My philosophy of emotions

[Mindwave]

Note to Reader: When you read my philosophy, before judging it as nonsense (objecting to it), this document might address any objections you have. If it doesn't address them soon, it might address them later on. It might also address anything that might seem contradictory. So, I ask that you fully read this document, which explains my philosophy and contains a Q&A section.

If you're unwilling to read this entire document today, then perhaps you'd be willing to read some of it each day until you've read it all. Also, just so you know, my philosophy is a form of hedonism that makes the claim that the only life worth living is a life of emotional pleasure (emotional liking), which would be a life of enjoyment, excitement, entertainment, amazement, etc. My philosophy presents unique arguments to support this claim that other hedonistic philosophies wouldn't present.

According to this claim, our lives can't be worth living without our emotional pleasure, which means those who have an ongoing absence of emotional pleasure are living worthless lives, such as those who constantly struggle with emotional displeasure, or those who have a mental illness, such as chronic, clinical depression, that chronically disables (shuts off) their emotional pleasure. They'd be delusional to think their lives are worth living.

Anyone who says that's untrue doesn't realize it's true, which means he/she isn't convinced. Hopefully, my philosophy, with its supportive arguments and Q&A section, will convince people. Those who become convinced would no longer think my philosophical claim is childishly untrue. Thus, they'd no longer call me childish, shallow, or garbage.

So, if anyone judges my claim as childishly untrue, I'd ask him/her to fully read this document. Who knows, after fully reading it, he/she might be convinced of my claim or, at least, consider the possibility that it's true. Now, here are 3 more things I want to say to conclude this note to reader. The 1st thing is that the truth is sometimes something we don't like to hear. I think my philosophical claim is true, despite its harsh dislike and criticism.

The 2nd thing is that I think I'll always consider a life of emotional pleasure to be the only life worth living, even when I'm 80 years old (which would be the year 2069). It's currently the year 2024 and I'm 35 years old, by the way. The 3rd thing is that my philosophy first discusses importance and explains some things regarding emotions before presenting that claim and supporting it.

My Philosophy of Emotions (Part 1/2)

People, places, and things only matter (have some level of importance) for those who perceive them as mattering. In other words, they only matter in our minds (aka "in our mental universes/mental realities"). That means they don't matter non-perceptually, which means they wouldn't matter if they didn't matter to anyone (if nobody perceived them as mattering).

For example, a work of art wouldn't matter if everyone was apathetic towards it (if it didn't matter to anyone). Another example would be that food, air, and water wouldn't be important for our survival if they didn't matter to anyone. They'd still be necessary for our survival, but wouldn't matter. Also, deeds, like everything else, are only important for those who perceive them as important.

But, if someone perceives a certain deed as important for the environment and not important for himself, that still means said deed is important for him because there's importance that's present for him (that exists in his mind). I could rephrase it as: "There's importance for the environment for him (existing in his mind)." But, if someone else doesn't perceive said deed as important, then it wouldn't be important for him.

Now, in regards to this idea that importance is purely perceptual (only exists in our minds), that's a philosophy called "Existentialism." Existentialism is a view that says: "Importance, also known as "value," is something that we create for ourselves." In other words, we're the ones who make people, places, and things important for us by perceiving them as important.

Actually, it's our emotions that make them important for us because our emotions are perceptual importance. In other words, our emotions are states where people, places, and things matter to us. I explain more on this very soon. Also, our emotions matter for us, regardless if we perceive them as mattering or not, while everything else only matters for us when we perceive them as mattering.

That's because, since our emotions are perceptual importance (importance that's present for us in our minds), that means our emotions already matter for us, which means we don't need to perceive them as mattering. Now, here's one more thing I wish to say before I move on, which is that my philosophy is more than just Existentialism because it also explains my views regarding emotions (emotions being the main subject in this document). Also, here's a link to Existentialism:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

With that out of the way, I'm now going to move on to and further discuss the topic of emotions. Without our emotions (amazement, sexual arousal, fear, pride, misery, rage, disgust, casually liking or disliking a certain object or color, etc.), nothing can matter to us, which means we can't care about anyone or anything. Why? I'll explain. As human beings, we possess different components, such as audio (hearing), visual (seeing), smell, touch, etc.

Here are 2 more components we possess: 1.) Thoughts. 2.) Emotions. Now, x states are always emotional states (component #2). But, what is an x state? When a person, place, or thing matters to an individual, that's a state of mind, which I call an "x state." For example, amazement (an emotional state) is an x state because an individual being amazed by something means said thing matters to him/her.

Another example would be that passion (desire) is an x state because an individual having the passion to achieve a certain goal means achieving it matters to him/her. Now, as I said earlier, x states are always emotional states and vice versa, which means x states that some people consider to be our mindset/thinking alone (component #1), such as the casual desire to place an object on the table, or casually liking or disliking a certain object or color, are, in fact, emotional states (component #2).

Here's an example that shows that our mindset alone can't be an x state: If someone had a phobia of spiders or was sad about the loss of his loved one, and he completely eliminated that phobia or sadness through exposure therapy, then that fear or sadness (that emotion/x state) would no longer exist.

If spiders were then presented to him, crawled on him, and he was asked to try to be afraid of them through his mindset alone, given that his emotional fear of them is permanently gone, or if a photo of his loved one's grave was presented to him and he was asked to try to be sad about his loss through his mindset alone, given that his emotional sadness about his loss is permanently gone, then he'd say:

"I'm having the mindset that I'm afraid of spiders or sad about my loss. But, that mindset can't make me afraid or sad." As you can see, this example shows that, since our mindset alone can't be one particular x state (fear) or another (sadness), then it can't be any x state. Also, if an insomniac was asked to try to be sleepy through his mindset alone, then he'd say:

"I'm having the mindset that I'm sleepy. But, that mindset can't make me sleepy. So, I require sleep medication." As you can see, our mindset alone can't be any other component, such as an x state, sleepiness, nausea, hunger, thirst, pain, etc. Sure, our mindset can elicit any of those components, providing those components aren't disabled by something, such as brain damage, mental illness, etc.

For example, someone having the mindset that rotten food is nauseating might make him/her nauseous, providing he/she is able to be nauseous, and a man having the mindset that a certain woman is attractive might make him attracted to her, providing he's able to be attracted (emotionally pleased). But, as I said, our mindset alone can't be any of those components. Now, here's another example that shows our mindset alone can't be an x state:

If someone liked a certain joke or song, but he grew utterly tired of it because he heard it too many times, then he wouldn't like it anymore. He might be annoyed by it (dislike it). In other words, his emotion (liking the joke or song) is gone and might be replaced by a different emotion (disliking). If he was asked to try to like that joke or song through his mindset alone, given that his emotional liking is gone, then he'd say he's unable to like it.

As you can see, this example shows that our mindset alone can't be a state of pleasure (liking). Now, here's one more example that shows our mindset alone can't be an x state: There are people who are emotionless due to emotionally numbing medication, a mental illness, or damage to the areas of their brain responsible for emotions. If these emotionless people were asked if their mindset alone can be an x state, such as a state of anger, sadness, amazement, or sexual arousal, then I'm quite sure they'd all say "no."

I'd definitely say "no" because I could never achieve an x state through my mindset alone. But, if there are some emotionless people who'd say "yes," then it's because they're simply delusional or because they have moments where their emotions (x states) return and they think they're instead having moments where their mindset alone is an x state.

Now that I've explained, with examples, why I think our mindset alone can't be an x state, I wish to say that I'm not the only one who thinks so. For example, there's an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation titled "In Theory" that also advocates this idea that nothing can matter to emotionless people (that their mindset alone can't be an x state). In this episode, Jenna tells Data that she doesn't matter to him because he's emotionless (she says so at 2:13 in this video):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sO_9ay6rJ ... 5uYQ%3D%3D

Also, even though nothing can matter to emotionless people, they can still perform tasks, and it would be like how robots (apathetic machines) can perform tasks. Not only can emotionless people apathetically perform tasks, but they can apathetically judge things as important. But, since they're emotionless (apathetic), that means those things they judge as important can't matter to them, which means they can't perceive them as important/mattering.

Perceiving something as mattering is an emotional state, and an emotionless person's mindset can't give him that perception. In addition, colors are perceptions that a blind person's mindset can't give him. For example, if a blind person has the mindset that the stop sign in front of him is red, that mindset wouldn't allow him to perceive it as red, which means it can't be red in his mind/mental universe.

As you can see, our mindset alone can't allow us to perceive anything as red, green, blue, purple, etc. or as mattering. By the way, while I'm on the topic of colors, here's a brief note about colors, as well as sounds. This note is for dumb people, such as my mother: There are color waves and sound waves, and there are the actual colors and sounds (which are perceptions produced by our brains after the waves enter our eyes and ears).

So, the only reason why certain objects are red is because we perceive them as red, and the only reason a dog makes a barking sound is because we perceive it as making that sound. Also, the only reason people, places, and things matter is because we perceive them as mattering (because they matter to us). Now that I've shared this brief note, I wish to continue from where I left off.

I said earlier that our mindset alone doesn't allow us to perceive colors or importance. But, some people would object to the idea that emotionless people can't perceive importance. Their objection would be: "Emotionless people with a non-Existentialistic worldview can conclude that certain things matter, based upon their teachings regarding what types of things matter in life.

So, if emotionless people can't perceive importance (can't perceive things as mattering), that would mean they'd be unable to conclude that things matter." My response to this objection would be: "It doesn't mean that, and I'll use blind people as an example. Just because blind people can't perceive colors (can't perceive objects as red, green, etc.) doesn't mean they're unable to conclude that objects are red, green, etc.

For example, if an object was presented to a blind person and he doesn't know what color it is for those who see it, but he knows the type of color wave this object emits because someone tells him, then he can use that knowledge to conclude what color that object is. But, he wouldn't be able to perceive that color." Another objection people have to the idea that emotionless people can't perceive importance would be:

"The fact that emotionless people have the mindset that things matter to them means they're perceiving those things as mattering." My response would be: "They wouldn't be perceiving them as mattering, even if they had the mindset that those things matter very much to them." They can perceive things as good or bad, though. For example, they can perceive money as necessary (as good) for poor people.

But, they can't perceive anything as mattering, which is just another way of saying nothing can matter to them, which means nothing can matter in their minds/mental universes. If they claim they're perceiving something (a certain deed, for example) as good or bad (as mattering), then they're delusional. They'd instead be perceiving said deed as good or bad (as not mattering).

In order for them to perceive it as good or bad (as mattering), they'd require emotions. But, the question is: "Which emotions are perceptions of people, places, and things as good (as mattering), and which emotions are perceptions of them as bad (as mattering)?" Well, first of all, let me explain a few things that'll lead up to the answer to that question.

I'll start by saying that emotions are always states of pleasure or displeasure (states of wanting, liking, or disliking). For example, disgust, anger, grief, being horrified, being disturbed, and misery are states of disliking (states of emotional displeasure), excitement and valuing a prize are wanting or liking (emotional pleasure), being pleasantly motivated to do something is wanting (emotional pleasure), amazement, enjoyment, happiness, attraction, and pride are liking (emotional pleasure), etc.

Also, emotions can be shallow or profound and intense or not intense. For example, being there for your family might profoundly (deeply) and intensely matter to you (matter much to you), and buying a certain fancy item might shallowly and not intensely matter to you (matter little to you). States of emotional pleasure that are more profound and more intense always make people, places, and things better (more good [more mattering]) in our eyes.

For example, the more profoundly and intensely someone likes a movie or work of art, the better he likes it, which means the better/more good (more mattering) it becomes in his eyes. States of emotional pleasure that are more shallow and less intense always makes people, places, and things less good (less mattering) in our eyes.

So, if someone liked a certain hobby, but his liking was shallow and not intense, and his liking became less good (more shallow and lower in intensity) or better (less shallow and higher in intensity), that would make said hobby less good or better (more good) in his eyes.

Here's another example: If a man is talented and a woman is profoundly and intensely impressed (very emotionally pleased) by his talent because she has a low standard of talent (has low expectations, which were exceeded), then his talent would be very good (matter very much) in her eyes. In other words, her profound, intense, state of emotional pleasure would be a state of perceiving his talent as very good (as mattering very much).

But, if another woman is slightly impressed (slightly emotionally pleased) by his talent because she has a high standard of talent (has high expectations, which weren't met), then his talent would be slightly good (slightly matter) in her eyes. Here's one more example: If someone's slightly emotionally pleased by the idea of being healthy, but is more emotionally pleased by the idea of being unhealthy because having hardships, such as health problems, builds character, then that idea would be better (matter more) in his eyes.

That means he might be slightly emotionally pleased by health food, which means it might be slightly good (slightly matter) in his eyes, but might be more emotionally pleased by junk food because it causes health problems. But, if he later became more emotionally pleased by the idea of being healthy and health food than the idea of being unhealthy and junk food, then those things would instead be better (matter more) in his eyes.

Now that I've shared examples regarding emotional pleasure, here's an example regarding emotional displeasure: The more profoundly and intensely someone is devastated (emotionally displeased) by the loss of a loved one, the worse/more bad (more mattering) that loss becomes in his eyes. The more shallow and less intense his devastation is, the less bad (less mattering) that loss becomes in his eyes.

Also, while I'm on the topic of emotional displeasure, I want to mention that states of emotional displeasure are always states of being bothered by a person, place, or thing. For example, if a certain act emotionally displeases someone, such as making him sad, angry, or horrified, that means said act bothers him. Being bothered/emotionally displeased always means a person, place, or thing is bad (matters) in one's eyes, and I've already given an example that shows this (the example with the loss of a loved one).

But, here's another example: If something about a work of art emotionally displeases someone, that means there's something bad (matters) about that artwork in his eyes. How bad (mattering) it becomes in his eyes is determined by how shallow, profound, or intense his state of emotional displeasure is. Being emotionally pleased always means a person, place, or thing is good (matters) in one's eyes, and I've already given examples that show this.

As you can see, states of emotional pleasure are always perceptions/judgments of people, places, and things as good (as mattering), and states of emotional displeasure are always perceptions/judgments of them as bad (as mattering). That means emotions are value judgments. Anyone who says they're not is delusional. It's obvious to me that my emotions are value judgments because I've noticed they are. Also, here's a website that discusses emotions, including the idea that they're value judgments:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emotion/

Now, what about non-emotional value judgments (thoughts alone)? For example, what if something (a certain product, for example) couldn't emotionally please someone and it emotionally displeases him because it causes health problems, but he judges it as good (as mattering) because it accomplishes a certain task quite well? Well, there are 2 things occurring simultaneously.

The 1st thing is his emotional displeasure, which is making that product bad (matter) in his eyes. The 2nd thing is his non-emotional judgment (his thought), which is making that product good (not matter) in his eyes. His judgment can't make the product good (matter) in his eyes because only emotional pleasure makes things perceived as good (as mattering).

As I said earlier, our thoughts alone are always apathetic states, which means they can never allow us perceive anything as good or bad (as mattering). Now that I've discussed everything I needed to discuss so far regarding emotions, I'm now going to move on to the next section regarding emotions. I'll start by saying that the only life worth living is a life of emotional pleasure, which would be a life of perceiving people, places, and things as good (as mattering).

In other words, our emotional pleasure is the only thing that makes our lives worth living. Here's an interesting example where one is emotionally pleased (where one's life is worth living). It's also an example of states of emotional pleasure being perceptions/judgments of people, places, and things as good (as mattering). So, here's the example:

If someone's very emotionally pleased by a song or a certain event and he acts out on that emotion by exclaiming: "This song is very beautiful!" or: "This event is awesome!," then that means that emotion is an exclamatory state, which would be a state of perceiving the song as very beautiful or the event as awesome (as very good [as mattering very much]), and it's that perception/judgment (state of emotional pleasure) that makes his life worth living.

But, if there's a moment where he becomes emotionless and perceives the song as very beautiful/very good or the event as awesome/very good (as not mattering), then that perception wouldn't make his life worth living during his moment of emotionlessness. Another example of one being emotionally pleased (one's life being worth living) would be someone valuing something, such as a prize. Valuing something is a state of emotional pleasure and can't be our mindset alone.

This state of emotional pleasure, as well as all others, make our lives worth living. But, during moments where I was emotionless or emotionally displeased, I couldn't value anyone or anything because all my states of emotional pleasure were absent (disabled). Thus, my life was worthless. As you can see, moments without our emotional pleasure are moments where our lives aren't worth living.

So, if someone's having a moment where he's absent of emotional pleasure, but he thinks his life's worth living, then he's delusional. Only when he has a moment where his emotional pleasure returns would his life be worth living. Some people would strongly disagree because they think the idea that only our emotional pleasure makes our lives worth living is absurd, especially considering that emotional pleasure is fleeting for many people.

But, just because it's absurd doesn't mean it's untrue. There are many absurd truths. One of those absurd truths would be that life is absurdly unfortunate because it's a life where many people are deprived of the things they need. An example would be that we need food to survive and be healthy, but there are many starving people in this world.

Another example would be that we need our emotional pleasure to make our lives worth living, but many people are deprived of it due to ongoing stress, mental illness, etc. Now, here's another thing I wish to discuss that's related to the topic of our emotional pleasure being the only thing that makes our lives worth living, and relevant to the topic of emotional displeasure and no emotions.

What I'm going to discuss is a choice. If someone had the choice to either: A.) Live emotionally pleased while completely and permanently paralyzed, unable to do anything for humanity or achieve anything, or B.) Live emotionally displeased while contributing to humanity and achieving many things, then he should choose A because B would be a worthless life, according to my philosophy.

But, if someone had the choice to either: A.) Live emotionless or B.) Live emotionally displeased, then he should choose A because, even though A is a worthless life, B is a worse life. I'm now going to give 2 explanations why a life of emotional pleasure is the only life worth living, and why a life of emotional displeasure, regardless if it's used to help and inspire others, is worse than a life of no emotions.

Now, this 1st explanation doesn't immediately reveal the answer, but will reveal it soon. So, bear with me. Anyway, here's the 1st explanation: There are 2 types of goodness and badness: 1.) Perceptual. 2.) Non-perceptual. An example of #2 would be that, even though junk food only matters for those who perceive it as mattering, it's bad for our health, regardless if we don't perceive it as bad.

So, if a dumb person thought it was good for his health (perceived it as good), it would still bad for him. If he ate a slight amount of junk food, that would be slightly bad for his health, while eating a lot of it would be very bad. An example of #1 would be that dumb person perceiving junk food as good. It's goodness that exists in his mind, which means it's perceptual goodness. Let's pretend he was emotionally pleased by junk food.

That means junk food wouldn't just be good in his mind; it would be good (matter), which is an example of perceptual goodness (importance). Another example of #1 would be someone acknowledging the fact that certain deeds are good for the environment. His acknowledgment would be a perception of said deeds as good (as not mattering) for the environment.

But, if he became emotionally pleased by said deeds, then he'd be perceiving them as good (as mattering). Now, perceiving and experiencing are the same thing, which means perceptual goodness (importance) is the same thing as experiencing goodness (importance), perceiving (seeing) colors is the same thing as experiencing them, and perceiving (hearing) sound is the same thing as experiencing sound.

Perceptual/experienced goodness (importance) makes our lives worth living; not non-perceptual goodness or perceptual goodness (non-importance). Why? Because having goodness (importance) in our lives (in our mental universes/minds) makes our lives worth living. By the way, a person's mind can be called "a person's life" because it's a person's mental life/mental universe.

If he were to die, then his mind (life) would cease to exist, providing there isn't life after bodily death. Anyway, since perceptual goodness (importance) makes our lives worth living, that means it's good (important) for us. It's good (important) for us in the sense that it's goodness (importance) that's present for us (that exists in our minds).

States of emotional pleasure that are shallow and low in intensity always make our lives slightly worth living because they're always a low level of goodness (importance) in our lives, which means they're always slightly good (slightly matter/important) for us, while states of emotional pleasure that are profound and intense always make our lives more worth living because they're always a higher level of goodness (importance) in our lives, which means they're always better/more good (more mattering/important) for us.

Now, even though our emotional pleasure is always good (matters) for us because it always makes our lives worth living, there are instances where it's bad (doesn't matter) for us. In other words, even though our emotional pleasure always matters for us in terms of being good, it doesn't matter for us in terms of being bad.

So, if someone's emotionally pleased and his emotional pleasure leads him to making a poor decision without him knowing it, then his emotional pleasure would be good (matter) for him, but would also be bad (not matter) for him because it's resulting in a poor decision. This badness would be non-perceptual because, in my example, he's unaware of it.

But, if he became aware that his emotional pleasure is bad for him, and he became emotionally pleased or displeased by this fact, then he'd perceive that fact as good or bad (as mattering). Now, as for our emotional displeasure, even though it's always bad (matters) for us because it's always badness (importance) in our lives, it can be good (not matter) for us.

An example of it being good (not mattering) for us would be during moments where it promotes our survival. Also, while I'm on the topic of emotional displeasure, I wish to point out that states of emotional displeasure that are the most profound and intense in the world would always be the worst/greatest badness (greatest importance) in our lives.

Thus, they're always the worst (most important) things for us, but can be good (not matter) for us. They can be called "the worst emotional displeasure." The opposite (the best bliss) would always be the best/greatest goodness (greatest importance) in our lives. Thus, the best bliss would always be the best (most important) thing for us and would always make our lives most worth living, but can be bad (not matter) for us.

As for being emotionless, it's always neutral (doesn't matter) for us, but can be good or bad for us. Now, being emotionless (neutrality) is in between the best bliss (the greatest good [greatest importance]) and the worst emotional displeasure (the greatest bad [greatest importance]). It would be like how 0 is in between 10 and -10 (10 being the best and -10 being the worst).

Also, being at any positive number is better than being at 0. In other words, having emotional pleasure that's at any level of shallowness, profoundness, or intensity is better for us than being emotionless. It's better to have any level of goodness (importance) in our lives (emotional pleasure) than non-importance (no emotions). I could rephrase it as:

"It's better to have something that's good (matters) for us (emotional pleasure) than something that doesn't matter for us (no emotions)." I could also rephrase it as: "It's better when our lives are worth living (when we're emotionally pleased) than when they're not worth living (when we're emotionless or emotionally displeased)."

The goal is to not only be at the highest level of emotional pleasure possible (to be emotionally pleased as profoundly and intensely as possible), but for said emotional pleasure to be experienced as often as possible throughout our lifetime because that means we'd be as close to 10 (the best bliss/greatest good) as possible, and as often as possible, which would be much better than constantly being at 0.

But, constantly being at 0 is better than constantly being at any negative number. In other words, being emotionless is better for us than having any level of emotional displeasure. It's better to have non-importance in our lives (no emotions) than any level of badness (importance). By the way, death is an emotionless state, and it's better to be dead than to live a life of emotional displeasure, especially if it's emotional displeasure that's profound and intense.

So, if someone's living a life of profound, intense, emotional suffering (emotional displeasure), then should he kill himself? Well, even though my philosophy says it's better for him to be dead, my philosophy doesn't say he has to kill himself or not. He can choose to acquire treatments, such as therapy and medication, that might alleviate his suffering and restore his emotional pleasure, or he can choose to kill himself. So, it's entirely his decision whether he kills himself or not.

Now, here's one more thing I wish to say before I move on, which is very brief: Saying it's better to be dead than to live a life of emotional displeasure is the same thing as saying that a life of emotional displeasure isn't worth living. With that out of the way, I wish to point out that I've already given the 1st explanation why a life of emotional pleasure is the only life worth living, and why a life of emotional displeasure is worse than a life of no emotions.

I said earlier I was going to give 2 explanations. Now, this 2nd explanation is brief and, like the 1st explanation, doesn't immediately reveal the answer, but will reveal it soon. So, here's the 2nd explanation: Sounds, colors, and emotions are perceptions, while loudness, brightness, better, and worse are perceptual qualities. So, if someone hears a louder sound or sees a brighter color, then that sound or color (perception) would be of a louder or brighter quality.

I could also say that sound or color would be louder or brighter for him. Also, if someone likes a person, place, or thing better (more profoundly and/or more intensely), then that liking (perception) would be of a better quality. I could also say his liking (emotion) would be better for him. Since our emotions matter for us because they're perceptual importance, then, not only would his emotional liking be better for him, but would matter more for him.

But, if he disliked something worse (more profoundly and/or more intensely), then his emotional disliking would be worse (matter more) for him. If, let's pretend, he later had the worst emotional displeasure, that would be worst (matter most) for him. If he had the best bliss, then that bliss would be best (matter most) for him. If he was emotionless, that would be neutral (wouldn't matter) for him.

Now, as I said earlier, being emotionless (neutrality) is like being at 0. Being emotionally pleased is like being at a positive number, which is better than being at 0 or any negative number (not being at a positive number means our lives aren't worth living, as I've mentioned earlier). The goal is to be as close to 10 (the best bliss) as possible and as often as possible.

Now that I've shared the 2nd explanation, I'm going to move on to the next section, which discusses my life of emotional displeasure. I'll start by saying that I've had 16 years of emotional displeasure, which was caused by severe, subconscious (or perhaps the proper term is "unconscious") worries. These unconscious worries not only resulted in much emotional displeasure, but sometimes resulted in a feeling of worry (a conscious worry), which is a state of emotional displeasure.

I couldn't reason or will away any of my worries or states of emotional displeasure, even though I tried very hard to. That's because it's oftentimes the case that unconscious worries and emotions don't listen to reason and can't be willed away. For example, a phobia is an emotional state (fear), and a person can neither will or reason away any phobia he has.

So, even though I attempted to reason away my worries and emotional displeasure by telling myself it's pointless to be worried about situations I can't prevent, and that this emotional displeasure is pointless because it's better to be emotionally pleased or emotionless, it didn't work at all. Since it didn't work, I had to find treatments, such as medication, mood supplements, and therapy.

Unfortunately, these treatments were ineffective, which means I had to wait for my worries and emotional displeasure to subside on their own over time. In other words, I had to let time itself heal me, since no treatments worked. Time has completely healed my previous worries (which includes the emotional displeasure that came with these worries). But, my current worry is taking the longest to heal because it's the most troubling worry.

I'm very patient and strong because I'm enduring to the very end. The end would be a full recovery (a full healing), where this worry and the emotional displeasure that's resulting from it are gone, and I have emotional pleasure all throughout the day each day. The only states of emotional displeasure I have when I'm fully recovered from a worry would be fear in a dangerous or potentially dangerous situation, or fear from a phobia, such as heights or spiders.

Another would be dread in a situation where I've made a mistake that has consequences, such as accidentally saying something I shouldn't have said or forgetting certain things. Other than that, the only emotions I have when I'm fully recovered (not worried) are states of pleasure. That means, when I'm fully recovered, I'm emotionally pleased by all songs and soundtracks, which means not a single one would emotionally displease me.

This is the opposite of when I'm severely worried because, in my worried state, everything, including music, continually elicits a state of emotional displeasure. An example of an emotional displeasure state that's elicited would be violent rage due to anyone treating me in a slightly agitated manner because of some task I didn't perform properly, some type of question I asked, etc. My mother is one of those people.

But, despite continually feeling violently enraged towards her and others in my worried state, I never acted out on that rage, which means I never harmed her or others and was never hostile. Also, I tried to reason away this rage by telling myself things, such as that my mother needn't be harmed because she's loving and has done many kind deeds for me. But, reasoning didn't work at all.

There were other things that made me violently enraged in my worried state, such as minor inconveniences. I reasoned with this rage as well and it didn't work. Now, another example of states of emotional displeasure I've had in my worried state and states of emotional pleasure in my fully recovered state would be ones I don't know the name of. Perhaps they have no name.

In other words, if a list of all emotions was presented, then perhaps some of my emotions wouldn't be on that list. If that's the case, then the reason why they wouldn't be listed (named) is because many people are unaware of their existence. Now, some people would disagree that unnamed emotions exist. But, there's a reason to think they exist.

That reason would be that there are named (known) sensations and states of mind, such as dizziness, delirium, hunger, thirst, light-headedness, pins and needles, etc., and unnamed (unknown) ones. An example of unnamed ones would be ones people have when they take psychedelic drugs, go on a near death experience induced trip, or during dreams and nightmares.

Since unnamed sensations and states of mind exist, then why wouldn't unnamed emotions? Now that I've discussed the emotions I have in my worried and non-worried states, I wish to go back to the topic of my worries. When I'm severely worried, that unconscious worry remains there 24/7, resulting in a constant variety of emotional displeasure states, which is a variety that lasts 24/7.

In other words, my brain is chronically stuck in an unwell state. But, it slowly restores back to a well (fully recovered) state on its own over time, which means, over time, all those states of emotional displeasure become less frequent and my states of emotional pleasure become more frequent until, eventually, I have emotional pleasure 24/7 and no more emotional displeasure.

This recovery/restoration process takes a long time. It usually takes my brain 1 year to reach a full recovery from a severe worry (an exception being my current worry, which is taking my brain much longer to fully recover from). I'll go ahead and share one of my severe worries. I was very troubled by the possibility that there's no afterlife (that I'd cease to exist after my body dies).

But, my brain has fully recovered from this worry and all my other previous worries. Now, I'm going to explain my current worry, which is the most troubling. This explanation won't immediately reveal the worry, but will soon. Anyway, here's the explanation: When people have powerful trips that are induced by a near death experience (nde), they sometimes have bliss that's far better (far more profound and intense) than any bliss they've had during their daily lives.

An example would be blissful trips to heaven (the afterlife), where one's soul detaches from his/her dying body and goes on a blissful, heavenly journey. These blissful nde trips are documented in the nde literature. Whether these trips are hallucinatory or not, I don't know. Now, people sometimes have emotional displeasure during an nde trip that's far worse than any emotional displeasure in their daily lives.

An example would be emotionally unpleasant trips to hell (the afterlife). These hellish nde trips are also documented in the nde literature. I was worried about the possibility that I'd go on an nde trip someday that's far more emotionally unpleasant than my nightmares. My nightmares were a result of my previous worries and, of course, this current worry regarding unpleasant nde trips.

During these nightmares, I've had emotional displeasure that's much worse than the emotional displeasure of my waking life because, during dreams and nightmares, emotions are enhanced (more profound and more intense). Emotions are much more enhanced during powerful nde or drug induced trips than during dreams and nightmares, and, as I said, I was very worried about the possibility of having an nde trip that's much more emotionally unpleasant than my nightmares.

Now, in regards to this current worry, nothing I tell myself eliminates or eases it. In other words, nothing I tell myself results in a full recovery and neither does it get me any closer to a full recovery. Examples of things I've told myself were: "Unpleasant nde trips don't last forever," "This worry is pointless because it's causing me much emotional displeasure and it won't prevent an unpleasant nde trip from happening to me," or "Few people have nde trips, especially unpleasant ones. Most nde trips are blissful."

Also, I'm still recovering from this current worry at the time of writing this. So far, it's been 11 years and I'm still not fully recovered. I'm not sure, but I think I'm moderately close to a full recovery. I estimate it'll take me 1 to 2 more years until I'm fully recovered. There are 2 reasons why it's taking me so long to reach a full recovery. The 1st reason I've already mentioned earlier, which was that this worry is the most troubling of them all.

The 2nd reason is that this chronic worry and the chronic emotional displeasure that resulted from it is a severe mental illness. A mental illness is where certain regions of the brain aren't functioning properly, and it can take years to fully recover from a mental illness (that's providing one will fully recover from his/her mental illness). Since my rate of recovery from this current worry is so slow (as I've said, it's been 11 years and I'm still not fully recovered), and since no treatments got me closer to a full recovery, I've considered electroconvulsive therapy (ECT).

But, I've decided not to get ECT because it harms the brain, such as causing memory loss. It also damages areas of the brain responsible for emotional pleasure. So, I've considered a safe alternative to ECT, which would be transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). But, since the medical card doesn't cover the cost, I couldn't get TMS. So, I just had to be very patient and wait for my brain to eventually reach a full recovery on its own.

Once I'm fully recovered from this current worry, not only would the emotional displeasure be gone, but the constant nightmares. I always have pleasant dreams in my fully recovered state and no nightmares. Also, I'm quite sure this current worry is the last of my severe worries, which means I think the remainder of my lifetime will be filled with emotional pleasure after I'm fully recovered from this worry, providing nothing renders my emotional pleasure chronically absent (disabled) in the future, such as brain damage, a mental illness, etc.

Now that I've discussed my current worry, I now wish to discuss some more states of emotional displeasure I've continually had during my worries and how all my emotional displeasure states, including my absence of emotional pleasure, have led to my philosophy. I'll start by saying that I've had an emotional displeasure state that I'd describe as "emptiness" or "deadness" during my worries. It might actually be called "depression." I'll explain this emotion/perception.

Cartoon and anime characters were perceived as lifeless vessels because they're not real characters (they're just drawings that have no inner life [no consciousness]). While having this perception (emotion), I had the mindset that they're lifelike (matter to me) because they display a personality. But, that mindset alone didn't work, which means it wouldn't allow me to perceive them as lifelike (as mattering).

Thus, they continued to remain lifeless (mattering) in my eyes. In other words, they mattered to me in terms of being lifeless and couldn't matter to me in terms of being lifelike. Another example of depression would be that, during my worries, musical compositions we're perceived as lifeless (as conveying absolutely nothing) when listening to them. In other words, I perceived them as meaningless.

I had the mindset that they're meaningful (matter to me). But, that mindset alone was ineffective because it couldn't give these compositions the perceptual life (perceptual meaning [importance]) that my emotional pleasure gives them. When I'm emotionally pleased by musical compositions, cartoons, and anime characters, I perceive them as "alive" (as good [as mattering]), and my mindset alone could never give me that perception.

Now, another example of an emotion I've had during my worries was hate. I hated myself (perceived myself as shit [as a bad person]) because of my physical appearance, the sound of my voice, or because of my status as a human being (that status would be that I'm not an eternally blissful being. I'm instead someone who's suffering emotionally in a universe that doesn't care about my desire to live a life of emotional pleasure.

If the universe cared, then it would've ensured that I'm eternally blissful). While hating myself, I had the mindset that I'm a good person (that I matter to myself) because I'm polite, I help my family when they need my help, and I don't commit crimes. But, that mindset alone wouldn't allow me to perceive myself as good (as mattering), and neither did it eliminate or reduce that hatred. Here's another example of my mindset alone being ineffective:

During my worries, I was absent of all emotional pleasure states, such as the passion (emotional drive) to pursue my dream of composing music, and the enjoyment of composing, which means composing couldn't matter to me (couldn't be be good [matter] in my eyes), despite having the mindset that it was good (mattered to me). That's why I gave up composing.

Since my mindset alone was ineffective, I've concluded that our mindset alone can't be an x state. Here's another conclusion I came to. Since I've always considered my life of emotional displeasure to be not worth living (which is a life where my emotional pleasure is absent [disabled]), then I've concluded that a life of emotional pleasure is the only life worth living.

Despite my attempts to make my life of emotional displeasure considered worth living, such as persevering, bringing others emotional pleasure by doing kind deeds for them, and having the mindset that people, places, and things are good (matter to me), I never considered it to be worth living. Here's another conclusion I came to. I've concluded that being emotionally displeased is worse than being emotionless because it's worse for me.

Here's one more conclusion I came to. I've noticed that only my states of emotional pleasure are perceptions of people, places, and things as good (as mattering), and only my states of emotional displeasure are perceptions of them as bad (as mattering). So, I've concluded that only our emotional pleasure is perceptual goodness (importance), and only our emotional displeasure is perceptual badness (importance).

Now, based upon those conclusions I've arrived at through my personal experience, I've written my philosophy. So, my philosophy is based upon my personal experience. I think anyone who has a different philosophy than mine is delusional, even if his/her philosophy is based upon his/her personal experience and has a lot of supportive arguments. Some people think I'm the delusional one and they'd try to change my philosophy.

But, to be honest, I don't think my philosophy will ever change, which would be my philosophy that the only life worth living is a life of emotional pleasure. Even if I tried my hardest to change it, I don't think it would change. I don't think it would change in a million years (if, let's pretend, I could live that long). If anyone objects to my philosophy in an attempt to convert me to a different philosophy, then such an attempt would be futile.

I'd just address said objections, instead of being converted by them. It would be like a situation where someone with a certain worldview is trying to convert someone else (for example, a Christian trying to convert an atheist and vice versa). It's just not going to work. But, we're free to discuss and debate our worldviews (my philosophy, for example). Such a discussion and debate would yield much insight. Now that I've explained my entire philosophy, I wish to move on to the final section:

Q&A Section

Question: Does this Q&A section consist of questions and answers that are related to the previous ones?

Answer: Yes. So, there might a question and answer that follows from (is related to) the previous one, or one that's completely different than the previous one.

Question: You say throughout this document that emotions are perceptual importance. Do you define importance as: "A person, place, or thing mattering very much?"

Answer: I define it as: "A person, place, or thing mattering to any degree." So, if an emotion is shallow and low in intensity, that emotion would be perceptual importance because it's a perception of a person, place, or thing as mattering to some degree (a slight degree).

Question: Some people would say that you've wasted your time and effort writing this entire document because you're not a professional writer who has written it in a way that interests readers. So, why did you write it?

Answer: Because there are some people in this world who'd be willing to read this entire document, such as my mom, my therapist, a very few people online (such as on philosophy forums), etc. If, let's pretend, nobody was willing to read much or any of it, then I would've wasted my time and effort writing it.

Question: Another reason you've written this entire document is because you want others to have full knowledge of your philosophy, correct?

Answer: Correct. If I've just written a summary of my philosophy, that wouldn't explain everything and it would leave a lot of questions and objections unaddressed. But, I'll write a summary (which would be another document) for those who aren't willing to read much or any of this document.

Question: Even though you're not a professional writer, do you think your writing is good enough?

Answer: Yes. I think it's written well enough to be fully understood. It's not written in a sloppy, incoherent fashion with poor grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc.

Question: Your philosophy is one long rant. So, don't you think others won't fully understand it?

Answer: There are long rants on YouTube, for example, and people fully understand them. So, I think others will fully understand my philosophy.

Question: Do you want to become a professional writer someday?

Answer: No, because I'm not interested. But, I'm interested in becoming a professional at composing music.

Question: Do you think you'll ever be interested in becoming a professional writer?

Answer: No. But, I could be wrong.

Question: Your philosophy is a form of hedonism. But, to be more specific, wouldn't you say your philosophy is Epicureanism?:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

Answer: I think you're right about my philosophy being Epicureanism.

Question: Some people would say you're a shallow, childish person because you're an Epicurean (someone who views emotional pleasure as the purpose of life). What would your response be to those people?

Answer: I'd tell them to fully read my philosophy and this Q&A section before judging me as shallow, childish, garbage, etc. I'd also tell them to fully read my Composing Dream document (which is much shorter than this document). It discusses the type of music I wish to compose and share with the world, which is unlike the shallow music that many people compose and share. The fact I wish to compose music that's unique and not shallow means I'm a unique individual who's not shallow.

Question: Those who say you're shallow and childish because of your philosophy might ask if you act like a child, such as throwing tantrums because you didn't get the fancy things you wanted. What would your response be to those people?

Answer: I'd tell them that I behave maturely. Just because someone is an Epicurean doesn't mean he's going to behave immaturely.

Question: Do you think you'll ever become the opposite of an Epicurean (a Stoic)?

Answer: No. Also, if we don't have free will, that means we don't choose our actions, personality, and worldviews. So, if I'm an Epicurean my entire life, then that wasn't my choice, providing I don't have free will. But, even if I do have free will, I can't be a Stoic, as long as I'm convinced of my philosophy, and I'm convinced of it.

Question: This life is incompatible with Epicureanism because it's a life where emotional pleasure is fleeting and many people struggle with emotional displeasure. For example, you've struggled with much emotional displeasure, which rendered your emotional pleasure absent (disabled).

So, Stoicism would be a much better philosophy that's compatible with this life. But, if you'll always remain an Epicurean, then that would be a shame. It would make me think: "Wouldn't it be fortunate if each individual could live the life that's compatible with his/her philosophy, especially if said philosophy will never change?"

Answer: I'll answer your quoted question with a "yes."

Question: Some people would say that your hedonistic (Epicurean) nature blinds you to the fact that your claim is false, which is your claim that emotional pleasure is the only thing that makes life worth living. What would your response be to those people?

Answer: My response would be that their non-Epicurean (Stoic) nature blinds them to the fact that my claim is true.

Question: Your philosophy is based upon your personal experience. Do you think that, if people payed attention to their personal experience, it's possible they'd realize your claim is true (that their emotional pleasure is the only thing that makes their lives worth living)?

Answer: Yes. But, they overlook their personal experience because they're too focused on other things, such as persevering and contributing to humanity, and because they believe the false claim they've been taught, which is that they don't require their emotional pleasure to make their lives worth living.

Question: You think it's possible that others would realize your claim is true if they focused on their personal experience like you have (if they made their personal experience 1st priority). But, what if they instead conclude, based upon their personal experience, that your claim is false?

Answer: Then that's their conclusion.

Question: You have your personal experience to base your conclusions on, and others have theirs. In other words, you can't convince others because your convictions are based upon your personal experience, just as how others can't convince you because their convictions are based upon their personal experience. So, why try to convince people?

Answer: Because there's the possibility they'll be convinced, even if it's very slim. If they're still not convinced after my attempts to convince them, then, hopefully, they'll at least consider the possibility that my claim is true.

Question: Some people's convictions aren't based upon their personal experience and are instead based upon research. What would be your response to those who say you're convinced of a false claim and that you can be convinced of a true claim through research?

Answer: My response would be that I don't think it would make any difference if my philosophical claim is false and I realized it's false by doing research. That's because a life of emotional pleasure is the only life that works for me. It's the only life I personally consider to be worth living, regardless if I realize that my claim is false or not.

Question: You think it won't make a difference. But, I think it will. In other words, I think realizing your claim is false through research will make a life of emotional displeasure or no emotions work for you (will make you personally consider said life to be worth living). So, why not do research?

Answer: Because I'm not interested, especially considering that it might not make a difference. Also, even if I do a lot of research, I might still come to the conclusion that my claim is true.

Question: If it were the case that your claim is false, then surely you would've considered your life of emotional displeasure to be worth living at some point. The very fact you haven't during all those years of emotional displeasure proves that your claim is true, correct?

Answer: I think so, especially since my attempts to make said life considered worth living didn't make me consider it worth living. When I say "I think so," that means I'm not 100% sure it's proof of my claim being true.

Question: In regards to your philosophy, some people would say it's childishly selfish and they might tell you: "There's no reason to be selfish because, according to neuroscientists, such as Sam Harris, the self is illusory." What would your response be to those people?

Answer: My response would be: "I consider the possibility that the self exists because, if it doesn't exist, as neuroscientists claim, then that would not only mean we should treat our selves as non-existent, but other selves as non-existent, which means we shouldn't care about or address ourselves or others."

Question: In regards to the self, there are Buddhists who advocate the existence of the self, but claim that the self and the mind aren't the same thing, which means there's a difference between something mattering to the self and something mattering to the mind (mattering in one's mind). What would be your response to this?

Answer: My response would be: "If the self is separate from the mind (that is, if it's a non-mental entity), then nothing could matter to it."

Question: If we were just biological machines without a mind (consciousness), then you're saying nothing could matter to us because nothing can matter to a self that's a non-mental entity, correct?

Answer: Correct, which means we couldn't care about anyone or anything.

Note to Reader: Here is part 2/2 of my philosophy:

viewtopic.php?p=705472#p705472

[Steve Matthew]

Your philosophy offers a unique perspective on the nature of emotions and their impact on our perception of good and bad. Thank you for sharing your insights and personal journey with us.