Now, just in case anyone didn't read the updated note to reader in my opening post, 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. Emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, beauty, etc. So, that means emotions are the only good, bad, beautiful, etc. things in life, which means feeling good is the only good thing in life, feeling bad is the only bad thing in life, etc.

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.

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. — unenlightened

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.

This theory only explains the unselfish acts of the terminally dim. — 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.

Memento mori et memento vivere.

Solitaire et solidaire.

... 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. — TranscendedRealms

My positive emotions say 'stick with Epicurus, Spinoza, Zapffe, ... Philippa Foot & Albert Murray'.

:death: :flower:

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 cresting a strong desire to act in such (apparently) noble ways, nor the reward mechanism for having done so. — Isaac

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 feel smug, until you realise how selfish you are and then you feel both selfish and foolish (and cold). — unenlightened

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.

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. — 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.

one can imagine other things than one's own pleasure. — unenlightened

Yes, but not one of them can motivate one to act.

This explains why people can die for their country and stuff. — 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?

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. — Isaac

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?

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. — TranscendedRealms

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).

Correct me if I’m getting this right. You’re saying feel good feels good and feeling bad feels bad ... my question is whether or not you’re actually trying to say anything else?

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).

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, amazing bliss for me. I'd just have to bear through those struggles until I gain the bliss. — TranscendedRealms

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?

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. — unenlightened

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

It's a joyless lonely world, and I am glad I don't live there. — 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(?)

Oh, OK. Here you go. — Isaac

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.

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)? — Isaac

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.

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). — TranscendedRealms

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.

:up:

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,

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. — 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.

Ya, because it's so obviously wrong that it's like saying 2+2 doesn't equal 4.

1. A Plausible mechanism — Isaac

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.

2. Some empirical evidence — 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.

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. — 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.