Controversial topics

[Mindwave]

Note to Reader: This is part 1/2 of my philosophy:

viewtopic.php?p=703139#p703139

My Philosophy of Emotions (Part 2/2)

Question: So, you think there's no difference between something mattering to the self and something mattering in one's mind, correct?

Answer: Correct. When something matters to an individual, that's always a state of mind (an emotional state).

Question: Here's a question that's unrelated to the previous one. It's a question about personal feelings. People can have personal feelings about their own emotions. These personal feelings would be emotional states, correct?

Answer: Correct.

Question: Are there unrelated questions throughout this Q&A section?

Answer: Yes, and related ones.

Question: Your philosophy says there are 2 components: 1.) Thoughts. 2.) Emotions. Now, some people say that personal feelings are just our personal opinions or beliefs (our thoughts alone, aka "component #1"). But, other people say they're emotional states ("component #2"). You're sticking with the definition of personal feelings as emotional states, correct?

Answer: Correct.

Question: Thoughts and feelings aren't the same thing. For example, feeling sleepy or nauseous isn't the same thing as having the thought of being sleepy or nauseous. So, it wouldn't make sense to say that personal feelings are thoughts alone. Therefore, wouldn't the definition of personal feelings as emotional states be the correct definition?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Here's a question about good and bad. Your philosophy says that importance is purely perceptual, but that people, places, and things are good or bad, regardless if we perceive them as such or not. But, how can a work of art be good or bad, given that good and bad are moral terms?

Answer: A work of art, such as a musical composition, would be good if it's a well-crafted piece. So, good and bad aren't always moral terms.

Question: Here's another question about good and bad (bad in particular). When something's seriously wrong (seriously bad), that means something's very bad (matters very much). According to your philosophy, importance is purely perceptual, which means things only become seriously wrong when we perceive them as such, correct?

Answer: Correct. The word "seriously" means "very importantly." So, things only become seriously good or bad perceptually.

Question: If, let's pretend, nobody perceived anything as mattering, then things would still be good or bad, but wouldn't matter, correct?

Answer: Correct. So, the non-mattering form of goodness and badness would still exist. But, the mattering form wouldn't.

Question: Here's a question about the best bliss and worst emotional displeasure. They can only be achieved by powerful drugs, by being in heaven or hell (the afterlife), providing the afterlife even exists, or by future technology, correct?

Answer: Correct.

Question: The best bliss and worst emotional displeasure are the best and worst (most important) experiences an individual can have, correct?

Answer: Correct.

Question: Since, according to your philosophy, the best bliss is the best (most important) thing for us, that means the most blissful life is the best (most important) existence for us, and the most emotionally unpleasant life would be the worst (most important) existence, correct?

Answer: Correct.

Question: Here's a question about emotional pleasure. Your philosophy says that the only life worth living is a life of emotional pleasure. How do you define a life of emotional pleasure?

Answer: Years or an entire lifetime of emotional pleasure is what I call "a life of emotional pleasure." Also, years or an entire lifetime of emotional displeasure or no emotions is what I call "a life of emotional displeasure or no emotions."

Question: So, the only years or lifetime worth living are those filled with emotional pleasure?

Answer: Yes. If they're filled with emotional displeasure or no emotions, then they're not worth living.

Question: If half of someone's lifetime was filled with emotional displeasure or no emotions, and the other half was filled with emotional pleasure, then that means half of his lifetime wasn't worth living, and the other half was worth living, correct?

Answer: Correct.

Question: If someone lived a life of emotional displeasure or no emotions, but he brought others a life of emotional pleasure, then was his life worth living?

Answer: No.

Question: Who are you to tell people their lives can't be worth living without their emotional pleasure?

Answer: I'm just someone who wants to share his philosophy. I don't care whether others are offended by it or not.

Question: If someone lived a life of emotional pleasure, but said life consisted of only one particular state of emotional pleasure, such as enjoyment, then would his life have been worth living, even though he was absent of all other states of emotional pleasure?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Here's a question about emotional displeasure. According to your philosophy, the only life worth living is a life of emotional pleasure, and the closer this emotional pleasure is to 10 (the best bliss), then the more worth living that life is. Since a life of emotional displeasure is the opposite, then wouldn't it be worth ending (terminating), and the closer this emotional displeasure is to -10 (the worst emotional displeasure), then the more worth ending that life is, correct?

Answer: Correct. But, remember, my philosophy doesn't say a person has to kill himself (end/terminate his life) or not if he's living a life of emotional displeasure.

Question: When you say that a life of emotional displeasure is worthless, you mean it's not worth living, correct?

Answer: Correct.

Question: If someone's living a life of emotional displeasure or no emotions, but he has the mindset that his life is worth living, then that mindset wouldn't make his life worth living, correct?

Answer: Correct. Only our emotional pleasure makes our lives worth living.

Question: If someone's living a life of emotional displeasure, then does his level of emotional displeasure determine how better it is for him to be dead?

Answer: Yes. Living a life of shallow, not intense, emotional displeasure means it's slightly better to be dead, while living a life of profound, intense, emotional displeasure means it's much better to be dead.

Question: You've lived a life of profound emotional displeasure that was sometimes intense (an example being rage, which is an intense emotion). Why didn't you kill yourself?

Answer: Because I make suicide a last resort, despite the fact that my philosophy says it would've been better if I was dead than living that life. So, that means, before resorting to suicide, I'd do everything in my power to eliminate my emotional displeasure, so I can live the life that I consider worth living (a life of emotional pleasure). In other words, I'd find treatments, instead of killing myself. If these treatments are ineffective, then I'd just be very patient by letting time itself heal me.

Question: Since your philosophy doesn't say a person has to kill himself or not, that's why you didn't kill yourself, correct?

Answer: Correct.

Question: If the spirit realm/afterlife exists, that means we'd be conscious beings, with our emotions intact, after the death of our bodies. That would mean a life of emotional displeasure would be carried on to the spirit realm if we commit suicide in an attempt to escape said life. Therefore, wouldn't suicide be pointless?

Answer: Yes. But, assuming there's no afterlife, suicide wouldn't be pointless. Thus, those who are living a life of emotional displeasure can have a permanent escape by suicide.

Question: If someone's living a life of emotional displeasure and he can obtain a cure that would eliminate his emotional displeasure and fully restore his emotional pleasure, then wouldn't it be better if he obtains that cure and uses it than if he kills himself?

Answer: Yes. But, if there's no cure and he must live emotionally displeased, then it would be better for him to be dead than to live that way.

Question: If the afterlife exists and emotional displeasure is carried on after suicide, then it wouldn't be better for someone, who's living a life of emotional displeasure with no cure, to kill himself, correct?

Answer: Correct. But, assuming there's no afterlife, it would be better.

Question: Here's a question about emotions. Psychologists call states of emotional pleasure "positive emotions" and states of emotional displeasure "negative emotions." According to your philosophy, being emotionally pleased or emotionally displeased is like being at a positive or negative number (which makes the term "positive" emotion or "negative" emotion suitable), correct?

Answer: Correct.

Question: Here's another question about emotions. If someone claims that his emotions aren't x states (states where people, places, and things matter to him), then he's delusional, correct?

Answer: Correct.

Question: Here's another question about emotions. Can someone have an emotion that's so low in intensity that he can't detect it?

Answer: Yes. So, if someone claims to be emotionless, he might be having emotions he can't detect.

Question: In regards to emotions, our lives wouldn't be worth living without our emotions because we'd be apathetic, which means our emotions matter for us, correct?

Answer: Correct. But, we need emotional pleasure states because they're the emotions that make our lives worth living.

Question: Your philosophy says that emotional pleasure is always good (matters) for us, but can be bad (not matter) for us. How can emotional pleasure be both good and bad?

Answer: Because there are certain things in life that are both good and bad. For example, a product is good if it accomplishes a certain task quite well, but would also be bad if it causes health problems.

Question: According to your philosophy, emotional pleasure is always good (matters) for us because it's always perceptual goodness (importance), but can be bad (not matter) for us because of non-perceptual badness, correct?

Answer: Correct. By the way, non-perceptual badness is a form of badness that doesn't matter for us. For example, if something's both good and bad, and someone perceives it as good (as mattering) without knowing it's bad, then it would matter for him in terms of being good, but wouldn't matter for him in terms of being bad because he's not perceiving it as bad (as mattering).

Question: Not only is emotional pleasure (liking) good (matter) for us, but emotional pleasure (wanting), correct?

Answer: Correct. When someone pleasantly wants something (such as wanting to achieve a certain goal or dream), then achieving it is good (matters) in his eyes. That makes his wanting good (matter) for him. Also, the more profound and intense someone's emotional pleasure (wanting) is, the better/more good (more mattering) something becomes in his eyes, which makes his wanting better (matter more) for him.

Question: Not only does emotional pleasure (liking) make our lives worth living, but emotional pleasure (wanting), correct?

Answer: Correct.

Question: Your philosophy says that emotional displeasure (disliking) doesn't make our lives worth living. But, does emotional displeasure (wanting) make our lives worth living?

Answer: No. During my worries, I had different forms of emotional displeasure (wanting), such as the rage (desire) to harm others, being horrified (having the desire to no longer look at something), etc. But, I've noticed that these states of wanting have never made my life worth living. I've noticed that only my emotional pleasure makes my life worth living.

Question: Emotional displeasure that's a state of wanting is always a state of disliking as well, correct? For example, if a man has the rage (desire) to harm a woman, then that means she bothers him (he dislikes her). In other words, his rage isn't just a state of wanting to harm her. It's also a state of disliking her.

Answer: Correct. So, his rage would be wanting and disliking occurring simultaneously. Also, emotional pleasure that's a state of wanting is always a state of liking as well.

Question: Emotional pleasure is always a state of liking and is also sometimes a state of wanting, and emotional displeasure is always a state of disliking and is also sometimes a state of wanting, correct?

Answer: Correct.

Question: Here's a question about emotional pleasure. Emotions can be conscious or unconscious. Since "unconscious" means "not conscious" (not a mental state), then unconscious emotions aren't perceptions (aren't mental states). Would unconscious, emotional pleasure states make our lives worth living?

Answer: No. Since they're not perceptions (mental states), they can't make anything good (matter) in our minds/mental universes. Thus, they can't make our lives worth living.

Question: If, let's pretend, all our emotions were unconscious, then none of those emotions would matter for us, correct?

Answer: Correct. But, our conscious emotions, on the other hand, do matter for us.

Question: So, if you had the choice to have the best bliss that's conscious or unconscious, you'd definitely choose conscious, correct?

Answer: Correct. Unconscious bliss is nothing (doesn't make life worth living).

Question: You've mentioned that you've had chronic, unconscious worries. Were these worries unconscious emotions?

Answer: They might've been.

Question: There was a question earlier in regards to Buddhism and your answer was: "Something mattering to the self is always a state of mind." According to your answer, nothing can unconsciously (non-mentally) matter to us, which means unconscious emotions (x states) don't exist. So, did you make a mistake in treating unconscious emotions as existing?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Here's a question involving an example I'm going to give. Your philosophy says that our mindset alone can't be an x state, and you've given examples that show this. Wouldn't another example be: If a psychopath, without any emotional compassion whatsoever, was asked to try to have compassion for others through his mindset alone, then he'd say: "I'm having the mindset that I'm compassionate. But, that mindset can't make me compassionate."

Answer: Yes, that would be another example.

Question: Since love and hate are x states, that means our mindset alone can't allow us to love or hate, correct?

Answer: Correct.

Question: You mentioned earlier that states of emotional displeasure are always states of being bothered by people, places, and things. Since our mindset alone can't be an x state, that means it can't make us bothered by anyone or anything. Does your personal experience support this?

Answer: Yes. I've noticed that, whenever I'm absent of emotional displeasure, nothing can bother me. Whenever I'm emotionally displeased by a person, place, or thing, I notice that said person, place, or thing bothers me.

Question: Here's a question involving another example I'm going to give. Your philosophy says that emotional pleasure is always perceptual goodness (importance), and emotional displeasure is always perceptual badness (importance). Wouldn't another example of emotional displeasure being perceptual badness (importance) be: If someone was very emotionally displeased by someone's singing and he acted out on that emotion by exclaiming: "His singing is terrible (very bad)."

Answer: Yes, that would be another example. His emotional displeasure would be a perception of his singing as very bad (as mattering very much).

Question: Here's a question about better and worse. Your philosophy says that a life of emotional pleasure is better than a life of no emotions, and a life of no emotions is better than a life of emotional displeasure, regardless if we consider it to be worse, correct?

Answer: Correct. So, regardless of how much someone prefers a life of emotional displeasure over a life of no emotions (considers a life of no emotions to be worse), an emotionless life would still be better for him. As I said earlier, it's better to be at 0 than at any negative number.

Question: If someone considers profound, intense, emotional displeasure to be better for him than shallow, not intense, emotional displeasure because it builds more character, it would still be worse for him, correct?

Answer: Correct. As I said earlier, it's worse to be at a greater negative number.

Question: There are emotionally pleasant ways of building character. For example, a person might become more selfless and loving because of the emotional pleasure others have brought him/her, and someone might develop as an individual because he/she was inspired (emotionally pleased) to. According to your philosophy, this is a better way of building character than emotionally unpleasant or emotionless ways, correct?

Answer: Correct.

Question: Since, according to your philosophy, it's better to be emotionally pleased than emotionally displeased, would that mean it's better if someone avoids a moment of emotional displeasure by getting blissfully high from harmful drugs than to not get high and have that emotionally unpleasant moment?

Answer: Yes. But, even though a better outcome would result in the present moment (which would be the bliss/high), a worse outcome might result in the future if he continues to take those harmful drugs, which would be a lot of emotional displeasure as a result of his destroyed health and the effects of the drugs. The goal, as I've mentioned earlier, is to not only be as close to 10/the best bliss as possible, but as much as possible throughout our lifetime.

Taking drugs doesn't achieve this goal because the highs are fleeting and a lot of emotional displeasure might occur as a result of taking them. Heaven (the afterlife) achieves this goal because it's a place where we experience the best bliss for eternity or until we reincarnate. That's, again, providing heaven even exists.

Question: What if someone doesn't want to achieve that goal you just mentioned and prefers a life of emotional displeasure over emotional pleasure?

Answer: Then that's his preference. But, a life of emotional pleasure is better for him, regardless of how much he prefers a life of emotional displeasure.

Question: There was a question above regarding drugs. I have a question, which is: "Do you ever use drugs?"

Answer: No. Actually, I've been on medication (if that counts as a drug).

Question: According to your philosophy, it's better to not live a life of emotional displeasure. But, if someone could have the best, eternal bliss in heaven (the afterlife) on one condition: He must live a life of emotional displeasure on Earth, then would it be better if he lives that emotionally unpleasant life or not?

Answer: If we just focus on avoiding that life and ignore that eternal bliss, then it would be better for him to not live that life. On the other hand, if we just focus on that eternal bliss and ignore avoiding that life, then it would be better if he lives that life.

Question: If people could have the best, eternal bliss if they lived a life of emotional displeasure, then there'd be people who'd choose not to live that life because they'd only be willing to endure a short duration of emotional displeasure. Would you choose to live that life to obtain that bliss?

Answer: I think I would if it's not an entire lifetime of emotional displeasure. Of course, if I choose to live that life, it wouldn't be worth living and would be worse than a life of no emotions. But, there'd be an eternal light at the end of that dark tunnel, which would be the best, eternal bliss.

Question: Your philosophy says it's better to be dead than to live a life of emotional displeasure. But, if someone isn't living that life and is instead having a few days or hours of emotional displeasure, and will immediately have the best, eternal bliss magically bestowed upon him afterwards, then wouldn't it be better if he endures those few days or hours of emotional displeasure than if he kills himself? That way, he'll be alive to experience that bliss.

Answer: If we just focus on the present moment (his emotional displeasure) and ignore that bliss, then it would be better if he was dead. On the other hand, if we just focus on that bliss and ignore the present moment, then it would be better if he endures.

Question: Here's a question about the best, eternal bliss. If humans became immortal in the future through advanced technology, then wouldn't the best, eternal bliss be technologically impossible to achieve?

Answer: I don't know. What I do know is that sustained bliss would cause neurons to be overexcited to death. So, science would have to resolve this issue in order for humanity to achieve that bliss.

Question: In heaven, souls experience the best, eternal bliss, and said bliss doesn't cause any damage to them, correct?

Answer: Correct. That's providing heaven exists and that souls remain there forever.

Question: In heaven, we never get bored or go insane, correct?

Answer: Correct. We're forever most blissful.

Question: Here's a question about emotions. Do we get to choose whether to have certain emotions or not?

Answer: No, even if we do have free will. That's because emotions, hunger, thirst, nausea, sleepiness, etc. aren't things we choose to have or not. For example, a person doesn't choose whether to have a phobia or not. So, if someone has a phobia, then nobody should tell him: "It's your fault for having this phobia because you've chosen it." Also, as I've explained earlier, I've lived a life of emotional displeasure that I didn't choose. So, nobody should tell me it was my fault.

Question: Since we don't choose our emotions, that means, if a man hates a woman because she has an ugly, disfigured appearance, then his hate (emotion) isn't something he has chosen, correct?

Answer: Correct. But, there are people who think that hating (strongly disliking) someone or not is a choice, when it's not.

Question: Here's a question about your emotional displeasure. There are instances where emotions vanish upon certain realizations. For example, if a man was angry at a woman because he thought she was cheating on him, but later realized she wasn't, then his anger would vanish. Did any of the emotional displeasure states you've had during your worries vanish upon certain realizations?

Answer: No.

Question: Did facing your worries and emotional displeasure make them fade away?

Answer: No. Only time itself did.

Question: You didn't choose to be worried, just as how you didn't choose your emotional displeasure, correct?

Answer: Correct.

Question: In regards to your worries, since they've caused you much emotional displeasure, that means, if, let's pretend, you've chosen your worries, then you could choose to not have those worries, which would cause your emotional displeasure to vanish, correct?

Answer: Correct. But, as I said, I didn't choose these worries.

Question: You do have moments of emotional pleasure during your worries, correct?

Answer: Correct. When I'm not close to a full recovery from a severe worry, I have none of those moments. But, when I'm a bit closer to a full recovery, I have few of those moments. When I get closer to a full recovery, I have more of those moments.

Question: When you're moderately close to a full recovery, you sometimes have moments of apathy (no emotional pleasure or emotional displeasure), correct?

Answer: Correct.

Question: Your current worry and its resulting emotional displeasure is a mental illness that's still in a recovery process. Mental illnesses can return after people are fully recovered from them, which means, after you're fully recovered, there might be a moment where this worry and its emotional displeasure returns. But, considering that none of your previous worries and their emotional displeasure have returned, do you think this current one won't return?

Answer: I don't think it will return. But, I could be wrong.

Question: Your current worry is in regards to emotionally unpleasant nde (near death experience) trips. But, what about journeys our souls go on after our bodies are dead? Are you worried about that?

Answer: Yes. So, this current worry is also in regards to emotionally unpleasant soul journeys after bodily death.

Question: You don't know if there's life after bodily death, though. So, why worry about something you don't know will happen to you or not?

Answer: Because, as I've said, nothing eliminates or eases this worry, such as telling myself that there's no point in worrying about something I don't know will happen or not.

Question: In regards to your emotional displeasure, was feeling suicidal a state of emotional displeasure you've had during your worries?

Answer: Yes. But, I never attempted suicide.

Question: Depression was another state of emotional displeasure you've had during your worries, which you've described as a state of "emptiness/deadness." This emotion made your life/mental universe worthless, correct?

Answer: Correct. Things being perceived as "dead" is no way to live. It's a worthless existence.

Question: In regards to your life of emotional displeasure, did it yield the end result of enhanced (more profound and more intense) emotional pleasure? The reason I ask is because it's sometimes the case that having much emotional displeasure gives birth to greater (enhanced) emotional pleasure.

Answer: No, it didn't. For example, now that I'm moderately close to a full recovery from my current worry, I'm having moments of emotional pleasure. But, I notice that this emotional pleasure isn't enhanced.

Question: Before you've lived a life of emotional displeasure, you've lived a life of emotional pleasure. While living that life of emotional pleasure, did your emotional pleasure ever fade away due to continued exposure to it? The reason I ask is because, over time, a life of emotional pleasure becomes less emotionally pleasant for some people. They grow tired of said life and desire hardship.

Answer: I've always had the same level of emotional pleasure from my hobbies, nature, music, etc. So, the answer would be "no." Also, I never desired hardship, such as illness, emotional displeasure, etc.

Question: How many years was your life of emotional pleasure, and how many years was your life of emotional displeasure?

Answer: I'm 34 years old and I've lived a life of emotional pleasure for 18 years and, as I've mentioned earlier, a life of emotional displeasure for 16 years.

Question: If, let's pretend, you could live a life of emotional pleasure for thousands of years, do you think said life will ever become less emotionally pleasant for you, and do you think you'd ever desire a life of hardship, such as a life of emotional displeasure?

Answer: No. By the way, the only way I'd desire a life of emotional displeasure would be if my philosophy changed to one that advocates emotional displeasure. But, I don't think my philosophy will ever change.

Question: What does your philosophy say in regards to famous artists who've lived lives of emotional suffering (emotional displeasure), but used their suffering to create masterpieces that inspired the world?

Answer: My philosophy would say their lives weren't worth living and that those who've lived lives of emotional pleasure, such as inspiration (emotional pleasure) from the artwork of those suffering artists, lived lives that were worth living.

Question: Your philosophy advocates being an emotionally pleased artist who creates any type of artwork, instead of an emotionally displeased artist, it advocates being pleasantly motivated to help others, instead of unpleasantly motivated, and it advocates being emotionally pleased by the idea of avoiding junk food, instead of being emotionally displeased by the idea that junk food is harmful to our health?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Your philosophy also advocates not grieving over the loss of loved ones and either being emotionally pleased about the deeds they've done for humanity while they were alive, or being emotionally pleased about something else. Now, I have a question, which is: "Would you grieve over the loss of one of your family members?"

Answer: No. That's because I have no attachment to any of them. But, that doesn't mean they don't matter to me. For example, I like my mom because she's kind, not abusive, and not a slave driver, which means she matters to me. Of course, if my liking (emotion) was disabled, then I couldn't like her.

Question: During your worries, you couldn't like your mother and you were enraged at her, correct?

Answer: Correct. But, when I'm not worried or when I'm close to a full recovery from a worry, I have moments of liking her.

Question: Would you grieve over the death of any animal?

Answer: No.

Question: Here's a question about heaven. If a life of emotional pleasure is the only life worth living and heaven (the afterlife) exists, then why aren't we there, experiencing the best, everlasting bliss? What's the point of living on Earth, where we not only have emotional pleasure that's fleeting and nowhere near as good (as profound and intense) as the bliss in heaven, but where many people suffer emotionally and have mental illnesses that disable their emotional pleasure?

Answer: I see no point. According to the nde (near death experience) literature and some mystics, we're here on Earth because emotional suffering (emotional displeasure) and mental illness serves the purpose of paying off karmic debt, teaching us lessons, and is meant for our soul's development. But, the lesson my emotional suffering has taught me was that a life of emotional pleasure is definitely the only life worth living and that I was, therefore, better off living that life, instead of having all that emotional suffering.

Question: Can we get anything we want in heaven? If so, then that's another reason to be in heaven, instead of on Earth.

Answer: I think so.

Question: Phobias fade away when people are exposed to them through exposure therapy. But, does a life of bliss in heaven ever become less blissful? In other words, does this bliss ever become less intense (fade) through continued exposure?

Answer: No.

Question: In regards to why we're here on Earth, instead of in heaven, some mystics would say it's because there are evil beings known as Archons who keep humanity at a low spiritual vibration on Earth. This low vibration results in people suffering emotionally, so that the Archons can feed off of said suffering. But, being at a high vibration not only results in bliss, but prevents emotional displeasure from occurring.

In heaven, we're at a very high vibration, which is why we have the best, everlasting bliss and no emotional displeasure. But, the Archons don't want us to remain in heaven, which is why they continue having us reincarnate on Earth. Do you consider the possibility that the Archons exist (aren't fictional beings) and that they were responsible for your life of emotional displeasure?

Answer: I do. I also consider the possibility that the natural world is the only world that exists (which would mean there's no afterlife, Archons, or ghosts), and that my life of emotional displeasure was, thus, a result of bad luck and not a result of Archons or demonic attacks.

Question: If the natural world is the only world, that means we're just biological machines without free will, which means we don't choose our circumstances that result in us living a life of emotional displeasure. For example, if someone struggled with years of financial and other personal hardships that resulted in years of emotional displeasure, then he didn't choose those hardships, and neither did he choose his emotional displeasure. Thus, it's all a matter of luck whether someone lives a life of emotional displeasure or not, correct?

Answer: Correct, which would mean I was very unlucky because I lived a life of emotional displeasure.

Question: If the Archons exist, they don't want us to have the best, everlasting bliss in heaven because they want us to be as close to -10 as possible, and as often as possible, correct?

Answer: Correct. They don't want our lives to be most worth living (most blissful).

Question: If the Archons exist, then why do some people live an entire lifetime of emotional pleasure?

Answer: Because the Archons didn't manage to trap these people into a life of emotional displeasure. Those who live lives of emotional displeasure, on the other hand, are trapped by Archons (providing Archons exist).

Question: If the natural world is the only world, that means we'd only have one life to live and, according to your philosophy, only one thing to make life worth living, which would be our emotional pleasure. It would be quite unfortunate and absurd if heaven doesn't exist, wouldn't it? Especially considering those who've had much emotional displeasure and deserve heavenly bliss as a reward.

Answer: Yes. So, I hope heaven exists and that souls can remain there as long as they want. If heaven exists, then, after my body dies, I'd choose to remain there for eternity and would no longer reincarnate into this pointless, Earth realm. That's providing I have the choice to remain in heaven.

Question: Whether heaven exists or not, don't you think that science needs to find a cure for ongoing, emotional displeasure and a cure for mental illnesses that disable emotional pleasure? That way, everyone on Earth can live a life of emotional pleasure and not a pointless, worthless life of emotional displeasure or no emotions.

Answer: I think so.

Question: If the afterlife doesn't exist, wouldn't you want to ensure that your one and only life on Earth is the longest and most emotionally pleasant you can make it?

Answer: Yes. I'm finding supplements online that will, hopefully, extend my life, just in case the afterlife doesn't exist. Hopefully, I'll live long enough until science finds a cure for aging. The cure would not only make me look much younger, but would allow me to live as long as I want to (until a fatal incident happens to me, such as being shot, stabbed, etc.).

Question: Since you're searching online for longevity supplements, I want to mention there are also mood supplements. Did you try some mood supplements and did they help alleviate your worries and emotional displeasure?

Answer: I've tried some and they didn't help.

Question: You've mentioned earlier that you've also tried medication, which didn't help either. I heard medication can be very harmful, by the way. For example, not only do some people report serious side effects, but some report anhedonia (absence of emotional pleasure) that's perhaps permanent. So, wouldn't you want to avoid medication and find treatments that are not only effective, but safe?

Answer: Yes.

Question: In regards to longevity supplements, you might not need any because there are immortality rings and foot braces being sold by a man named "Alex Chiu." He claims they're a cure for aging that many people deny. Here's the website where he sells them:

http://alexchiu.com/eternallife/alexchiu.htm.

Have you purchased and tried them? If so, did they work for you?

Answer: I tried them for over a year and they didn't work for me. But, that doesn't mean they don't work for everyone else. There are many personal testimonies on that website that claim they work. Whether these testimonies are evidence or not that they work for many people, I don't know. Anyway, here are the testimonies:

http://alexchiu.com/eternallife/proof.htm

Question: Did you try Alex Chiu's Gorgeous Pill with those rings and foot braces?

Answer: Yes, and that didn't work either.

Question: If you were rich, what would you spend your money on?

Answer: I'd spend it on expensive foods and supplements that promote longevity and are of the highest quality.

Question: Here's a question about pleasure. Can people define pleasure as being their mindset alone?

Answer: Yes. But, it wouldn't be literal pleasure. Also, if someone who's insomniac, blind, and deaf defined sleepiness, colors, and sounds as his mindset alone, then his mindset wouldn't literally be those things. Lastly, if someone defines a rock as himself because he has a tough personality, then he wouldn't literally be a rock.

He'd be a rock, metaphorically speaking. As you can see, defining pleasure, displeasure, sounds, colors, rocks, etc. however we want creates a metaphorical/not literal form of those things.

Question: In regards to pleasure, some people would say that, without displeasure, we can't experience pleasure. In other words, they say that pleasure can't exist without displeasure. But, if, let's pretend, a baby was born and hasn't experienced any displeasure yet, wouldn't he/she be able to experience pleasure?

Answer: Yes. By the way, if pleasure couldn't exist without displeasure, that would mean displeasure couldn't exist without pleasure.

Question: Some people would say that, without displeasure, we wouldn't know the difference between pleasure and displeasure. So, don't you agree that we need some emotional displeasure?

Answer: I don't think we need it and neither do Epicureans. Also, if someone doesn't know the difference between pleasure and displeasure, he's still able to experience emotional pleasure (goodness [importance]), which means his life's still worth living. Of course, if his emotional pleasure was disabled, then he wouldn't be able to experience it.

Question: Here's a question about wanting, liking, and disliking. Since our mindset alone can't be an x state, and since emotions (x states) are always states of wanting, liking, or disliking (states of pleasure or displeasure), that means our mindset alone can't allow us to want, like, or dislike, correct?

Answer: Correct, and Hume (a famous philosopher) supports this with his quote, which is: "Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions (emotions)." This quote means that reason (our mindset) alone can't give us the desire (want) to act or think. But, people can still perform tasks, even if they don't want to do them (an example being emotionless people).

Question: Here's a question about emotionless people. If a person was born blind and never gained sight, that means he'd know colors as a concept/idea because others would tell him. But, he'd never know colors themselves because he'd never see them. Also, if someone was born emotionless and never gained emotions, then he'd know importance as a concept, but would never know importance itself (which is a perception), correct?

Answer: Correct. He'd know things, such as good, bad, necessary, etc. But, he'd never know importance itself.

Question: You claim that emotionless people can't perceive anything as mattering (that nothing can matter to them). Let's pretend that claim is false, but that your claim that emotionless people can't want, like, or dislike through their mindset alone is true. That would mean an emotionless person can perceive people, places, and things as good (as mattering), even though he can't want, like, or dislike them. Would this non-emotional, perceptual goodness (importance) make his life worth living?

Answer: No. Only our emotional pleasure (the emotional form of perceptual goodness [importance]) makes our lives worth living. Why? Because, if the non-emotional form exists, I've noticed it has never made my life worth living.

For example, I've mentioned earlier that my emotional displeasure has rendered me absent of emotional pleasure, and that I had the mindset that people, places, and things were good (mattered to me), but this mindset alone has never made my life worth living. So, I've concluded, based upon my personal experience, that only our emotional pleasure makes our lives worth living.

Question: Since your mindset alone didn't make your life worth living, don't you think that the non-emotional form of perceptual goodness (importance) doesn't exist? If it exists, then surely it would've made your life worth living.

Answer: I think you're right.

Question: Let's pretend emotionless people can want, like, or dislike through their mindset alone. That means their mindset alone can be a state of pleasure or displeasure, which means they can have a pleasant form of perceptual goodness (importance). So, would this form make their lives worth living?

Answer: No. If this form exists, it has never made my life worth living. For example, I had the mindset that I liked certain people, places, and things during moments where I was absent of emotional pleasure. But, that mindset alone has never made my life worth living.

Question: Did you conclude, based upon your personal experience, that our mindset alone can't be a state of wanting, liking, or disliking?

Answer: Yes. For example, I had the mindset that I was enjoying (liking) my hobbies during moments where I was absent of emotional pleasure. I had this mindset in an attempt to achieve a state of non-emotional enjoyment. But, I couldn't achieve it.

Question: If emotionless people can perceive things as good (as mattering), you're saying this perception wouldn't make their lives worth living. So, is that another way of saying this perception can't be good (matter) for them?

Answer: Yes. But, since our emotional pleasure does make our lives worth living, that means it's good (matters) for us.

Question: If the non-emotional form of perceptual goodness (importance) exists, then I think it does make your life worth living, but not as much as the emotional form does. I'll explain why: Emotions are more powerful than our mindset alone. For example, rage and fear are more powerful/more effective motivators than the motivation to fight or flee through our mindset alone.

So, the emotional form of perceptual goodness (importance) is more powerful/more effective in terms of making our lives worth living than the non-emotional form. Since the non-emotional form is weak, then that must be why it doesn't make your life worth living as much as your emotional pleasure does. Do you agree?

Answer: I've concluded that the non-emotional form doesn't exist because I've noticed that my mindset alone has never made my life worth living to any degree whatsoever.

Question: If non-emotional x states exist, then they're weaker than emotional ones. That must be why your non-emotional enjoyment didn't seem to be enjoyment to you at all.

Answer: I don't think non-emotional x states, including non-emotional enjoyment, even exist.

Question: Here's a question about value judgments. Your philosophy says there are non-emotional value judgments (thoughts alone), which are perceptual goodness or badness, but not perceptual importance, and there are emotions (value judgments), which are perceptual goodness or badness (importance), correct?

Answer: Correct.

Question: If someone's slightly emotionally pleased by something, but judges it as extremely good through his thinking alone, would he be perceiving it as extremely good (as extremely important)?

Answer: No. There are 2 forms of perceptual goodness: mattering and non-mattering. The person in your example would be having a low level of the mattering version coexisting with an extreme level of the non-mattering version. In other words, his slight emotional pleasure would be a perception of that thing as slightly good (as slightly mattering). At the same time, his judgment (thought alone) would be a perception of that thing as extremely good (as not mattering).

Question: Here's a question regarding good and bad. If a dumb person is emotionally pleased by junk food because he thinks it's good for his health, would his emotional pleasure make it good (matter) for him in the sense that it's good (matters) in his mind?

Answer: Yes. Not only would junk food be good (matter) for him, but his emotional pleasure would be. But, at the same time, junk food would be bad (not matter) for his health. It becomes bad (matters) for him the moment he's emotionally displeased by it. But, let's pretend he instead becomes emotionally pleased by the harm junk food causes. That harm would be good (matter) for him.

Question: If someone sees a red object (perceives an object as red), then, not only would the object be red for him, but his perception would be red for him. So, if someone perceives something as good (as mattering), then, not only would that thing be good (matter) for him, but his perception (state of emotional pleasure) would be, correct?

Answer: Correct.

Question: Since good and bad are judgments/perceptions, that means they're good and bad for us, correct?

Answer: Correct. The non-emotional ones don't matter for us, while the emotional ones do. ​

Question: Here's a question about perceptual goodness (importance). You've mentioned earlier that valuing a person, place, or thing is a pleasant emotional state. If someone values something (is emotionally pleased by it), that would make said thing valuable (matter) in his eyes. Would that perceptual value (importance) be perceptual goodness (importance)?

Answer: Yes. So, perceiving something as valuable (as mattering) is the same thing as perceiving it as good (as mattering).

Question: Perceiving something as precious (as mattering) is also a pleasant emotional state, isn't it?

Answer: Yes. It's also perceptual goodness (importance).

Question: Your philosophy advocates emotional pleasure, which would be the goodness (importance). But, don't we need emotional displeasure, which would be the badness (importance)?

Answer: I don't think we need it. But, if we do, then we only need a tiny amount. If we have a lot of emotional displeasure throughout our lifetime and very little emotional pleasure, that means we're mostly missing out on the goodness (importance), which is no way to live.

Question: If we do need a little emotional displeasure, wouldn't that make it good (matter) for us?

Answer: No. That would make it good (not matter) for us. As I said before, emotional displeasure is always bad (matters) for us, but can be good (not matter) for us.

Question: Here's a question about your philosophy. Your philosophy is Existentialism. What would be the problem if your philosophy was non-Existentialism? In other words, what problem would be presented if your philosophy advocated the idea that people, places, and things matter regardless if we perceive them as mattering or not?

Answer: I'll explain the problem. If someone is emotionally displeased and can't be emotionally pleased, but he helps others and, let's pretend, his deed is good (important), regardless if we perceive it as good (as important) or not, then that would place focus on his deed and dismiss/disregard his absence of emotional pleasure (his perceptual goodness [importance]), and his presence of emotional displeasure (his perceptual badness [importance]).

In other words, his deed would be treated as important, while his emotional state would be disregarded. Thus, his life would be treated as worth living because he's helping others. Another example would be that, if someone is emotionless (apathetic) and is watching a certain movie with his friends, and watching that movie is good (important) for him, regardless if we perceive it as good (as important) or not, then his friends would say:

"Even though watching that movie can't matter to you and you're apathetically staring at the screen, it's good (important) that you're watching it. Thus, you're doing something worthwhile (good [important]) that makes your life worth living." This quote would disregard his apathy. I reject the idea of one's emotions or apathy being disregarded because it's inconsiderate, which is why my philosophy is Existentialism.

Question: If people, places, and things were good (important) regardless of our emotional state or apathy, that would mean our lives would be worth living, regardless if we're absent of emotional pleasure, which is an idea your philosophy rejects, correct?

Answer: Correct.

Question: If our lives could be worth living without our emotional pleasure, then we wouldn't need our emotional pleasure to make our lives good (matter) for us, correct?

Answer: Correct. But, I think we need it.

Question: Here's a question about character. Your philosophy discusses emotions. But, what does your philosophy have to say in regards to character?

Answer: My philosophy would say that robots have no character (no personality) because, if a robot were to speak and perform actions, it would be in a robotic manner. Now, emotionless people aren't exactly like robots because they have certain worldviews and goals, and they can speak and act in a non-robotic manner. So, that means emotionless people do possess character/personality.

But, this character is hollow because it's apathetic. Thus, the character of emotionless people can't matter for them. Our emotions, on the other hand, do matter for us and are a non-apathetic form of character. For example, if someone has an angry or erotic personality, then that would be an emotional form of character, and that emotion would matter for him/her.

Lastly, since our mindset alone can't be an x state, then that means, if someone is afraid (feels like running away) and doesn't feel like protecting someone, but he displays character by protecting that person anyway, then that would be a hollow/apathetic form of character because said character is through his mindset alone.

Question: Doesn't the fact that he protected that person mean protecting him/her mattered to him?

Answer: No. As I said earlier, nothing matters to robots, but they still perform tasks. So, even though our mindset alone can make us perform tasks, such as protecting others, that doesn't mean our mindset alone can be an x state.

Question: In the future, there might be androids, which are machines that have a personality. According to your philosophy, they'd have a hollow form of character because they're apathetic machines?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Since emotions are the only x states, then, if someone was depressed and doing hobbies couldn't matter to him (couldn't elicit an emotion), then he might as well give up on those hobbies, correct?

Answer: Correct. He has no emotional drive to do them. So, he might as well not do them. Sure, he'd be displaying character by doing them anyway. But, that character would be hollow.

Question: During your worries, you were enraged (had the desire to give up on your composing dream), and had no emotional drive to pursue that dream, correct?

Answer: Correct. That's why I gave up on it for 16 years (which is how long my life of emotional displeasure lasted).

Question: Here's a question about emotions. People can have mixed emotions. For example, they can be emotionally pleased and emotionally displeased at the same time. So, going back to your example of that person who was emotionally displeased by a certain product because it causes health problems, let's pretend he was emotionally pleased by the product at the same time because it accomplishes a certain task.

That means he'd be perceiving the product as both good and bad (as mattering) at the same time. So, would that state of emotional pleasure make his life worth living, even though he's emotionally displeased at the same time?

Answer: Yes.

Question: If someone's living a life of mixed emotional pleasure and displeasure, where his emotional displeasure is very profound and very intense, while his emotional pleasure is very shallow and very low in intensity, that means he'd be having much more badness (importance) in his life than goodness (importance). So, would it be better if he was dead?

Answer: Yes. His life wouldn't be worth living. But, if he had more goodness (importance) than badness (importance), then his life would be worth living. If he had slightly more, his life would be slightly worth living, and, if he had much more, his life would be very worth living.

Question: Would it be better to have profound, intense emotional pleasure without any emotional displeasure mixed with it than mixed with it?

Answer: Yes, even if that emotional displeasure is very shallow and very low in intensity.

Question: Was there ever a moment during your life of emotional displeasure where you had emotional pleasure mixed with emotional displeasure?

Answer: I don't think so. If I did have those moments, they'd be very few.

Question: There are people who derive emotional pleasure from their emotional displeasure and vice versa. This is an example of mixed emotions. Now, would someone's emotional displeasure still be bad (matter) for him, even though he's deriving emotional pleasure from it?

Answer: Yes, and someone's emotional pleasure would still be good (matter) for him, even though he's deriving emotional displeasure from it.

Question: Here's a question pertaining to Christianity. Your philosophy advocates a life of emotional pleasure. But, if Jesus exists (isn't a fictional character), then you'll no longer need your emotional pleasure because having a personal relationship with Jesus is an experience that's far better than any emotionally pleasant experience. It's the experience of spiritual life that's bestowed upon those who repent of their sins.

So, a life of salvation (having a personal relationship with Jesus) is far better than a life of emotional pleasure. Now, I have a question, which is: "If, let's pretend, Jesus exists and you somehow became aware of His existence, then would you repent of your sins?"

Answer: I definitely would, not only to save myself from hell (the afterlife), but to have spiritual life. But, I don't know if Jesus, the afterlife, ghosts, etc. exist or not.

Question: If someone selfishly serves God to gain what he wants, such as fancy things, then he won't earn salvation. So, if, let's pretend, God exists and you knew it, then would you selflessly serve Him?

Answer: Yes. Selflessly serving Him is the very definition of repentance, by the way. Repentance means to turn away from sin, which would include selfishness.

Question: If Jesus exists and you knew it, then your philosophy would change, correct?

Answer: Correct. Instead of having a philosophy that advocates emotional pleasure, I'd have a Christian worldview that advocates spiritual life. So, my goal would no longer be a life of emotional pleasure; it would be a life of salvation.

Question: If Jesus, heaven, and hell do exist, then you'll know they exist after your body dies and your soul meets God on Judgment Day. But, as long as you're still living on this planet, do you think you'll ever know if they exist?

Answer: No, which means I don't think my philosophy will change.

Question: So, when you say in this document that you don't think your philosophy will ever change, you mean: "I don't think it'll ever change, as long as I'm living on this planet," correct?

Answer: Correct. But, it would change if I realize God and Jesus exist on Judgment Day. Unfortunately, by then, it would be too late for me to repent.

Question: You say that you object to other philosophies. But, you don't object to the idea that a life of salvation is much better/much more worth living than a life of emotional pleasure?

Answer: I don't. Why? Because Jesus isn't a liar, which means He's not lying when He says that the experience of spiritual life (salvation) is much better than the experience of emotional pleasure. But, as I said, I don't know if Jesus exists.

Question: If you don't know if Jesus exists or not, that means you don't know if a life of emotional pleasure is the only life worth living, given the possibility that spiritual life exists, which is far superior to emotional pleasure. So, why then do you claim that only our emotional pleasure makes our lives worth living?

Answer: Because I'm going by the assumption that Jesus and spiritual life don't exist. But, I could suspend this assumption anytime by saying: "Perhaps there's something far better than our emotional pleasure (which would be spiritual life) to make our lives far more worth living."

Question: What is spiritual life? Is it classified as divine emotional pleasure that's everlasting and far more profound and intense than any human emotional pleasure?

Answer: I think so.

Question: Obtaining spiritual life is the same thing as acquiring Jesus' love for others and living things. It's divine love that transcends our human love. Divine love is not only unconditional, but is much more profound and intense than human love, which means it's a much higher level of perceptual goodness (importance). Wouldn't it be classified as divine emotional pleasure?

Answer: I think so.

Question: Is obtaining spiritual life the same thing as acquiring a variety of divine, everlasting forms of perceptual goodness (importance) that are much more profound and intense than our human ones? Divine love isn't the only one acquired, correct?

Answer: Correct. For example, I mentioned earlier that valuing something is a form of perceptual goodness (importance). Those who have spiritual life will value things much more profoundly and intensely than they humanly could.

Question: I could not only say that spiritual life is far more profound and intense, but that it's of a far better quality (is far better for us) than our human emotional pleasure, correct?

Answer: Correct.

Question: If Jesus exists, do you hope that He convinces you of His existence someday while you're alive on Earth?

Answer: Yes, so I can have salvation and no longer require my human emotional pleasure.

Question: Your philosophy says it's better to be dead than to live a life of emotional displeasure. But, if hell (the afterlife) exists and those who commit suicide will spend an eternity in hell, where they'll forever experience the worst emotional displeasure, then wouldn't it be better for someone who's living a life of emotional displeasure to obtain salvation/spiritual life than to kill himself?

Answer: Yes. But, if there's no afterlife, then it would be better if he was dead if no treatments work for him or if they hardly work.

Question: Another reason why you didn't kill yourself during your life of emotional displeasure is because of the possibility that hell exists, correct?

Answer: Correct.

Question: Let's pretend you've obtained salvation during your life of emotional displeasure. Not only would you have spiritual life, but wouldn't your worries and emotional displeasure have magically (divinely) vanished?

Answer: Yes.