Emotions are intrinsically good and bad

[Edwardo Piet]

No one gives a shit, "it's absurd therefore true" is garbage.  You fucked up, you've -been- fucking up since post one, you have nothing informative whatsoever.

Look, a shoulder to cry on, fine.  The rest?  Garbage.

If you are calling BS on the notion that I didn't perceive it as a good thing to get the help I needed from the idea of it being a good thing and choosing to get that help since you might be thinking that the two are the same thing, then there is another possibility.  I could have had a positive emotion on such a small level that I could not detect it which would mean that I really did perceive (judge) it as being a good thing to get that help.  However, that level of good value in my life would be so small that I could not detect it.  After all, if there was absolutely no good value whatsoever perceived at all in regards to that situation, then it could really be the case that I would have just sat there and did nothing.

You said that you were miserable but fought to get help because you saw it as a possibility that you wouldn't be miserable forever: i.e. the future may be less miserable if you get help.

So if there was an emotion you did not detect, it was probably the emotion of "hope". If there wasn't, then it was just your survival instinct.

Either way, the rational judgement of getting help so you can feel better is separate from any emotions of feeling better.

---

It's blatantly false -before- we consider what we see out in the world.  You've been presenting a series of mutually contradictory statements as your worldview.  That it was inane by reference to things beyond your worldview is just icing on a shit cake.

Not according to your worldview.  Full stop.

I don't see any contradictions given those 4 possibilities I've presented.  I don't know how you are arriving at that conclusion and I don't know how you arrive at the conclusion that my worldview has to be false before we even realize what's going on in the world.  Lastly, our rational thoughts themselves, according to my worldview, can only allow us to see certain truths such as the fact that there is day and night, the Earth revolves around the sun, etc.  But they do not allow us to judge (see) values, but to only have the idea of values in our minds.

Emotions are experiencial if they are anything at all. When you experience something, either you experience that emotionally as an emotion or you don't and you experience it as a non-emotion.

The point is that you only ever experience the present moment in any moment that is present, you experience that acuteness which cannot be aggregated, time is irrelevant. Intensity is more important than time.

I also pretty much think that emotions are intrinsically good and bad (although I think that's a very narrow way of framing my premise), but I recognize that nothing from that entails that "time is more important than intensity". In fact, all we experience are intensities in the moment, and I fail to see how it makes any sense to aggregate them together. Just as it makes no sense to aggregate different people's conscious experiences together as one individual, it makes no sense to aggregate any particular individuals experiences at different times together, into a feeling. However long a feeling lasts, that feeling is experienced as an experience, like all other experiences are experienced as experiences, and it only lasts as long as it lasts. This is all tautological, but the point is that regardless of however long a feeling (or emotion) lasts, it makes no sense to aggregate it with other feelings and emotions. It doesn't matter how many emotions you feel or how long they last, what matters is the quality, peaks, and valleys.

I also have an additional premise: Negative emotions are more important than positive ones. Positive emotions are intrisincally important, but negative emotions are intrinsically far more important. So much so that positive emotions are only really important if negative emotions aren't around to spoil them.

You don't recognize this asymmetry so you have no way of arguing that a rapist is doing anything wrong because you don't have a premise that says the suffering from the rape victim is far far more important than any pleasure from the rapist. Ratting on about wisdom and emotional judgements doesn't get you anywhere because that isn't a logical argument. It's a premise that doesn't lead to anything useful. Obviously wisdom is wise. That doesn't tell you what is wise. Maybe emotions can be helpful guides to wisdom, although I disagree, but even if you're right about that that still doesn't tell you what that wisdom is. You have still made no argument for why negative emotions are more important than positive ones.

I haven't made an argument for that either, but at least I have it as an additional premise, and I don't pretend that I can just say "emotions are intrinsically good and bad" and just declare victory.