There are no higher emotions/values

[KevinM1]

Positive emotions are the end result of a chemical reaction in the brain, nothing more. Assigning them divine status in any way, shape, or form, is utterly ridiculous.

Also, the simplistic "positive emotions is the good life, negative emotions is the bad life" is idiotic. For one, the idea of positive and negative emotions is largely arbitrary. It's how we act on those emotions that gives meaning to them. 'Negative' emotions - anger, fear, hate, etc. - can and have been the catalyst for good. 'Positive' emotions - love, joy, bliss, etc. - can and have been the catalyst for harm.

In the end, how one feels doesn't usually mean anything. It's what one does that matters. What impact they've made, what mark they've made.

[Transcended Dimensions]

Positive emotions are the end result of a chemical reaction in the brain, nothing more.  Assigning them divine status in any way, shape, or form, is utterly ridiculous.

Also, the simplistic "positive emotions is the good life, negative emotions is the bad life" is idiotic.  For one, the idea of positive and negative emotions is largely arbitrary.  It's how we act on those emotions that gives meaning to them.  'Negative' emotions - anger, fear, hate, etc. - can and have been the catalyst for good.  'Positive' emotions - love, joy, bliss, etc. - can and have been the catalyst for harm.

In the end, how one feels doesn't usually mean anything.  It's what one does that matters.  What impact they've made, what mark they've made.

I vehemently disagree based upon my own personal experience which was something powerful and profound. I mean, I do agree that negative emotions can benefit us and others and that positive emotions can result in harm towards ourselves and others. But I still disagree that there is more value to life than our emotions.

Besides, there is the emotional perceptual theory though and many emotional theorists and neuroscientists support this theory (although there are some people who disagree with it). I will present it here. My arguments and personal experience support this theory. This theory says that emotions are the perception of value and I have created a religious form of this theory:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/...11.00518.x

[KevinM1]

You do realize that the paper you just shared says that emotions aren't perceptions of value, right? And that the perceptual theory of emotion should be rejected? I mean, it's the second and last sentences of the abstract.

...you really suck at this, you know.

[Transcended Dimensions]

You do realize that the paper you just shared says that emotions aren't perceptions of value, right?  And that the perceptual theory of emotion should be rejected?  I mean, it's the second and last sentences of the abstract.

...you really suck at this, you know.

But there are emotional theorists and neuroscientists out there who would disagree with that rebuttal. I also disagree with it.

[KevinM1]

You do realize that the paper you just shared says that emotions aren't perceptions of value, right?  And that the perceptual theory of emotion should be rejected?  I mean, it's the second and last sentences of the abstract.

...you really suck at this, you know.

But there are emotional theorists and neuroscientists out there who would disagree with that rebuttal.  I also disagree with it.

And I give a shit about your take why?  I mean, you're obviously not a deep thinker if your other posts regarding science are any indication.

Keep in mind, I really don't care about what you believe, or you in general.  I'm not looking to be converted to your gibbering form of woo.  I'm just pointing out how ridiculous and unthinking your position is.

[Transcended Dimensions]

But there are emotional theorists and neuroscientists out there who would disagree with that rebuttal.  I also disagree with it.

And I give a shit about your take why?  I mean, you're obviously not a deep thinker if your other posts regarding science are any indication.

Keep in mind, I really don't care about what you believe, or you in general.  I'm not looking to be converted to your gibbering form of woo.  I'm just pointing out how ridiculous and unthinking your position is.

Was both my opening post and that religious view I advocated gibberish?  Or was it just my opening post and some other posts that were gibberish?  Again, that religious view I advocated would be this right here (along with some added things):

I would describe positive emotions as some divine life force or flow of divine energy within our conscious being.  This divine life force makes us alive on the inside since it makes our whole entire reality perceived as beautiful, good, and worth living for.  In other words, it transforms our whole entire reality into something amazing, beautiful, and great.  No other mental state can do this.  All other mental states in of themselves are "dead" and "empty" since they do not do this. 

I would also describe positive emotions as being a divine inner light or inner fruit.  If you hear the word 'fruitful," then that means filled with inner positivity.  It means you are in a mental state where you truly experience positivity in your life which is no different than, again, saying that you are truly perceiving things from a positive perspective (i.e. perceiving things as joyful, beautiful, and good).  Again, positive emotions are that mental state and they are the only positive mental state.

When you feel positive emotions, it's as though you are filled with the force of the light and, when you feel negative emotions such as misery and despair, it's as though you are filled with the force of darkness.  The goal is to become the being of light by pursing the force of light to make your life beautiful and to avoid the inner darkness which makes your life bad, horrible, and disgusting. 

When we lose our ability to feel positive emotions, it's as though we have become dead on the inside since we lose that force of light within us.  Intellect, morality, and character is just words, intentions, and ideas in our minds.  None of these things can allow me to perceive/experience the sheer beauty and joy my positive emotions have brought my life and neither can it allow me to experience what I've experienced through my miserable struggles. 

Those hopeless and miserable states I've been through were such horrible states that no words, ideas, etc. can allow me to experience something so horrible.  Let me say a few more things here before I conclude this packet.  People can act as though certain things are real and claim these things are real.  For example, people have acted and claimed Thor was real.  But that doesn't mean Thor was real.

So, just because people act as though value independent of positive emotions is real and claim it's real does not mean it's actually real.  You cannot trust a person's claim just because they act as though it's real and claim it's real.  That's the reason why I cannot trust people who claim that they perceived their lives as something beautiful and great despite their misery and inability to feel positive emotions.

There are many factors that can take away our ability to feel positive emotions and I don't trust anybody when they say that your life can still be something beautiful without your ability to feel positive emotions, that you can create your own value in life, and that value is something far more than just a matter of feeling good or feeling bad.  I think our emotions are something far more than just pleasant and unpleasant feelings.  Like I said before, they are like the inner light or inner darkness to our conscious being. 

So many people go about their work and everyday life despite feeling miserable and they dismiss their emotional state as something trivial.  They would claim that the true value in their lives comes about through helping others and contributing to the world.  I completely disagree with this.  You need that force of light within you to make any endeavor in your life beautiful and worth living for. 

I don't care how fleeting positive emotions are; I still think they are the only real source of beauty and joy in our lives.  To conclude this packet, I know my worldview/philosophy is like a religion.  But I am actually undecided when it comes to the existence of god, the paranormal, and the afterlife.  If it's the case that these things do exist, then my worldview would apply in the form of a spiritual belief or religion. 

But, if we live in a universe where those things do not exist (i.e. a purely naturalistic universe), then my worldview would still apply.  But it would take on a secular form.  I would describe the religious form of my worldview to be Spiritual Hedonism, Divine Hedonism, or New Age Hedonism since it would be the hedonistic philosophy taking on a spiritual/religious form. 

But hedonism in a purely naturalistic universe would simply be hedonism.  By the way, hedonism is a philosophy which states that pleasure (the positive emotions) are the only good things in life and that displeasure (the negative emotions) are the only bad things in life.  So, according to hedonism, the only way our lives can be good and beautiful is if we are having fun, enjoying our lives, and experiencing profound beauty and joy through our positive emotions.

[Jackalope]

This is the stupidest fucking thread.

"But mooooooooom, I really only want to live a life of instant gratification...!"

I would address this point immediately, but I'm off to the break room to masturbate.,

[Angrboda]

I'm inclined to agree with Hammy on this. I have a model of human decision making which is based upon the idea that our behavior is motivated by a desire to minimize discomfort or anxiety (see HERE). I view it as an open question whether we are motivated to seek states that feel good like happiness and pleasure. I'm sure they fit in the picture somewhere, but if our activity is driven by the negative feelings rather than the positive ones, all this talk about the intrinsic value of positive emotions is a moot point.

I also question whether the idea that the more platonic traits like intellect and virtue are without important emotional content. Dr. Robert Burton wrote an entire book on the proposition that arriving at a conclusion results in a positive feeling state by which we recognize that we've come to a conclusion. It would seem this sort of emotional feedback would play a big part in training children to seek the emotional gratification associated with learning to perform certain tasks such as the three R's. It is this hidden sort of motivation which paints a bullseye on your ad lib speculations about the necessary value of pleasurable emotions versus those that might not be so obvious. And phenomena such as blindsight, in which we have awareness of things which have no qualia or conscious trace involved make the whole idea of mounting your theory upon your own personal introspection rather dubious. Some neuroscientists theorize that the sensations of the body and feeling are an integral part of our reasoning process. It's possible that we can live without the more salient positive emotions, but not without those bodily, visceral feelings. (See for example Antonio Damasio's work with patients with frontal lobe damage for example; they may not consciously be aware of the missing emotional feedback, but it demonstrably impacts their decision making.) So ultimately, the things you value may not turn out to be the most valuable, and your theory might be nothing more than rubbish based on flawed introspection.

[Edwardo Piet]

Positive emotions is the good life, negative emotions is a bad life, and having neither positive nor negative emotions is a neutral life of no value which would be apathy.  That is my personal view.  It would be like how, if you have neither a positive nor negative charge, then you can only have no charge at all.  Not having a negative charge does not equate to having a positive charge.  So, if you have no bad value in your life, that does not equate to good value in your life.  You need positive emotions to have good value in your life just as how you need a positive charge to have a positive charge.

The way I see it is: A lack of positive emotions=bad but an absence of positive emotions=neutral. But a presence of negative emotions=bad and an absence of negative emotions=good.

So whilst an absence of positive emotions isn't good an absence of negative emotions is good. I don't think an absence of negative emotions is a neutral thing. I think it's a very good thing indeed. The greatest possible good besides absolute pleasure all the time. I do think that pleasure is better than neutral emotion but pleasure is almost meaningless when suffering steps up.

You may say that there's a bias here on my part... as I'm putting more axiological weight on negative emotions than positive ones. And you'd be right. But I don't think it's a bias... I think it's a clear asymmetry. It's very clear to me that if there is a bunch of people and some are suffering a lot and others are having a lot of fun... it's the suffering that is morally important.