Emotions are intrinsically good and bad

[Edwardo Piet]

That may explain why I can half-understand where TD is coming from. Although she is still pretty nuts

By the way, in regards to your question earlier about how I could judge a moderately intense amount of positive emotions over time versus a brief period of a very intense positive emotion as being the better solution, the answer here would be that our rational/thought form of value judgments are actually not real value judgments.  Instead, I would be having the idea of it being a better thing to do, but I wouldn't be judging (seeing) it as a good thing as long as I did not feel a positive emotion from that idea.  Our thoughts themselves are just ideas of things such as the idea of food, water, smells, visuals, sound, etc. but they do not bring our lives those things.  They could certainly trigger a certain smell or sound, but they themselves are just ideas.  Therefore, it is instead our emotional value judgments which are the real value judgments.  But what about situations where wise choices need to be made though?  If you felt angry at someone, then wouldn't we say that you would be judging it as a good thing to not harm this innocent person?  We wouldn't.  Rather, we would say that you had the idea of it being a good thing, but you weren't actually judging (seeing) any real good value in that.  Nonetheless, we should still make wise choices anyway since they are ideas of avoiding harmful, bad situations and reckless deeds to ourselves and others.

I agree that thoughts about goodness/value judgements are not the same as emotions. That is true but irrelevant.

I also disagree that it's even possible to have an emotional value judgement. Judgements of any kind are not emotional. Someone can feel emotional or experience emotions while they are making judgements, but that doesn't change the fact that the judgements and the emotions are entirely separate.

But if I bite the bullet and for sake of argument say that you're right about there being a such thing as emotional value judgements . . . that still gets you nowhere. The fact that emotional value judgements could lead us to make wise choices about our future does not entail that time is more important than intensity.

Your own subjective 'emotional value judgements', may lead you to do what you think makes you feel better, but you can be completely mistaken and deluded not only for others, but even for yourself. For starters I completely disagree. It isn't wiser to prefer time over intensity and variety over singular acuteness. It's wise to avoid the valleys and to seek the peeks (and it's especially wise to avoid the valleys), but I have additional premises and arguments to come to those conclusions. You merely pretend that your premises "emotions are intrinsically good and bad" and "emotional value judgements exist and are able to guide us wisely" entail "time is more important than intensity", but they don't. I disagree, intensity is more important than time. And for starters, I don't believe time is even real. There is only the present.

---

We should avoid harmful, bad situations and reckless deeds to ourselves and others -regardless- of how good we might feel engaged in them.  Utterly scuttling your entire position on the nature of good and evil.

-You- don't even agree with your own position, you're just too dense and stubborn to realize it.

But we should only avoid harmful situations for ourselves and others because they harm us. And harm is only a thing because it either hurts, damaging us emotionally, or it has potential to damage us so much that it eventually kills us, which only matters because when we're dead we can no longer feel happiness AND the people who care about us will suffer if we die.