GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:MozartLink wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean here. I already did explain my personal thoughts because I explained how pleasure is the only good thing about me and my life through my hedonistic arguments. As for the electric shock treatment, I would have to actually replace that term with TMS which would be a much safer form of treatment. This is a form of magnetic stimulation is what I am considering having done on me if my anhedonia does not seem to recover.
When a person is depressed, he/she might say to his/herself in a depressive mood (tonality) that his/her life is still good and worth living. He/she might very well continue on to pursue his/her dreams and goals in life even while still feeling depressed. But those good perceptions are all decoys without our pleasure as I've said before. The person's depression has shut down his/her genuine good perceptions in life. But he/she is now doing nothing more than just simply saying to his/herself that his/her life is still good and worth living anyway and just forcing his/herself to live life anyway. So now this person is just simply being fooled by words and phrases alone when there is no genuine good perception at all from those words and phrases while he/she is in a state of depression.
Not at all personal. You seem to be projecting upon others, whilst keeping the maximal distance away from yourself. Exactly the opposite of what I asked, I asked for your personal thoughts and machinations. Try again.
Try more like a diary this time. I suspect you are female, so a diary should be no problem for you.
Speaking of females and electro-shock therapy...A long time ago I was at a mental hospital and there was a girl a few doors down from me who they thought was delusional. They were giving her electro-shock therapy everyday so when she came out I tried to be nice to her and comfort her, and befriend her. Of course she spat in my face and called me rude and hateful things, insulting me and saying very hurtful things to me. These weren't the ramblings of an insane woman, but the hurtful things she said were very sane and collected sounding, she knew very well I was a fellow patient trying to be nice to her, and she could care less, as long as she made me feel more like shit, more worthless that I already did. At that moment I knew her shock therapy was the result of Divine Karma. That very night, when her screams woke me up in the middle of the night, I was no longer bothered. I was incredibly aroused, and at the same time, couldn't stop laughing, it was so humorous actually. Whenever I think about it I think about the scene where Joker does shock therapy to the Robin and it makes me laugh.
Funny as it is, did it ever cure her from her delusions? Absolutely not. It wasn't like she was even that suicidal, or cut up her body like marilyn manson, they just thought her delusional. You know if that's all it takes for shock-therapy, I firmly believe that most religious tards (especially jihadists and phobic christians) could benefit from some "shock-therapy" as well. Lol!
I am actually a male. I will speak a brief statement though about my personal life. But after that, then I will get back to the deep philosophical discussion since this is a philosophy forum after all:
I wanted to be a composer through my pure pleasure alone and create dark, tragic, powerful, and good compositions through my pure pleasure alone and through the pleasure in tragic dark, gothic, etc. things. Feelings of anhedonia and suffering are inferior and loathsome to me and I will never choose to embrace or give credit to them. So I have given up being a composer for now only until my full pleasure returns since that is the only thing that would make me, my life, and my composing dream good.
Now back to the philosophical discussion:
Now this is my line of logic I have used to come to the conclusion that pleasure and suffering are the only true good and bad things in life. First off, I will state my original line of logic and then use an analogue (comparison). I have first said that everything in life besides pleasure and suffering are all different since they are all obviously different things. But they are all the same in the sense that they feel neither pleasant nor unpleasant. So this would mean that good and bad things in life aside from our pleasure and suffering, these things are no different than any other neutral object or any other neutral part of our brains such as the parts of our brains that make us move, blink, breathe, etc. in the sense that they all neither feel pleasant nor unpleasant. So this would make those good and bad things in life the neutral (fake) version of good and bad. But our pleasure and suffering are the only truly unique things in life from everything else since they are the only things that feel pleasant and unpleasant. Therefore, pleasure and suffering would have to be the true version of good and bad since everything else in life is the neutral (fake) version of good and bad.
So now, onto the analogue (comparison). I am going to list some colors here and then explain my analogue based on those colors. I have also made up two completely new invented colors of my own. Green and blue are the good and bad value judgments while everything in life besides pleasure and suffering are all different colors.
Green=good
Blue=bad
Grey=neutral
Plaft=pleasure
Swolf=suffering
All other colors=everything else in life besides pleasure and suffering
All other colors besides plaft and swolf are all different since they are all obviously different colors. But they are all the same in the sense that they are not tinted in the colors plaft and swolf. In other words, they do not have any feeling of pleasure or suffering to them. So this would mean that green and blue combined with their non-plaft and non-swolf tint are no different than the color grey and its non-plaft and non-swolf tint in the sense that they all don't have a plaft or swolf tint. So this would make green and blue the color grey. But only in the sense that they all don't have a plaft or swolf tint to them. Therefore, since green and blue would be no different than grey in this sense, then green and blue would actually be a version of grey in this sense. But plaft and swolf are the only truly unique things in life from all other colors since they are the only colors that are plaft and swolf. Therefore, plaft and swolf would have to be the true version of green and blue since all other green and blue things in life are only a version of grey in a sense. We would, therefore, not call the grey version of green and blue the colors green and blue at all. We could say they are the colors green and blue. But we should not say that they are what we would actually refer to as being the true colors green and blue.
Now that you read my line of logic, if this holds true for the colors, then it should also hold true for pleasure and suffering being the only true good and bad things in life. Also, you can say that if there are two different animals, that they are obviously different. But you could then say that they are the same in the sense that they share a similar characteristic. I'm just clearing that up for you in case you thought that was somehow a flaw in my logic with the colors. Some would also say that there are 3 types of feelings: pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral. These people might then go on to say that pleasant and unpleasant are no different than neutral since they are all feelings. But neutral is not a feeling at all. It is an absence of feeling. Therefore, we would obviously not say that objects have neutral feelings. We would just simply say that they are objects with no feelings. Actually, we do have neutral feelings such as a feeling of touch. If the feeling of touch is neither pleasant nor unpleasant, then it is a neutral feeling.
Now if you experience a sense of touch, then it is a feeling. But if it neither feels pleasant nor unpleasant, then it is a neutral feeling. But pleasant and unpleasant feelings are truly unique from neutral feelings since they are obviously the only things that feel pleasant and unpleasant and are the only things that are truly good and bad. Now you could try and refute me here by saying that pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral feelings are all different in the sense that they are all different feelings. But that they are the same in the sense that they are all feelings. You could then say to me that since neutral feelings are neutral, then that would also make pleasant and unpleasant feelings neutral as well. In other words, you might try and use my own argument against me.
Therefore, let me apply my argument here for pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral feelings as well. Pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral feelings are all different in the sense that they are different feelings. But they are all the same in the sense that they are all feelings. So this would mean that pleasant and unpleasant feelings would be no different than neutral feelings in the sense that they are all feelings. So they would be the neutral version of pleasant and unpleasant. But since everything else in life besides our feelings are truly unique since they are not feelings, then they would have to be the true version of pleasant and unpleasant. Everything in life besides our feelings that we once defined as good or bad, they would actually be defined as pleasant and unpleasant. This is because, based on my first argument with that line of logic I presented, good and bad can only be truly defined as our pleasure and suffering. So good=pleasure and bad=suffering. Therefore, we cannot say that pleasant=pleasure and unpleasant=suffering since pleasure and suffering can only be defined as good and bad since that is what they are. We cannot say that pleasure and suffering are truly pleasant and unpleasant.
Now that you have read my first line of logic and my new line of logic regarding those feelings, you can see that I have switched around good and bad with pleasant and unpleasant. The morals and ethics that have long been established by humanity have stated that good and bad come from our thoughts, personalities, actions, and other things in life while our pleasure and suffering aren't what we would define as truly good or bad. These morals and ethics would instead state that pleasure and suffering are pleasant and unpleasant. Therefore, my two arguments have reversed those morals and ethics to where good and bad are defined as our pleasure and suffering while other things in life besides our pleasure and suffering would be defined as pleasant and unpleasant. Sure, the morals and ethics do state that pleasure can be good if it is used to benefit you and others in a rightful way. But that moral version of good that was placed upon pleasure only came from the morals and ethics established by humanity. I said that this version of good is not the true version of good. I said that the true version of good comes from the feeling of pleasure alone in of itself.
Now if you someone manage to counter my argument, then i would ask that you also refer to my other argument supporting hedonism which explains evolution and how depression turns off our good perceptions. I said that pleasure is the only good thing in life based on that evolutionary argument. So I want you to address and refute that argument as well.