Philosophy Now Forum

MozartLink wrote:... I asked the question earlier of valid evidence vs false evidence and what mindset I should have based upon that. Should I have a mindset that is more inclined to something supernatural, religious, and perhaps believes in reincarnation? Or should I be more inclined to a materialistic atheistic mindset that does not believe in reincarnation? Or should I just have an agnostic mindset instead in which I am inclined to neither side?

All this is up to you.

MozartLink wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:More of the same thing that has already been said thousands of times. Doesn't even seem reworded.

It's all different and all reworded. But aside from that, we can get back to the discussion regarding my atheism. I asked the question earlier of valid evidence vs false evidence and what mindset I should have based upon that. Should I have a mindset that is more inclined to something supernatural, religious, and perhaps believes in reincarnation? Or should I be more inclined to a materialistic atheistic mindset that does not believe in reincarnation? Or should I just have an agnostic mindset instead in which I am inclined to neither side?

All three mindsets are wrong, including the one you have now.

Like I said a dozen times earlier...Reincarnation is a mechanism. It has little to do with whether or not Santa Claus, the flying bunny monster, or Zardoz exists.

Whether or not you believe in such a mechanism has little to do with whether you are a theist, atheist, or agnostic. What you are doing is similar to an atheist saying there is no such thing as Baptism because baptism is a part of religion. Reincarnation is a mechanism. Do you understand this? Sad as it is I have to lump many atheists in the same sinking drowning boat because they cannot grasp this.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

MozartLink wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:More of the same thing that has already been said thousands of times. Doesn't even seem reworded.

It's all different and all reworded. But aside from that, we can get back to the discussion regarding my atheism. I asked the question earlier of valid evidence vs false evidence and what mindset I should have based upon that. Should I have a mindset that is more inclined to something supernatural, religious, and perhaps believes in reincarnation? Or should I be more inclined to a materialistic atheistic mindset that does not believe in reincarnation? Or should I just have an agnostic mindset instead in which I am inclined to neither side?

All three mindsets are wrong, including the one you have now.

Like I said a dozen times earlier...Reincarnation is a mechanism. It has little to do with whether or not Santa Claus, the flying bunny monster, or Zardoz exists.

Whether or not you believe in such a mechanism has little to do with whether you are a theist, atheist, or agnostic. What you are doing is similar to an atheist saying there is no such thing as Baptism because baptism is a part of religion. Reincarnation is a mechanism. Do you understand this? Sad as it is I have to lump many atheists in the same sinking drowning boat because they cannot grasp this.

But here again, even though it would have nothing to do with having a religious belief or not, what is the right mindset I should have based on this concept of valid evidence vs false evidence? Should I be more inclined towards there being reincarnation, should I be in between, or should I be more inclined towards there not being reincarnation?

MozartLink wrote:
But here again, even though it would have nothing to do with having a religious belief or not, what is the right mindset I should have based on this concept of valid evidence vs false evidence? Should I be more inclined towards there being reincarnation, should I be in between, or should I be more inclined towards there not being reincarnation?

The science of it should be obvious. One cannot experience what it is like to not exist. You claim that upon death experience ceases to exist, this defies all logic. If you can explain to me how this non-existence after bodily death occurs I will happily discard my belief in reincarnation.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

MozartLink wrote:
But here again, even though it would have nothing to do with having a religious belief or not, what is the right mindset I should have based on this concept of valid evidence vs false evidence? Should I be more inclined towards there being reincarnation, should I be in between, or should I be more inclined towards there not being reincarnation?

The science of it should be obvious. One cannot experience what it is like to not exist. You claim that upon death experience ceases to exist, this defies all logic. If you can explain to me how this non-existence after bodily death occurs I will happily discard my belief in reincarnation.

Here is an argument by Sam Harris:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDcZkrl-eoY

MozartLink wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Simplistic way to go about it. How do you know that when you die you won't reincarnate into another life which you would deem "crappy? The point I have been trying to say is there is a reason people don't seek a medicine which makes them permanently smiles, and laughing, we call that joker-toxin and happiness is suffering as well. So sit tight in your miserable existence until we get this sorted out.

I have a firm and strong personal value and belief that says that feelings of pleasure in of themselves are never suffering. For example, if I were to somehow live an an eternal life of pleasure, then I would never go bored or insane from living such a life. It would be the perfect life for me since it is the only greatest life to me there is. Therefore, I see no suffering whatsoever in my situation of living in eternal bliss.

One more thing I would like to say here in this post is that I find no value whatsoever in a life without pleasure. I do not care how much I have helped others out in life and I don't care how much great things I did in my life despite my absence of pleasure. My life, to me, would still be of no good value whatsoever without my pleasure.

You speak of a dichotomy. No one can know pleasure without knowing pain. They define one another. Can their be a left with no right? An up with no down? Of course not, it's impossible. As a matter of fact, the wider the gap between pleasure and pain the more pleasurable pleasure is. Think about it! Pleasure is the absence of pain, if you never know of pain, then what is being eliminated for pleasure to exist?

Also keep in mind that historically, the best artists, are tortured artists!

MozartLink wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

MozartLink wrote:
But here again, even though it would have nothing to do with having a religious belief or not, what is the right mindset I should have based on this concept of valid evidence vs false evidence? Should I be more inclined towards there being reincarnation, should I be in between, or should I be more inclined towards there not being reincarnation?

The science of it should be obvious. One cannot experience what it is like to not exist. You claim that upon death experience ceases to exist, this defies all logic. If you can explain to me how this non-existence after bodily death occurs I will happily discard my belief in reincarnation.

Here is an argument by Sam Harris:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDcZkrl-eoY

Dude that is old ass news. Everyone knows that, even the hardest of hardcore religious people know that being drunk alters the mind. Ridiculous you would even post that it shows you have little connection to what I am saying.
Never said anything about ectoplasm leaving the body after death with full physical faculties intact or a magical mind that is unaffected by matter or the brain.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

MozartLink wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Simplistic way to go about it. How do you know that when you die you won't reincarnate into another life which you would deem "crappy? The point I have been trying to say is there is a reason people don't seek a medicine which makes them permanently smiles, and laughing, we call that joker-toxin and happiness is suffering as well. So sit tight in your miserable existence until we get this sorted out.

I have a firm and strong personal value and belief that says that feelings of pleasure in of themselves are never suffering. For example, if I were to somehow live an an eternal life of pleasure, then I would never go bored or insane from living such a life. It would be the perfect life for me since it is the only greatest life to me there is. Therefore, I see no suffering whatsoever in my situation of living in eternal bliss.

One more thing I would like to say here in this post is that I find no value whatsoever in a life without pleasure. I do not care how much I have helped others out in life and I don't care how much great things I did in my life despite my absence of pleasure. My life, to me, would still be of no good value whatsoever without my pleasure.

You speak of a dichotomy. No one can know pleasure without knowing pain. They define one another. Can their be a left with no right? An up with no down? Of course not, it's impossible. As a matter of fact, the wider the gap between pleasure and pain the more pleasurable pleasure is. Think about it! Pleasure is the absence of pain, if you never know of pain, then what is being eliminated for pleasure to exist?

Also keep in mind that historically, the best artists, are tortured artists!

First off, I take no value whatsoever in suffering/absence of pleasure. It is all nothing more to me than some loathsome pest chewing away at me and my life. I would just want to dispose and destroy that pest in order to transcend in this life through my pure pleasure alone and to be awesome and transcending in the world of composing through my feelings of pleasure alone. There is nothing great whatsoever about suffering/absence of pleasure and it doesn't make you or your life anything great. Not even if it made you grow as a person and as an artist.

Second, It makes no sense for you to ask how one would be aware of experiencing pleasure without suffering and displeasure because if you had never experienced displeasure and suffering, then you would just simply be unaware of what suffering and displeasure feel like. Not the pleasure because you would still be aware of that. If a person was never blind and never saw darkness, then he/she would never know what being blind and seeing darkness would be like. He/she would obviously still be aware of his/her sight though. But if this person did become blind and saw darkness for once in his/her life, then he/she would simply be aware of what being blind and seeing darkness is like. Then if he/she were to regain his/her sight, then that experience of him/her being blind and seeing darkness would have nothing to do with him/her now being aware of his/her regained sight. Therefore, as you can see, if any sense is experienced, then it doesn't matter if there was ever the absence of that sense. The fact of the matter is that you would still be aware of that sense no matter what.

So experiencing blindness is not necessary in order to see just as experiencing suffering/absence of pleasure is not necessary to experience pleasure.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Simplistic way to go about it. How do you know that when you die you won't reincarnate into another life which you would deem "crappy? The point I have been trying to say is there is a reason people don't seek a medicine which makes them permanently smiles, and laughing, we call that joker-toxin and happiness is suffering as well. So sit tight in your miserable existence until we get this sorted out.

MozartLink wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

MozartLink wrote:
I have a firm and strong personal value and belief that says that feelings of pleasure in of themselves are never suffering. For example, if I were to somehow live an an eternal life of pleasure, then I would never go bored or insane from living such a life. It would be the perfect life for me since it is the only greatest life to me there is. Therefore, I see no suffering whatsoever in my situation of living in eternal bliss.

One more thing I would like to say here in this post is that I find no value whatsoever in a life without pleasure. I do not care how much I have helped others out in life and I don't care how much great things I did in my life despite my absence of pleasure. My life, to me, would still be of no good value whatsoever without my pleasure.

You speak of a dichotomy. No one can know pleasure without knowing pain. They define one another. Can their be a left with no right? An up with no down? Of course not, it's impossible. As a matter of fact, the wider the gap between pleasure and pain the more pleasurable pleasure is. Think about it! Pleasure is the absence of pain, if you never know of pain, then what is being eliminated for pleasure to exist?

Also keep in mind that historically, the best artists, are tortured artists!

First off, I take no value whatsoever in suffering/absence of pleasure. It is all nothing more to me than some loathsome pest chewing away at me and my life. I would just want to dispose and destroy that pest in order to transcend in this life through my pure pleasure alone and to be awesome and transcending in the world of composing through my feelings of pleasure alone.

Second, It makes no sense for you to ask how one would be aware of experiencing pleasure without suffering and displeasure because if you had never experienced displeasure and suffering, then you would just simply be unaware of what suffering and displeasure feel like. Not the pleasure because you would still be aware of that. If a person was never blind and never saw darkness, then he/she would never know what being blind and seeing darkness would be like. He/she would obviously still be aware of his/her sight though. But if this person did become blind and saw darkness for once in his/her life, then he/she would simply be aware of what being blind and seeing darkness is like. Then if he/she were to regain his/her sight, then that experience of him/her being blind and seeing darkness would have nothing to do with him/her now being aware of his/her regained sight. Therefore, as you can see, if any sense is experienced, then it doesn't matter if there was ever the absence of that sense. The fact of the matter is that you would still be aware of that sense no matter what.

So experiencing blindness is not necessary in order to see just as experiencing suffering/absence of pleasure is not necessary to experience pleasure.

You missed it. You speak of once knowing something, so of course relativity is there. But if half of dichotomy is never there then neither can it's counterpart. You fail to see this because you have already been introduced to both. You will not accept it because you want to be right. How can anyone erase from their knowing anything they have known? They can't. Trust me, without pain there would be no pleasure. Or to illuminate it more clearly, your least pleasure would take on the role of your worst pain, and because the difference between your newfound pain and pleasure were so close together, the pleasure would be practically worthless, and lackluster.

MozartLink wrote:
First off, I take no value whatsoever in suffering/absence of pleasure. It is all nothing more to me than some loathsome pest chewing away at me and my life. I would just want to dispose and destroy that pest in order to transcend in this life through my pure pleasure alone and to be awesome and transcending in the world of composing through my feelings of pleasure alone. There is nothing great whatsoever about suffering/absence of pleasure and it doesn't make you or your life anything great. Not even if it made you grow as a person and as an artist.

Second, It makes no sense for you to ask how one would be aware of experiencing pleasure without suffering and displeasure because if you had never experienced displeasure and suffering, then you would just simply be unaware of what suffering and displeasure feel like. Not the pleasure because you would still be aware of that. If a person was never blind and never saw darkness, then he/she would never know what being blind and seeing darkness would be like. He/she would obviously still be aware of his/her sight though. But if this person did become blind and saw darkness for once in his/her life, then he/she would simply be aware of what being blind and seeing darkness is like. Then if he/she were to regain his/her sight, then that experience of him/her being blind and seeing darkness would have nothing to do with him/her now being aware of his/her regained sight. Therefore, as you can see, if any sense is experienced, then it doesn't matter if there was ever the absence of that sense. The fact of the matter is that you would still be aware of that sense no matter what.

So experiencing blindness is not necessary in order to see just as experiencing suffering/absence of pleasure is not necessary to experience pleasure.

I have to agree. Theoretically, If a baby was massaged her whole life, she would never whine or cry. She would never complain about life. She would view life as something beautiful.

However in theory this falls apart, as such a baby would become bored of the good life and whine and cry about it.
Despite this theory falling apart, it still suggests that your original statement is correct. That one not need experience suffering to enjoy pleasure. If one could theoretically experience a life of pleasure one would simply never complain, and one might be ignorant of suffering, but yet one could still enjoy the pleasure.

In summary, there can be pleasure without pain, but it might not be labelled as such. It would just be labelled "normal, ordinary, the only thing that is, the absolute." And other things might become labelled pain, if, relative to the pleasure, they were deemed lesser things. Thus, pleasure is relative.

Now first off, would I be better off having full pleasure in my life to begin with and never have suffered from depression and anhedonia in the first place? Yes, I definitely would. Our level of appreciation (our thoughts) do not matter. Only the level of pleasure alone matters since that is the only good thing in life. Therefore, even if you had pure pleasure and no suffering and you didn't appreciate those said feelings of pure pleasure you have, then as long as you have a great amount of pleasure and as long as you have intense pleasure in your life, then that is all that matters and that is the only thing that defines you and your life as truly good.

Even if you had no suffering and had pure pleasure in life, then if you somehow began to experience feelings of suffering from your pleasure (such as depression, going insane, or any other feeling of suffering), then as long as you have more pleasure in that life, then you and your life would of been better than if you had suffering in your life to began with. It also doesn't matter how you perceive your pleasure. Feelings of pleasure are still the only good things in life.

If you lived a life of pure bliss and no suffering in which you could never experience suffering, then your pleasure can never bring you suffering since you would obviously be living a life of no suffering.

MozartLink wrote:Now first off, would I be better off having full pleasure in my life to begin with and never have suffered from depression and anhedonia in the first place? Yes, I definitely would. Our level of appreciation (our thoughts) do not matter. Only the level of pleasure alone matters since that is the only good thing in life. Therefore, even if you had pure pleasure and no suffering and you didn't appreciate those said feelings of pure pleasure you have, then as long as you have a great amount of pleasure and as long as you have intense pleasure in your life, then that is all that matters and that is the only thing that defines you and your life as truly good.

Even if you had no suffering and had pure pleasure in life, then if you somehow began to experience feelings of suffering from your pleasure (such as depression, going insane, or any other feeling of suffering), then as long as you have more pleasure in that life, then you and your life would of been better than if you had suffering in your life to began with. It also doesn't matter how you perceive your pleasure. Feelings of pleasure are still the only good things in life.

Of course you know the problem that I've had with your pleasure quest. That on several occasions you've mentioned people being harmed to give you pleasure, and now with your mention of depression, you worry me even more. Wondering what drugs you're taking to combat the depression. Tell us where you live so we can notify your local police if someone turns up missing. I wouldn't want you to get carried away on your drug induced pleasure quest.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

MozartLink wrote:Now first off, would I be better off having full pleasure in my life to begin with and never have suffered from depression and anhedonia in the first place? Yes, I definitely would. Our level of appreciation (our thoughts) do not matter. Only the level of pleasure alone matters since that is the only good thing in life. Therefore, even if you had pure pleasure and no suffering and you didn't appreciate those said feelings of pure pleasure you have, then as long as you have a great amount of pleasure and as long as you have intense pleasure in your life, then that is all that matters and that is the only thing that defines you and your life as truly good.

Even if you had no suffering and had pure pleasure in life, then if you somehow began to experience feelings of suffering from your pleasure (such as depression, going insane, or any other feeling of suffering), then as long as you have more pleasure in that life, then you and your life would of been better than if you had suffering in your life to began with. It also doesn't matter how you perceive your pleasure. Feelings of pleasure are still the only good things in life.

Of course you know the problem that I've had with your pleasure quest. That on several occasions you've mentioned people being harmed to give you pleasure, and now with your mention of depression, you worry me even more. Wondering what drugs you're taking to combat the depression. Tell us where you live so we can notify your local police if someone turns up missing. I wouldn't want you to get carried away on your drug induced pleasure quest.

I'm already doing things such as exercising and taking supplements to try and help me recover as well as medication. But just because I am posting here in the meantime (my free time) doesn't mean that I am doing nothing about my anhedonia.

Now even though you would still be a good person if you derived pleasure from harming others, I wouldn't do so and would not recommend it simply because of the fact that I am an empathetic person.

MozartLink wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

MozartLink wrote:Now first off, would I be better off having full pleasure in my life to begin with and never have suffered from depression and anhedonia in the first place? Yes, I definitely would. Our level of appreciation (our thoughts) do not matter. Only the level of pleasure alone matters since that is the only good thing in life. Therefore, even if you had pure pleasure and no suffering and you didn't appreciate those said feelings of pure pleasure you have, then as long as you have a great amount of pleasure and as long as you have intense pleasure in your life, then that is all that matters and that is the only thing that defines you and your life as truly good.

Even if you had no suffering and had pure pleasure in life, then if you somehow began to experience feelings of suffering from your pleasure (such as depression, going insane, or any other feeling of suffering), then as long as you have more pleasure in that life, then you and your life would of been better than if you had suffering in your life to began with. It also doesn't matter how you perceive your pleasure. Feelings of pleasure are still the only good things in life.

Of course you know the problem that I've had with your pleasure quest. That on several occasions you've mentioned people being harmed to give you pleasure, and now with your mention of depression, you worry me even more. Wondering what drugs you're taking to combat the depression. Tell us where you live so we can notify your local police if someone turns up missing. I wouldn't want you to get carried away on your drug induced pleasure quest.

I'm already doing things such as exercising and taking supplements to try and help me recover as well as medication. But just because I am posting here in the meantime (my free time) doesn't mean that I am doing nothing about my anhedonia.

Now even though you would still be a good person if you derived pleasure from harming others, I wouldn't do so and would not recommend it simply because of the fact that I am an empathetic person.

Understand that I mean no malice toward you. I'm a very caring person, and would try and help anyone that asked for it. I just worry when people start talking of hurting others in the name of pleasure. It just really sounds twisted. Sorry, maybe it's just me...

Anyone else??

Have you tried Marijuana? Or maybe CBD would be a better choice of reference. I've heard good things about it's capabilities in such cases.

Now if I were to look at reincarnation from two different perspectives: one in which you are reborn in heaven which would be a life of eternal pleasure and no suffering and the other in which you are just simply born as another living organism in some other part of the universe, then which one is more likely according to evidence?