There are no higher emotions/values

[Edwardo Piet]

People put emotions into two categories.  The 1st category would be the lower, basic emotions such as a feeling of sexual arousal, a feeling of excitement to go to the carnival, or feeling panic from being in a dangerous situation.  Many people deem these as the shallow emotions.  

Right.

But then there are the higher emotions founded upon morality, character, and intellect.  Even if a person couldn't feel the basic emotions, other people would still claim that this person can have these higher emotions in his life.  I am not sure if these higher emotions exist.  I don't think our morality, character, and intellect alone can be any real emotional state.  I think it can only be the basic emotions that are the real emotions and I will explain why.

The problem here is that you describe these "higher emotions" as "morality, character and intellect" but those things are not even emotions at all... let alone higher ones.

Fascination and curiosity however are emotions. Not higher emotions? Well, what do you mean by "higher"?

Hunger and thirst are basic impulses.

Right.

 But there is no intellectual form of hunger and thirst since the intellectual brain does not experience the actual sensation of hunger and thirst.

And? You don't need an intellectual form of those things for emotions like fascination and curiosity to exist.

So, there is no higher form of hunger and thirst.

So what? That doesn't mean there aren't higher emotions. What do you mean by "higher"?

 Likewise, there are the basic impulsive/instinctive emotions and there can be no higher emotions either since the intellectual brain does not experience any real emotions.

So what? The point is that there are emotions that drive intellect and reason... not the other way around. It's emotions like fascination and curiosity that drive reason. That doesn't mean those emotions aren't higher because they drive such things. Again, what do you mean by "higher"?

If all you're trying to say is that our base emotions ultimately drive all our rationality... that is not an original thought, TD. In fact a philosopher once put it much snappier than you have:

 There is a big difference between metaphors and the real things.

Yes. And? But what do you mean by "real things". Are metaphors not real? If so, what do you mean by not real? Don't you think they exist? At least... in the mind? You have an imagination capable of conceiving of metaphors, yes? (however bad your implementation of them appears to be when applied to logical argumentation... you should definitely stick to metaphors rather than analogies!)

If you claimed that you were water and lightning since you flow through life with ease and strike down your enemies, then that would not make you actual water (H2O) and lightning.

And?

 You would just be metaphorically describing yourself as water and lightning.

Duh, and?

 People claim these higher emotions exist, but I think they are delusional and in denial.

What do you mean by "higher"? Higher in what way?

 I think humanity is living their life by a metaphorical version of emotions as well as a metaphorical version of value as I explain later on, too.

Emotions can't be metaphorical... they can only be chemical.

Unless we're talking about your imagination conceiving of a metaphor and that imagination residing in your mind which is also your brain chemistry... in that case metaphorical and chemical emotions are one and the same.

As you can see here, the intellectual brain is just meant for ideas and analysis.

I think you make a mistake in separating the two. Our brain does both those things at the same time.

 It does not allow us to experience things such as hunger, thirst, sounds, smells, colors, or emotions.

On the contrary: All those feelings are neurobiochemical.

 Rather, it just gives us ideas of those things.

Ideas are neurobiochemical.

 Just because people act as though these higher emotions exist and claim they exist does not mean they actually exist.

What do you mean by "higher?"

It would be no different than how people acted as though Thor was real and claimed he was real. Just because they did doesn't mean that Thor was real.

For me to know whether it would be no more irrational than that or not... I first have to know what you mean when you say that no higher emotions exist. What do you mean by "higher"? Emotions such as fascination and curiosity certainty exist... would you consider them higher emotions? Because the list of "higher emotions" than you speak of are obviously not emotions because they aren't even categorized as emotions.

This whole idea also applies to value (i.e. things such as good, bad, horror, disgust, beauty, joy, etc.).  People think there is a form of value founded upon intellect, morality, and character (the higher values).  Here again, they are delusional and in denial.  The intellectual brain just gives us ideas of value, but does not allow us to experience any real value.

There is only one brain. There is no "intellectual brain" and "non-intellectual brain".

All these values are all inside our brains.

 

Perceiving and experiencing are the same thing.  If you perceive the color red, then you are experiencing the color red and vice versa.

Right.

  If you experience hunger and thirst, then you are perceiving hunger and thirst and vice versa.

Right. 

Likewise, when you perceive value, then you are experiencing value and vice versa. 

Right.

Therefore, our intellect, morality, and character alone does not allow us to perceive value.

Right.

 It can only be our basic emotions that allow us to perceive value since our basic emotions are actually the perception of value.

Experientiality is more fundamental than our basic emotions. Experientiality/perception/qualia/sentience/consciousness... those things allow us to experience both our intellect and our basic emotions.

 Our basic emotions are states of mind where we perceive value. 

But they are not separate. The values we perceive are states of our mind.

There are the positive/pleasant basic emotions such as if you felt excited to go to the carnival, if you felt love and attraction, or if you felt sexually aroused.  But then there are the negative/unpleasant basic emotions such as if you felt despair, misery, hate, disgust, or sadness.

Right.

It can only be the positive emotions that allow us to perceive good value, beauty, joy, love, etc. while it can only be the negative emotions that allow us to perceive bad value, hate, disgust, misery, etc.

You are making an unnecessary illusory step by saying that they allow us to perceive those things. They are those things. 

In other words, the only way to truly see things in life from a positive perspective is through our positive emotions and the only way to truly see things in life from a negative perspective is through our negative emotions.

How can emotions have their own perspectives?

 Having no emotions (apathy) would just render us perceiving no value in our lives at all.

No you're making that unnecessary jump again. Having no apathy doesn't render us to perceive no value. Having no apathy is perceiving no value.

 So, what feels good is good and what feels bad is bad.  That might sound way too simple, but it's often times the most simple solutions that humanity tends to overlook.

I agree but what feels bad is more important than what feels good. Avoiding and preventing suffering holds far greater moral weight than enjoying yourself. And avoiding harming others holds far greater moral weight than making others feel good. A medic is far more morally valuable than an entertainer.

But remember your first thread about where you said that positive and negative emotions were the ultimate values and I said it was more fundamental than that and down to pure feelings of feeling good and bad? Well this is what I mean. The only reason positive and negative emotions are positive and negative is because of feeling goodness and feeling badness.

There is a great asymmetry between the two though. In morally important situations making people feel good is basically entirely morally irrelevant. In morally important situations the important thing is to prevent suffering.

So, this absolute definition of good and bad might be the real version of good and bad regardless of how much humanity denies this and regardless of how much they act and claim these higher values exist. 

Not all of humanity denies it. Have you not heard of hedonism? That's been around since Ancient Greece! This is pretty old hat stuff Miss!

Another thing here.  Things that sound absurd are often times things that are true. 

Yep. That's called counterintuitive truths. But the thing is... they have to be justified rationally for us to be able to know them rationally.

So, just because this definition of good and bad I am putting forward sounds absurd and false does not make it false. 

Correct.

To conclude this, I would like to say that humanity is delusional and in denial when it comes to a lot of things.

More the former than the latter I reckon.

They think we don't need emotions to give our lives value and that we can have real value in our lives through our intellect, character, and morality alone.  They would claim that emotions are for the weak which means they stigmatize against these emotional based values.  Humanity wants to be in charge and create their own values rather than their emotions being in charge.  But life doesn't always give us what we want.  I think the only real value we can have in our lives is not the everlasting form of value that would come about through our intellect, morality, and character.

Intellect, morality and character are valuable because they lead to a world with less suffering/feeling bad. 

Rather, it can only be the fleeting form of value that exists since positive and negative emotions are very fleeting things.  Therefore, if you wish to truly perceive your mother, father, a moment, situation, thing, or this universe as something beautiful and great, then you need to feel positive emotions from those things.

Yes... but the only way we can know those things is through our experience and our experientiality tends to already be colored with our emotions anyway.

  Sadly, this would have to mean that people who struggle with clinical depression had no good value, beauty, or anything positive in their lives.

Not true because 1) Even people with severe clinical depression have occasional moments where they experience a bit of pleasure or joy. 2) Depression can improve 3) Depressed people can make other people feel better even when they themselves don't.

  That would even include all those famous, genius, miserable artists who contributed artwork to the world.

Not true. Those works of art helped many other people feel better. 

The people who could enjoy those works of art through their positive emotions had the beautiful value in their lives while the genius artist had nothing positive in his life since he could not perceive his artwork or his artistic endeavors as something beautiful and great. 

True, but morally speaking they gave value to the lives of others. And that matters.

Sure, he might have if he felt positive emotions on some level.  But it wouldn't be much because, in order for your life to have the greatest and most profound beauty, then you need to feel the most profound and intense positive emotions of your life.

True. But even a little tiny bit of happiness is still a net positive in those happy moments. And an emotionally neutral feeling (such as neutral surprise that isn't shock or amazement for example) isn't any more feeling bad than feeling good.

 

In addition, you need to feel a lot of positive emotions in order for your life to possess a lot of good value. 

I don't think so. I think that the mere absence of bad feelings is good.

This would have to mean that the only greatest life one can live would be if he got high off of drugs and kept getting high.

Not true. Hard drugs (especially hard drug addiction) cause(s) pain to oneself and others you care about around you in the long run. Like I said, it's avoiding harms that is more important. Schopenhauer was right when he said value is negative rather than positive. Meaning: Goodness is the absence of bad rather than badness being the absence of good.

  Personally, I would not do drugs just from the idea in my mind of how much damage these drugs can cause and neither would I recommend drugs.

Exactly.  

Anyway, the philosophy known as hedonism would say the same things I'm saying here and I am only coming up with my personal arguments to support hedonism.

Well... you did... okay. I could do better

 Hedonism says that pleasure (the positive emotions) are the only good things in life and displeasure (the negative emotions) being the only bad things in life.

Pleasure matters very little compared to displeasure though.

 Of course, there is no intellectual form of pleasure and displeasure.

You are making that mistake of separating intellect from passion again. Passion drives everything but even the most intellectual thoughts can be colored with good and bad feelings. That's why you get both analytical worrying and analytical wondering.

 According to hedonism, positive emotions are the only way our lives and things can be good and worth living for.

The absence of negative emotions is more important. I love being my robot self personally

And the great thing is, an absence of negative emotions can often lead to positive emotions... but outright seeking pleasure can actually lead to addiction and suffering.

This would mean that misery and an absence of positive emotions is no way to live or be an artist.

Hey... if I have an absence of positive emotions I literally do not care as long as I also have an absence of negative emotions

 I, myself, plan on being a composer who composes amazing, beautiful, bizarre, otherworldly music and I need my positive emotions in order to make my composing hobby something beautiful and worth living for in my life.

Go for it! I already enjoy composing weird music myself. Or perhaps you would call it bizarre or otherworldly

I dunno if you like electronic music. But feel free to PM me if you wanna hear any of my own music.

 In other words, I need to have fun and enjoy composing through my positive emotions.

Go for it!

 Here is a link to hedonism:

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_hedonism.html

Ty! I'm familar with Hedonism but not so much with that website. And the URL makes it sound a little basic for me! Good introduction for those unfamilar though perhaps! (I dunno I haven't checked the link. It might be crap!)

Personally, I prefer to frequent the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Here is another link which is the emotional perceptual theory.  It explains a new idea surfacing which would be the idea that emotions are the perception of value.  Some people reject and deny this idea, but I support it based upon my own personal experience and arguments.  Value would be a synonym for emotions which means that, if you want your life to have value, then you must feel certain emotions.  This would be no different than saying, if you want your life to have real hunger and thirst, sounds, smells, and colors, then you need to feel hungry and thirsty, you need to perceive colors, you need to hear sound, and you need to smell scents

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.11...x/abstract

I don't think you would need to perceive those latter things to feel them. Because perception and emotions are two different things. But yes you need emotions to feel value. Because perceptions that feel good or bad are indeed the perceptions that we value. And perceptions that feel good or bad are emotions.

Nice talking with you, you nutball, you. (No offense intended just try not to spam AF with only one topic. There are other things to talk about. Not everyone shares the same interests as you and I. Get a little social! I'm crap at it myself but looking at you makes me feel better )