Emotions are intrinsically good and bad

[The Grand Nudger]

"You didn't read what I wrote" is becoming a common excuse on your part, for an on-going failure to competently communicate your position .
(that's operating on the generous assumption that your position -can- be competently communicated or is, itself, competent........)

You keep imagining that reading more of your posts will solve the problem...but the problem is what you keep putting in your posts...so I'm not sure why you would expect that to resolve the issue.  You do not understand, and have not accurately communicated the thought experiment you keep referring to in analogy.  This has been pointed out to you, and yet you persist.  You then failed to find a proper application for this analogy in your chosen context.  This has also been pointed out to you, and yet you persist.  No amount of finding different ways to do or say that will amount to an improvement.  This part of your position is a fundamental failure.  Unfortunately, it's the core of your position.  

That the rest of your position does not follow from that initial misapprehension, in any case, would begin to border on the bizarre, were it not so common that we, as human beings, pile unrelated items of detritus on top of each other ..each of dubious value, and then declare the result some sort of enlightenment that follows from random misapprehensions.

The conclusion you have arrived upon, itself...does not need to be established with this nonsense, and nonsense cannot establish it anyway.  If we cut out the trash, we would be left with:

"I think that pleasure as an experience, is the "real good". 

Okay, you're a hedonist of some sort, we already got that.  A stoic disagrees.  Most of us fall somewhere between those two positions.  The implications of either position at the extremities are untenable to us.  The edge cases.  I already brought up one.  If The Real Good™ is what you have described...then a sex offenders satisfaction qualifies, and the knowledge that sex offense is wrong...divorced from a similar satisfaction......does not.  If we contend (as we would) that "some feelings" aren't good, even though they are an emotional good....then we've not only undermined our claim that happy thoughts are the only real good.....we will have modified our hedonism with stoicism.  Some good feelings aren't good after all, let alone "the real good"...and particularly in the case of those good feelings..it's better to oppose them through will and thoughtful abstinence.  The real good, in those cases, containing what you would call thought value judgements directly opposed to the emotional value judgement.

The only ground left, is to claim that it would be "more good" (we've already lost the categorical ground of real good, you see) if one possessed the knowledge and -did- have some profoundly associated concordant emotional response. This is merely a reassertion of your initial preference for emotional value judgements, and all of the same problems described above immediately apply, again.

[Transcended Dimensions]

"You didn't read what I wrote" is becoming a common excuse on your part, for an on-going failure to competently communicate your position .
(that's operating on the generous assumption that your position -can- be competently communicated or is, itself, competent........)

You keep imagining that reading more of your posts will solve the problem...but the problem is what you keep putting in your posts...so I'm not sure why you would expect that to resolve the issue.  You do not understand, and have not accurately communicated the thought experiment you keep referring to in analogy.  This has been pointed out to you, and yet you persist.  You then failed to find a proper application for this analogy in your chosen context.  This has also been pointed out to you, and yet you persist.  No amount of finding different ways to do or say that will amount to an improvement.  This part of your position is a fundamental failure.  Unfortunately, it's the core of your position.  

That the rest of your position does not follow from that initial misapprehension, in any case, would begin to border on the bizarre, were it not so common that we, as human beings, pile unrelated items of detritus on top of each other ..each of dubious value, and then declare the result some sort of enlightenment that follows from random misapprehensions.

The conclusion you have arrived upon, itself...does not need to be established with this nonsense, and nonsense cannot establish it anyway.  If we cut out the trash, we would be left with:

"I think that pleasure as an experience, is the "real good". 

Okay, you're a hedonist of some sort, we already got that.  A stoic disagrees.  Most of us fall somewhere between those two positions.  The implications of either position at the extremities are untenable to us.  The edge cases.  I already brought up one.  If The Real Good™ is what you have described...then a sex offenders satisfaction qualifies, and the knowledge that sex offense is wrong...divorced from a similar satisfaction......does not.  If we contend (as we would) that "some feelings" aren't good, even though they are an emotional good....then we've not only undermined our claim that happy thoughts are the only real good.....we will have modified our hedonism with stoicism.  Some good feelings aren't good after all, let alone "the real good"...and particularly in the case of those good feelings..it's better to oppose them through will and thoughtful abstinence.  The real good, in those cases, containing what you would call thought value judgements directly opposed to the emotional value judgement.

The only ground left, is to claim that it would be "more good" (we've already lost the categorical ground of real good, you see) if one possessed the knowledge and -did- have some profoundly associated concordant emotional response.  This is merely a reassertion of your initial preference for emotional value judgements, and all of the same problems described above immediately apply, again.

Are you saying my sight analogy is somehow faulty?  I don't see anything wrong with it.  Also, I am not exactly sure what you mean when you are referring to the thought experiment.  You are right when you say that I am a hedonist.  However, I was attempting to support a whole new version of hedonism which I call New Age Hedonism.  This is an entirely different version of hedonism.  It is an upgraded version of hedonism since it states that our positive emotions allow us to see the good values in life like how a sighted person is able to visualize the color red and that, as long as we don't have positive emotions, then we are without any real good value in our lives just like how a person who goes blind would be without any real red in his life. 

This is something completely new and different that I am just trying to support all I can.  You also go on to say that my model is a problem for society due to the sex offender getting positive emotions being the real good.  But during my worst miserable moments where I had no positive emotions, I have still made the choice to get myself better anyway.  So, we as human beings would still make choices to help ourselves and others anyway even without the real good in our lives.  If we had no positive emotions and we have simply thought that certain decisions were good to make, then it would just be like a blind person thinking of the color red, but not having any real red in his life.

[The Grand Nudger]

This is something completely new and different that I am just trying to support all I can.  You also go on to say that my model is a problem for society due to the sex offender getting positive emotions being the real good.  But during my worst miserable moments where I had no positive emotions, I have still made the choice to get myself better anyway. 

-and that, by your stated metrics, would not qualify as "the real good"...even though the satisfaction of the sex offender does.  I'm not suggesting it would be a problem for society (obviously, it is, unless you live in a society full of rapists, lol)..I'm asking if it would be a problem...for you?  Are you comfortable with the implications of the metrics you've offered...and is your comfort..a "good feeling", a reliable indicator in the first place? Bit of a rock and a hard place on this one..as any answer other than "Yes, the rapists satisfaction is real good, and my positive emotionless choice to get better is not" to the question.... will erode confidence in your previous comments.

It's not, btw, something completely new.  It's just intellectually lazy hedonism.  If you want to dive into hedonism, then do so...but you'll probably get further if you cease to imagine that you're coming up with a new and brilliantly enlightening variant of it.  Far be it from me to suggest that you could never do so, but you obviously aren;t in a place, now, where that's going to materialize as an actuality.  

The thought experiment is often called Mary, or the colorblind color scientist.  I've already commented on it, and on your miscommunication -of- it.  The notion is that there is something about seeing red that a blind person -cannot- possess.  This may not be true, but supposing it was....it's inapplicable to human beings and emotion anyway.  We are not emotion-blind.  Even anhedonics aren't emotion-blind. If you did find some meaningfully emotion-blind group to properly stick the analogy too..I'll just remind you that your worldview is meaningless, and useless...to them, by definition. If they can;t feel, they can't happy thought their way out of anything...though they may, as you claim to have done...decide to climb out of that hole sans the possesion of positive emotions.....this very claim, itself, eradicating whatever remains of your comments on the real good, and what would give value to a life.

[Transcended Dimensions]

This is something completely new and different that I am just trying to support all I can.  You also go on to say that my model is a problem for society due to the sex offender getting positive emotions being the real good.  But during my worst miserable moments where I had no positive emotions, I have still made the choice to get myself better anyway. 

-and that, by your stated metrics, would not qualify as "the real good"...even though the satisfaction of the sex offender does.  I'm not suggesting it would be a problem for society (obviously, it is, unless you live in a society full of rapists, lol)..I'm asking if it would be a problem...for you?  Are you comfortable with the implications of the metrics you've offered...and is your comfort..a "good feeling", a reliable indicator in the first place?  Bit of a rock and a hard place on this one..as any answer other than "Yes, the rapists satisfaction is real good, and my positive emotionless choice to get better is not" to the question.... will erode confidence in your previous comments.

It's not, btw, something completely new.  It's just intellectually lazy hedonism.  If you want to dive into hedonism, then do so...but you'll probably get further if you cease to imagine that you're coming up with a new and brilliantly enlightening variant of it.  Far be it from me to suggest that you could never do so, but you obviously aren;t in a place, now, where that's going to materialize as an actuality.  

The thought experiment is often called Mary, or the colorblind color scientist.  I've already commented on it, and on your miscommunication -of- it.  The notion is that there is something about seeing red that a blind person -cannot- possess.  This may not be true, but supposing it was....it's inapplicable to human beings and emotion anyway.  We are not emotion-blind.  Even anhedonics aren't emotion-blind.

But even though the sex offender getting the positive emotion would be the good in his life, we would still make choices to stop him anyway.  I know I would.  Even if I was the sex offender and got a positive emotion, I would still choose to stop harming that individual even though it would not be any real bad in my life.  I would think that it would be a bad thing that I am doing this, but that would not be so and I would be choosing to stop anyway knowing the harm and consequences.  Lastly, I think that people who struggle with complete anhedonia and misery are emotion-blind.  This has been my own personal experience.  When I was in a state of complete misery and had chosen to get help, there was no positive emotion there.  I think what you are saying here is that there is the type of emotions that come through our decisions (thoughts) and then there are those euphoric and dysphoric states I've mentioned which would be their own emotions.  Based upon my own personal experience, there is simply no way that a thought form of emotion can even begin to match the beauty, joy, and suffering of those other emotional states.  This thought form of emotion is nothing more than just words going through my mind. That's why I conclude that there can't be any real emotion through our thoughts alone.

[The Grand Nudger]

But even though the sex offender getting the positive emotion would be the good in his life, we would still make choices to stop him anyway.  I know I would.  Even if I was the sex offender and got a positive emotion, I would still choose to stop harming that individual even though it would not be any real bad in my life.   I would think that it would be a bad thing that I am doing this, but that would not be so and I would be choosing to stop anyway knowing the harm and consequences. 

You'd obstruct the real good of a satisfied sex offender just to satisfy your bad thoughts?  Seems to me that you're an agent of immorality even by your own standards...and your standards of immorality are.....novel.

Lastly, I think that people who struggle with complete anhedonia and misery are emotion-blind.  This has been my own personal experience.  When I was in a state of complete misery and had chosen to get help, there was no positive emotion there.  I think what you are saying here is that there is the type of emotions that come through our decisions (thoughts) and then there are those euphoric and dysphoric states I've mentioned which would be their own emotions. 

You think that, but that's not what anhedonia means...and misery is, by any description..an emotion.  If you can be miserable..you clearly aren't emotion-blind.  

Based upon my own personal experience, there is simply no way that a thought form of emotion can even begin to match the beauty, joy, and suffering of those other emotional states.  This thought form of emotion is nothing more than just words going through my mind.  That's why I conclude that there can't be any real emotion through our thoughts alone.

There's that pile of detritus.

Based upon your own personal experience, a misapprehension of anhedonia and the word misery....combined with an inaccurate description of a thought experiment and it's incompetent application as analogy, you've decided that there's no real bad to sex offense..but that you'd obstruct the real good of sex offense satisfaction anyway?

You tell us about "the real good"...which is, hilariously, sex offense.....but also that you side with the bad..more hilariously...thinking that sex offense is wrong because of harmful consequences......

[Transcended Dimensions]

You'd obstruct the real good of a satisfied sex offender just to satisfy your bad thoughts? Seems to me that you're an agent of immorality even by your own standards...and your standards of immorality are.....novel.

All I said here was that any situation I think of as being bad during a moment where I felt nothing but a positive emotion would not be any real bad in my life. Nonetheless, I would still make the choice to avoid that situation I thought of as being bad.

There's that pile of detritus.

Based upon your own personal experience, a misapprehension of anhedonia and the word misery....combined with an inaccurate description of a thought experiment and it's incompetent application, you've decided that there's no real bad to sex offense..but that you'd obstruct the real good of sex offense anyway due to your bad thoughts pursuant to harm and consequence.

You must understand how I define misery and anhedonia. I would actually define anhedonia as being an absence of those euphoric and dysphoric states while misery would be a dysphoric state. I would not define anhedonia as being an absence of the thought (decision) form of emotions since I don't think they exist anyway. From here, I define misery as being a dysphoric state. Again, that state would not come about through our thoughts alone.

[The Grand Nudger]

You'd obstruct the real good of a satisfied sex offender just to satisfy your bad thoughts?  Seems to me that you're an agent of immorality even by your own standards...and your standards of immorality are.....novel.

All I said here was that any situation I think of as being bad during a moment where I felt nothing but a positive emotion would not be any real bad in my life.  Nonetheless, I would still make the choice to avoid that situation I thought of as being bad.

It isn't bad, though, by your metrics, and why are you deferring to your thoughts now, instead of those emotional metrics?

You must understand how I define misery and anhedonia.  

Oh, must I, lol?  I don't think so.  

I would actually define anhedonia as being an absence of those euphoric and dysphoric states while misery would be a dysphoric state.  I would not define anhedonia as being an absence of the thought (decision) form of emotions since I don't think they exist anyway.  From here, I define misery as being a dysphoric state.  Again, that state would not come about through our thoughts alone.

If anhedonia is the absence of euphoric and dysphoric states, as you just claimed.....and misery is being in a dysphoric state..then being in misery doesn't satisfy your own idiotic metrics..which is a problem you seem to keep running into.

You're shitposting as hard as you can trying to make your analogy stick to a vanishingly small subset of our population...and failing even at that. At some point, don't you think that this might warrant a modification of your position..rather than a continued insistence that it is still..somehow, despite all indications to the contrary, and it's absurdly inconsistent conclusions and compulsions...true?

[Transcended Dimensions]

If anhedonia is the absence of euphoric and dysphoric states, as you just claimed.....and misery is being in a dysphoric state..then being in misery doesn't satisfy your own idiotic metrics..which is a problem you seem to keep running into.

I am confused on what you mean by this. During my miserable state (which was a dysphoric state), it would not be a state of anhedonia since I was simply absent of my positive emotional state (euphoric state). If I was completely absence of both my euphoric and dysphoric state, then that would be anhedonia.

[Foxaèr]

A common problem for people who rely too heavily on their emotions is that they forget how to properly reason.

[The Grand Nudger]

If anhedonia is the absence of euphoric and dysphoric states, as you just claimed.....and misery is being in a dysphoric state..then being in misery doesn't satisfy your own idiotic metrics..which is a problem you seem to keep running into.

I am confused on what you mean by this.  During my miserable state (which was a dysphoric state), it would not be a state of anhedonia since I was simply absent of my positive emotional state (euphoric state).  If I was completely absence of both my euphoric and dysphoric state, then that would be anhedonia.

Then you weren't emotion-blind, just as people with anhedonia aren't emotion-blind, regardless of any inept definition you'd apply in service of this shrinking argument. Why do I have to keep treading old ground?

If you propose that there are some people completely incapable of emotion, fine. All this shit about anhedonia and the difference between what it is and what it feels to be...not necessary. It hurts your position rather than helps it. Accepting that there are a handful of people in the world incapable of experiencing any emotion for the sake of argument....so what? What follows -from that-?

A more acurate description of a person -completely- incapable of any emotion..is dead. A dead person. If you wanted to explore the actual term for people with problems that at least circle around your hypothetical set, those exist too..and perhaps you should research that, rather than call it "anhedonia".