My support for hedonism

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Right, it is an absence of pleasure that makes everything in life have no sense of good value or worth to you. As for the sleepless night, since Jesus felt suffering, then that would only have a bad sense of value and worth to him regardless of what good messages he told himself. As long as he is not experiencing feelings of pleasure, then he will have either a bad sense of value while experiencing suffering or a neutral sense of value if he is neither experiencing pleasure or suffering.

Now we can define things as good or bad in life. If you study up on morals and ethics, you will learn we can obviously do so. For example, it is obvious that we can say it is good to keep us physically healthy and we can define so many other types of situations as being good as well. But here again, in a way, those things would actually not be good at all to you if you had no feelings of pleasure to give you a sense of good value and worth from them.

 

[Spockrates]

Right, it is an absence of pleasure that makes everything in life have no sense of good value or worth to you. As for the sleepless night, since Jesus felt suffering, then that would only have a bad sense of value and worth to him regardless of what good messages he told himself. As long as he is not experiencing feelings of pleasure, then he will have either a bad sense of value while experiencing suffering or a neutral sense of value if he is neither experiencing pleasure or suffering.

Now we can define things as good or bad in life. If you study up on morals and ethics, you will learn we can obviously do so. For example, it is obvious that we can say it is good to keep us physically healthy and we can define so many other types of situations as being good as well. But here again, in a way, those things would actually not be good at all to you if you had no feelings of pleasure to give you a sense of good value and worth from them.

Yes, indeed, and I apologize for the delayed reply. In fact, another biblical author describes him as sweating drops of blood, which is a medical condition brought on by great duress.

Now let's skip his brutal beating and the mocking and carrying the heavy cross on his torn back through crowded streets to the top of a hill overlooking Jerusalem. Let's go straight to his crucifixion:

33 They came to a place called Golgotha (which means “the place of the skull”). 34 ... 35 When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots. 36 And sitting down, they kept watch over him there. ...

38 Two rebels were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left. 39 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads ... 44 In the same way the rebels who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

45 From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land. 46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). ...

50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

(Matthew 27)
​

Should we say the same of his words, here? "My God, why have you abandoned me?" Are they words of suffering, and so words lacking any value, worth, beauty and greatness?

​

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

That is correct. They only have a sense of bad value to them for Jesus.

 

[Spockrates]

That is correct. They only have a sense of bad value to them for Jesus.

Yes, and I think we might say it is not just his words that lack greatness, but also the actions that led to his tortureous death. (I say torturous because the word excruciating comes from the Latin word meaning something like "out of the cross." The Romans perfected the method to ensure the executed suffered intensely for as long as possible. Those crucified did not quickly bleed out. They died of shock and a lack of oxygen.)

For Jesus said:

When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples, 2 “As you know, the Passover is two days away—and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.”

3 Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas,

(Matthew 26)​

Since he knew his actions of criticizing the corrupt and powerful would result in such a painful death, should we say those acts also lack value, meaning, beauty and greatness?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Correct.

 

[Spockrates]

Correct.

Yes, it would seem so. These words and acts committed about 2,000 years ago had nothing he would find of value, worth, beauty, meaning or greatness. They were valueless, worthless words and ugly, meaningless acts. There is nothing great about them.

But then it makes me wonder, and the words of Socrates come to mind:

"I have long been wondering at my own wisdom. I cannot trust myself, and I think that I ought to stop and ask, 'What am I saying?' For there is nothing worse than self-deception — when the deceiver is always at home and always with you — it is quite terrible!"​

(Cratylus)​

For it seems to me Jesus disagrees. Before his death he said:

"Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends."

(John 15:13)
​

This act of letting himself die for his friends he calls great--no, not just great, but the greatest! Why do you think he said the opposite of what we believed his death to be?

​

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

It would be great for the other people he died for since they can derive feelings of pleasure from that. If Jesus derived feelings of pleasure from this message you pointed out right here:

"Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends."

Then that message would have a sense of good value to Jesus and to others who can also derive feelings of pleasure from that. However, at the time Jesus was feeling suffering and no feelings of pleasure, then that very message can't have any sense of good value to Jesus at his moment of suffering and no pleasure.

 

[Spockrates]

It would be great for the other people he died for since they can derive feelings of pleasure from that. If Jesus derived feelings of pleasure from this message you pointed out right here:

"Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends."

Then that message would have a sense of good value to Jesus and to others who can also derive feelings of pleasure from that. However, at the time Jesus was feeling suffering and no feelings of pleasure, then that very message can't have any sense of good value to Jesus at his moment of suffering and no pleasure.

Outstanding! Do you know what we have here? It's a difference of opinion that is extremely ancient. The young Socrates and the Stohic philosopher Protagoras spoke of the very thing we are discussing now more than 300 years before Jesus was born.

You see, Protagoras said, "Man is the measure of all things." What he meant was that each man determines what is the truth about each thought, word or deed. Disciples of Protagoras today might be heard to say, "Truth is relative."

So while Socrates might say the truth about love is objective, and love is great in and of itself, regardless of what each man thinks of her, Protagoras would say the opposite: The same love that has great value is also of little value. For there is no such thing as objective truth. Truth is only subjective according to the perception of the one beholding it. It is, so to speak in the eye of the beholder, not in the nature of the thing beheld. What is true about love for Socrates is not true about her for Protagoras. The love that has no value to Jesus has great value to Peter, Andrew, James and John.

Now I happen to agree with Socrates. Am I correct in thinking your opinion about love is in line with Ptotagoras? Do you believe each person is the measure of all things and there are no absolute truths?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Actually, what I said is a scientific fact. It is just how the brain works and this scientific fact applies to everyone. It is a scientific fact that it is only our feelings of pleasure that define our sense of good value and worth in life and that people are only fooling themselves into thinking they can have a sense of good value and worth in their lives without their feelings of pleasure. Go ask an intelligent neurologist if you don't believe me and they will tell you.

 

[Spockrates]

Actually, what I said is a scientific fact. It is just how the brain works and this scientific fact applies to everyone. It is a scientific fact that it is only our feelings of pleasure that define our sense of good value and worth in life and that people are only fooling themselves into thinking they can have a sense of good value and worth in their lives without their feelings of pleasure. Go ask an intelligent neurologist if you don't believe me and they will tell you.

Yes, I agree that how you or I might feel or not feel about an act of love is a scientific fact. A scientists might measure the effect of witnessing such an act has on our brains.

But we are talking about something different, as well. We are talking about the premise that these feelings--or lack thereof--is the only thing that determines the greatness of the object of those feelings. We are talking about the premise that no thought, word or deed has any value in and of itself. Is this premise based on fact, or opinion?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

It is based on fact and you are going to have to talk to a neurologist if you don't believe me. For example, our hearts might be different in the sense that they have different tissue mass and such. But it is a scientific fact that our hearts beat to keep us alive and this scientific fact obviously applies to everyone. Therefore, even though our brains are all wired differently, the scientific fact that only our feelings of pleasure define our sense of good value and worth in life applies to everyone as well.

 

[Spockrates]

That might be true, Matt. Perhaps you will help me consider it. In our example, we are talking about love. Please tell me: Is the definition of what love is a matter of scientific fact, so that nearly all scientists agree as to the one and only true way to define the concept of love? Or is the definition of love a matter of philosophical or religious opinion, so that different people have different opinions as to what love is?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

When we refer to good terms such as love, inspiration, motivation, etc., then we are attributing an uplifting tone (mood) to that. We would be attributing a sense of good value and worth to that. But since that sense of good value and worth can only be defined through our feelings of pleasure and all other good feelings, then love can only be defined as a good feeling. It can only be defined as the feeling of love since love is a feeling of pleasure. It is a pleasant feeling. This is a scientific fact all scientists would agree upon. But many people are unaware of this fact.

If you struggle with depression, then it just would not make any sense whatsoever to say in a depressing tone of voice: "My life is great and worth living." Good messages such as this can only be defined through an uplifting and optimistic tone (mood). So really, that quoted message should instead be something like: "My life is not great at all and not worth living at all" since it is in a depressive tone (mood). To say that one's life is good and worth living while he/she is feeling down and depressed would be no different than saying in an excited happy pleasurable tone (mood): "Yipee, my life is bad and not worth living at all!"

 

[Spockrates]

...

When we refer to good terms such as love, inspiration, motivation, etc., then we are attributing an uplifting tone (mood) to that.

​

We would be attributing a sense of good value and worth to that.

But since that sense of good value and worth can only be defined through our feelings of pleasure and all other good feelings,

then love can only be defined as a good feeling.

It can only be defined as the feeling of love since love is a feeling of pleasure. It is a pleasant feeling.

This is a scientific fact all scientists would agree upon. But many people are unaware of this fact.

Let me try to repeat your premises and conclusion. Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding.

1. We attribute an uplifting tone and a sense of good value and worth to love
2. A sense of good value and worth is a pleasurable emotion

Therefore

A. It is a scientific fact that love is pleasurable emotion.
​

I see no factual errors (what students of logic call FE) in your reasoning. But I'm having trouble seeing how premises (1) and (2) support conclusion (A), so I think there might be logical errors (LE). For these premises--while true--do not support the conclusion, yet. More or revised premises are needed to make a logical case that (A) is true, I believe.

You see? Attributing--that is, having--pleasurable feelings about something does not mean the thing one has feelings about is an emotion.

For example, I love going to the movies. My son and I have great expectations about seeing the remake of the film Mad Max this month. But does the fact that I attribute an uplifting tone and sense of good value to Mad Max support the conclusion that Mad Max is an emotion, instead of a motion picture?

If you struggle with depression, then it just would not make any sense whatsoever to say in a depressing tone of voice: "My life is great and worth living." Good messages such as this can only be defined through an uplifting and optimistic tone (mood). So really, that quoted message should instead be something like: "My life is not great at all and not worth living at all" since it is in a depressive tone (mood). To say that one's life is good and worth living while he/she is feeling down and depressed would be no different than saying in an excited happy pleasurable tone (mood): "Yipee, my life is bad and not worth living at all!"

That might be true if love is only a feeling. But would it be true if love was more than a feeling? If you are open to exploring the possibility that there is more to love than what one feels, I have something we can consider together.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

I see what you are saying here. But where I am getting at with this is that it just wouldn't make any sense if a person were to have no feelings of pleasure or love and then someone else said to him/her in an uplifting and optimistic tone: "But you can still express love and other feelings of pleasure even though you don't have any feelings of love and pleasure." It wouldn't make sense because it is only our feelings of pleasure and love that define an uplifting and optimistic tone (a sense of good value and worth in our lives). So even though love might very well be more than a feeling, it just wouldn't be anything of good value or worth to you without our feelings of love and other feelings of pleasure to give you a sense of good value and worth from that and from everything else in your life.

 

[Spockrates]

I see what you are saying here. But where I am getting at with this is that it just wouldn't make any sense if a person were to have no feelings of pleasure or love and then someone else said to him/her in an uplifting and optimistic tone: "But you can still express love and other feelings of pleasure even though you don't have any feelings of love and pleasure." It wouldn't make sense because it is only our feelings of pleasure and love that define an uplifting and optimistic tone (a sense of good value and worth in our lives). So even though love might very well be more than a feeling, it just wouldn't be anything of good value or worth to you without our feelings of love and other feelings of pleasure to give you a sense of good value and worth from that and from everything else in your life.

I hear what you are saying, and I wonder if value and worth are always determined by emotional feelings, or sometimes determined by something else. I mean, consider yourself. You yourself said you feel no emotions. Yet you participate in thought-provoking discussions such as this one.

Doesn't that mean you find value in such discussions? If you found no value in them, then what logical reason would you have to participate in them? If such discussions are worth having to you, then doesn't that mean something other than emotions attributes value to then? Perhaps reason--like emotion--also determines what has value and worth. Don't you think?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

No. What is going on here is that I am just simply choosing my thoughts and actions and it would be no different than a biological robot performing actions and tasks simply because it was programmed with earlier life experiences that led to its current awareness of what is good and bad in life based on its previous human form in which it was able to experience feelings of pleasure and suffering. So it is just currently aware of the things that would otherwise be good and bring it feelings of pleasure and is just simply choosing to do those said things even though there is no actual sense of good value and worth in doing so.

 

[Spockrates]

Then please let me ask you this, Matt: Is truth valuable?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Only if you can derive feelings of pleasure from it. Otherwise, no it is not.

 

[Spockrates]

Only if you can derive feelings of pleasure from it. Otherwise, no it is not.

So if one has a choice between a lie that will kill her and the truth that will save her life, and she has pleasant feelings about the lie that will make her die but unpleasant feelings about the truth that will keep her alive, which is more valuable--the deadly lie or the lifesaving truth?

An example: There are parents who have bought into the lie that vaccinations are harmful to their children and it is safer to risk disease than to get them vaccinated. They have unpleasant fear about letting their children be vaccinated, but pleasant confidence that keeping them from being vaccinated is better for their health. What is more valuable to the children--the lie their parents feel good about, or the truth their parents have bad feelings about?