that situation at all. This then somehow motivates them to risk their life?
Ok, but what are we doing here? It looks like anthropology or psychology. But the philosophy is that it is impossible to be unselfish, that it is impossible for you to buy flowers for your wife simplicitier, but it must be for some selfish reason, either a manipulation of her, or to feel smug. This is the doctrine of the rational self-interested man that has plagued philosophy for a long time, and I have yet to see the least justification, except the endless invention of secret or unconscious motives, and the bald declaration that unselfishness is impossible. It's a joyless lonely world, and I am glad I don't live there.
Why must I always please myself?
Have you considered the principle of Yin and Yang, where all things exist as inseparable and contradictory opposites, for example, female-male, dark-light, sun and rain and old-young (?). The two opposites of Yin and Yang attract and complement each other and, (as their symbol illustrates), each side has at its core an element of the other (represented by the small dots). Neither pole is superior to the other and, as an increase in one brings a corresponding decrease in the other, a correct balance between the two poles must be reached in order to achieve harmony.
So, we can't have happiness (or good feelings) without the existence of bad feelings and unhappiness. For instance, can we use 'bad feelings' to help us stay happy? (Or happy feelings to keep us feeling bad?)
I certainly agree that it's all about feelings. But my question is what value is there to have bad feelings or suffering, when we do not intend to seek or want same.
We can use bad feelings however we want. But, my view says that feeling bad can only be bad, regardless of how said feelings are used. So, if someone acts as though feeling bad is good, then that would make no sense, since feeling good is the only good thing in life. Even if bad feelings were used to give us more good feelings throughout our lives, that still wouldn't be good. So, a person would just have to bear through the bad feelings (which are bad) until he gains the end result of more good feelings throughout his life. The moment he gains these good feelings is the moment he has goodness in his life again. As you can see, my horrible, miserable struggles can never be good, valuable, or beautiful, even if the end result was the most powerful bliss for me. I'd just have to bear through those struggles until I gain the bliss (which would be intensely good, beautiful, amazing, magnificent, etc).
I’m assuming I’ve missed something as you’ve had several replies to something that, from my perspective, says literally nothing other than the glaringly obvious. What did I miss?
I am saying more than this. There are emotion theorists who put forth the emotion perception theory. According to their theory, emotions are perceptions of good, bad, beauty, horror, tragedy, magnificence, etc. My philosophy says that perceptions of good, bad, beauty, etc. are the only good, bad, beautiful, etc. things in life. I explained how emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, etc. So, emotions are the only good, bad, etc. things in life. I also explained other things, such as how the only goodness, badness, beauty, etc. that exists is the goodness, badness, beauty, etc. we perceive, and I explained how perception and experience are the same thing, and that we should seek perceptions/experiences of goodness, beauty, magnificence, etc. (the positive perceptions/positive emotions), and avoid perceptions/experiences of badness, horror, tragedy, disgust, etc. (the negative perceptions/negative emotions).
Good points. Consider then, in a paradoxical way (Zeno/Aristotle) or in the so-called reality of time illusion context, that there is 1) and interminable sensation or need to feel happy and 2) how fleeting is the moment of happiness/how long does feeling good last(?).
In contemplating item #1, normal cognition, as in our everydayness from our normal stream of consciousness, would suggest we are never truly happy, as once one need is satisfied, yet another need takes its place (Maslow).
In contemplating item #2, the parsing of past, present, future (Aristotle) uncovers the phenomenon of present tense being somewhat illusionary, relative to in this case, how fleeting the moment of feeling good really is... .
And so, how do we reconcile these fleeting moments of feeling good, with other moments of feeling bad? In other words, do we need feeling bad to define feeling good? If we do not know what feeling bad is, can there exist feeling good?
As a poor example, let us say that a drug addict takes drugs to feel good in order to avoid feeling bad. That interminable process seems complimentary to its end goal of feeling good. Now extend that to any other human phenomenon. The race car driver must race to feel good; the painter must paint to feel good, the lover must love to feel good, ad nauseum. And so when not feeling good during cessation of said activities, does one have a resulting feeling or experience of feeling bad? Can feeling bad then be required to feel good?
Maybe the question becomes, what does homeostasis look like (in the context of feeling good)… . Otherwise, your struggles in feeling bad were actually good for you. You gained knowledge on how to feel good.
Thoughts?
I'm not sure if feeling bad is required to feel good. After all, in the past, I hardly felt bad, and I mostly felt good throughout my life until, years later, I recently had these miserable struggles. Also, if feeling bad is required to feel good, my philosophy says that feeling bad is still bad. Like I said, having these miserable struggles was no way to live or be an artist, which means these struggles weren't good, valuable, or beautiful. So, that's why I conclude that feeling bad can only be bad, and feeling good can only be good.
But the question remains, did you experience feeling good as a result of your experience of feeling bad? Would that then suggest we should embrace the feelings that are bad feelings because in turn it would cause us to feel good (cause and effect)?
Another common meme is that 'closed doors happen for reasons'. What are 'closed doors', bad feelings? (What leads us to seek good feelings.)
I submit that feeling bad can actually be good. It causes you to want to feel good. Yet feeling bad ,in itself, is indeed bad. Just like feeling good, in itself, is good.
But, my philosophy says that feeling bad is no way to live or be an artist. So, that would have to mean feeling bad can only be bad, according to my philosophy.
No. An artist can paint or write music about feeling bad in order to describe and/or connect with reality (the human condition). Is that bad?
Oh, OK. Here you go.
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002598
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0131
https://www.jneurosci.org/content/34/18/6190
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763416301270
Quoting unenlightened
And it's better to live in a world where people act out of cold rational calculus without any feeling? Each to their own I suppose.
It's bad to live a life of feeling bad, even if bad feelings were used to inspire others through artwork.
But can you have one without the other(?)
No I don't.
I don't need convincing that people can and do find motivation in anticipation of rewards. I need convincing that there can be no other motivation. None of those studies remotely supports that.
No, that is not what I am suggesting. I am saying, as per the OP, my emotional state probably has nothing to do with risking my life to save another, i.e., I do it because it is the right thing to do. Moreover, we judge whether the action was heroic, not based on the emotions involved (and there are emotions involved), but based on the action itself. It is the act itself that we judge good or bad, right or wrong.
The belief that our "...[e]motions are the only perceptions of good, bad, beauty, etc." is just silly. Moreover, the reasoning is childlike.
Regrets to say I find myself repeating this rather often on this forum, and I probably don't say this very well, but there are MANY occasions when people do things they don't enjoy, don't see as good, don't see as amazing, don't see as awesome, don't see as valuable, don't see as precious, don't see as worthwhile FOR THEMSELVES.
So you would perhaps say, that's because they see the same qualities as resulting FOR SOMENONE ELSE.
Well often they don't. That's the fact of life, and if you don't know that, then you never really tried to love someone else. You can try to say there's a probability or something, but the problem is, that's not why people actually do things from which they get no personal reward. It doesn't work like that. Often when people do something for a cause outside of themselves, the cause isn't particularly good, beautiful, awesome etc either.
Right. I'll try to give a couple of examples, and Im probably going to need some help here. Women who let themselves be beaten by their husbands. You might try to say it's something awesome, but however you try to frame it, frankly, it's awful. They shouldn't let their husbands do it.
Or another. People who look after human vegetables. I never had to do it for a relative. I was employed to do it in a psychiatric hospital once. Often they bit me, peed on me, shat on me, etc. There's nothing beautiful or awesome about it. Nothing.
Sorry those are rather extreme examples, but it makes the point.
OK,
Quoting Sam26
This is just a repeat of what you said before. The argument consists on nothing but "It is so!" - and you accuse my reasoning of being childlike?
So far I've provided four scientific papers (not to mention my nearly two decades of research experience) and you two have offered "No it isn't"
If you both think that our actions are motivated by something other than desire, then I'm genuinely interested to hear about it, but in a grown up conversation, not an series of baseless assertions and ad homs about how my argument is childlike, dim or invented. This isn't the quality of debate I'm interested in.
If you're interested in exploring the idea of actions motivated without desires then you'll need to have;
1. A Plausible mechanism - for example how the action potential reaches the hypothalamus to prepare the body physiologically for action but somehow bypasses the valence areas of the pre-frontal cortex.
2. Some empirical evidence that such a mechanism is required - for example experiments done to control for emotion (such as those with damage to the pre-frontal cortex) who nonetheless carry out heroic action.
3. A mechanism for the cultural or biological embedding of such a network - what maintains it through the process of adolescent neural pruning without being in regular use.
If you have any of those I'd be really interested to read the research. If not then I've really no interest in how you 'reckon' the brain works. I've had enough of that from my first years, and even they had the decency to have read it in some pop-sci fad rather than just make it up.
When I dig the garden, I am not considering my happiness at the garden being dug I am not calculating that the effort will be compensated by the produce I am not thinking of the superior taste of really fresh veg, or the pleasure of looking at the flowers. I am thinking about what I'm doing and looking for perennial weeds, and trying to get an even dig. On a good day, I'm not thinking at all. I am absorbed by the action. People are not machines, so if you insist on a mechanism, you will fail to see what is going on.
Quoting Isaac
People risk their lives for others every day. The pleasure of feeling like a fine fellow is rather diminished by death in most people's calculation.
Quoting Isaac
It is in regular use. Children imitate rather than calculate. People simply do not calculate their lives the way it is proposed all the time. they run on habit, and on an automatic sociability. Amenability is instinctive. It works in analogous way that the cells of the body cooperate and even die for the benefit and development of the whole, without having to calculate whether or not they will benefit as individuals. It is only a brain that has become obsessed with itself that finds cooperation mysterious and in need of explanation.
Here's something I noticed recently. It took about a week for the habits of social interaction to be transformed by lockdown. There has been a huge amount of what the mechanists call 'social facilitation'. Monkey see, monkey do. Everyone is maintaining distance, so everyone maintains distance, just like everyone drives on the left - here. No calculation required, fortunately, because no one has the numbers to make a calculation possible; but people are amenable, and we do social distancing because that is what we are doing, not because we have calculated a personal benefit from nowhere except the TV and inter web that we do not trust.
Alas the wonderful brain cannot be trusted at all to navigate the complexities of the world, it requires the superior wisdom of the embedded body.