Jump to content
CrazyBoards.org

MattMVS7

Member
  • Content Count

    185
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MattMVS7

  1. Now putting everything else I've said aside since I have gotten all of that out of the way, we can now focus on non-blog material for me to now discuss in this topic. In the event that this anhedonia doesn't seem to recover, then me choosing to end my life would make me the better person. Me choosing to live on in this life of mockery and insult would make me and my life inferior even if I were to live for others. This is because no one should expect me to live on for others and their lives without a personal life of my own to enjoy. I have just as much value as anyone else which gives me the right to think this way as I said before and to have focus and to want to live for my own self as well. Me living on for others is not a personal life of my own because my own personal life for me comes from having pleasure in my life as I said before. If there is anything great at all that has come from this anhedonia/depression, then it would be from realizing just how inferior and worthless it makes me and my life. But if it weren't for this anhedonia/depression, then I would of never realized that I should just end my life. I would of never made this great decision that would of made me the greater person in life. As a matter of fact, I should feel excited to end my life (if I had my ability to experience pleasure to feel excited). But as for now, I am not going to decide to end my life just yet. I am still trying ways to help me recover from this. I am going to try a medication known as Parnate sometime eventually when I can get it. To conclude this post, I would like to say that my level of being suicidal comes from my level of anhedonia/depression. If I have half pleasure, then I would be half suicidal. But if I have my full normal pleasure back to me in life, then I won't be suicidal at all.
  2. Because who I am as a person is separate from my values and beliefs. In other words, just because I say that pleasure is the only good thing in life and that nothing else is good in my life (which is something I believe), this does not mean that I have no value towards empathy. I still have full empathy and value towards my family and other good people just as much value as I would have towards myself. Therefore, since I am not some psychopath who wishes to harm anyone innocent, then you would have no right to have very little to no empathy towards me. It would also go against your own personal values to have very little to no empathy towards someone like me who is innocent and compassionate. For example, if an innocent and compassionate person who was suffering from depression/anhedonia and all he/she wanted to do was just to talk out his/her problems for others to listen, would you then make this person feel worse by scorning and feeling agitated with him/her and belittling him/her and his/her situation through your scorn and lack of empathy? Especially if his/her situation (issue) was that he/she believed that he/she as well as everyone else who suffers from depression/anhedonia were inferior. You would have no right to scorn and feel agitated with him/her and his/her beliefs since he/she is still an innocent and compassionate person his/herself who has not had scorn towards you. He/she was just simply sharing his/her values and beliefs for others to listen and sympathize with. He/she has every right to speak his/her mind since they are his/her personal values and beliefs he/she wishes others would just listen and sympathize with and you would also have no right to be offended by them and to have scorn towards this person. I have also clearly stated that I am already seeking help in getting better which is why I have a therapist in the first place and is the reason why I am also doing everything else I can to get better. The reason why I am talking here on these forums is just simply for other people to listen and sympathize as I said before. I am already well aware of any suggestions others could make such as what medication I might need, etc. So I do not need any suggestions. I also do not need any advice either in how to think or how to change my thinking since these are my true values and beliefs I will never change and it would be offensive and demeaning for others to try and change them. I also never said I was anyone unique. I am well aware that there are many people who suffer from anhedonia and depression like me. Finally, as for a blog, there is hardly anyone who comes in and posts responses in blogs. There are only very few responses in blogs. Therefore, if someone is depressed and/or has other mental health issues and he/she just really wishes for others to listen, give their responses, sympathize, etc., then he/she has every right to instead go to the forums and post.
  3. All I was wanting was for people to listen and sympathize with me like a fully compassionate and respectful person would. My family and the therapist I am seeing listen to me, have full respect, and have full compassion towards me. They don't scorn, feel irritated, or agitated at all when I talk and present everything I'm saying in my writing to them (even though it is repetitious). Therefore, since they do not scorn upon me and have full compassion and respect towards me, then what gives you the right here to scorn upon me? If you scorn and feel agitated with me like you are doing now, then that means you are not a fully compassionate and fully respectful person like my family and therapist. You might very well have some level of respect and compassion towards me and my situation. But as long as you continue to scorn and feel agitated, then you are not a fully compassionate and fully respectful person. Sometimes, compassion and respect does come from telling other people to get off their rears and do something to help themselves. However, I am already trying to do all I can to help myself and I am just talking here in the meantime for other people to sympathize and listen to me. Therefore, your scorning and such only serves to make you a less compassionate and less respectful person since it is all just aimed towards my values, beliefs, etc. and not in trying to help me at all.
  4. Actually, my anhedonia isn't caused or even perpetuated by my thinking at all. It was caused by that depressive episode I had in the past. This depression caused a malfunction in my brain (the malfunctioning of the pleasure center and other areas) which has resulted in this anhedonia. So no amount of me changing my thinking is going to help it at all. Nor is my thinking preventing me from taking the necessary actions to try and help me recover from this anhedonia. Now there is a quote by a famous movie actor known as Rocky Balboa who says: “Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!” First off, before I give my personal opinion on that quote, I would like to say that Rocky Balboa is a great person and this quote is great and inspring to many people around the world. However, I am the exception. All good people deserve to have the full amount of the good and greatest things in their lives. Especially if it's something that defines their very human value and lives. So even though Rocky's quote demeans the good value towards living a happy perfect life and redirecting that good value towards accepting your problems and being tough and moving forward in life, it is a great and inspiring message to those people who are able to find other things in life to be of good and greater value than living some perfectly happy fantasy life who can fully compensate the loss of good value towards living a perfect happy life with other good values instead. However, as for people like me who only find the one and only good and greatest value in living such a perfect happy life and that me living such a life is the only thing that defines me as a good and great human being, then this message would be demeaning and insulting towards people such as me (not that I have any scorn towards Rocky Balboa because I don't. He is still a great person who helps others). So you can see why it is only insulting and a mockery to me for people to tell me that there are good and greater things in my own personal life besides my pleasure that I can live for and that I should accept my anhedonia and move on in life. This is the one and only good and greatest value people such as me have and it would, therefore, be cruel and demeaning to belittle it by telling people such as me to just stop feeling sorry for myself, just accept and move on, that we all have problems we must deal with and that I should also just deal with my problems, etc. It would also be a mockery and an insult for people to tell me to change my values and beliefs (my thinking and attitude) just as it would be a mockery and an insult to you if I told you to change your values and beliefs.
  5. I wholly and categorically reject that premise. I really think you need to work on your worldview with a therapist because it is seriously skewed. I don't know how you will recover without challenging this type of thinking. The fact is that most people view good/bad as objective properties or at least objective relative to a particular society's norms. You want to make good/bad entirely subjective and relative to you alone. Well, you can do that but you will get caught up in a depressive cycle where you think you are bad and feel even worse leading you to conclude once again that you are bad. In my opinion, that is a pathological way of thinking and you really need to address this with a professional. A person's base value derives from their being a unique human being unlike anyone else in the world either in the past or the present or in the future, a one of a kind. If you really think about this, it is a tremendous value and any other value just adds onto this. Now, first off, we are of just as much value to ourselves as we are to each other. We have every right to live for ourselves just as much as we would for other good people. Therefore, for me to shift focus away from my absence of pleasure, to accept my absence of pleasure, and to just move on in life, then this would be demeaning of my own personal value since I would have less focus on myself and more focus on other people and other things in life. People who tell me to just accept and move on and to focus on other people and other things would be no different than me saying to these people for them to stop focusing on themselves, living for themselves, and have all the attention focused on me. So as you can see here, it would be selfish of those people to tell me so and it would be selfish of me to tell them so. Therefore, having an equal value towards yourself and others is the right thing to do here. Which means that I have every right to want to have my own personal good life of pleasure back. If I can't get that, then I have every right to end my life since I have every right to have focus on myself. Me living for others without my pleasure is not what I define as my own personal life since my own personal life would just be me living for myself and finding things to experience pleasure from in my own life. Now please bear with me as I explain a lot more things here. I explain how my pleasure really is the only good thing to me in my life and that everything else in life is only good and bad in a neutral sense which means that they are really not good or bad at all. They are only good and bad in a fake (neutral) sense while the real version of good and bad comes from our pleasure and suffering. Also, I may appear to be targeting the general audience, but it is all my own personal values and beliefs targeted towards myself instead: Therefore, I would like to begin by saying that since our conscious is who we are, then to lose a part of your conscious would make you a lesser inferior person. Therefore, since depression and anhedonia shut down pleasure as well as other conscious experiences, then that would make me a lesser inferior person. Also, if there was no such thing as pleasure and suffering and all human beings never had any pleasure and suffering, then value judgements such as good and bad would never exist. This is because how we perceive something as good or bad is all a result of our pleasure and suffering. Value judgements such as good and bad are derived from our pleasure and suffering. These value judgements are actually not good or bad at all and it is only our own pleasure and suffering that is good and bad and it is only our own pleasure and suffering that defines us as human beings and our lives as being either good or bad. This is because pleasure and suffering are the only things that encourage and discourage our survival. Our thoughts and personal created meanings are nothing more than the functioning of our brains used for problem solving and analysis and are not our encouraged or discouraged survival. Rather, our value judgments of good and bad refer to what is truly good and bad which would be our pleasure and suffering. If you never had any pleasure or suffering in your life and you were to witness someone else having pleasure or suffering, then you would not be able to perceive their pleasure or suffering as being good or bad. Someone might be able to tell you that their pleasure and suffering are good and bad and you might very well acknowledge it as such. But acknowledging something as good or bad is different than perceiving it as good or bad. Acknowledging something as being good or bad just comes from simply saying thoughts to yourself such as that "Oh, this is something good or bad, but whatever." But perceiving something as being good or bad is when you actually truly recognize that thing as being good or bad. The only way you can perceive the pleasure or suffering of others as being good or bad is if you were to have pleasure or suffering in your own life. Also, what goes on in the brain is that our pleasure and suffering which feel good and bad to us, they create emotional memories that make us recognize certain events and things as being good or bad. I will bring up my example here again which is that if you were to experience pleasure from witnessing someone else experiencing pleasure, then this is the only way you would actually recognize this other person experiencing pleasure as being something good since your own pleasure has created an emotional memory of this experience you had. Therefore, if it weren't for your pleasure, then you would not recognize this other person's pleasure as being something good which means that it was only your own pleasure that makes you and your lives good and nothing else and it is only your own pleasure that defines any good meanings you have in life. Without your pleasure, then nothing is good about you and your life and that would even include the emotional memories alone by themselves. If you had no pleasure and just had emotional memories of something being good in your life, then these emotional memories are nothing more than just memories and thoughts telling you that something is good in life when, in reality, these are nothing more than just memories and thoughts and that it is only your own pleasure that is good. The fact is, the only way you were able to recognize things as being good in your life was because you experienced pleasure and that pleasure felt good to you. Therefore, it's the fact that pleasure feels good which makes it the only good thing in your life. All our emotional memories themselves are nothing more than just memories (references) to the very thing that was the one and only truly good thing in our lives which would be our pleasure. This whole concept also applies to bad in that only our suffering is bad since it feels bad. Therefore, since pleasure and suffering feel good and bad, then that means pleasure and suffering are the only good and bad things in life. Since pleasure and suffering are a scientific property which would be the combined functioning of all the atoms and particles in our brains that give us pleasure and suffering, then that means good and bad are also these scientific properties which would be the functioning of the atoms and particles in our minds that give us pleasure and suffering. This is because our pleasure and suffering are the only true good and bad things. Now some might try to refute me here by saying something such as that how we obtain pleasure in the first place comes from perceiving something as being good and that if what I'm saying is true in that pleasure is the only thing that allows us to perceive good, then this would mean that we would never have pleasure in the first place since we cannot obtain pleasure in the first place without recognizing something as being good since it is our perceptions of something being good in life that sends a pleasurable emotional signal to our brains which allows us to experience pleasure. However, that version of good that comes from our thoughts and such alone is not truly good at all and is only good in a neutral sense while our pleasure is still the only truly good thing. I am now going to explain how this is: If I were to take one of the functions of our brains such as the functioning of our brains that allows us to think, then we could call this the main function. All our different thoughts we would then call the sub-functions. Same thing for pleasure in that pleasure would be the main function here while all our different feelings of pleasure would all be the sub-functions. Now if we were to take just one sub-function of our pleasure such as a feeling of love, then this feeling obviously feels good. Therefore, all other feelings of pleasure feel good as well since all the sub-functions (all our different feelings of pleasure), they all adhere to the main function in that if one sub-function feels good, then we can immediately conclude that the main function (which would be all other sub-functions), that this main function also feels good. So, in short, if one feeling of pleasure feels good, then that means all other feelings of pleasure feel good as well. Now if we were to take one of the sub-functions of our thinking (such as the word "the"), then if you were to say that word in your mind, that experience would be nothing more than a neutral experience to you and would be neutral to you in which the word "the" is nothing more than just a word to you. Therefore, all other thoughts (all other words, sounds, images, etc.), they are all neutral as well and are nothing truly good or bad at all and are nothing more than just words, sounds, images, etc. If you were to have no knowledge or intelligence and you were to then think of the word 'good' in your mind, then that word would be nothing more than just a word to you (it would be nothing more than a thought). And this would hold true for all other words you have thought up in your mind associated with that word 'good' if you did have knowledge and intelligence to do so. In other words, if you have thought up the phrase in your mind that "Helping others is good," then the word "helping" is neutral, the word "others" is neutral, the word "is" is neutral, and, of course, the word "good" is neutral as I've just said. Therefore, this entire personal meaning you have created in your life (this entire phrase of "Helping others is good"), then that phrase itself is neutral and is nothing more than a neutral experience as well. Therefore, all our own personal created meanings in life including everything else in life are all neutral (neither good or bad) while only our own pleasure and suffering are good and bad and define us and our lives as being good or bad. Just like how if one of the sub-functions of our pleasure feels good which makes the main function itself as feeling good, then this also holds true in terms of our thoughts in that if just one thought is neutral, then all the rest are neutral as well. Even us recognizing the phrase "Helping others is good" as having meaning to us and as being something good, even our own recognizing of that quoted message as having meaning and being something good is neutral as well. Any other created good meanings we have towards that quoted message or towards anything else in life are all neutral as well. All our created meanings of good and bad are only good and bad in a neutral sense. They are good and bad in the sense that they are just simply the words (thoughts) good and bad. But they are all neutral since they are nothing more than just simply different words, sounds, images, etc. and are nothing more than neutral experiences. So you might be asking that if our own created meanings of good and bad are both good and bad as well as neutral, then would that make them good or bad, or would it make them neutral? The answer to that would be that they are not truly good or bad at all. They are all good and bad only in a fake (neutral) sense as I've just said before. They are just simply references to the things that are truly good and bad which would be our pleasure and suffering. Also, what I mean by neutral is not the same thing as meaningless. Neutral and meaningless are two different things here. If, for example, you had no knowledge and intelligence and just thought up the word 'good' in your mind, then that word would be meaningless to you since you do not have the necessary knowledge and intelligence to attribute any meanings to that word. However, that is not the same thing as that word being neutral. What I mean by neutral is that when words, sounds, and images are just simply nothing more than just words, sounds, and images even when they do have meaning to you and that even the meanings themselves we have created for those words, sounds, and images are nothing more than just different words, sounds, and images themselves as well. And that entire phrases and entire personal created meanings we have are all nothing more than phrases and personal created meanings. So this is what I mean by neutral in that all our personal created meanings in life do not make us or our lives anything good or greater since they are just nothing more than just thoughts and neutral experiences. Only our pleasure is what allows us to experience the beauty of this universe. As for people who tell me things such as that I can still experience the beauty of this universe through just my thoughts alone and that I can still live a good and beautiful life through just my thoughts and actions alone, these people would obviously be false. I ask you, without my pleasure and if I were to then just sit there and think to myself "Wow, what a beautiful universe and life this is," then what the hell is that? It's nothing more than just a neutral and dead lifeless thought and experience. Pleasure is the only experience that gives us good life and good value as human beings and is the only good experience we can have in life. Even our own actions such as helping others without our pleasure are nothing more than neutral actions and all our good values (thoughts) towards those said actions are neutral as well. Some might tell me that the only reason why all my personal created meanings in life are all neutral to me is only because of the fact that I am attributing a neutral value to them by saying that they are all neutral and nothing more than just different sounds, images, etc. But this would be false. All our thoughts and personal created meanings being neutral has nothing to do with any neutral values we attribute to them. They are all neutral in of themselves and are nothing more than phrases and different words, sounds, and images in of themselves while pleasure and suffering are the only truly good and bad things in life. Now there is a difference between our personal created meanings being words and phrases in our minds that do have profound and good meaning to us as opposed to the conscious experience of those meanings. What I mean by this is that some people might say that feelings of pleasure are nothing more than the functioning of atoms, chemicals, and particles in our brains and that they are nothing special for this very reason. So if we were to look at pleasure from that perspective alone, then these people would be right in saying that it is nothing special. However, as for the conscious experience of pleasure, that is a very profound experience for many people including myself and is the most good and greatest thing in the world for people like me. Therefore, this would mean that pleasure, in terms of a conscious experience, is good since it always feels good. For you to say that pleasure isn't all that great and important simply because it is just a bunch of atoms, particles, and chemicals would be no different than me saying that a member in your own family who is very important to you due to a profound experience you had of her, that he/she as well as this personal profound experience you had isn't all that great and important simply because it is all a bunch of atoms, particles, and chemicals. He/she might not be all that important in terms of he/she just being the functioning of atoms and particles. However, he/she is important because he/she has a conscious who has conscious experiences such as pain, pleasure, and love. Now as for pleasure in terms of it being nothing more than atoms, particles, and chemicals, then it would be neutral just from that perspective alone. Therefore, even though our personal created meanings of good and bad are conscious experiences, this conscious experience is actually neutral (meaning, that they are nothing more than just simply different phrases, words, sounds, images, etc.). This conscious experience is neutral even though this conscious experience is actually those words good and bad themselves or any other personal created good or bad meanings. This would be because the only difference between how we perceive something as being good vs perceiving it as being bad or neutral is all based on our attitude which is neutral itself. I am going to give an example of how our attitude is neutral. If you say to yourself the meaningful phrase of "Helping others is good," then you can look at that 3 ways. You could look at it as being something good in which your facial expression would present a smile and your actions would be geared towards helping others and such. You could look at it as being neutral in which you would have a blank facial expression and won't do anything. Or you could look at it as being something bad in which your facial expression presents a frown and you would do bad deeds and such. But here's the thing. The only difference between those 3 perspectives (attitudes) is that they are just simply a different series of actions and facial expressions while the different thoughts that caused those said facial expressions and actions are still nothing more than just thoughts because our actions and facial expressions are the separate combined functioning of atoms and particles than the combined functioning of atoms and particles that make up our thoughts. Therefore, the thoughts stand alone by themselves as being nothing more than different thoughts while our facial expressions and actions stand alone as being nothing more than different facial expressions and actions. As I said sometime before, everything in this universe is just a bunch of atoms and particles that cannot be defined by our thoughts of good and bad since they are the different combined functioning of atoms and particles that have different function and different properties than the combined atoms and particles that make up our thoughts of good and bad in our minds. I am going to bring up what I said before so you know here as well: "Since all atoms and particles are separate from the atoms and particles of our pleasure, then to say that harming someone in order to give you pleasure makes your pleasure bad, this would be false because the combined atoms and particles of the person suffering and the combined atoms and particles of our thoughts of good and bad as well as other things do not have the same properties of the combined atoms and particles as a whole that make up our pleasure. It would be no different than saying that, since the combined atoms and particles of a piece of metal possess a certain function and properties (which, in this case, we would call "bad"), then that also makes the combined atoms and particles of other materials the same as well (that this also makes them "bad") which is false." Therefore, our actions and facial expressions are all just the result of the functioning of atoms and particles that are nothing good or bad at all since our thoughts cannot define them as being such. Even if those things were somehow good or bad in of themselves and even if our thoughts of good and bad could somehow define those things as being good or bad, then it would all still come back to our thoughts alone towards those actions and facial expressions which are still nothing more than just thoughts as I just said here earlier. It all comes back to our thoughts because our minds are what define our perceptions of life. Therefore, it doesn't matter what attitude you have towards any personal created meanings in your life. All those meanings stand alone as just simply being nothing more than different meanings (just simply different words, sounds, phrases, images, etc.) while our attitudes are just simply nothing more than just different facial expressions and different actions. Now let's pretend that you had no pleasure, no suffering, and no ability to perform actions or to have any facial expressions whatsoever and that you were in a vegetative state 24/7. If you were to then think to yourself the phrase "My life is good and worth living anyway," then that phrase is nothing more than just a spoken phrase in your mind. Any other created good or bad personal meanings in your mind are also nothing more than just phrases, words, sounds, images, etc. Again, me saying that these things are all neutral (nothing more than phrases, words, sounds, images, etc.), this has nothing to do with me attributing a neutral value to those things by saying they are nothing more than phrases, words, sounds, images, etc. They are all nothing more than neutral phrases, words, sounds, images, etc. in of themselves. Let me give an example of how that is. If you attribute a neutral value to any personal created meaning in your mind, then that neutral value does not actually neutralize that meaning you have created. In other words, the atoms and particles in your brain that have created this neutral value do not shut down the atoms and particles in your brain that have created any other personal created meanings in your mind. Any neutral attributed values to your personal created meanings would make them neutral. But only in the sense of them being just words, sounds, images, and phrases. To neutralize something in terms of science would be to either shut something down or to leave it in an unenergized state. Therefore, this does not happen which would mean that the version of neutral that just comes from our value judgments alone has no scientific truth whatsoever to it and is nothing but a thought. What I mean here is that if you created any personal meaning in your mind and then, after attributing a neutral value to it, you then say that this personal created meaning has become neutral, then this would be false. It's false because there is no neutralizing process going on whatsoever in terms of science (your neutral attributed values are not shutting down the atoms and particles of your other created meanings). The true version of neutral would not only be just what I defined in this paragraph, but also in terms of comparison to pleasure being the only good thing in life (that pleasure is the scientific property 'good'). You would then say that everything besides our pleasure and suffering is all neutral when comparing those things to the only true good and bad things in life which would be our pleasure and suffering. Now when people attribute good value to any personal created meanings in their minds, they think that it somehow makes those personal created meanings something "more." But this would be false. Any attributed good meanings to those personal created meanings do not make them any more or less in any sense whatsoever in terms of science. In other words, the atoms and particles of your good meanings do not increase the function of the atoms and particles of your other personal created meanings. This same concept in this paragraph also applies to bad in that our bad meanings cannot make our personal created meanings or anything else in life any less whatsoever. More and less in terms of science either means more atoms and particles and/or an increase in scientific properties such as mass, energy, etc. Actually, the functioning of the atoms and particles of any good meanings you apply to any other of your personal created meanings I think do technically cause the atoms and particles of those personal created meanings to increase in function since the atoms and particles of your attributed good meanings would gain a connection to those other atoms and particles that created those other meanings. However, bad or neutral values that are attributed would do the same exact thing and increase the functioning of the atoms and particles of those other meanings. So as you can see here. We can only use the words more, less, and neutral in terms of science. But the value judgements that people think of such as good, bad, and neutral are not scientific which would mean that they are false since everything in this universe is the scientific functioning of atoms, particles, etc. that can only be explained through science. People think that meanings such as good make them and their lives including others something "more," that bad makes these things "less," while neutral makes those things "neutral." But this is false as I said before. Therefore, the value judgement version of those words good, bad, and neutral are false while the scientific version of those words are true. The scientific version being pleasure (good), suffering (bad), and the shutting down or disabling of scientific functioning as well as the comparison of other things in life to pleasure and suffering (which we would define here as neutral). The words "more" and "less" can also only be scientific as well since everything in this universe is scientific as I've just explained before. Even words such as "strength" and "weakness" can only be defined in terms of science. If a person is depressed and they then get over it, then this state of mind this person is in of having gotten over his/her depression would be a strong state of mind since how it is that this person has gotten over his/her depression would be because his/her brain has developed more neurons and stronger connections (such as more neurons and stronger connections of areas of the brain that are responsible for turning off the stress and depression responses in the brain). But if this person had to live with his/her depression and it could never recover or fully recover like how it did with this other person, then this person would be weak in terms of science since his/her brain was unable to create the neccessary neurons and connections. Now I could easily say that pleasure does not feel good and that it instead feels pleasant. Therefore, you might then question my claims of pleasure really being the truly good thing in life and that it instead might not be considered good at all. Rather, that it might be considered pleasant. However, what we define as good is a perceivable favorable outcome. Pleasure is a perceivable favorable outcome in of itself. It is a perceivable good in of itself that has nothing to do with our value judgments. The version of good that comes from our thoughts and actions are nothing more than thoughts and actions as I've said before. But the version of good that comes from our pleasure is the real version of good and that our thoughts of good are only references to this real version of good. Pleasure is something intrinsically good just as hedonism states and it has nothing to do with our thoughts and values as I just said here. Now, actually, let me correct myself here and say that our thoughts of good and bad are the scientific properties good and bad (since our thoughts of good and bad are the combined functioning of those atoms and particles in our brains that create those thoughts). However, they are the neutral scientific properties good and bad while the scientific properties good and bad that come from our pleasure and suffering are the actual version of good and bad (which would be the version that many people refer to when saying good and bad which would be the version that really does make them and their lives truly good or bad and is not the neutral version of good and bad). I am going to walk you through an example of how all our thoughts are neutral. For example, go ahead and say a word in your mind that is nothing more than just a word to you (which would obviously be a thought). Maybe you can say a number in your mind such as the number 16 which would be nothing more than just a number to you that is neither good or bad. Therefore, all other thoughts we have in life are all the same in that sense as well since they are also nothing more than neutral sounds, images, numbers, words, etc. that cannot make us or our lives anything actually good without our pleasure and it's only our own pleasure that makes us and our lives anything good. You might be thinking something such as that the only reason why that number you created in your mind in that given example was neutral was only because of the fact that you have attributed a neutral value to it. But this would be false. There was no attributed value whatsoever to it. Therefore, the only reason why it was neutral to you was because of the fact that you were able to see that number for what it really was. And that would be the fact that it was nothing more than just a number. You were not blinded by any other attributed meanings of good and bad to fool yourself into thinking that number was something good or bad. You have first said that number to yourself in your mind and at the time it was neither neutral and neither good or bad (it was nothing more than just a number to you). Then, from there, based on that experience, you have then concluded that it was neutral. This neutral value judgement you have given is not false at all and doesn't make anything I'm saying false. This would be because, when we say something is neutral (such as our thoughts and personal created meanings in life being neutral), then what we are saying here is that these thoughts are nothing more than just thoughts. That they are nothing more than words, sounds, images, etc. So this would be true. Therefore, this also applies to all other thoughts and personal created meanings we have in life as well since they are also nothing more than just neutral sounds, words, images, etc. Even our own thoughts of good and bad are nothing more than just neutral sounds, words, images, etc. just like that neutral number you created in your mind in that given example. Even our own attributed meanings of good and bad to our thoughts of good and bad are all neutral as well. So people are only fooling themselves into thinking that they and their lives are still somehow good without their pleasure. They are fooled by thoughts of good and bad and other created meanings that are perceived as good or bad when, in reality, all these thoughts and created meanings are all neutral. But even now as I am speaking here and saying that number you created in your mind was neutral (including me saying that all our thoughts are neutral), I am attributing a neutral value to them. So you might then be thinking something such as that number and all thoughts and personal created meanings we have in life aren't neutral at all since it was just my attributed neutral value to that number and all other thoughts and was all just my own personal opinion. But this would be false. Here, again, I will say that what I mean by neutral is that when thoughts are nothing more than just thoughts here (that they are no different than that number you created in your mind in that given example which was nothing more than just a number). So what I'm saying is true. Our thoughts are only different in the sense that they are different words, sounds, images, etc. and that they make us perform different actions. But that is it. They are all still neutral. They are simply the different activity of the functioning of our brains that come up with these different thoughts. It would be no different than the different activity of the parts of our brain that make us blink and breathe in different ways and nothing more. Any perceived logical fallacies in my argument here might hold true for other things in life, but not for what I'm saying here. You might say something such as that "Your logic is false and what you are saying is that you can create an 'ooooh' vowel sound when you sing. Therefore all words you sing have 'oooooh' vowel sounds" in order to try and disprove my argument here. But the fact is that all things in life besides pleasure, pain, and despair are nothing but atoms and particles that are neutral (neither good or bad). But it is only pleasure, pain, and despair in of themselves that are the only good and bad things despite the fact that these things are also the functioning of atoms and particles. Finally, the reason why I state that pleasure is the only good thing is because of the fact that it always feels good in of itself no matter what and no matter what value we attribute to it. Even if we had no knowledge, thoughts, or intelligence whatsoever, and we were to then experience pleasure, our pleasure would still feel good to us anyway. So good is a scientific property which would be our pleasure which would be the combined functioning of the atoms and particles in our brains that give us pleasure as I've stated before and am also stating here to make myself absolutely clear. Same concept applies for bad since pain and despair always feel bad in of themselves no matter what as well.
  6. I have developed severe chronic anhedonia as a result of depression. It has lasted for over 7 months, still hasn't gotten any better, and there are never any brief moments of pleasure. My feelings of pleasure (such as love, joy, motivation, etc.) are the most important things about me as a person. They are far more important than my attitude, actions, personality, etc. As a matter of fact, my attitude, actions, and personality do not matter at all without my pleasure and are neutral (neither good or bad). My good and bad value as a human being is solely based on the level of pleasure (good value) I have in life while my bad value is solely based on the level of suffering I have in my life. In other words, if I suffer alot from anhedonia/depression and help many people out around the world, then even that wouldn't make me a good person at all and my life would still be nothing good at all. I would still be a bad, weak, and inferior person regardless of the fact that depression and anhedonia are mental illnesses and that they are not choices in which people can snap themselves out of it. I would have helped others and made their lives good. But without my own pleasure in life, then my own personal life is nothing good at all. My thoughts, actions, and everything else in life are nothing more than just sounds, words, images, phrases, gestures, etc. without my pleasure. For example, if I think of a good thought in my mind (such as a profound loving thought towards my family) without my pleasure, then that good thought is nothing more than just a thought. There is no sense of empowerment, "high," or any profound experience whatsoever from any of those thoughts since they are nothing more than just thoughts. They may make us do certain actions and such as well as other important things, but that is it. So all my thoughts and personal created meanings in life including my attitude and actions are nothing profound or anything good since they are all neutral experiences without my pleasure. It has nothing to do with me having a bad attitude and attributing a neutral value to those things that is making them neutral. They are all actually neutral in of themselves and it has nothing to do with me attributing a neutral value judgment to them since they are all neutral experiences as I've said before. If I were to create a very profound good meaning (thought) in my mind, then the meaning itself would be something very good and profound (but only in the sense that they are nothing more than just words, sounds, images, phrases, etc.). However, the conscious experience of that meaning is a neutral (neither good or bad) experience and it is only my conscious experience of pleasure that is good while it is only my conscious experience of suffering that is bad. Therefore, who I am as a person and what my actions are do not matter at all. As long as I have my full pleasure back to me in life, then that is all that matters to me. Growing as a person and becoming more of an empathetic, compassionate, understanding, intelligent, insightful, creative, etc. person through my suffering does not matter at all to me either without my pleasure and I could care less about growing as a person or who I am for that matter. As long as I am happy (have my full pleasure in life), then that is all that matters to me and that is the one and only thing that defines me and my life as being good. The one and only greatest life there is and is the one and only life that matters to me and nothing else would be a life of as much pleasure and as little suffering as possible. If I can't get that life, then I would end my life since I would be living a life that mocks and insults me and the one and only greatest life I wanted to live. Therefore, I must have my life back in which I had a normal full amount of pleasure before. If I can't get that life, then I would end my life. In conclusion, I would like to say something very important here which is that I am absolutely convinced that my pleasure is the only thing that makes me good and my life good while my suffering is the only thing that makes me bad and my life bad. There is nothing anyone else here can tell me that can make me change my mind on this. These are my own personal values and beliefs. But the reason why I came here and talked about it anyway is simply because I want others here to listen, relate, and sympathize with me and my described situation.
  7. You would be right in saying that others asking these questions does not make them less compassionate people. However, the tonality in which these people ask these questions is what determines whether they are fully compassionate people or not. Now what do you mean by saying that my suffering is not incidental? Do you mean that my anhedonia just happened spontaneously without any stressful event in my life that caused it to happen? If that is what you are saying, then this would be false. I had a severe panic disorder in the past and immediately when I felt that this panic disorder might last my entire life and that it could get very severe to the point of hospitalization, that caused me severe chronic depression at the same time as well. Immediately when I experienced this severe chronic depression, the panic from this panic disorder has completely shut down and my ability to experience pleasure was also a bit shut down as well. However, when this severe chronic depression went away completely, that is when my ability to experience pleasure also completely shut down with my panic as well. Now both my panic and pleasure are completely shut down. Therefore, that severe chronic depression I had in the past was the cause of this anhedonia. However, I am thinking that if I didn't have this panic disorder at all and that I just had the severe chronic depression alone, then I wouldn't have this anhedonia at all. I am thinking this because I never had anhedonia in my entire life and I have had many moments of severe and chronic depression in my life and they have never caused anhedonia to any given degree either. Therefore, that panic disorder being there must of had something to do with my anhedonia happening. Perhaps having two chronic stress responses happening at once is never a good thing and can disrupt one another and cause anhedonia as a result (maybe they can only disrupt one another when one of these stress responses is severe enough and also when these two stress responses are both at the proper level of severity that would be necessary to cause anhedonia). Therefore, since I had a chronic panic disorder in the past and since I then had chronic depression that was severe at that same time, this chronic depression was severe enough to disrupt the panic stress response in my brain which resulted in an abnormal physiological change in my brain (which would be the anhedonia). Now why is it that I am making all of these claims with no scientific evidence to back them up? It would be because I am trying to find out what the problem is and what caused my anhedonia so that I can properly address it. This claim right here in my post is something I came up with entirely on my own. However, the claim in my opening post was something made by another user on another forum who suffered from anhedonia and tried to help many others who also suffered from anhedonia: http://www.depressionforums.org/forums/topic/83323-answers-to-curing-anhedonianumbnessapathy-no-1/ You make a bleepload of assumptions. And correlation is not the same thing as causation. As someone who currently is experiencing anhedonia, I feel for you. But you should probably step back and stop trying to over-analyze everything. It is entirely possible for anhedonia to come out of nowhere, or at least out of another flavor of depression. You are searching for a quick and easy fix where one might not be forthcoming. Rather than lecturing us about your theories of the origin of your anhedonia, why don't you describe what you feel (or don't), why it sucks so much, and which treatment(s) you found successful or not? This is a support site, not a platform to launch academic ambitions or wax on philosophically about what causes this, that, or the other. I also suggest you also shorten your replies. A lot of people here will have their eyes glaze over when they see a long post, especially if it doesn't conform to the nature of the site. I will go ahead and now describe my anhedonia in terms of me personally. I have lost all feelings of pleasure and I don't have a single one. I am a hedonist and all I ask for is just one single feeling of pleasure I can live by right now and to have as a part of my daily life. But I don't even get a single one (not even for a brief few seconds). I am on Prozac, olanzipine, and clonapin and none of these medications have eased up this anhedonia at all.
  8. You would be right in saying that others asking these questions does not make them less compassionate people. However, the tonality in which these people ask these questions is what determines whether they are fully compassionate people or not. Now what do you mean by saying that my suffering is not incidental? Do you mean that my anhedonia just happened spontaneously without any stressful event in my life that caused it to happen? If that is what you are saying, then this would be false. I had a severe panic disorder in the past and immediately when I felt that this panic disorder might last my entire life and that it could get very severe to the point of hospitalization, that caused me severe chronic depression at the same time as well. Immediately when I experienced this severe chronic depression, the panic from this panic disorder has completely shut down and my ability to experience pleasure was also a bit shut down as well. However, when this severe chronic depression went away completely, that is when my ability to experience pleasure also completely shut down with my panic as well. Now both my panic and pleasure are completely shut down. Therefore, that severe chronic depression I had in the past was the cause of this anhedonia. However, I am thinking that if I didn't have this panic disorder at all and that I just had the severe chronic depression alone, then I wouldn't have this anhedonia at all. I am thinking this because I never had anhedonia in my entire life and I have had many moments of severe and chronic depression in my life and they have never caused anhedonia to any given degree either. Therefore, that panic disorder being there must of had something to do with my anhedonia happening. Perhaps having two chronic stress responses happening at once is never a good thing and can disrupt one another and cause anhedonia as a result (maybe they can only disrupt one another when one of these stress responses is severe enough and also when these two stress responses are both at the proper level of severity that would be necessary to cause anhedonia). Therefore, since I had a chronic panic disorder in the past and since I then had chronic depression that was severe at that same time, this chronic depression was severe enough to disrupt the panic stress response in my brain which resulted in an abnormal physiological change in my brain (which would be the anhedonia). Now why is it that I am making all of these claims with no scientific evidence to back them up? It would be because I am trying to find out what the problem is and what caused my anhedonia so that I can properly address it. This claim right here in my post is something I came up with entirely on my own. However, the claim in my opening post was something made by another user on another forum who suffered from anhedonia and tried to help many others who also suffered from anhedonia: http://www.depressionforums.org/forums/topic/83323-answers-to-curing-anhedonianumbnessapathy-no-1/
  9. In that case, I have presented my previous post which talks about my personal issue. Also, even though it is highly likely that I am wrong that a shot and/or a tranquilizer gun would alleviate this anhedonia, I think it would be worth a try anyway since I have nothing to lose (I literally have nothing to lose since everything else in life without my pleasure is all nothing and neutral to me anyway).
  10. Thanks for your full respect and full compassion. I am a hedonist (which means that I have a belief that states that pleasure and suffering are the only true good and bad things in life and are the only things that determine the amount of good and bad value we as human beings have and in our lives while everything else in life besides our pleasure and suffering is neither good or bad and are only good and bad in a neutral sense which means they are not truly good or bad things at all). Therefore, since I have lost all my pleasure and there are never any brief moments of pleasure whatsoever, then me and my life have no good value whatsoever regardless of how much I help others and do great things in my life anyway without my pleasure. My hedonistic belief is something that will never change since my personal and profound meaningful experience of pleasure I had in the past when I had my full pleasure back then vehemently says to me that my pleasure is the only thing in life that defines the amount of good value me and my life have. My personal experience of depression and anhedonia also vehemently make pleasure that much more important for me in life. Also, even though I can live for others and their pleasure, we are only in our own minds and cannot experience the pleasure of others. Therefore, the pleasure and suffering of others from my own perspective is nothing more than a neutral thought that is neither good or bad. Only my own pleasure makes me and my life anything good. However, I still have full compassion and respect towards others anyway even despite knowing the fact that there is nothing good about that without my pleasure.
  11. You calling things a fact doesn't mean they are facts. Produce a study explaining this fact of yours. Oh. How do you plan on obtaining drugged darts that are intended to paralyze animals? I have a severe mental illness (anhedonia) as I said before and all I was ever asking here was for a possible hope (a cure) here that just might help ease up or even possibly rid this anhedonia once and for all. If you don't have full respect and full compassion towards my issue by not helping me out here by ignoring my vital request and instead focusing on a far less important matter such as the mere fact that I have not provided evidence for those claims I mentioned in a perhaps annoyed manner, then this would mean that you are not a fully respectful and fully compassionate person here. This would be because you have just simply brushed off my anhedonia and have brushed off my desire to have it eased up or possibly cured right now and that you have instead deemed other things I've said to be the more important matter. But if you have asked this in a fully respectful and fully compassionate matter, then I will have full respect and full compassion towards you in return. But if you have asked this in a less compassionate and less respectful and perhaps annoyed manner, then I will not have any respect or compassion towards you. Especially the tone in your last sentence I think tells me that you do not have full respect and full compassion because rather than trying to find out and tell me where I can get these drugged darts and trying to find out whether they would even work or not and presenting yourself in a fully respectful and fully compassionate manner, you instead just ask me in a sarcastic manner how I would go about obtaining them. So which is it? Do you have full respect and full compassion towards me or not? (NOTE: Any less compassionate and/or less respectful and annoyed/offended/irratated attitude you present to me here on in either through answering this very question I am now presenting and/or in any other of your posts here that address my very issue (providing that my issue is not intended to criticize and offend anyone which it is not and I am just simply asking a very important question here not only in terms of my issue, but also to see who you really are as a person here, and also because I am presenting some information regarding anhedonia), then you will be deemed by me as a person not worth my time as long as you have this less compassionate and less respectful attitude and that you do not reconcile). What I just said here in my post also applies to anyone else here.
  12. Now how anhedonia is a stress response would be because of the fact that the ability to experience pleasure cannot just simply turn off by itself. Another area of the brain has to become active in order to turn off the ability to experience pleasure. This other area of the brain that has become active would be the stress response that has turned off the ability to experience pleasure. Which is why I am wondering if shooting myself with a tranquilizer gun or getting myself shot up at the hospital would ease up or rid this anhedonia completely.
  13. Anhedonia (emotional numbness) which is an absence of pleasure is something I have and it is chronic, there all the time 24/7, and there are never any brief moments of pleasure whatsoever. Anhedonia is a disregulated stress response in the brain that turns off your pleasure and/or other emotions in which areas of the brain that are responsible for regulating (controlling and turning off the stress response), these areas of the brain malfunction. The malfunctioning of these brain areas is what results in the stress response to perpetuate which then turns off your pleasure and/or other emotions since the stress response itself cannot be turned off. Therefore, a very important question I have is that those shots that outbursting psychotic patients receive that calm down their stress response, will one of these shots work on my anhedonia since my anhedonia is a stress response? I know that those shots only work temporarily on those outbursting psychotic patients. But wouldn't the only reason why it only works temporary is because their stress response is needed? For example, if a patient were in a hospital with a ferocious lion trying to attack this patient 24/7, this patient would outburst with panic and such. Then, of course, once this patient is given a shot, that would calm down his/her stress response. However, since that stress response would be needed since it is a protective survival response against the lion, this patient would soon outburst with panic and such later on once again. But since the only reason why the stress response perpetuates in anhedonia is only because of the fact that it can't turn off and that it is actually an unnecessary stress response, then if you were given a shot that turns off this stress response, then shouldn't that mean that this stress response should remain turned off? In other words, if I were given a shot right now that were to rid of my anhedonia in that given moment and return my pleasure, then shouldn't this mean that my anhedonia should now be gone completely (cured) and that I should now have my pleasure back? If one of those shots somehow doesn't work on the anhedonia in that given moment, then what about a tranquilizer gun (those guns they use on wild animals to calm them down and to calm down their stress response)? Now I realize that if it were that simple, then we would have patients cured of anhedonia in no time. However, there might be the slim chance that I am right here. But I'm not sure whether my anhedonia is an abnormal physiological change in my brain (a disregulated stress response) and/or a needed natural response that has turned off my panic from the panic disorder I was having in the past in order to protect and numb me from the overwhelming panic. Now what I'm saying here might be no different than me saying something such as that someone who has severe chronic depression due to any abnormality in his/her brain such as a chemical imbalance, malfunctioning of areas of his/her brain that regulate stress, etc., that this person can then go into a hospital, get shot up, and have their depression cured. Now if this person's depression is a natural response, then it would be both a natural response and a disregulated stress response (since his/her depression is also the result of malfunctioning of parts of his/her brain). And, of course, if his/her depression wasn't the result of malfunctioning of parts of his/her brain, then this depression would just be a natural response (such as a response to a stressful life event). But wouldn't giving this person a shot cure him/her of his/her depression in that given moment and that the only way for his/her depression to come back and become chronic once again is if the natural response version of the depression were to initiate which would then obviously result in the disregulated version of the depression to also occur (providing that this patient has malfunctioning brain regions to make this depression a disregulated stress response to begin with)? In other words, if someone were to become chronically depressed due to a stressful life event (the natural response version of depression) which now has become a disregulated stress response (the unnatural response version of depression) in which that stressful life event is gone out of this person's life, but he/she still feels depressed anyway. And that if this person were to then go to the hospital and get shot up, wouldn't this cure him/her of his/her depression? And that he/she will remain cured as long as he/she does not have another episode of depression in his/her life since having another episode (another natural response version of depression) would result in this depression becoming a chronic disregulated stress response as well? So what I'm saying here is that if my anhedonia is just a physiological change in my brain (a disregulated stress response), that giving me a shot should cure it and that I should remain cured as long as there is no more significant stress in my life that could result in another episode of anhedonia (another disregulated stress response).
  14. Most people who experience panic attacks only have a few per day or a few every other day. This is because panic is caused by a perceived threat (either real or irrational) which means that these people only perceive a threat every once in a while and they have control over their panic overall. However, there are very severe cases like me in which the perceived threat is constant which causes constant recurring panic attacks. These people like me have no control over this horrifying experience no matter what they tell themselves and no matter what relaxation techniques they use. People like me are unable to calm down. I have a strong phobia which is a fear of me speeding. Therefore, since the Earth is constantly speeding, that is then a constant perceived threat that caused me continuous uncontrollable panic that just might have lead me into being shot up in a hospital. I felt that I might never get it under control and that I would be doomed to be in this near constant state of panic everyday for my entire life which made the panic that much worse. My experience was that I had a panic attack which lasted for 15-20 seconds. After which, I then had 15-20 seconds of relief and then another panic attack immediately afterwards. This process continued on and I thought it might never stop. But fortunately, I now have severe chronic anhedonia (emotional numbness) which has numbed my fear. However, it has also numbed my ability to experience any good feelings whatsoever and I now no longer have any ability to experience pleasure. Usually people who have phobias (such as a spider phobia) go through exposure therapy in having a spider walk on his/her arm. This person would then panic at first, but the panic would then subside and the person would now be virtually cured of his/her phobia. This is unlike me since I could not calm down no matter what and my panic was constantly recurring. I wish to know if there are others who have also perceived a constant threat that was a part of their everyday lives that caused them continuous uncontrollable recurring panic attacks and that if these people ever managed to get something like this under control somehow.
  15. Based on just the premise alone, many people might deem it as something ridiculous and will deem it as false as a result. But if you read all the arguments I made in that post, I think you will also be inclined to no longer view my premise as ridiculous and you just might agree with what I'm saying in that post.
  16. Just based on the question alone, many people might answer "no." But based on all the arguments I made supporting otherwise, then I think you would be inclined to answer "yes."
  17. This is a question (a discussion) I want to have which are unlike my other topics which were just blogs. First off, let me ask you this. If you had the choice to either be happy and excited towards something in life as opposed to just having no feelings of pleasure or excitement whatsoever with nothing more than just a good thought towards these things in life, which would you choose? I think it's quite obvious you would choose to feel happy and excited which proves right here that pleasure is far better and superior to mere thoughts alone. Or, at least, the combination of having both good thoughts and pleasure in your life is far better and superior to just having these thoughts alone with no pleasure at all. But you then might counter my argument by asking me something such as that if you had the choice as to feel happy and excited towards harming others or to have no feelings of pleasure whatsoever and instead help others through just mere thoughts alone, which would you choose? You then might say that having no pleasure and instead helping others through moral thoughts would be what is far better and superior. But here again, I will counter this as well by asking you that if you had the choice as to whether to feel happy and excited towards helping others and help these people out through your pleasure and excitement or to instead have no pleasure or excitement whatsoever and instead help these people out through just thoughts alone, which would you choose? I think it's quite obvious you would choose to help others through your pleasure. So it appears as though having both morality and pleasure in your life is the ultimate combination. But when the choice comes as to whether you would choose to have pleasure or instead morality, that this is something subjective and that there would be many people who would instead choose to be a moral person with no pleasure who helps others instead of being someone who obtains pleasure from harming others. However, when the choice comes to you already being the best moral person you could ever be and that if you had the choice as to whether to just be this moral person with no pleasure in your life or to be both this best moral person you could ever be while having pleasure in your life, that people would instead choose the combination of both being this moral person with pleasure. Sure, there could be more levels of moral greatness and other forms of greatness that this person could achieve with no pleasure. But if I had to ask him/her as to whether he/she would want to have much pleasure in his/her life in addition and that this wouldn't take away from his/her greatness and won't take away from him/her achieving more greatness, then that is when this person would choose to have pleasure in his/her life in addition. I know that if I had my full pleasure back in life, that this would not make me or my life less great. It would make me even greater. As a matter of fact, having suffering, depression, and a lack of pleasure in your life only serves to bring you down and hold you back from you and your lives being that much greater regardless of how great you become and regardless of how much great things you do in your life through your suffering, depression, and lack of pleasure. Suffering, depression, and a lack of pleasure can even make you a worse person who is less compassionate and less understanding towards other people who finds bad meaning in his/her life. So you can achieve a higher level of greatness, be a more compassionate and understanding person, and do more great things in your life under the right circumstances if you instead had much pleasure in your life and little suffering and depression in your life. Many people might claim that the only true way to be a more compassionate and understanding person and do more great things in life as well as help more people would be through your suffering, depression, and lack of pleasure. But this is false because you can change your attitude in order to become a better compassionate and understanding person at any given personal level since your attitude and actions are things you can change by will. You also don't need depression, suffering, and a lack of pleasure in order to do more great things in life and help even more people out. There are people who go through a great amount of suffering and despair and yet, they do not become more compassionate or become a better person in any other sense. As a matter of fact, they can become less compassionate even towards others who suffer the same things and they instead take out their suffering on other people. This would be because they have refused to change their attitude in becoming a better person and have refused to become better in any other sense through other means in life besides suffering, despair, and a lack of pleasure. Therefore, since this holds true, the opposite would hold true as well in that people who have very little suffering and despair in their lives can change their attitude in becoming a better person and better in other ways through other means in life besides what suffering, despair, and a lack of pleasure can achieve. Things such as going through physical torture through physical training in the military, this would have the greater physical benefit. But as for greater mental benefits, you can achieve these through other means in life besides depression and anhedonia (lack of pleasure). As a matter of fact, depression and anhedonia have no greater benefit than living a life of much pleasure and are nothing but pointless misery. So if you had no pleasure in your life and had much suffering and despair in your life, you could tell yourself things such as that you would be the much better and greater person than if you were someone who had pleasure in life since you would be helping others, doing great things in your life, and being more compassionate and understanding the suffering and lack of pleasure of others through your suffering and lack of pleasure. But here I will ask you, now that you've achieved this level of greatness in your life through your suffering and lack of pleasure, would you prefer now to remain this way or to instead remain just as great, but also have full pleasure and no more suffering in your life in addition? That having this full pleasure in your life with no suffering will not take away from your greatness, will not make you help/understand less people than you ever would through having suffering and no pleasure in life, and won't make you do less great things in life. Therefore, which would you choose? Again, I'm quite sure you would choose to have full pleasure in life with no suffering in addition to your greatness. Although there might be some people who would get very bored or go insane from living a life of pure bliss, this would not happen to me at all since I find that the only greatest life there is would be living a life of much pleasure and as little suffering as possible while still being a full moral and understanding/compassionate person. So the fact that people would prefer to have much pleasure and as little suffering as possible in addition to their greatness, this means that having much pleasure and little suffering in addition to their greatness is something even greater and would make these people even greater than if they still had a lack of pleasure and still had suffering and depression in their lives. This would make them greater people and would make their lives greater. So as you can see here, you can be great all you want, achieve all the benefits you want, and help others and do great things in your life as much as you can through your suffering and lack of pleasure (anhedonia) in your life as well as your depression. But you and your life will never be as great as it would be if you had much pleasure and very little suffering/depression in your life in addition to your achieved greatness and in addition to your achieved benefits. Therefore, all the greatest people in history who struggled with depression, suffering, and anhedonia were never as great as they would be if they didn't have any of those struggles in their lives. They might have become great and achieved benefits through their struggles. But they and their lives would never be as great if they instead had much pleasure in their lives with as little suffering as possible in addition to their achieved greatness and in addition to their achieved benefits. As a matter of fact, if having much pleasure and little suffering/depression in their lives wouldn't take away from their greatness at all, then this would mean that their depression, suffering, and lack of pleasure didn't make them any greater at all either. It means that they could of been just as great (and perhaps greater) under the right circumstances through having much pleasure and very little suffering and depression in their lives since the combination of their already-established greatness in addition to having much pleasure and little suffering and depression is the ultimate combination that would make them even greater. Therefore, I and many other people who suffer from depression and anhedonia (lack of pleasure) are inferior with inferior lives compared to our much greater counterparts (the people we would of been if we instead had our full pleasure in life with little suffering in addition to our achieved greatness and in addition to our achieved benefits). We are also inferior with inferior lives compared to those who do have their full pleasure in life with little suffering and little to no depression in addition to their achieved greatness and benefits such as compassion and many other such positive forms of greatness and benefits. In conclusion, some people might tell me that compassionate and understanding people who live their lives with much pleasure and very little suffering and depression, that these people do not exist since you can only be a better compassionate and understanding person through having gone through suffering, depression, and a lack of pleasure. But you would be false here in saying this. I am one of those happy compassionate and understanding people who once existed. I had my full pleasure in life in the past who was still a fully compassionate and understanding person. As a matter of fact, the depression and anhedonia I am having now only makes me feel less compassionate and less understanding ("indifferent" and "hopeless") and me and my life are now wasted away and down the drain here. Therefore, as you can clearly see, life, is in fact, all about perfection and living a perfectly happy life of no suffering and no depression regardless of the fact that this is not how this life works. Some people might tell me that living a life of pure bliss with no suffering and no depression is nothing more than a fantasy and they would be right. However, life is still all about living a perfectly happy life with no suffering and no depression anyway. Based on everything I've said here, a life of pure bliss with no suffering and no depression is the only greatest life there is and is the only thing that would make you the greatest person. No one should want any depression or anhedonia (lack of pleasure) in his/her life whatsoever since it is all pointless and has no greater benefit than living a life of pure bliss.
  18. My happiness is the only reason for me finding good meaning about me as a person and finding good meaning in this life. Without that, there would be nothing good about me as a person or anything good in my life. I can just use my thoughts alone to perceive me and my life being good even without my pleasure. But these are nothing more than neutral (neither good or bad) thoughts and that would not make me or my life anything good at all regardless of how much I help others and do great things in my life. Therefore, since I no longer have any pleasure 24/7 due to my anhedonia (emotional numbness) in which there are never any brief moments of pleasure to any degree whatsoever, this is why there is no longer anything good about me as a person or my life. My dream in life was to be a composer and I was in the process of learning how to compose. My dream was to be a great composer through my pure pleasure alone because, to me, that is the only thing that defines someone as being great. As a matter of fact, the fact that I had the ability to experience feelings of pleasure so great and profound, this would enable me to be a really great composer who would be able to channel those feelings in creating emotionally powerful compositions. Feelings of depression and anhedonia are not classified as feelings at all. They are the taking away of your pleasure and other emotions. Therefore, they are not anything to tap into and channel in creating any type of emotionally powerful composition. Instead, they make you a lesser person and a lesser composer who can only create compositions through intelligence alone which would be nowhere near great and emotionally powerful as opposed to if you were to create compositions through your profound feelings of pleasure. In other words, even the greatest composers in history who had depression and/or lack of pleasure could of been even better if they had their full pleasure to tap and channel into. But I have given up being a composer right now since my only goal in becoming a composer was to tap into and channel my feelings of pleasure I valued so much and create many different types of music through my pure pleasure alone. Creating music through my suffering is NOT what I want to do and doing so would only make me feel that much worse. To me, music is all about enjoyment and creating music through your pure pleasure alone. I have given up being a composer because me choosing to become a composer brings me nothing but anger and frustration now since I no longer have any pleasure to tap into and channel. I refuse to be the biological robot in a world that absolutely calls for our experience of love and pleasure (which would be the emotional world of composing) who does nothing but creates music through having no pleasure. I will not channel even my own feelings of anger and frustration in creating music because, again, that only makes me feel worse and is not what I wanted to do at all anyway. Now, if, let's pretend, that I were the greatest composer in the world right now and composed masterpieces, this would actually be the worst moment of my life. This is because these would be the greatest pieces of music I have written and this would be the greatest moment of my life and I am not even allowed to enjoy it to any degree at all. Sure, composing music for other people and bringing them pleasure is good. But music is a very personal emotional thing to me and I must, therefore, experience good feelings from my music. Otherwise, me being a composer is completely pointless and detrimental as it only brings me nothing but rage and frustration knowing that I cannot experience any pleasure from my own compositions whatsoever as well as that I don't have any good feelings to even tap into and channel in creating my compositions which would be much more emotionally powerful since they were created through my emotions (my pleasure) rather than them being created without such feelings. Since my personal experience of pleasure was so profound and meaningful to me in the past, then I absolutely cannot just simply ignore this and choose to view other things in life as something greater. This is because I reject doing so and reject being the lesser person with a lesser life as a result. Now if you or anyone else here has found other things in life of greater value than your pleasure (which would include finding greater things in life than even your own feelings of love), then you obviously have not experienced these feelings nearly as profound or meaningful as I have to know that they are truly the only good and greatest things in life. Now if you can never fully recover your lost love and pleasure, then at least you have spent your entire life by being the superior human being who has tried to fully recover these things. If you are going to say something such as that living your life trying to fully recover these lost feelings instead of accepting this loss and moving on is a wasted life, it's not a wasted life. Like I said before, feelings of love and pleasure are the only greatest aspects of me as a human being and are the only things that make my own personal life worth living. So for me to abandon them and instead live my life for other reasons besides trying to fully recover them, THAT would be the wasted life for me. Finally, one might say that I am still a good person since I still care and help others anyway. However, to me, someone who helps and cares for others is no better or worse than someone who is a psychopath and kills others. The only thing that makes you a better or lesser person is your amount of pleasure in life regardless of who you are as a person. Since I have lesser pleasure, that makes me a lesser person than even Hitler himself who has more pleasure in life (although there may be moments where he definitely had bad moments in his life from harming others). The reason why I say this is because, again, my personal experience of pleasure says this since it was so profound and meaningful to me and there is nothing in life that can ever take place of that regardless of how much I try and change my attitude and other things. I refuse to even try anyway since that would make me the lesser human being with a lesser life as I stated earlier in my writing.
  19. How we come to the conclusion (the scientific fact) that this universe is meaningless is through scientific evidence. Therefore, you might be thinking that since there is also scientific evidence for created personal meanings being accomplished as something meaningful in life, in helping ourselves and others, doing great things in life, keeping us alive, etc. that this would somehow mean that these created meanings are not delusional nonsense. But this would be false. This entire universe and everything in it is all meaningless and the meaningless of all these things is what defines even our own personal created meanings in life. Finally, I'm just going to throw one more thought of mine out here in case it is convincing and refutes all of philosophy and the beliefs about finding your own value in life not being delusional nonsense. To say that concepts such as value, worth, and beauty do exist in this universe, but are not things that are scientific and can't be defined by science and, therefore, you are free to live by them and not view them as being delusional since they are separate from this universe and are not a part of this meaningless universe and can't be defined by this meaningless universe, this would be false. These concepts are created by the meaningless atoms and particles in our brains that come up with these concepts in the first place (so these might be measurable concepts in the future through advanced neurological technology that can measure the amount of value, worth, and beauty in this person's mind by measuring the amount of activity of those atoms and particles that have created these concepts in this person's mind). Therefore, these concepts ARE the functioning of those atoms and particles that have created them in our brains and are, therefore, meaningless as well and to view them as being true for yourself and true for your personal life would be delusional nonsense.
  20. If materialism, naturalism, and scientism are true, then you would be delusional to find meaning in your life (as stated by materialism, naturalism, and scientism which state that life is just a bunch of meaningless atoms and particles). There are things in science that do have objective meaning. For example, the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun is a scientific fact and you would, therefore, be delusional to think otherwise. Same thing with creating our own meanings in life since life really has no meaning in terms of science. You would, therefore, be delusional in finding your own personal meanings in life since life has no meaning. If you are going to say something here such as that this is a logical fallacy I am presenting here, then what I would have to say in return is that your own personal viewpoints in that people would not be delusional in creating their own meanings in life, this would also be a logical fallacy since finding your own personal meanings in life when life has no meaning is a contradiction. I don't even care if it's in our evolutionary design to find meaning in life in order to survive and benefit our survival. You would still be delusional in finding your own meanings in life anyway. Now you might also be thinking that, since it is in our evolutionary design to find meaning in life in order to survive and benefit our survival, that to even perceive this as delusional would contradict our evolutionary design and would be a delusional viewpoint in of itself in terms of evolution as a result. But this would be false because the only way for it to contradict our evolutionary design is if we were to tell ourselves the message that "We are not designed by evolution to find meaning in our lives." That would be the only message that would contradict our evolutionary design. Telling ourselves that "We are delusional in finding meaning in our lives" does not contradict our evolutionary design. To say that something IS when, in reality, it is not, would be delusional regardless of what you think otherwise. So any personal meanings you create in life are your brain's way of telling you that these meanings ARE. Even if you tell yourself something such as that these meanings you create are not objective (definite) meanings, the fact is, for you to view these personal meanings as true for yourself and for your personal life is your mind's way of telling you that these meanings are definite meanings which would be false since they are not. It would be saying that since even you as a person are a bunch of meaningless atoms and particles, that any personal meanings you create hold true for you which would be false because you would be saying that you and this life both have meaning while at the same time they both don't have meaning which is contradictory. So for you to believe that any personal meaning you create in life holds true for you and holds true for your own personal life would be no different than saying that "I know that it's a scientific fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. But I don't have to believe that it holds true for me as a person nor that it holds true for me in my own personal life and that I can create any personal meaning I want and instead believe that meaning holds true for me and holds true for my own personal life. I can believe anything I want such as that the Earth is flat and is the center of the universe and that words don't have to mean what they mean or that scientific facts have to be what they are. I can say that the color blue is actually the color black, that hot is cold, etc. and this will hold true for me and my own personal life while in actual reality itself it doesn't hold true at all. And even if these personal meanings don't hold true at all for me and in my own personal life, I can still have them anyway in my life and live by them anyway." So as you can see here, this would be nonsense since it is a scientific fact that life has no meaning and that we are also a bunch of meaningless atoms and particles. This is no different than the mindset of a religious person who has a delusional belief in a God and the supernatural. Therefore, it's not just religious people and delusional people who are the only ones delusional. Even atheists, highly intelligent people, and scientists themselves can be delusional here. Sure, you can still live by those personal meanings you have created in life despite knowing that they are not true since this universe does not tell us how we should think, but it would all still be nonsense anyway. I don't even care about the fact that if we didn't have any created personal meanings in life, that we would all be dead since we would all just be sitting there and not finding any reason to get up and eat, socialize, or do any other activities. We would all still be living nonsensical and delusional lives anyway for being human and living our personal lives and making the best of this life regardless of the fact that this is in our evolutionary design to do so and that this is how evolution designed us. It's only if this life had an objective meaning through there being a God and an afterlife of eternal joy would we find reason to live our lives and find that meaning in our lives. Now if you are going to ask something such as that "To be is not to be? To be is not the way to be?" what I would have to say to that would be that there is no "way" in the first place since even that quoted word is a personal meaning. Also, to say that concepts such as value, worth, and beauty do exist in this universe, but are not things that are scientific and can't be defined by science and, therefore, you are free to live by them and not view them as being delusional since they are separate from this universe and are not a part of this meaningless universe and can't be defined by this meaningless universe, this would be false. These concepts are created by the meaningless atoms and particles in our brains that come up with these concepts in the first place (so these might be measurable concepts in the future through advanced neurological technology that can measure the amount of value, worth, and beauty in this person's mind by measuring the amount of activity of those atoms and particles that have created these concepts in this person's mind). Therefore, these concepts ARE the functioning of those atoms and particles that have created them in our brains and are, therefore, meaningless as well and to view them as being true for yourself and true for your personal life would be delusional nonsense. How we come to the conclusion (the scientific fact) that this universe is meaningless is through scientific evidence. Therefore, you might be thinking that since there is also scientific evidence for created personal meanings being accomplished as something meaningful in life, in helping ourselves and others, doing great things in life, keeping us alive, etc. that this would somehow mean that these created meanings are not delusional nonsense. But this would be false. This entire universe and everything in it is all meaningless and the meaningless of all these things is what defines even our own personal created meanings in life. Now if you are going to ask me something such as for me to define "meaning," what I would have to say to that would be that there is no meaning. It is just a bunch of atoms and particles and that is it. But this would only hold true for things besides scientific facts such as the Earth revolving around the sun and also the scientific fact that this life has no meaning. Finally, even Stephen Hawking himself has stated that philosophy is dead and that science is all there is. The viewpoints that others have regarding that you can find your own personal meanings in life and that this would not be delusional, these are philosophical viewpoints which would actually be "dead" (false).
  21. This is a detailed explanation that explains some more things that are not included in my other explanations and is something very important for you to read in order to try and convince you. It has some of the same things, but also has different arguments and also corrects some contradictions and/or logical fallacies that might have been presented in my other explanations. One very important point I would like to make is that the reason why everything I'm saying here is so long and that I can't summarize it is because if I just bring up brief simple points, then many people would be able to argue against them. But if I were to instead go into a long and deep explanation that backs up my arguments and convinces others to the point where they can no longer come up with anything else to argue against my points of view, then it is likely that they might be convinced. Now my belief is known as "Scientism" (as well as "Materialism" and "Naturalism") which even all the greatest scientists solely believe in and nothing else and this is a personal issue for me because it states that life has no meaning and has no good or bad meaning and that everything in life is "neutral" (neither good or bad) and is just a bunch of meaningless atoms and particles. However, this only applies to all things in life besides our own pleasure, pain, and despair as I'm going to explain here (which are the only good and bad things in of themselves independent of all other neutral things in life). They are even independent of neutral ideas (thoughts) such as ideas others might state such as that life is not about pleasure and seeking only it for yourself will bring consequences to you and everyone else and will even bring you and others the opposite of pleasure. So my version of those beliefs quoted above is that everything in this universe besides pleasure, pain, and despair are meaningless (neither good or bad) while pleasure is the only good thing and that pain and despair are the only bad things despite the fact that these things are also the functioning of atoms and particles. This is because pleasure in of itself always feels good no matter what and no matter what meaning you attribute to your pleasure while pain and despair will always feel bad in of themselves no matter what and no matter what meaning you attribute to your pain and despair. Some people might claim that pain feels good to them, but they would be lying. It is only the pleasure itself that is obtained from the pain that feels good to him/her while the pain stands alone by itself as feeling bad. Same thing applies if you were to somehow feel that your pleasure feels bad to you in that it would only be the pain and/or possibly despair that you obtained from your pleasure that would feel bad in of itself while the pleasure would still feel good in of itself. Pleasure, pain, and despair can also never feel like neutral (neither good or bad) sensations such as touch, smell, etc. So they stand alone as the only good and bad things themselves in life separate from everything else and separate from the atoms and particles of other things in life that cannot define our pleasure as being neutral or bad or our pain and despair as being neutral or good. Therefore, good is pleasure, bad is pain and despair, and neutral (neither good or bad) is everything else in life besides our own pleasure, pain, and despair. Also, what I mean by pleasure is all good feelings including love. I do not mean only a limited spectrum of good feelings when referring to pleasure. All feelings of pleasure are equal and none is inferior to the other. They can only be lesser in comparison if they are lesser in terms of the activity of the parts of our brain that elicit these states of pleasure. To conclude this introduction, I would like to say that I am a hedonist. Hedonism is the belief that pleasure is the only good thing in life. However, my version of hedonism is a bit different in that only your own pleasure is good from your perspective while the pleasure of others is only good from their own perspectives and that you are free to harm others. I would like to say that for you to be offended, irritated, or angry about the fact that my personal issue is presented in a long scientific explanatory (or maybe perhaps philosophical) form or that you are angry, irritated, or offended by what I'm saying here for some other reason, then that would mean that you are not a full compassionate person in that you do not have full compassion towards my issues and wish to help me out. Imagine if there was a person who was very depressed and said "I am very depressed because I feel that one is inferior and worthless and that one's life is inferior and worthless without his/her pleasure and I wish to talk about my issues here regardless of how long what is that I have to say," would you then make this person feel even more depressed and rejected by scorning upon him/her and being offended by what he/she has to say? Or would you instead not scorn upon this person and try and help him/her out? Therefore, I will freely speak my mind regardless if it offends you or not. (NOTE: This whole issue with being offended is not directed towards people who are nice and wish to help me out such as my parents and/or mental health professionals or even some other people because I know that they would be kind to me in trying to help me out with this issue and won't be offended at all by what it is I'm saying here). One final very important point I would like to make is that I have depression as well as severe chronic anhedonia (emotional numbness) in which there are never any brief moments of pleasure whatsoever. Therefore, I feel that my life is worthless and that there is nothing good about me or my life without my own pleasure and this is why I wish to discuss this issue and my personal beliefs. You are free to harm and take advantage of others as long as it brings you the most pleasure in life because you are only in your own brain and you are not in the minds of others and you cannot feel their pleasure, pain, or despair. Therefore, it is only your own pleasure in life that makes you a good person and makes your life good and worth living. So this is why you can harm others and you would still be a good person (since pleasure is the only thing that defines "good"). The pain, despair, and pleasure of others is neither good nor bad from your perspective since you are only in your own mind and it is only your own pain and despair that is bad and it is only your own pleasure that is good. So even if you felt bad in harming others and giving them pain and despair, it would still only be your own experienced pain and despair from that situation that would be bad from your perspective. Now I need to say something very important here which is that I am a compassionate and caring person and would never harm or take advantage of others despite my personal beliefs here. There is a difference between a person's belief as opposed to who they are as a person. Just because a person has a belief that is perceived as bad from other people does not also make this person a bad person as well. From the perspective of who I am as a person, the suffering of others would certainly matter to me and I would feel bad in causing others harm. But from the perspective of my "scientific" beliefs (which are perspectives separate from who I am as a person), the suffering of others would actually not matter from this perspective and that since I feel that it would matter from my own perspective, then I would be delusional. I have scientific reasons to back up what I'm saying here. If, let's pretend, that you were an empathetic person, but had a belief similar to mine that you believed has science to back it up, would you then not talk about it with others here just like how I am doing here? And would that make you less of a compassionate and empathetic person for having talked about it and for also having this belief as well? No, it wouldn't! Also, many people obtain pain and despair from witnessing the pain and despair of others and then claim that there is no way for the suffering of those other people to possibly be neutral from their own perspectives since these people obviously find the suffering of those others to be painful and depressing themselves. Therefore, they claim that the suffering of others really is something bad from their own perspectives. First off, as for feeling pain and despair from witnessing the pain and despair of others, it's only your own pain and despair that is bad. What goes on in the brain is that neutral (neither good or bad) stimuli from your perspective (such as you observing the suffering of others) is perceived as something not neutral (something as bad) which then sends a message to the brain that allows you to experience despair and possibly pain. Just because something is perceived as bad does not make it bad from your own perspective or from anyone else's for that matter. Again, only your own pain and despair itself is bad since our thoughts and other things themselves are not our pain and despair itself (they are not bad). And, of course, the pain and despair that those other people are experiencing is only bad from their own perspectives regardless of how you or even them perceive it through thoughts alone. The same concept applies for only your own pleasure being good from your perspective. Now why is it that I say that everything in life besides our own pleasure, pain, and despair is nothing but neutral (meaningless and neither good or bad) stimuli? It would be because of what I've just already stated in my introduction which would be because of materialism, naturalism, as well as scientism. If you are going to say something such as that we can feel the pleasure and suffering of others with a statement such as that "Yes, we can. They are called mirror neurons. Your brain makes you feel the feelings of others to some degree," this would be false because it would only still be your own mirror neurons and your own reaction and experience. The only way for your experience to be of someone else's is if you were to somehow switch minds in which you would now be in this person's mind and that they would be in yours. Also, there are many many different types of feelings of pleasure in addition to the main ones such as motivation, love, etc. because there are even many different types of feelings of motivation, love, etc. So even if you were to feel motivated from knowing that someone else is experiencing motivation, it would still only be your own feeling of motivation that you would be experiencing while the person would be experiencing his/her own feeling of motivation. As for the pain, pleasure, and despair of others either being good or bad from your perspective, that would just be nothing more than a thought (your own created meaning). Thoughts can tell us that things are good and bad. But only in the sense that they are still nothing more than neutral words, sounds, images, etc. Also, it doesn't matter whether your pleasure causes you harm or others harm, it still stands alone by itself separate from everything else in life as objectively good in of itself. Also, since all atoms and particles are separate from the atoms and particles of our pleasure, then to say that harming someone in order to give you pleasure makes your pleasure bad, this would be false because the combined atoms and particles of the person suffering and other things do not have the same properties of the combined atoms and particles as a whole that make up our pleasure. It would be no different than saying that, since the combined atoms and particles of a piece of metal possess a certain function and properties (which, in this case, we would call "bad"), then that also makes the combined atoms and particles of other materials the same as well (that this also makes them "bad") which is false. Concepts such as good and bad (aside from our experience of pleasure, pain, and despair), these are the subjective thoughts themselves that create these concepts in the brain and are the functioning of the neurons and other things themselves responsible for the creation of these concepts in the brain that do have scientific properties. And, of course, they are also experiences in of themselves that are objectively good and bad and also have scientific properties (which would be the functioning of the neurons and other things that give us pleasure, pain, and despair). If you are asking how concepts such as value, worth, and beauty can be the functioning of the neurons and other particles that come up with these concepts that can be measured in the future, what I would have to say to that would be that God, in terms of actually being someone or something existing in reality, does not exist at all. But God, in terms of a concept (a thought) does exist as the functioning of our neurons and other particles that have created this concept. But as of now, there might be no way to measure the activity and such of those particles and neurons (which would be measuring the amount of this concept that this person has). But in the future we might which would mean that we would be able to measure the amount of concepts such as how much value, worth, and beauty someone has. Now if we were to have no knowledge or thoughts and we were to experience pleasure, our pleasure would still feel good to us despite us not attributing any value to it which means that pleasure in of itself is always objectively good. Same thing for pain and despair being objectively bad. So our thoughts, values, and everything else in life besides pain, despair, and pleasure are all neutral since they do not tell us that anything is "good" or "bad" (they are not the "good" and "bad" messages in the brain). Thoughts can tell us that things are good or bad. But only in the sense that these thoughts are all nothing but neutral. Things such as materialism and naturalism state that everything in life is just a bunch of atoms and particles that are meaningless (neither good or bad). This would only hold true for things besides pain, pleasure, and despair. Pain, pleasure, and despair are objectively good and bad in of themselves despite the fact that they are also the functioning of atoms and particles. If you are going to ask how can pleasure, pain, and despair be objectively good or bad when they are nothing but a bunch of atoms, molecules, etc.? The answer to that would be that they just are. It is a scientific fact that the different functioning of atoms and such yields different things and different materials. Therefore, the functioning of the atoms and particles in our brains have yielded experiences that are purely good and bad in of themselves (which are pleasure, despair, and pain). If you are going to ask how can pleasure always be good and pain/despair always be bad when they are nothing but a bunch of atoms, molecules, etc.? The answer to that would be that they just are. It is a scientific fact that the different functioning of atoms and particles yields different things and different materials. Therefore, the functioning of the atoms and particles in our brains have yielded experiences that are purely good and bad in of themselves (which are pleasure, despair, and pain). To ask how can those things always be good or bad would be no different than looking at a piece of metal and asking "How can this piece of metal always be metal in the first place since it is nothing but the functioning of atoms, molecules, etc.?" The answer to that would, again, be that it just is. In the exact same sense of how the atoms and particles in our brains yields consciousness, since pleasure is a part of our conscious because our conscious is all areas of our brain that give us experiences, then pleasure being "good" refers to "consciousness" (that "good" and "bad" are our consciousness). So how we would find the amount of "good" in a person's brain would be to measure their amount of conscious activity that allows them to experience pleasure (the conscious activity of the pleasure centers of his/her brain). Same thing with bad. Though with a feeling such as hopelessness, it would be different because what yields the experience of hopelessness would be the shutting down of the activity of the atoms and particles that give us the experience of pleasure. Although pain and pleasure might be one function as a whole because some might say that we cannot separate our pain, thoughts, knowledge, etc. from our pleasure because all functioning of our brains is all one thing as a whole. So if that's the case, then what I should be saying here is that the state of mind we would be in without our ability to experience pleasure would be a neutral state of mind as opposed to being in a state of mind in which we have pleasure (which would be a good state of mind) or in a state of mind in which we have pain and/or despair (which would be a bad state of mind). This neutral state of mind I just stated would still be neutral (neither good or bad) regardless of how much we use that neutral state of mind in helping others and doing great things in our lives and it would make everything neutral from our perspectives no matter what and no matter how much we viewed things in life as being good anyway. Why? Because, as I've stated before, I believe in things like materialism and naturalism which state that everything is meaningless function of atoms, molecules, etc. that is neither good or bad. However, the experience of pleasure and suffering are the only good and bad things as I've been explaining despite the fact that these things are also the functioning of atoms, molecules, etc. But if you were in both a state of mind in which you had pleasure (a good state of mind) as well as pain (a bad state of mind), you might then be asking would you then be a good or bad person? The answer to that would be that the pleasure and pain would cancel each other out in terms of good and bad. So if you had an equal amount of pleasure and pain going on at the same time, you would actually be in a neutral state of mind. But if you had more pleasure than the amount of pain you are also experiencing at the same time, then you would be in a good state of mind (just not as good as if you didn't have the pain to begin with). Same thing applies if you had more pain than pleasure in which you would be in a bad state of mind. Now there is a difference between being a lesser person and being a person who is less good. Your conscious is what makes you "you," so to lose a part of your conscious would make you a lesser person than who you were before with more conscious brain functioning and in comparison to those who do have more conscious brain functioning. So since pleasure is a part of your conscious experience, losing that would make you a lesser person. As for measuring how good of a person you are, we would measure that by measuring the amount of pleasure you are experiencing at the moment. Moments where you have little pleasure are where you are not a very good person in comparison to who you were with more pleasure and in comparison to others who do have more pleasure while moments of greater pleasure would make you more of a good person. As for the difference between being a lesser person and being a less good person, being a lesser person comes from also losing other conscious functioning in addition to your pleasure while being less of a good person can only come from losing your pleasure (since pleasure is the only thing that defines "good"). Also, consciousness does not just simply refer to knowledge, thoughts, memory, etc. It is all functioning in our brains that are experienced. Therefore, this would include pleasure since pleasure is also an experience. Also, the conscious of many people does make up for other losses in other parts of the conscious. However, there are exceptions in which there are people whose conscious does not make up for these losses. Therefore, these types of people would forever be the lesser and/or less good people. Now if you are going to say something such as that "I'm not sure that's a scientific claim. For a start, an arguably more scientific definition of a person is as homo sapiens. I think either a person is a member of the species or not. I'd also have to say that I think there's a lot of difficulties with the concept of consciousness and even greater difficulties trying to use it as a conceptual tool in thinking about things like human rights," then what I would have to say to that would be that what would define a person as a homo sapiens in the first place would be his/her conscious as well because you cannot take out the mind and just say that the body itself is a complete homo sapiens. And even if this person's conscious didn't define him/her as a homo sapiens, then we can look at a specific grouping of atoms/particles that defines him/her as a homo sapiens and find a similar grouping of atoms/particles in this person's conscious that are exactly the same and say that this specific grouping of atoms/particles in this person's conscious defines him/her as a homo sapiens. Now how much something matters to you and how much value, worth, and beauty it has to you (how good it is to you) all solely depends on your own level of pleasure in life. If you have no pleasure, then life itself as well as everything and everyone will have no value, worth, and beauty whatsoever to you and will not matter to you at all no matter what you think otherwise. If you have little pleasure, then things will only matter little to you. But if you have a lot of pleasure, then things will matter greatly to you and the things and actions that give you the most pleasure would matter the most to you (again, even if it is harming or taking advantage of others). Actually, as I stated before, none of these things matter anyway and all these things besides pleasure and suffering are all neutral. That is, providing that thoughts/meanings and pleasure are two separate things. But if they are actually one thing only when it comes to experiencing pleasure (that our thoughts/meanings actually become the pleasure itself only when we experience pleasure), then these thoughts/meanings would be good (would matter) to us. So if you are then going to ask if that's the case, then why can't our pleasure be neutral or bad since neutral and bad thoughts can also become our pleasure? The answer to that would be that, in this case, there is no separation between pleasure and our neutral or "bad" thoughts (bad thoughts also being neutral anyway). I stated before that pleasure feels good which is an objective scientific fact and I stated that the reason for that is because different functioning of atoms, molecules, etc. yields different things and also yields our experience of pleasure which always feels good in of itself. So to say that our pleasure can be bad or neutral would be no different than saying that a piece of metal (or in this case, pleasure) can be a different type of material entirely (that pleasure can be something different such as something good or bad) just because a majority of atoms/other particles that make up this piece of metal (the atoms/other particles that make up our pleasure in our brains) has some inherit characteristics of other types of material (or in this case, the characteristics of the functioning of atoms/other particles responsible for our "bad" and neutral thoughts). Therefore, pleasure can never be something different and will always be good in of itself no matter what while all thoughts/meanings and everything else in life besides pleasure and suffering are all neutral. Now you mattering to others and them having value and worth towards you and viewing you as a beautiful person does NOT give you or your life value, worth, and beauty because, once again, you will be and forever will be in your own mind and it will only be your own pleasure that gives you these things. Other people cannot somehow magically "project" their mindset and their value, worth, and beauty towards you onto you. I am now going to post another convincing argument here which is that good and bad can only be defined in terms of evolution. Pleasure is what encourages our survival and this is the only thing that makes pleasure good. Bad feelings such as fear may also encourage our survival in the sense of escaping from danger, but it's still bad because it is evolution's "warning." So "warning" (things such as pain and despair) in terms of evolution is the only thing that is bad while "encouraged survival" in the sense of us being encouraged in benefiting our species is the only thing that is good. Knowledge and thoughts alone may be used to make us do great things in life, help others, and benefit our survival, but these knowledge and thoughts are not the same as our "encouraged survival" (which is our pleasure). Thoughts and knowledge do not "encourage" us. They only merely make us do things in the sense of being neutral and our lives being neutral from our perspectives without our pleasure. Again, all things separate from our pleasure (such as the survival and benefiting of others) does not matter from our perspectives and is not good at all. Only our pleasure is good. As for things such as rats pleasuring themselves to death through electrocutions, it's not the survival and benefiting of us that is good or bad (if they are things aside from our own pleasure and suffering). It's only our encouragement to benefit our survival (pleasure) that is the only thing defined as good in terms of evolution (even if it is used in not benefiting our survival and even harming ourselves and others). Again, knowledge and thoughts alone do not "encourage" us. And the idea of obtaining more pain from experiencing pleasure is just a thought that is neutral. So the idea of the rats not surviving is neither good or bad nor the idea of them experiencing suffering and pleasure is anything good or bad either. Only the suffering itself that the rats were experiencing was bad and it is only the pleasure itself that the rats experienced that was good. As for from whose point of view would it be considered that their pleasure was actually good and that their suffering was bad? It would only be from their own perspectives. You might then be saying that this doesn't make it objective, but this is false. Feelings of pleasure are objectively good in of themselves for everyone while feelings of pain and despair are objectively bad for everyone regardless of our own personal thoughts (our own created meanings) regarding these feelings being good or bad for us because our thoughts are completely independent of them actually feeling objectively good and bad in of themselves. Or you could look at it from the perspective of science itself. For example, the scientific fact that the Earth revolves around the sun is not something subjective. We can have different created meanings regarding that such as that this is good or bad, but that still doesn't change the scientific fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. So only our thoughts are subjective while the feelings themselves are objective. Now if you think there is a difference between something being objectively good and bad (our pleasure and suffering) in terms of the perspective of science as opposed to them being good and bad from our perspectives, there is not. Both say that the feelings of pleasure and suffering are the objectively good and bad things only from our own perspectives (which would be our own pleasure and suffering) while the pleasure and suffering of others from our own perspectives is still neither good or bad (neutral). If you are going to say something such as that this still makes our own feelings subjectively good or bad, I will then ask you what would be the difference between saying that it's a scientific fact that our minds are what they are and how they work despite the fact that they are subjective organs with different wiring and neuronal activities? Same thing with our feelings of pleasure and suffering since they are what they are (which would be good and bad) despite the fact that our thoughts and the activity in our brains are subjective. So this would be objective in the sense that our brains are what they are and is how they work in terms of science and it would also be subjective in the sense that the activity and wiring of our brains is different for each individual. Same thing applies for pleasure and suffering being the only good and bad things in life. It's subjective only in the sense that the activity of the neurons and other particles that elicit states of pleasure and suffering are different for everyone (yielding different levels and forms of "good" and "bad"). But it is objective in the sense that pleasure and suffering are the only good and bad things. So pleasure and suffering being the only good and bad things in life is both objective in one scientific sense and is also subjective in another scientific sense at the same time. Now you may notice that I am using a lot of words such as "if" and "were" which are not scientific nor are they scientific facts. However, we can say the words "if" and "were" and it can still be a scientific fact. For example, the phrase "If someone were to have depression," we can ignore the words "if" and "were" since the depression itself is a scientific fact that happens to people (which would be all the combined scientific phenomenon that occurs during depression such as a loss of pleasure activity and other things and we would then add up all those things and call that 'depression'). The only non-fact that these words refer to in that quoted statement is the imagined situation of actually having the depression. Same thing with my argument. The things I'm saying in that argument are the scientific facts while all the words such as "if" and "were" only refer to the imagined version of that situation. Also, if the definition of the word "good" means "that which is desired," then pleasure is the only thing that can achieve this because our thoughts and such alone are not "desires" (despite the fact that they may be thoughts of desiring something in life). They are just used for problem-solving and benefiting our survival. They are not desires. Pleasure is desire since it urges (encourages) us to benefit our survival in life although it may actually be detrimental at times. But if somehow pain and despair are desires, then they would still be bad because they are the "warning" version of desires. "Warning" being what is bad in terms of evolution while the opposite of "warning" would be what is good in terms of evolution (which would be pleasure). Thoughts would obviously be neither good or bad in terms of evolution since, again, they are not desires since they are not the urges that encourage us to survive either in "warning" version or in the "good" version. Now if you are going to say something such as that "I can think of so many exceptions that it would be difficult to list them all. But the one that comes to mind the most would be giving birth. Very painful I have been told. And according to you then, giving birth is detrimental to the survival of the species," what I would have to say about that would be that the pain in of itself is a warning (something that is "bad"). It only encourages our survival in the sense that something is wrong (bad) in our lives. So the pain of the mother giving birth is a warning that a certain situation is bad (such as the tearing of the muscle tissue as the baby is in the process of being born). Therefore, since the opposite of that which would be having gotten out of that situation and now being in a happy situation in life free of suffering and despair, this would mean that our lives are good. So the baby now being born and the mother being happy with no pain and despair at the moment is the good situation. So even obtaining pleasure from harming others would be objectively good (although this situation would be good even though it is not benefiting his/her and others survival). But as I said before, the actual situations themselves are neutral while it's only your own pleasure and suffering that is objectively good and bad. But if you are going to say something such as that pleasure does not encourage our survival and that it is just simply a by-product of evolution (hence the reason why obtaining pleasure can be detrimental to yourself and others), this would be false. Pleasure is something that encourages our survival, but can be misused in terms of benefiting our survival. Now I know that many people here would say that even our own feelings are arbitrary. But I ask you. If you were to go through the worst experience of pain and/or despair that a human being could ever possibly experience while having no thoughts and knowledge (no attributed values to your experience of pain and/or despair), are you saying that these things would not feel bad at all to you and that they would just feel like nothing more than "sensations" (such as touch, smell, etc.)? Same question applies for having the best experience of pleasure that a human being could ever possibly experience. Now if you are going to say something such as that these feelings feel differently for different people (such as that pain and despair can actually feel good), so what you are saying is that depression (hopelessness) can actually feel good to someone (despite the fact that it is the shutting down of the pleasure activity in the brain)? Isn't it only pleasure that allows us to feel good and, therefore, people who claim that pain feels good to them would actually be lying and that it is only the pleasure itself obtained from the pain that feels good? Also, hopelessness can never feel good and always feels bad. If you claim that it somehow does feel good, then that would mean that you would be having moments of pleasure separate from your experience of hopelessness since you cannot experience both hopelessness and pleasure at the same time. Meaning, that since hopelessness is the shutting down of our pleasure activity and is not a good experience in of itself, that pleasure is the only thing that feels good. But the fact that you can experience physical pain and pleasure at the same time means that the physical pain and the pleasure are two different experiences going on at once and that only the pleasure in of itself is good while only the pain in of itself is bad. If that premise I just stated in my previous paragraph (that all my arguments here are based off of) can be refuted with scientific facts, then that would, in fact, completely convince me that my beliefs are wrong. In other words, present me the scientific facts that state that our own feelings are arbitrary, that there is no way that pleasure always feels good in of itself for everybody (that pleasure can actually feel neutral or bad) and that pain and despair also being the same in this sense as well in that they can actually feel neutral or good for some people and that these things feeling good is somehow actually not the pleasure itself obtained from these things that is the only thing that feels good. And that, even during the worst possible experiences of pain and despair, that it is actually the pain and despair itself that can feel neutral (that it can feel like nothing more than a sensation such as touch and smell) or that it can feel good for some people while the best experience of pleasure a human being can possibly experience can actually feel neutral or bad for some people. If this premise can somehow be defeated with scientific facts, then all of my remaining arguments will tumble down along with it and I will accept as well as be convinced that I am wrong. But if it can't, then all of my arguments will stand as convincing despite the fact that others are somehow not convinced of them. It's easy to think that, without any proof to prove what it is I'm saying as true, that this should immediately deem my arguments as unconvincing (both for myself and others) and that even I should not just blindly believe what I'm saying. However, providing that there is no proof either to refute my premise, we can also agree here that the beliefs that others hold (which are the opposite of my beliefs), that their viewpoints are invalidated as well and that they have no reason to believe their viewpoints either or that their viewpoints should be convincing to anyone else. Now even despite the fact that there is no current science to prove my arguments and that I have not used the scientific method in proving them as either true or false yet, I will ask you to just look at my premise as it is now. Therefore, just from reading it alone (including my other arguments), does it at least have merit to possibly be true and that it is something worth testing (if possible) through science as a result? Now it's in our evolutionary design (at least for many people anyway) to have value towards other things in life and to view them as something greater than our own pleasure which would mean that, the reason why I am unable to convince anybody is that there is no way for me to get through the wiring and design of their minds. I, on the other hand, think for myself and question these flawed value belief systems these other people have and am able to see past theirs and my own evolutionary design and wiring of our brains. Technically, I think it would be the personal lives of others and their personal life experiences that lead them into having these value belief systems. For example, a person might say that a certain someone was very special to him/her from his/her perspective and that this other person's pleasure and suffering does matter from his/her perspective. He/she might even go as far as saying that he/she is actually able to experience the pleasure and suffering of this other person. But this would clearly be false in terms of science and in terms of everything I've been explaining here. And since this person's life experiences is something ingrained in this person's mind which is something that cannot be convinced otherwise, then this is the reason why my arguments are convincing no one (despite the fact that they should be convincing and that they have merit of being true). Now if you are going to say something to go against my beliefs here such as that "Life is more than reapplying dopamine chemicals. Life is about transcending from your emotional experience into a universal experience. As long as we forget the truth that we are simply a bubble within the Universe's universal sea, as long as we get caught up in our bubble's reflection, we will never live truly within this Universal sea because of relativity. The moment you kill off your need to create your own personal relation to this Universe and give yourself to this Universe to become one with it, is when you start "living" it as you should. We are born into this world on "theta waves" - when we grow and expand we reach "gamma waves" - when we hold ourselves back we only experience "theta" and "delta". Therefore, pleasure is a red frequency based on "theta waves" - the human experience was emerged from this Universe before stars were born in the form of photo receptors so we could transcend just like the Universe by reaching "gamma waves" and the violet frequency." What I would have to say to what was said above would be that you can be in this state of transcendence that was described above through pure pleasure alone. Pleasure can certainly make you feel all powerful in the sense of being one with this universe like what was described above and you would really be as such. Some people might say that viewing pleasure and seeking pleasure as the only good and greatest thing in life is inferior, primitive, and animalistic and that evolution has evolved us past such things with things like intelligence. They would, therefore, say that viewing intelligence as the great thing and seeking it instead as well as helping others and doing other great things in life is superior and makes you a "god" in a sense. But this would be false and it is only pleasure that makes you a god. You might claim that pleasure-seeking and viewing it as the only good thing in life is inferior since we have evolved past that. However, the fact that we have evolved does not mean anything (it only means something neutral that is neither good or bad). But if somehow my points of view about pleasure are unproven, then the closest thing science has to say as of now is that all values we create in life are subjective. So, speaking in terms of now where both my arguments and the opposing ones of others are unproven, they are both subjective and hold true only in our own subjective lives and there is nothing objective about them. Now I stated why pleasure can also "transcend" you and make you a "god." Whereas, intelligence alone without pleasure are nothing more than knowledge, thoughts, memory, etc. that define a being that is similar to something like a biological robot and not a human being. Emotions are what separate us as human beings from robots (and separates us from highly intelligent and well-designed robots in the future that possess all functions of a brain aside from pleasure because, if they did have pleasure, then they would no longer be considered robots or biological robots. They would now be actual artificial life forms). Therefore, without our pleasure (which is one of our vital emotions), we would be less human and more towards being something like a biological robot. Also, I think many stereotype the type of person who only sees pleasure as the good and greatest thing in life as someone who does nothing with their life such as sitting on a couch watching television. This stereotype is false because there are people such as me who do great things in their lives and help others through pure pleasure alone such as tapping into and channeling our feelings of pleasure in creating musical compositions that can be just as good (and even better) than if we composed through our suffering/despair and/or intelligence alone. Once again, this can be achieved through the pleasure in dark, gothic, tragic, etc. things and we can come up with great compositions that portray those feelings described despite the fact that we, ourselves, are experiencing a different feeling (which would, again, be pleasure). You can achieve great things in life and help others just as good (and even better) through living a happier life of very little suffering and despair because our mind is something we can change by will. Therefore, we can be even more compassionate and empathetic at any given personal level just from changing our attitude alone even despite the fact of not having gone through suffering and/or despair to know how others feel having it. As for physical benefits such as from physical torture (training) in the military, that is something different and has the greater physical benefit. But mental torture such as depression has no greater benefit than living a nicer and happier life instead and is nothing but pointless misery. Actually, all greater mental benefits can even be achieved without having any suffering or despair in our lives. Meaning, that even the greatest people in history and the greatest composers could of been just as good and even better under the right circumstances through living much happier lives of very little suffering and despair. Depression (hopelessness) is not an emotion at all to embrace and tap into in order to create great emotionally powerful compositions. It is the shutting down of the pleasure activity in our brains as well as other emotions. So this is the reason why depression and/or a lack of pleasure only makes you a lesser composer and also holds you back from achieving greater benefits and helping even more people in life under the right circumstances through living a life of pleasure and very little suffering and despair. But as I said before, all things in life and benefits we achieve in life (aside from our own pleasure and suffering), these things are all neutral anyway and are neither good or bad from both our perspective and everyone else's. Now there are very intelligent people who have created these value belief systems and have passed them on to others (hence the reason why, to this very day, so many people have these beliefs). However, I have reason to believe that these intelligent people are wrong and that it was also their own personal life experiences that came up with these flawed beliefs. But unfortunately, I have no scientific means or anything to demonstrate my premise and arguments as true or false. I am instead the person who comes up with ideas and would (if I could) give them to actual scientists who would be able to use scientific means of demonstrating them as true or false. In conclusion, I am going to present some answered quotes below that are very important and you should read them because they might answer any questions you have: Question: 1. Doing well and doing badly are opposite 2. Opposites can't be compresent in the same thing (e.g. I can't be both healthy and sick at the same time). 3. So doing well and doing badly can't be compresent in the same thing. 4. An appetite (e.g. thirst) is painful. 5. Satisfying an appetite (e.g. drinking when thirsty) is pleasant. 6. When we satisfy an appetite we experience both pleasure and pain at the same time. 7. So pleasure and pain can be compresent in the same thing. 8. So feeling pleasure and feeling pain are not the same as doing well and doing badly. Answer: If you had a cold and were 80% from being over it, then wouldn't that mean that you would be both 80% healthy and 20% sick? Therefore, couldn't you be both healthy and sick at the same time? Also, if you had full pleasure in life, but experienced physical pain at the same time, then wouldn't you be considered to be "emotionally well," but also "not doing well" just in terms of your physical misery? But if you somehow wanted to combine the pleasure and pain by, for example, saying that if you have 100% pleasure and 30% pain, then that would mean that you are doing 70% well overall (since 100% minus 30% equals 70%). Now if being "well" is defined by having no pain, despair, and/or lack of pleasure whatsoever and having full pleasure in life (just like completely being over a cold), then as long as you have pain, despair, and/or lack of pleasure, then you are not doing well and you would still be defined as being "sick" (or still having a "cold"). But if you have full pleasure in life with no pain and/or despair, then you are doing well. Question: 1. In satisfying an appetite pleasure and pain cease simultaneously. 2. Good and bad things don't cease simultaneously. 3. So pleasure and pain are different from what is good and bad. Answer: How so? If there was a war between good people and bad people and there was a time bomb placed in the battlefield that killed both all the good and bad people, then couldn't we say that both good and bad things cease simultaneously? This argument can also hold for natural disasters since these things kill both good and bad things/people simultaneously all the time. Question: 1. Good people are good because of the presence of good things in them (and bad because of the presence of bad things). 2. In many situations, cowards experience pleasure and pain to the same degree as brave people. 3. In many situations, fools experience pleasure and pain to the same degree as intelligent people. 3. So if pleasure = the good, and pain = the bad, then the cowardly and stupid are as good as the intelligent and brave. 4. That implies that there is no real difference between good and bad people. They are equally good and bad—which is absurd. Answer: Based on everything I've said about pleasure in of itself being the only good thing in life and pain and despair only being the bad things in of themselves and everything else being neutral, then it is not absurd to say that, when a person is feeling depressed, that he/she has negative value and when he/she feels pleasure, that he/she has positive value.
  22. That's just it. As of now, there might be no way to measure it since we do not have the advanced neurological technology to measure the pleasure activity (which is the amount of "good") in people's brains. But in the future we might. But first, I will say what I said before which is that pleasure does always feel good in of itself no matter what and this is a scientific fact. Second, it is also a scientific fact that the functioning of the atoms and other particles of all other neutral and bad things in life cannot somehow be infused with our pleasure and make our pleasure bad or neutral or make our pleasure a bad or neutral experience. Therefore, these two scientific facts add up to the scientific fact that pleasure is always good in of itself no matter what and nothing can make it bad or neutral. Therefore, I have already used two scientific proofs to scientifically prove my point in pleasure really being the only good and greatest thing in life. Or at least, I believe that I have scientifically proven my point just from the looks of it despite actually not having tested this idea through science and determining it as true or false through tests and such. Then it's no longer pleasure anymore. It is now a lack of pleasure.
  23. How we would find out the combined amount of pleasure that all of those kittens would be experiencing would be to measure all the activity in their brains (activity that is responsible for giving them the experience of pleasure) and we would combine all the pleasure activity and say that this would be the amount of pleasure in total of all those kittens. As for our personal subjective pleasure based on witnessing those kittens, we would measure that in our brains as well. If what you are asking is how much of a person you would be based on your level of pleasure, now there is a difference between being a lesser person and being a person who is less good. Your conscious is what makes you "you," so to lose a part of your conscious would make you a lesser person than who you were before with more conscious brain functioning and in comparison to those who do have more conscious brain functioning. So since pleasure is a part of your conscious experience, losing that would make you a lesser person. As for measuring how good of a person you are, we would measure that by measuring the amount of pleasure you are experiencing at the moment. Moments where you have little pleasure are where you are not a very good person in comparison to who you were with more pleasure and in comparison to others who do have more pleasure while moments of greater pleasure would make you a greater person. As for the difference between being a lesser person and being a less good person, being a lesser person comes from also losing other conscious functioning in addition to your pleasure while being less of a good person can only come from losing your pleasure (since pleasure is the only thing that defines "good").
  24. Again, it's not the heroin itself that is anything good or bad. It is just your pleasure from the heroin that is good and it's your pain and despair (withdrawal from the heroin) that is bad. As for measuring good (which would be pleasure), it could just be a scientific phenomenon (just the activity of the neurons and other things in our brains that gives the experience of pleasure) and isn't something that can be "weighed." Same thing with feelings of depression (which is the taking away of pleasure activity in the brain) as well as feelings of pain. Or there could be a way to measure good (which would be measuring the activity of neurons and other things that become active in giving us the experience of pleasure). Same thing with pain. But as for depression, that is the taking away of pleasure activity, does not have weight, and is just a scientific phenomenon. But perhaps it can be measured somehow.
×
×
  • Create New...