Jump to content
CrazyBoards.org

MattMVS7

Member
  • Content Count

    174
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MattMVS7


  1. I am curious where you learned that adhedonia is a stress response.

     

    I have not heard that before.

     

    People experiencing psychosis are generally considered to be having thought disorders, whereas depression is a mood disorder. There are different biochemical processes involved, and it seems unlikely that a fast acting antipsychotic agent would help address what you characterize as long-term depression effects.

     

    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.


  2. 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).


  3. 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.


  4. I don't care what arguments you make, the premise is bad. No, depression doesn't make you inferior in any sense.

     

    I agree that this belongs in a blog. I don't know how many times we have to tell you that CB is not a forum for philosophical debate. If you have a question, ask it and people will do their best to answer it as we have in this thread with your question. But we are not going to get into parsing arguments and rebuttal. Either take it to your blog or take it to a philosophy site.

     

    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.  


  5. 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.  

  6. 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.

  7. 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.


  8. 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).

  9. 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.

  10. If you cannot measure it, nor postulate a mathematical formula to explain how it has physical existence, say as a particle of good, then you have not refuted my statement that good is a value judgment, not a physical, measurable state.

    Pleasure is a feeling, " good " is the judgment you make of that feeling. You can view it differently, but as that's an opinion? It holds nothing provable. Saying if you " could" prove it...well, you can't.

    Come back when you can, alright?

    I'm not wasting my time with this any further.

    Please go to Sciencedaily.com and read, read, read about neuroscience.

     

    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.

     

     

     

    There is something that can turn pleasure into neutral experiences...its called clinical depression including anhedonia (emotional numbness).
     
    Then it's no longer pleasure anymore.  It is now a lack of pleasure.

  11. 55989801.jpg

     

    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").


  12. If good is an objective thing...please list its' molecular weight.

    ...at this point I believe you're refusing to debate in good faith, my friend.

    Heroin is bad.

    It feels WONDERFUL when you take it...not so much when you wake up with the runs because you're out.

     

    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.


  13. You're conflating two different meanings of "good" - feeling good and being good. These are two different things. If something feels good it just means you're attracted to the sensation and want it to continue. That's different from something being good. Drugs are an obvious example - there's a reason people try to get off of them no matter how good they feel.

    I'm curious - what do you get out of this debate? Would you prefer to win or lose the argument?

     

    The drugs don't feel good, it is just pleasure that does.  The drugs aren't bad either (they are neutral).  Only the pain and despair induced by the drugs is bad.  Everything else in life besides pain, despair, and pleasure are all neutral (neither good or bad) which means that you can never be a good person without pleasure or that your life is somehow good without pleasure.  As for this debate, I am just simply seeing where this leads me and if I can really be convinced in the end that I am somehow wrong.


  14. Alright... I need to unlimber a Personal Life Example here, because I'm having trouble conveying this in abstract...and I'm wondering how old you are, or how many morally ambiguous situations you have been in... But anyway...

    SUPER FUCKED-UP TRIGGER WARNING

    As a child, I was sexually assaulted...a lot.

    Further, I was groomed to LIKE being sexually assaulted. Unfortunately, nerve endings fire whether the mind is screaming at them not to or not...and I was deliberately forced.

    It was both pleasurable AND the most utterly revolting thing imaginable... having my body...puppeted like that.

    It broke my mind.

    Or imagine it from the perspective of my abuser. Was the pleasure he experienced in training me to be his living sex toy a good thing for him? Did doing that to his own six year old child grow him as a person?

    Pleasure is always good?

    Pleasure is a sensation. Good is a value judgment.

     

    If you are going to say something such as that, although pleasure feels good, but can be bad if it is used in harming others and other bad deeds, then what you are doing here is combining other things in life (such as the harming of others) and placing that upon your pleasure and saying that the experience of pleasure in of itself is something bad in this situation. The fact is, pleasure and other things in life stand alone by themselves as separate things since they are completely different things. They do not somehow combine with your pleasure and make your pleasure good or bad when pleasure is always just simply good in of itself no matter what.  The neurons that become active in our brains and elicit a state of pleasure are different and separate from the neurons that are responsible for other things in our brains such as thoughts, knowledge, movement, breathing, etc. This also goes for other things in life. All other things in life consist of chemicals, atoms, etc. that are separate from our atoms, particles, etc. that give us pleasure. So it is not scientifically possible to infuse the atoms and particles of these other things with your pleasure and make your pleasure something bad or neutral.  

     

    If you are thinking that you can counter my argument with somethings such as that if you can't infuse bad and neutral things with your pleasure and make it bad or neutral, that this would somehow mean that pleasure also cannot be good because deeming it something good would mean that you have infused "good" with your pleasure, this would be false.  I have, in fact, explained why pleasure is the only good thing in life in terms of science.

     

    As for people who like to feel pain or despair or who don't like to feel pleasure, that still doesn't change the fact that pain and despair are always bad while pleasure is always good. With liking pain or despair, you have two experiences going on at the same time here which would be the good sensation of pleasure and the bad sensation of pain or despair. Although I think it is possible to experience physical pain and pleasure at the same time, I don't think it is possible to feel despair and pleasure at the same time. As for disliking the experience of pleasure, this same concept applies here as well (just with the experiences flipped around this time).


  15.  

    That version of "good" or "bad" you are thinking of is what is created by our thoughts which is always something objectively neutral (despite the fact they are subjective values). But the version of "good" that comes from our experience of pleasure alone and the version of "bad" that comes from our experience of pain and despair alone, these are objective regardless of what our thoughts and created meanings are.

    Incorrect, Matt.

    You are taking the raw feeling and placing a value judgment on it.

    An emotion is.

    When you declare that emotion good or bad, you have made a value judgment.

    These two things are separate.

    Feeling pain is feeling pain, feeling joy is feeling joy. I have felt emotional pain that was very intense and did not judge this to be bad. I have felt joy and did not judge this to be good. I simply felt.

    In truly intense grief, rage, agony, or ecstasy, one tends to dissolve into that moment. Depression is so very nasty because it contracts you into the self, the petty little ego. You lose your transcendence.

     

     

    But these things feel good or bad to you, right?  Therefore, how does that not make them objectively good or bad? One of the main reasons I state why pleasure and suffering are the only good and bad things in of themselves is that these things feel good or bad regardless if you were to judge them or not or to even place a value judgement on your pleasure and say that it feels neutral or bad or to place a value judgement on your pain or despair and say that they feel neutral or good.  The fact is, pleasure will always be a good experience in of itself no matter what while pain and despair will always be bad experiences in of themselves no matter what.  So that right there says that they are objectively good and bad.  You cannot make your pleasure feel bad by saying it feels bad or make your pain and despair feel good by saying that they feel good.  Same thing applies with trying to make these feelings feel neutral which would also be impossible.


  16. scientific journals please, not anecdotal evidence from a web forum

     

    Well, I would just like to say here that all moments of depression in my life lasted only for a few months and have completely gone away while this anhedonia has lasted all day everyday for many months and still has not gotten any better and there are never any brief moments of any pleasure to any degree whatsoever.  I have an explanation for why and how my anhedonia happened.  But is also another long-winded explanation (though not philosophical this time).  Did you want me to present it here, make a new topic about it, or not post it at all?


  17. I'm pretty sure you aren't going to find anyone who is either willing or able to invest the time to refute your opening post. Nor would we ever be able to refute it to your satisfaction since you already seem to be convinced no one can refute this.

     

    In addition, we are busy being crayzee and having lives... void of pleasure or full of pleasure.

     

    Is there anything we can offer you on this peer support site for mental illness other than engaging with you on your preferred philosophical topic?

     

    As others have suggested, this would be an excellent post to take to a philosophy forum where people actively love to engage in this kind of thing.

     

    But as for us here, we are a peer support site for mental illness. If you are interested in talking with other people who also feel devoid of pleasure and learning how they cope, that would be a really appropriate topic for our boards.

     

    Massive philosophical treatises, on the other hand, about the nature of reality... not so much. Though you would be welcome to start a blog and discuss it there.

     

    So instead of trying to refute that entire post I made, maybe we can just talk about this very brief post I made and see where we get.  Also, I have already tried philosophy forums, but even the people there refused to engage in a debate with me since everything I've said was too long to read.  But anyway, here is this one post I just made that I want to talk about which is quoted below:

     

    Thanks for telling me that.  But my issue is that it doesn't matter how much others love and value me because I am not in the minds of other people.  It is only my own brain in life and, therefore, it is only my own pleasure that gives me and my life value and worth.  Which means that it doesn't matter how much I help others and do great things in my life without my ability to experience pleasure.  I may give others pleasure, but it's just as I stated here, it is only my own pleasure that is good since I am only in my own brain and not in the minds of others and cannot feel their pleasure, pain, or despair.  A poster above you stated that there are greater things in life than pleasure, but this still does not refute everything I've said in my opening post here and I'm not sure if anyone can refute it.

     

    Now I am taking medication such as Prozac, but it is not helping with my anhedonia at all.  Anhedonia is known to be a physiological change in the brain that does not get better for many people unlike depression which, in my case and in most cases for other people, is just a natural response that passes over time.  Anhedonia, on the other hand, might not be a natural response and I'm not even sure electric convulsive therapy would help it.


  18.  

     

     

    Here's the deal: You are not going to get anything proven or disproven here. If you want that then take your arguments to academia. We are not here to argue lofty philosophy. We are here to give practical advice and support. If you need support for a particular issue, then by all means state your issue but please don't expect people to validate your philosophy when you have written it out in such a massive treatise that few here have the attention span to read and wade through.

     

    That said, I really don't see anything new in what you are arguing. You can indeed find philosophers who have argued that pleasure is the greatest good - see hedonism.

     

     

    Also, I would like to say that for you to be offended or angry about the fact that my personal issue is presented in a long philosophical form or that you are angry 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 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).

     

     

    I am not offended nor I am not angry in the least. I'm simply stating facts about how we operate here. As far as the text I bolded, you did not come here and say anything resembling that. Instead, you came here saying that you had a theory that you wanted to get proven. If you have an issue, then bring it out but don't couch it in a philosophical argument and expect people to be able to dig through it to get to your issues. We all have issues here which include shortened attention spans. Many of us would like to read for - you guessed it - pleasure but we find that very difficult. And we are not professionals. We are a peer support site.

     

    I apologize if I came off as angry or offended. That was not my intent.

     

     

    Thanks for telling me that.  But my issue is that it doesn't matter how much others love and value me because I am not in the minds of other people.  It is only my own brain in life and, therefore, it is only my own pleasure that gives me and my life value and worth.  Which means that it doesn't matter how much I help others and do great things in my life without my ability to experience pleasure.  I may give others pleasure, but it's just as I stated here, it is only my own pleasure that is good since I am only in my own brain and not in the minds of others and cannot feel their pleasure, pain, or despair.  A poster above you stated that there are greater things in life than pleasure, but this still does not refute everything I've said in my opening post here and I'm not sure if anyone can refute it.


  19.  

    Here's the deal: You are not going to get anything proven or disproven here. If you want that then take your arguments to academia. We are not here to argue lofty philosophy. We are here to give practical advice and support. If you need support for a particular issue, then by all means state your issue but please don't expect people to validate your philosophy when you have written it out in such a massive treatise that few here have the attention span to read and wade through.

     

    That said, I really don't see anything new in what you are arguing. You can indeed find philosophers who have argued that pleasure is the greatest good - see hedonism.

     

     

    Also, I would like to say that for you to be offended or angry about the fact that my personal issue is presented in a long philosophical form or that you are angry 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 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).


  20. Yes.  Please find a philosophy forum for this.  We are not here to debate philosophy or refute circular arguments.  We are here to support people with mental health issues.

     

    I am not trying very hard to hide my irritation that you came onto this site and are not using it for its intended purposes.  

     

    If you'd like to come back and talk about your own personal experiences or problems with a mental health condition, that would be a different story.  

     

    I do have a mental illness which is depression and anhedonia (emotional numbness) and this whole belief I have about pleasure is an issue I wish to talk out and debate with others. It is an issue because I feel that my life is worthless without my pleasure knowing that pleasure is the only good and greatest thing in life while all other things in life are nothing but neutral or bad.  Unless someone can refute my arguments, I will be doomed to feel this way.


  21. Good or bad is a value judgment.

    Not a property like hardness or atomic weight.

    Value judgments would be the purview of the social sciences-psychology, sociology, anthropology. And so forth.

    One would study the human, humans, or human culture and what caused the value judgment about the event or object in question....or perhaps who among a population sample holds that view about the subject, et cetera.

    Properties rightfully belong to the hard sciences.

    You cannot isolate " good " in a test tube, see?

     

    That version of "good" or "bad" you are thinking of is what is created by our thoughts which is always something objectively neutral (despite the fact they are subjective values).  But the version of "good" that comes from our experience of pleasure alone and the version of "bad" that comes from our experience of pain and despair alone, these are objective regardless of what our thoughts and created meanings are.


  22. You say that you want to debate this but also want it proven by science...

     

     

     

     I have a world-changing viewpoint about pleasure here and if this is demonstrated as true through science, then that would reveal to everyone (including people who tell me that there are more important things in life than my pleasure such as making contributions in life and other things) that I was actually right that pleasure is the only good and greatest thing in life.

     

    As you have your thesis currently stated, it is an opinion and not a fact. It is therefore untestable by scientific method.

     

    Also,

     

     

    I have a unique world-changing viewpoint about pleasure really being the only good and greatest thing in life no matter what and I wish to change the way the world thinks.

    Please explain what is so unique and world-changing about your viewpoint.

     

    I do not see that your opinion is incredibly different from several other established schools of thought or philosophies.

     

    Although my worldview is not COMPLETELY unique since there is already hedonism.  However, all my arguments stated for why pleasure is the only good and greatest thing in life I believe are unique.  As for it not being tested through science, wouldn't how we would demonstrate this as being true or false be the exact same method as demonstrating why the different functioning of atoms and particles yields different types of materials and chemicals?  

     

    If you are going to say that everything in life is just a bunch of chemicals, atoms, molecules, etc. with no good or bad meaning whatsoever, then that would only be true in terms of things besides pleasure, pain, and despair. 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 such in our brains has yielded experiences that are purely good and bad in of themselves (which are pleasure, despair, and pain). To ask how can those things be objectively good or bad would be no different than looking at a piece of metal and asking "How can this piece of metal even objectively 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.

×
×
  • Create New...