Emotions are intrinsically good and bad

[Little lunch]

I think I get it.
A blind man can smell a potato, but only if it's cooked.
If it doesn't taste good to him, then he is inferior and worthless.
Currently, TD is the only person in the world who likes the taste of cooked potatoes, although he hasn't always.
Therefore he is no longer blind, which makes him superior and worth something.
The rest of us eat only tomatoes, which we can describe as red, but cannot visualise.
Tomatoes and potatoes mashed together produces an inner light.
Therefore you do not need to season it with salt and pepper.

I have no idea what the rest of you are on about with your subjective and objective bullshit.
It's not even food, it has no taste.

[Silver]

I think I get it.
A blind man can smell a potato, but only if it's cooked.
If it doesn't taste good to him, then he is inferior and worthless.
Currently, TD is the only person in the world who likes the taste of cooked potatoes, although he hasn't always.
Therefore he is no longer blind, which makes him superior and worth something.
The rest of us eat only tomatoes, which we can describe as red, but cannot visualise.
Tomatoes and potatoes mashed together produces an inner light.
Therefore you do not need to season it with salt and pepper.

I have no idea what the rest of you are on about with your subjective and objective bullshit.
It's not even food, it has no taste.

You should register as an interpreter for crazy.

[Transcended Dimensions]

No it's an awful metaphor because it's as obnoxious as the image it's based on. This "inner light" shit is vile so why would you want that as a metaphor? It stinks of religion, spirituality, superstition and woo. If you really did have a half-decent position why would you want to relate it to religion???? Wtf.

Instead of your disgusting metaphors and failed analogies... how about you actually make a sound argument for once. And instead of having a position disgustingly reminiscent of a religion... why not actually have a respectable philosophical position?

---

When I feel a positive emotion such as a profound feeling of love or beauty, then I display a personality that reflects that.  I display profoundly loving and beautiful tones, acts, and gestures.  That is why I describe my positive emotions as the inner light.  When people feel intense love or excitement, you see them display these sorts of positive expressions which reflect this inner light they have within them.  Likewise, when people feel negative emotions such as hate and disgust and they act out upon them, then they are acting out upon an inner darkness, so to speak.

And even if they could.... your analogy is terrible again. Saying "They could work it out so I could work it out even though I haven't even made an argument yet" doesn't work. Stop using analogies because you clearly don't know how to use them.

Again, as I have repeatedly made crystal clear: The premise "Emotions are intrinsically good and bad" doesn't entail "Time is more important than intensity." and giving a shitty analogy that doesn't even work won't do you any good. And even if your analogy wasn't a false analogy and we accepted your point that you could work it out.... the fact you have to work it out and use common sense is just admitting that your premise for intrinsic value is insufficient because you also need common sense.

And once again: you're wrong. Intensity is more important than time. And I actually have arguments to support that position... unlike yourself.

Then what I should have said was that I could think of a certain idea, decision, or situation as having good value during a moment where I did not have euphoria at all, but said situation would not matter to me at all and I would be doing nothing than just making a choice.  The only situation that would matter to me is the one I am feeling a negative emotion from.  When something matters to me in either a good way or a bad way, then I define that as perceiving good and bad value like how a sighted person is able to visualize colors.  It's like my brain doesn't get the "good" or "bad" signal to make things matter to me in good or bad ways independent of my euphoria/dysphoria just like how a blind person doesn't get the visual signal that would allow him to visualize colors.  This has been my own personal experience. 

If I was feeling nothing but excited and joyful since I was getting a new game or movie and something tragic were happening in my life right now, then that tragic situation would not matter to me at all.  It is only once I feel a negative emotion from that tragic event that it matters to me and is now a truly horrible situation to me.  If I was a molester and I harmed someone innocent and got a euphoric high off of that, then it doesn't matter what I think or believe otherwise. That situation would only matter to me in a good way since my brain would be getting the "good" message.  But if I harmed that person and I felt a negative emotion such as sadness and misery, then that situation would matter to me in a horrible way since my brain would be getting the "bad" message.

No. I am the transcended one here. In fact I am both more disabled and more transcended than you. And I don't need a username to tell everyone that

I think we can start here with this question.  If you were to have no euphoria such as due to a stressful life event or emotional trauma and you believed that things and moments in your life were still good and beautiful, then what would that be like for you?  You might say that it is like something good and beautiful since it is the words "good" and "beautiful" being believed in your mind in regards to those things, situations, and moments.  But I am asking you to look beyond those words.  There should be a form of goodness and beauty there that transcends words.  It would literally be the most powerful and profound state of being and living you could be in.  From my perspective, that state would be our euphoria.

However, I am asking you if there is any goodness and beauty beyond those words going through your mind during those moments.  If there is none there, then I can honestly conclude that your life has no real good value and beauty at all.  For example, a blind person can think of colors and he could tell you what that was like for him.  He could tell you that it was like red, blue, and green for him.  But these would just be words.  There is a form of red, green, and blue that goes beyond words and that would, again, be him visualizing those colors. 

So, what I am asking you here is if you are able to "visualize," so to speak, the good value, happiness, joy, and beauty in your life during moments where you are completely miserable and/or don't have your euphoria.  By the way, all those terms of happiness, joy, beauty, etc. would actually have to be synonymous with good value because, since positive emotions are what allow us to truly perceive good value and, thus, joy, happiness, and beauty all at the same time, then that would have to be synonymous.  

You see, I live my life by a standard of good value and beauty that transcends words.  If this standard does not get met, then my life is completely empty.  I have every reason to think this is the correct standard that many people have not been awakened to.  In other words, I live my life by higher values which are the real values that I describe in my other packet as "Consciousness based values" as opposed to mere value judgment based values which are simply words.  That is why I reach the conclusion that our euphoria are truly the only real way we can perceive good value regardless of the moral implications.

I just think that many people are not awakened to the inner light (a metaphorical term I like to use).  The inner light is the goodness and beauty that transcends words.  I am not sure if it can take on another form besides our positive emotions.  I just don't want to be that blind person who thinks of colors, but has no real colors in his life.  But my worldview does pose horrible moral implications that are pointed out later on.  I wonder if there is some workaround this while still sticking to my worldview. 

If you were on your computer and there were some worded options there and one of the options was faded, then that option would still be there.  It would just be neutral ("dead") so to speak.  This might mean that there can be real good value in your life independent of your euphoria.  It would just be a "dead" version of good value.  That is, your life would still be completely empty, but there would still be real good value in your life since the words good value are still there being acknowledged.  So, it would be like you have no real good value in your life while, at the same time, having real good value in your life.

I will also give another analogy.  If there was a person who died and his name was "Good," then Good would still be there.  He would just be a dead body.  Our euphoria are like the life force to this dead man that would bring Good back to life.  So, what I am saying here is that we need our euphoria.  Otherwise, our lives would be completely empty.  We would still have good value being believed in our minds during our miserable moments.  But there would be no inner "life" to those words in our mind.  Thus, our inner universe would be completely dead and empty for the time being until we reach a state of full recovery where we have our euphoria back to us again.

[Cyberman]

Newsflash - the world doesn't revolve around you. Other people have needs and opinions that don't mesh with yours. Get over it.

Alright then.  If my idea were true, then it would reveal that, as long as you don't have your positive emotions, then your life is worthless and of no good value.  How do you like that one for a change?  Also, if people are going to not show sympathy and if they are just going to dismiss my needs, then they are, to me, worthless and inferior scum/trash.  If my worldview were somehow true, then that would return the favor upon them by revealing to them that their lives are of no good value and meaningless without their positive emotions.  That would make me the winner and them the inferior losers.

Only in your opinion, which you have demonstrated time and again to be worthless. Fortunately, the rest of us have this new thing called society, which funnily enough you depend on for the beneficial things and then piss all over when it suits you, merely so that you can feed your need to imagine yourself superior. I'm no psychologist, but I'm sure there's a name for that.

[Edwardo Piet]

 "Good" means whatever you want it to mean, based on your individual feelings and predilections.

There are multiple definitions of the word "good" depending on context. That is not the same thing as it being purely subjective. As Sam Harris notes... there is no meaningful sense in which the worst possible misery for everyone isn't bad in a moral context. Non-consequentalist theories wouldn't be taken seriously if none of their virtues and rules didn't often lead to good consequences. Even non-consequentalist theories implicitly presuppose the soundness of consequentalism, therefore.

 There is great agreement about what "apple" and "science" mean, and little about what constitutes good or bad.

You've got this completely ass backwards if you think agreement and disagreement is relevant. The whole point of objectivity is agreement or disagreement over something is irrelevant.

"Objective" doesn't mean "universal". Everyone in the world doesn't have to agree that Nazism is bad for Nazism to be bad. And if Nazism really is objectively bad then if Hitler won the war and the whole world converted to Nazism then Nazism would still be bad. It wouldn't matter that everyone universally agreed that it was good. That's what objectively good or bad means. It means something is good or bad regardless of if people agree or disagree on the matter

Is 2+2=4 objectively true because most people agree that 2+2=4? NO! 2+2=4 is objectively true because it's true regardless of whether people agree with or understand the answer. That's what objective means. You've got this entirely backwards.

"Intrinsic" doesn't mean everyone has to agree. On the contrary, it means something is the way it is in and of itself regardless of disagreement or agreement.

So it's ironic that you said I didn't know what "intrinsic" means and that I needed to invest in a dictionary. When it's very clear that it's you who doesn't know what it means. And maybe you should go and read the dictionary. I once spent every day reading a dictionary for 8 months straight. And I often do read it every now and then purely for enjoyment. I'm the last person who needs to do further revision.

---

I think I get it.
A blind man can smell a potato, but only if it's cooked.
If it doesn't taste good to him, then he is inferior and worthless.
Currently, TD is the only person in the world who likes the taste of cooked potatoes, although he hasn't always.
Therefore he is no longer blind, which makes him superior and worth something.
The rest of us eat only tomatoes, which we can describe as red, but cannot visualise.
Tomatoes and potatoes mashed together produces an inner light.
Therefore you do not need to season it with salt and pepper.

I have no idea what the rest of you are on about with your subjective and objective bullshit.
It's not even food, it has no taste.

But......... I LOVE cooked potatoes too

[Edwardo Piet]

When I feel a positive emotion such as a profound feeling of love or beauty, then I display a personality that reflects that.  I display profoundly loving and beautiful tones, acts, and gestures.  That is why I describe my positive emotions as the inner light.

The problem is that not all emotions that feel good lead to good consequences. It's possible to be a sadist who experiences profound ecstasy when beating the crap out of someone, for example.

Emotions aren't the inner light. Emotions are what give our lives purpose but that purpose isn't always good even when the emotion feels good.

Likewise, even when an emotion feels bad... it can have a good purpose.

An emotion that feels bad for someone but inspires that person to decrease suffering in others is good.

An emotion that feels good for someone but inspires that person to increase suffering for others is bad.

Of course when the emotion that feels bad feels extremely painful but only inspires the person to mildly decrease suffering in others, then it is still bad.

But it doesn't matter how much ecstasy an emotion gives someone... if it only slightly makes another person suffer it's no longer good. Because suffering is extremely relevant to morality and if someone is suffering, however little, then they need some help, however little. But if someone is neither suffering nor feeling good then increasing their happiness isn't particularly important since they are already okay. Increasing the happiness of someone who is already reasonably happy is least important of all.

So things are not as simple as you make out. And I still maintain my position that emotions are ultimately not broad enough to describe a full range of positive and negative experiences. Moods and feelings cover more meaningful feeling than specific emotions do.

 

When people feel intense love or excitement, you see them display these sorts of positive expressions which reflect this inner light they have within them.  Likewise, when people feel negative emotions such as hate and disgust and they act out upon them, then they are acting out upon an inner darkness, so to speak.

This poetry and these metaphors are irrelevant. The reality is nowhere near as idyllic as you make out. Emotions that feel good can sometimes cause suffering in others. Emotions that feel bad can sometimes cause happiness in others.

The so-called "negative" emotions like anger, fear and sadness can be very helpful and positive in certain contexts. All emotions have a purpose. It's only when emotions are irrational that they are useless. Anger that expresses itself as righteous indignation can be very positive and helpful. Anger that expresses itself as interpersonal hatred based on an irrational belief in free will and that people choose to be bad is negative.

It's not the emotions themselves, therefore, that are good or bad. It's whether they are rational or appropriate in context.

An emotion that is irrational or inappropriate in context is irrational and inappropriate specifically because it ultimately causes suffering and/or decreases happiness in oneself and/or others overall... and an emotion that is rational or appropriate in context is rational and appropriate specifically because it ultimately reduces suffering and/or increases happiness in oneself and/or others overall

So you're missing some depth in your thinking if you think some emotions are just intrinsically good and some emotions are intrinsically bad. It's more complex than that.

This is all regardless of if those emotions appear to be positive or negative on the immediate surfice. i.e. if they bring you joy or frustration. Sadists often feel happiness when they hurt people and people who have the strength of willpower to abstain from alcohol in order to overcome a drinking problem often temporarily suffer because they're denying their cravings. But the point is that the sadist is bad because of the suffering they cause in others regardless of their own immediate happiness from being a sadist... and the alcoholic trying to quit drinking is good because of the future depression and additional suffering that they avoid regardless of their own immediate milder suffering while denying their immediate urges by abstaining from alcohol. You are missing the big picture. So-called 'negative' emotions can be ultimately positive and so called 'positive' emotions can be ultimately negative. It's not just about the immediate emotions... it's the further deeper emotions they cause. But it's also more than that because specific emotions in themselves don't cover the full scope of meaningful feelings and moods. Only all kinds of sentient experience covers that... even the ones that we are unable to categorize into specific emotions.

Then what I should have said was that I could think of a certain idea, decision, or situation as having good value during a moment where I did not have euphoria at all, but said situation would not matter to me at all and I would be doing nothing than just making a choice.  The only situation that would matter to me is the one I am feeling a negative emotion from.  When something matters to me in either a good way or a bad way, then I define that as perceiving good and bad value like how a sighted person is able to visualize colors.  It's like my brain doesn't get the "good" or "bad" signal to make things matter to me in good or bad ways independent of my euphoria/dysphoria just like how a blind person doesn't get the visual signal that would allow him to visualize colors.  This has been my own personal experience. 

What are you trying to say? That good and bad feelings feel good and bad regardless of if you think they do or don't?

If so that depends. Something can start off feeling bad but then via the placebo effect if you convince yourself that it actually feels good then what once felt bad can feel good. And the obverse is true too: Something can start off feeling good but then via a negative version of the placebo effect you can convince yourself that it actually feels bad and then what once felt good can feel bad.

This is what I mean when I question whether emotions are even real. As often the very psychology behind them is where most of their meaningful experience comes from. If you think you are happy then you're happy regardless of the physical pain you are in. If you think you are unhappy then you are unhappy regardless of the pleasure you are in.

I think pain, pleasure, suffering and conscious experiences mood and feelings overall are much more real and meaningful than specific emotions that we define. When someone asks if I am happy I am tempted to seriously answer "What does that even mean?". But if someone asks me what kind of experience I am having right now then I am able to explain the sort of experience I am having and let my description of the quality of that experience speak for itself. Whether it's really good enough to be "happy" or not is irrelevant and vague.

If I was feeling nothing but excited and joyful since I was getting a new game or movie and something tragic were happening in my life right now, then that tragic situation would not matter to me at all.  It is only once I feel a negative emotion from that tragic event that it matters to me and is now a truly horrible situation to me.

So what you are saying is that you are unable to respond to a negative situation with negative emotion unless you actually feel the negative emotion?

Well, duh.

I think that what you are trying to say is that it is your emotion itself that is meaningful. Not the event.

But I disagree. The very fact that the event would cause you negative emotions is why that event is morally meaningful.

Sure if it was impossible for the event to ever cause you or anyone else suffering or pain or death or harm then it wouldn't be a negative event. But then it would be an entirely different sort of event because that event does clearly cause those things. We'd also live in a very different world.

I don't disagree that morality and values are objective and that emotions are relevant. I do disagree that emotions are the full picture, however. Because I know that conscious experience as a whole covers more relevant moods and feelings than specific emotions do. I also think that having a bunch of the so-called "positive emotions" can on occasion lead to negative experiences, feelings and moods (and negative emotions) and the so-called "negative emotions" can, likewise, on occasion lead to positive experiences, feelings and moods (and positive emotions). So you oversimplify the matter.

We ultimately don't experience some emotions that are "negative" and like demons because those emotions have a purpose and can be useful. We wouldn't get angry, sad or fearful as a species if those emotions had no use. We ultimately don't experience some emotions that are "positive" and that are our "inner light" either... because despite the fact that, indeed, all our emotions have a purpose.... they have a purpose via natural selection and what's good for our surivival isn't always moral. If a sadist is able to spread his genes by raping someone and that gives him a lot of pleasure and he gets away with it and tragically never goes to prison and no one finds out... that favors his genes and it feels good for him... but the joy he feels in being a sadistic rapist is not good. Regardless of the fact that joy is a "positive emotion". I.e. so called "positive emotions" can be negative when in certain contexts they can cause intense suffering for others... and likewise: so-called "negative emotions" can be positive if they help the person be moral and help others. i.e. the righteous indignation of women's rights protesters.

 

If I was a molester and I harmed someone innocent and got a euphoric high off of that, then it doesn't matter what I think or believe otherwise. That situation would only matter to me in a good way since my brain would be getting the "good" message.  But if I harmed that person and I felt a negative emotion such as sadness and misery, then that situation would matter to me in a horrible way since my brain would be getting the "bad" message.

Yes but even if you were a molester and got a euphoric high off of it that would still be bad because you would be causing the other person suffering.

People who feel neither good nor bad... are at least okay. It's those who are suffering that need help the most. Suffering carriers moral weight. Experiencing happiness and pleasure is the final moral priority: the last thing on the list. Top priority is reducing suffering. It's in helping people.

I think we can start here with this question.  If you were to have no euphoria such as due to a stressful life event or emotional trauma and you believed that things and moments in your life were still good and beautiful, then what would that be like for you? 

That isn't possible. If things really feel good and beautiful to me in any sort of meaningful way then that would either feel euphoric or something approaching that. Some sort of positive experience even if it doesn't qualify for an 'emotion'.

You might say that it is like something good and beautiful since it is the words "good" and "beautiful" being believed in your mind in regards to those things, situations, and moments.  But I am asking you to look beyond those words.  There should be a form of goodness and beauty there that transcends words.  It would literally be the most powerful and profound state of being and living you could be in.  From my perspective, that state would be our euphoria.

I don't think euphoria beyond chemical euphoria such as physical pleasure is real. I.e. emotions are psychological and placebos. It's only physical feelings that are truly "real".

However, I am asking you if there is any goodness and beauty beyond those words going through your mind during those moments.  If there is none there, then I can honestly conclude that your life has no real good value and beauty at all.

But unreal good and beauty isn't really any less 'real'.

I.e. I say emotions aren't real and they're just placebos but if the placebos make me feel good then their unreality is irrelevant.

In other words... if I merely imagine that I feel good and I experience that imagination as imaginary happiness then who cares if it's imaginary or unreal? This is the quibble I have with emotions. Who cares about emotions. It's psychology, it's placebos, it's tricking oneself. It's ultimately great but it's not something I can bring about intentionally once I know how it really works. It's conditioning more than anything.

Basically... I don't care about reality. I care about existence. The imagination isn't real... it's imaginary. But it still exists... in my head. That's what matters

There are real things and imaginary things. In the context of belief in what exists in the outside world... then it's the real things that matter. But in the context of meaningful conscious experience regardless of reality... then all that matters is the existence of certain chemicals in my brain. It doesn't matter if what causes those feelings is reality or fantasy.

 

For example, a blind person can think of colors and he could tell you what that was like for him.

No he can't. He can only think of colors if he previously used to be able to see but he lost his eyesight. He would have no concept of what a color is if he had never seen one before.

  He could tell you that it was like red, blue, and green for him.  But these would just be words.  There is a form of red, green, and blue that goes beyond words and that would, again, be him visualizing those colors.

The only form of red, green, and blue goes beyond words.

To quote Daniel Dennett: God is not a concept. The concept of God is a concept. A cup of coffee is not a concept. The concept of a cup of coffee is a concept.

People say "love is just a word." Well, "cheeseburger" is just a word too.

Whatever love is it isn't a word. It can be an emotion, it can be a meaningful romantic relationship, it can be doing good for one's fellow (hu)man... but whatever it is it's not a word. You can't find love in the dictionary.



You can't find love in the dictionary. You can find "love". In the dictionary. I.e. The word "love" but not love itself.

Colors are not words. The words for colors are words.

The use/mention distinction is both relevant and elementary here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%...istinction

The use–mention distinction is especially important in analytic philosophy.[8] Failure to properly distinguish use from mention can produce false, misleading, or meaningless statements or category errors. For example, the following correctly distinguish between use and mention:
"Copper" contains six letters, and is not a metal.
Copper is a metal, and contains no letters.

 

So, what I am asking you here is if you are able to "visualize," so to speak, the good value, happiness, joy, and beauty in your life during moments where you are completely miserable and/or don't have your euphoria.

The good in those moments is the positive experiences I cause in others.

Likewise, in my moments of joy or happiness... the bad in those experiences are the negative experiences I cause in others. I hope I haven't caused many negative experiences for people while enjoying myself though! But it's not impossible. Ultimately it's not just about whether I'm experiencing a so-called "positive emotion" or not. Because not only does it also matter what experiences I cause in others subsequently... but it also matters what experiences I cause myself subsequently.

Positive and negative experiences are broader and cover more range than emotions. Also there is really no need to worry about thinking about whether those experiences are positive or negative at all since it's not really possible to experience unemotionality as humans. We are not robots. Any experience at all must have some sort of positive or negative emotional quality in order to really even qualify as an "experience". Even our "meh" experiences has some sort of quality. "meh" or "okay" is still not 100% neutral. It's usually mildly negative or mildly positive.

If this thread's premise was "positive and negative experiences are intrinsically good and bad" then I wouldn't disagree. I disagree when you speak of positive and negative emotions because the totality of human experience is complex and you don't really experience angels and demons in your head. Emotions aren't like that. Both the so-called "positive" and "negative" emotions can ultimately cause positive and negative moods and feelings. They can cause positive and negative overall emotionality. Even if that emotionality is too broad to really be bracketed into specific emotions.

By the way, all those terms of happiness, joy, beauty, etc. would actually have to be synonymous with good value because, since positive emotions are what allow us to truly perceive good value and, thus, joy, happiness, and beauty all at the same time, then that would have to be synonymous.

They are not what allow us to perceive good value. They are themselves what is of value if and only if they aren't causing suffering in oneself or others overall.

And really any sort of experience that decreases overall suffering is far more morally important than any sort of overall experience that feels blissful.

If a person is feeling blissfully happy but ignoring helping people even when they are perfectly capable of helping people then they are morally more negative than a person who is feeling pretty bad but is helping someone who is feeling terrible feel better so they at least feel okayish.

Your theory doesn't account for this:



And your oversimplistic cartoonish characterization of so-called "positive emotions" as angels or as our "inner light" completely ignores the fact that it is possible to experience joy while neglecting to help anyone who is suffering. It is also possible to suffer and help someone who is suffering far more.

So if your inadequate theory were realized then it could very easily in reality present itself as a bunch of hedonists callously ignoring homeless people and starving children while they party 24/7. That's certainly not what I'd call goodness. (And this is even if your theory can be even called a "theory" when all it really is a simplistic premise + some metaphors and false analogies)

You see, I live my life by a standard of good value and beauty that transcends words.

This is nothing spectacular because all experience transcends words.

  If this standard does not get met, then my life is completely empty.

That's a false dichotomy.

There is not only beautiful experience and sublime happiness on the one hand and complete emptiness on the other hand. There is also a whole range of meaningful experiences in between. If my life is sort of okayish then that isn't completely empty nor is it sublime happiness or beautiful experience. It's sort of okayish.

It's no surprise to me that your binary black and white thinking of bracketing all experience into specific emotions that are "good" or "bad" has also led you to completely ignore all emotions in between. It's apparently either utter happiness and intense beauty for you or it's complete emptiness.

The ironic thing is most of life is experiencing the greys. It's experiencing the sort of doing okay. So you are denying most of the reality of human experience.

  I have every reason to think this is the correct standard that many people have not been awakened to.  In other words, I live my life by higher values which are the real values that I describe in my other packet as "Consciousness based values" as opposed to mere value judgment based values which are simply words.

This is true but far from being at all meaningful this is trivially true because all experience is consciousness based. It's not possible to experience something non-consciously. There's no such thing as an unconscious experience. If you're not conscious, you're not experiencing anything. Even dreaming while asleep is conscious activity on some level.  

That is why I reach the conclusion that our euphoria are truly the only real way we can perceive good value regardless of the moral implications.

This is nonsense. As explained earlier. I don't need to feel euphoric to be aware that helping a homeless person is good because it reduces their suffering/negative experiences. And it's also possible to feel euphoric for sadistic and ultimately bad reasons.

You really are good at making complete non-sequiturs.

You do not need to feel euphoria to do good in the world and it's possible to be suffering and feel the very opposite of euphoria but to also help people who are suffering even more than you are.

It's also possible to be suffering quite badly but help someone who is suffering mildly. And if you're a compassionate person and your suffering is not tortuously deep then helping another person who is suffering might help you feel a little better even if they weren't suffering quite as bad as you were.

I just think that many people are not awakened to the inner light (a metaphorical term I like to use).

If I tell you that I am more awakened than you are you won't believe me. But whether you believe me or not the fact is that I am more enligthened than you are. Why do you bother to tell us that you are enligthened? It's not going to convince you that I'm enligthened if I tell you that I am. Why do you think we'll believe you if you tell us?

I'm better at making cogent arguments to support my philosophical positions than you are. And the fact you resort to falling back on metaphors and make analogies to theism only further demonstrates how weak your position is.

  The inner light is the goodness and beauty that transcends words.

All goodness trancends words and the irony is that the fact you are insisting on using the words "the inner light" to describe that goodness and at the same time insisting that what you believe transcends words. If it really transcends words then you don't have to bother to insisit on using metaphors like "inner light" and shit.

All goodness transcends words whether you call it "inner light" or "dogshit". If I labelled the decreasing suffering in others as "dogshit" that wouldn't change the fact that decreasing suffering in others is good. Calling it "inner light" is pointless. As is calling it "dogshit". Just call a spade a spade, call it what it is: helping others.

Stop falling back on annoying metaphors that are as obnoxious as theism and stop making failed analogies and actually deal with my arguments.

You have at least two premises.

1. Emotions are intrinsically good and bad.
2. Time is more important than intensity.

But you are pretending that only the first premise exists. And you are pretending that your failed analogies and metaphors can help get you to 2 without making a second premise. You can't. If you don't want to have a second premise and you only want premise number 1 then you have to actually make a valid argument to take you to premise 2. Non-sequiturs are just non-sequiturs.

We certainly don't agree on the matter of your analogies being failed or not. You think your analogies are successful. I think they are failures.

But even if your analogies are successful... to succeed they must reflect an actual argument that leads you to premise 2.. They must reflect a valid argument that leads to 2 and makes 2 a conclusion. Without an argument that entails premise 2 as a conclusion then your analogy doesn't reflect anything but a premise. Which means you don't have 1 premise "emotions are intrinsically good and bad". You also have premise 2. So stop pretending you only have one premise.

  I am not sure if it can take on another form besides our positive emotions.  I just don't want to be that blind person who thinks of colors, but has no real colors in his life. 

A blind person can't think of colors. They can think that they are thinking of colors but if they think that they are mistaken.

But that is a false analogy with regards to emotions. Because the very fact of thinking you are happy can have a placebo effect. You can be not happy and convince yourself that you are happy and that conviction can cause you to feel feelings of happiness. The same is not true with colors. It doesn't matter how much a blind person who has always been blind believes they can visualize colors: They physically can't. It's physically impossible. They are deluded. So your analogy fails.

The reality of the phenomenology of colors either is or isn't being experienced. But emotions can be entirely psychological and you can think you experience them when you initially don't and you false conviction can cause their very reality. This is due to the psychological nature of emotions.

But my worldview does pose horrible moral implications that are pointed out later on.  I wonder if there is some workaround this while still sticking to my worldview. 

What sort of workaround are you referring to?

If you were on your computer and there were some worded options there and one of the options was faded, then that option would still be there.  It would just be neutral ("dead") so to speak. 

No.... if an option is faded this doesn't make it neutral or "dead". It just makes it faded.

This might mean that there can be real good value in your life independent of your euphoria.

Okay you need psychiatric help. Seriously dude if you think that certain options on a computer has some sort of meaning to your life then you're a deluded and need psychiatric help. You appear to be having a manic psychotic episode and experiencing extreme symptoms in the form of apophenia. I've been there before. I'm being completely serious. Get help. End of conversation.

[Transcended Dimensions]

When I feel a positive emotion such as a profound feeling of love or beauty, then I display a personality that reflects that.  I display profoundly loving and beautiful tones, acts, and gestures.  That is why I describe my positive emotions as the inner light.

The problem is that not all emotions that feel good lead to good consequences. It's possible to be a sadist who experiences profound ecstasy when beating the crap out of someone, for example.

Emotions aren't the inner light. Emotions are what give our lives purpose but that purpose isn't always good even when the emotion feels good.

Likewise, even when an emotion feels bad... it can have a good purpose.

An emotion that feels bad for someone but inspires that person to decrease suffering in others is good.

An emotion that feels good for someone but inspires that person to increase suffering for others is bad.

Of course when the emotion that feels bad feels extremely painful but only inspires the person to mildly decrease suffering in others, then it is still bad.

But it doesn't matter how much ecstasy an emotion gives someone... if it only slightly makes another person suffer it's no longer good. Because suffering is extremely relevant to morality and if someone is suffering, however little, then they need some help, however little. But if someone is neither suffering nor feeling good then increasing their happiness isn't particularly important since they are already okay. Increasing the happiness of someone who is already reasonably happy is least important of all.

So things are not as simple as you make out. And I still maintain my position that emotions are ultimately not broad enough to describe a full range of positive and negative experiences. Moods and feelings cover more meaningful feeling than specific emotions do.

 

When people feel intense love or excitement, you see them display these sorts of positive expressions which reflect this inner light they have within them.  Likewise, when people feel negative emotions such as hate and disgust and they act out upon them, then they are acting out upon an inner darkness, so to speak.

This poetry and these metaphors are irrelevant. The reality is nowhere near as idyllic as you make out. Emotions that feel good can sometimes cause suffering in others. Emotions that feel bad can sometimes cause happiness in others.

The so-called "negative" emotions like anger, fear and sadness can be very helpful and positive in certain contexts. All emotions have a purpose. It's only when emotions are irrational that they are useless. Anger that expresses itself as righteous indignation can be very positive and helpful. Anger that expresses itself as interpersonal hatred based on an irrational belief in free will and that people choose to be bad is negative.

It's not the emotions themselves, therefore, that are good or bad. It's whether they are rational or appropriate in context.

An emotion that is irrational or inappropriate in context is irrational and inappropriate specifically because it ultimately causes suffering and/or decreases happiness in oneself and/or others overall... and an emotion that is rational or appropriate in context is rational and appropriate specifically because it ultimately reduces suffering and/or increases happiness in oneself and/or others overall

So you're missing some depth in your thinking if you think some emotions are just intrinsically good and some emotions are intrinsically bad. It's more complex than that.

This is all regardless of if those emotions appear to be positive or negative on the immediate surfice. i.e. if they bring you joy or frustration. Sadists often feel happiness when they hurt people and people who have the strength of willpower to abstain from alcohol in order to overcome a drinking problem often temporarily suffer because they're denying their cravings. But the point is that the sadist is bad because of the suffering they cause in others regardless of their own immediate happiness from being a sadist... and the alcoholic trying to quit drinking is good because of the future depression and additional suffering that they avoid regardless of their own immediate milder suffering while denying their immediate urges by abstaining from alcohol. You are missing the big picture. So-called 'negative' emotions can be ultimately positive and so called 'positive' emotions can be ultimately negative. It's not just about the immediate emotions... it's the further deeper emotions they cause. But it's also more than that because specific emotions in themselves don't cover the full scope of meaningful feelings and moods. Only all kinds of sentient experience covers that... even the ones that we are unable to categorize into specific emotions.

Then what I should have said was that I could think of a certain idea, decision, or situation as having good value during a moment where I did not have euphoria at all, but said situation would not matter to me at all and I would be doing nothing than just making a choice.  The only situation that would matter to me is the one I am feeling a negative emotion from.  When something matters to me in either a good way or a bad way, then I define that as perceiving good and bad value like how a sighted person is able to visualize colors.  It's like my brain doesn't get the "good" or "bad" signal to make things matter to me in good or bad ways independent of my euphoria/dysphoria just like how a blind person doesn't get the visual signal that would allow him to visualize colors.  This has been my own personal experience. 

What are you trying to say? That good and bad feelings feel good and bad regardless of if you think they do or don't?

If so that depends. Something can start off feeling bad but then via the placebo effect if you convince yourself that it actually feels good then what once felt bad can feel good. And the obverse is true too: Something can start off feeling good but then via a negative version of the placebo effect you can convince yourself that it actually feels bad and then what once felt good can feel bad.

This is what I mean when I question whether emotions are even real. As often the very psychology behind them is where most of their meaningful experience comes from. If you think you are happy then you're happy regardless of the physical pain you are in. If you think you are unhappy then you are unhappy regardless of the pleasure you are in.

I think pain, pleasure, suffering and conscious experiences mood and feelings overall are much more real and meaningful than specific emotions that we define. When someone asks if I am happy I am tempted to seriously answer "What does that even mean?". But if someone asks me what kind of experience I am having right now then I am able to explain the sort of experience I am having and let my description of the quality of that experience speak for itself. Whether it's really good enough to be "happy" or not is irrelevant and vague.

If I was feeling nothing but excited and joyful since I was getting a new game or movie and something tragic were happening in my life right now, then that tragic situation would not matter to me at all.  It is only once I feel a negative emotion from that tragic event that it matters to me and is now a truly horrible situation to me.

So what you are saying is that you are unable to respond to a negative situation with negative emotion unless you actually feel the negative emotion?

Well, duh.

I think that what you are trying to say is that it is your emotion itself that is meaningful. Not the event.

But I disagree. The very fact that the event would cause you negative emotions is why that event is morally meaningful.

Sure if it was impossible for the event to ever cause you or anyone else suffering or pain or death or harm then it wouldn't be a negative event. But then it would be an entirely different sort of event because that event does clearly cause those things. We'd also live in a very different world.

I don't disagree that morality and values are objective and that emotions are relevant. I do disagree that emotions are the full picture, however. Because I know that conscious experience as a whole covers more relevant moods and feelings than specific emotions do. I also think that having a bunch of  the so-called "positive emotions" can on occasion lead to negative experiences, feelings and moods (and negative emotions) and the so-called "negative emotions" can, likewise, on occasion lead to positive experiences, feelings and moods (and positive emotions). So you oversimplify the matter.

We ultimately don't experience some emotions that are "negative" and like demons because those emotions have a purpose and can be useful. We wouldn't get angry, sad or fearful as a  species if those emotions had no use. We ultimately don't experience some emotions that are "positive" and that are our "inner light" either... because despite the fact that, indeed, all our emotions have a purpose.... they have a purpose via natural selection and what's good for our surivival isn't always moral. If a sadist is able to spread his genes by raping someone and that gives him a lot of pleasure and he gets away with it and tragically never goes to prison and no one finds out... that favors his genes and it feels good for him... but the joy he feels in being a sadistic rapist is not good. Regardless of the fact that joy is a "positive emotion". I.e. so called "positive emotions" can be negative when in certain contexts they can cause intense suffering for others... and likewise: so-called "negative emotions" can be positive if they help the person be moral and help others. i.e. the righteous indignation of women's rights protesters.

 

If I was a molester and I harmed someone innocent and got a euphoric high off of that, then it doesn't matter what I think or believe otherwise. That situation would only matter to me in a good way since my brain would be getting the "good" message.  But if I harmed that person and I felt a negative emotion such as sadness and misery, then that situation would matter to me in a horrible way since my brain would be getting the "bad" message.

Yes but even if you were a molester and got a euphoric high off of it that would still be bad because you would be causing the other person suffering.

People who feel neither good nor bad... are at least okay. It's those who are suffering that need help the most. Suffering carriers moral weight. Experiencing happiness and pleasure is the final moral priority: the last thing on the list. Top priority is reducing suffering. It's in helping people.

I think we can start here with this question.  If you were to have no euphoria such as due to a stressful life event or emotional trauma and you believed that things and moments in your life were still good and beautiful, then what would that be like for you? 

That isn't possible. If things really feel good and beautiful to me in any sort of meaningful way then that would either feel euphoric or something approaching that. Some sort of positive experience even if it doesn't qualify for an 'emotion'.

You might say that it is like something good and beautiful since it is the words "good" and "beautiful" being believed in your mind in regards to those things, situations, and moments.  But I am asking you to look beyond those words.  There should be a form of goodness and beauty there that transcends words.  It would literally be the most powerful and profound state of being and living you could be in.  From my perspective, that state would be our euphoria.

I don't think euphoria beyond chemical euphoria such as physical pleasure is real. I.e. emotions are psychological and placebos. It's only physical feelings that are truly "real".

However, I am asking you if there is any goodness and beauty beyond those words going through your mind during those moments.  If there is none there, then I can honestly conclude that your life has no real good value and beauty at all.

But unreal good and beauty isn't really any less 'real'.

I.e. I say emotions aren't real and they're just placebos but if the placebos make me feel good then their unreality is irrelevant.

In other words... if I merely imagine that I feel good and I experience that imagination as imaginary happiness then who cares if it's imaginary or unreal? This is the quibble I have with emotions. Who cares about emotions. It's psychology, it's placebos, it's tricking oneself. It's ultimately great but it's not something I can bring about intentionally once I know how it really works. It's conditioning more than anything.

Basically... I don't care about reality. I care about existence. The imagination isn't real... it's imaginary. But it still exists... in my head. That's what matters

There are real things and imaginary things. In the context of belief in what exists in the outside world... then it's the real things that matter. But in the context of meaningful conscious experience regardless of reality... then all that matters is the existence of certain chemicals in my brain. It doesn't matter if what causes those feelings is reality or fantasy.

 

For example, a blind person can think of colors and he could tell you what that was like for him.

No he can't. He can only think of colors if he previously used to be able to see but he lost his eyesight. He would have no concept of what a color is if he had never seen one before.

  He could tell you that it was like red, blue, and green for him.  But these would just be words.  There is a form of red, green, and blue that goes beyond words and that would, again, be him visualizing those colors.

The only form of red, green, and blue goes beyond words.

To quote Daniel Dennett: God is not a concept. The concept of God is a concept. A cup of coffee is not a concept. The concept of a cup of coffee is a concept.

People say "love is just a word." Well, "cheeseburger" is just a word too.

Whatever love is it isn't a word. It can be an emotion, it can be a meaningful romantic relationship, it can be doing good for one's fellow (hu)man... but whatever it is it's not a word. You can't find love in the dictionary.



You can't find love in the dictionary. You can find "love". In the dictionary. I.e. The word "love" but not love itself.

Colors are not words. The words for colors are words.

The use/mention distinction is both relevant and elementary here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%...istinction

The use–mention distinction is especially important in analytic philosophy.[8] Failure to properly distinguish use from mention can produce false, misleading, or meaningless statements or category errors. For example, the following correctly distinguish between use and mention:
"Copper" contains six letters, and is not a metal.
Copper is a metal, and contains no letters.

 

So, what I am asking you here is if you are able to "visualize," so to speak, the good value, happiness, joy, and beauty in your life during moments where you are completely miserable and/or don't have your euphoria.

The good in those moments is the positive experiences I cause in others.

Likewise, in my moments of joy or happiness... the bad in those experiences are the negative experiences I cause in others. I hope I haven't caused many negative experiences for people while enjoying myself though! But it's not impossible. Ultimately it's not just about whether I'm experiencing a so-called "positive emotion" or not. Because not only does it also matter what experiences I cause in others subsequently... but it also matters what experiences I cause myself subsequently.

Positive and negative experiences are broader and cover more range than emotions. Also there is really no need to worry about thinking about whether those experiences are positive or negative at all since it's not really possible to experience unemotionality as humans. We are not robots. Any experience at all must have some sort of positive or negative emotional quality in order to really even qualify as an "experience". Even our "meh" experiences has some sort of quality. "meh" or "okay" is still not 100% neutral. It's usually mildly negative or mildly positive.

If this thread's premise was "positive and negative experiences are intrinsically good and bad" then I wouldn't disagree. I disagree when you speak of positive and negative emotions because the totality of human experience is complex and you don't really experience angels and demons in your head. Emotions aren't like that. Both the so-called "positive" and "negative" emotions can ultimately cause positive and negative moods and feelings. They can cause positive and negative overall emotionality. Even if that emotionality is too broad to really be bracketed into specific emotions.

By the way, all those terms of happiness, joy, beauty, etc. would actually have to be synonymous with good value because, since positive emotions are what allow us to truly perceive good value and, thus, joy, happiness, and beauty all at the same time, then that would have to be synonymous.

They are not what allow us to perceive good value. They are themselves what is of value if and only if they aren't causing suffering in oneself or others overall.

And really any sort of experience that decreases overall suffering is far more morally important than any sort of overall experience that feels blissful.

If a person is feeling blissfully happy but ignoring helping people even when they are perfectly capable of helping people then they are morally more negative than a person who is feeling pretty bad but is helping someone who is feeling terrible feel better so they at least feel okayish.

Your theory doesn't account for this:



And your oversimplistic cartoonish characterization of so-called "positive emotions" as angels or as our "inner light" completely ignores the fact that it is possible to experience joy while neglecting to help anyone who is suffering. It is also possible to suffer and help someone who is suffering far more.

So if your inadequate theory were realized then it could very easily in reality present itself as a bunch of hedonists callously ignoring homeless people and starving children while they party 24/7. That's certainly not what I'd call goodness. (And this is even if your theory can be even called a "theory" when all it really is a simplistic premise + some metaphors and false analogies)

You see, I live my life by a standard of good value and beauty that transcends words.

This is nothing spectacular because all experience transcends words.

  If this standard does not get met, then my life is completely empty.

That's a false dichotomy.

There is not only beautiful experience and sublime happiness on the one hand and complete emptiness on the other hand. There is also a whole range of meaningful experiences in between. If my life is sort of okayish then that isn't completely empty nor is it sublime happiness or beautiful experience. It's sort of okayish.

It's no surprise to me that your binary black and white thinking of bracketing all experience into specific emotions that are "good" or "bad" has also led you to completely ignore all emotions in between. It's apparently either utter happiness and intense beauty for you or it's complete emptiness.

The ironic thing is most of life is experiencing the greys. It's experiencing the sort of doing okay. So you are denying most of the reality of human experience.

  I have every reason to think this is the correct standard that many people have not been awakened to.  In other words, I live my life by higher values which are the real values that I describe in my other packet as "Consciousness based values" as opposed to mere value judgment based values which are simply words.

This is true but far from being at all meaningful this is trivially true because all experience is consciousness based. It's not possible to experience something non-consciously. There's no such thing as an unconscious experience. If you're not conscious, you're not experiencing anything. Even dreaming while asleep is conscious activity on some level.  

That is why I reach the conclusion that our euphoria are truly the only real way we can perceive good value regardless of the moral implications.

This is nonsense. As explained earlier. I don't need to feel euphoric to be aware that helping a homeless person is good because it reduces their suffering/negative experiences. And it's also possible to feel euphoric for sadistic and ultimately bad reasons.

You really are good at making complete non-sequiturs.

You do not need to feel euphoria to do good in the world and it's possible to be suffering and feel the very opposite of euphoria but to also help people who are suffering even more than you are.

It's also possible to be suffering quite badly but help someone who is suffering mildly. And if you're a compassionate person and your suffering is not tortuously deep then helping another person who is suffering might help you feel a little better even if they weren't suffering quite as bad as you were.  

I just think that many people are not awakened to the inner light (a metaphorical term I like to use).

If I tell you that I am more awakened than you are you won't believe me. But whether you believe me or not the fact is that I am more enligthened than you are. Why do you bother to tell us that you are enligthened? It's not going to convince you that I'm enligthened if I tell you that I am. Why do you think we'll believe you if you tell us?

I'm better at making cogent arguments to support my philosophical positions than you are. And the fact you resort to falling back on metaphors and make analogies to theism only further demonstrates how weak your position is.

  The inner light is the goodness and beauty that transcends words.

All goodness trancends words and the irony is that the fact you are insisting on using the words "the inner light" to describe that goodness and at the same time insisting that what you believe transcends words. If it really transcends words then you don't have to bother to insisit on using metaphors like "inner light" and shit.

All goodness transcends words whether you call it "inner light" or "dogshit". If I labelled the decreasing suffering in others as "dogshit" that wouldn't change the fact that decreasing suffering in others is good. Calling it "inner light" is pointless. As is calling it "dogshit". Just call a spade a spade, call it what it is: helping others.

Stop falling back on annoying metaphors that are as obnoxious as theism and stop making failed analogies and actually deal with my arguments.

You have at least two premises.

1. Emotions are intrinsically good and bad.
2. Time is more important than intensity.

But you are pretending that only the first premise exists. And you are pretending that your failed analogies and metaphors can help get you to 2 without making a second premise. You can't. If you don't want to have a second premise and you only want premise number 1 then you have to actually make a valid argument to take you to premise 2. Non-sequiturs are just non-sequiturs.

We certainly don't agree on the matter of your analogies being failed or not. You think your analogies are successful. I think they are failures.

But even if your analogies are successful... to succeed they must reflect an actual argument that leads you to premise 2.. They must reflect a valid argument that leads to 2 and makes 2 a conclusion. Without an argument that entails premise 2 as a conclusion then your analogy doesn't reflect anything but a premise. Which means you don't have 1 premise "emotions are intrinsically good and bad". You also have premise 2. So stop pretending you only have one premise.

  I am not sure if it can take on another form besides our positive emotions.  I just don't want to be that blind person who thinks of colors, but has no real colors in his life. 

A blind person can't think of colors. They can think that they are thinking of colors but if they think that they are mistaken.

But that is a false analogy with regards to emotions. Because the very fact of thinking you can happy can have a placebo effect. You can be not happy and convince yourself that you are happy and that conviction can cause you to feel feelings of happiness. The same is not true with colors. It doesn't matter how much a blind person who has always been blind believes they can visualize colors: They physically can't. It's physically impossible. They are deluded. So your analogy fails.

The reality of the phenomenology of colors either is or isn't being experienced. But emotions can be entirely psychological and you can think you experience them when you initially don't and you false conviction can cause their very reality. This is due to the psychological nature of emotions.

But my worldview does pose horrible moral implications that are pointed out later on.  I wonder if there is some workaround this while still sticking to my worldview. 

What sort of workaround are you referring to?

If you were on your computer and there were some worded options there and one of the options was faded, then that option would still be there.  It would just be neutral ("dead") so to speak. 

No.... if an option is faded this doesn't make it neutral or "dead". It just makes it faded.

This might mean that there can be real good value in your life independent of your euphoria. p

Okay you need psychiatric help. Seriously dude if you think that certain options on a computer has some sort of meaning to your life then you're a deluded and need psychiatric help. You appear to be having a manic psychotic episode and experiencing extreme symptoms of apophenia. I've been there before.  I'm being completely serious. Get help. End of conversation.

I will just say one thing here.  I personally do not believe in positive and negative experiences and, thus, I do not believe in any real good and bad value that can come about in our lives independent of those euphoric and dysphoric states I've defined.  I would actually redefine positive and negative experiences to instead mean those euphoric and dysphoric states I've defined.  If I have anything else to say, then I will say it.

[Edwardo Piet]

I will just say one thing here.  I personally do not believe in positive and negative experiences and, thus, I do not believe in any real good and bad value that can come about in our lives independent of those euphoric and dysphoric states I've defined.  I would actually redefine positive and negative experiences to instead mean those euphoric and dysphoric states I've defined.  If I have anything else to say, then I will say it.

You're thinking in extremes. You also need help.

There are good feelings that aren't intense euphoria. And not all feelings of euphoria are good. Sadistic euphoria is bad. So is thinking options on a computer screen has ultimate meaning to your life and is trying to tell you something. That is psychosis experienced as apophenia. Get help. You have many of the signs of a manic episode (euphoria, seeing patterns in everything and thinking it has some sort of ultimate meaning to your life (apophenia) and pressured speech). Get help.

I didn't give you a gigantic response for you to respond with a couple of sentences after quoting my huge post and completely failing to use hide tags. Use hide tags when quoting a gigantic amount. And I am not going to waste my energy on you if you're going to give such a comparatively tiny response.

Although, meh, I guess my awesome (and enlightened) post is there for other people to read if they're interested It's not just for you. In fact you're probably not openminded enough or ready enough to learn anything from me. And hell, why am I even questioning this? I already decided you're having a manic episode. If I were a theist I'd be praying for you to call a doctor right now. Although anyone who needs help is unlikely to have the self-awareness required to ask for help... so you're more likely to receive help when you worsen and someone else calls for help for you. And if you're sensible enough to call for help then the doctors will think you don't need it. Unfortunately.

[Transcended Dimensions]

I will just say one thing here.  I personally do not believe in positive and negative experiences and, thus, I do not believe in any real good and bad value that can come about in our lives independent of those euphoric and dysphoric states I've defined.  I would actually redefine positive and negative experiences to instead mean those euphoric and dysphoric states I've defined.  If I have anything else to say, then I will say it.

You're thinking in extremes. You also need help.

There are good feelings that aren't intense euphoria. And not all feelings of euphoria are good. Sadistic euphoria is bad. So is thinking options on a computer screen has ultimate meaning to your life and is trying to tell you something. That is psychosis experienced as apophenia. Get help. You have many of the signs of a manic episode (euphoria, seeing patterns in everything and thinking it has some sort of ultimate meaning to your life (apophenia) and pressured speech). Get help.

Even if the euphoria wasn't that intense, that would still qualify according to my definition of a positive experience.  But if there was no such euphoria at all whatsoever, then that cannot be a positive experience according to my definition.  It cannot be a positive feeling either.  The same rule applies to dysphoria.  As for me having a mental illness, I do not act crazy at all.  I am completely cool and calm.  I do not have manic states or anything of the sort.  So, rather than me being some psychotic, crazy person, perhaps I am just having a load of misconceptions.  Remember, I do not have much insight at all and my only insight is my own personal experience which I am convinced of.

[Edwardo Piet]

Even if the euphoria wasn't that intense, that would still qualify according to my definition of a positive experience. 

So you call an okayish feeling extremely extremely extremely mild euphoria?

It isn't really. There's nothing euphoric about extremely mild happiness that is rather "meh". Euphoria is a whole other level. It's also not always good because, yes, sadistic euphoria is a thing. So is foolish euphoria and drug crazed euphoria.

But if there was no such euphoria at all whatsoever, then that cannot be a positive experience according to my definition.

Well your definition is extremely narrow, limited, naive and philosophically unsophisticated.

  It cannot be a positive feeling either.

Your definition is unsound then. Not all positive feelings are euphoric. All euphoria is a positive feeling (if we define "positive" as "feels good", I mean).... but not all positive feelings are euphoric.

Here's an analogy for you that actually works: Not all animals are dogs but all dogs are animals. Just as not all joy is euphoric but all euphoria is joyful (just on a more intense level). By saying that all positive emotion is euphoria otherwise it isn't a positive emotion that's like you defining all animals as dogs and saying that according to your definition if an animal isn't a dog then it isn't really an animal. Your definition is stupid then.

  The same rule applies to dysphoria.  As for me having a mental illness, I do not act crazy at all.  I am completely cool and calm. 

Well... I believe you. Because I often come across as hyperactive or super emotional online but I'm sitting here completely cool and calm too. So I can relate to that. However you do say things that are crazy like thinking that certain options on your computer screen has some sort of metaphorical meaning to your life. That's psychotic and resembles apophenia.

I do not have manic states or anything of the sort.

How would you know? Mania is often euphoric. It also isn't healthy. So there's already one example for you right there why there's more to intrinsic goodness than euphoria. Mania itself is an example of something ultimately negative that on the surface is very euphoric indeed.

I should know. I've experienced euphoric mania several times in the past.

And it's not like I even have to have that experience. Euphoric mania is very much a thing. There are really only 3 forms of mania: Euphoric mania, irritable mania and mixed state mania. The first kind indeed feeling very euphoric and including the experience of euphoria. And it feels amazing. It's also extremely dysfunctional.

And dysphoria can often be more functional than euphoria! Go figure.

  So, rather than me being some psychotic, crazy person, perhaps I am just having a load of misconceptions.

Perhaps. But you alluded to some rather crazy level apophenia.

  Remember, I do not have much insight at all and my only insight is my own personal experience which I am convinced of.

Well we certainly agree there. You do not have much insight at all.

I do though.