My support for hedonism

[Spockrates]

As for your first statement about suffering, it's all just a matter of our logic brain which is used for survival and problem solving as I've said before. The logic area of our brain without our feelings of pleasure just allows us to live and make decisions/solve problems anyway because I think it was just evolved ("programmed") that way. It would be no different than how a virus or a cell can still live even though it has no feelings/emotions of pleasure or suffering. But here again, our thinking without our feelings of pleasure is not a genuine reason to live and it does not make our lives good and worth living at all without our feelings of pleasure and we are only fooling ourselves into thinking our lives can be good and worth living to us anyway without our feelings of pleasure.

So people who find reason to live without their feelings of pleasure are living like nothing more than a conscious version of a virus or a cell. It is only the higher elite class evolved human beings who can easily see past this "trick" that our logical minds are playing on us into making us think that our lives are still good and worth living without our feelings of pleasure. People who still think they can live a life of good value and worth to them without their feelings of pleasure, these are the lower class and less evolved human beings. They are less evolved like that of a living virus or a cell as I've said before. Only the higher class human beings can see the true motive (incentive) of our very lives that makes our lives good and worth living which would be our feelings of pleasure.

But did you answer the question? I asked why you did your homework or studied for a test. Please tell me: Why did you?

As for your 2nd statement, that idea could very well be pleasurable and would make that a good idea to the bodybuilder if he derived feelings of pleasure from that idea. But again, it's just his feelings of pleasure here in the moment that would define his life as being good and worth living and not the greater amount of pleasure he would get later on in life. This is because our conscious can only be here in the moment as I've said before. He might have the better life later on. But he is only here in the moment which means that only his feelings of pleasure here in the moment define his life as being good and worth living right now.

But did you answer the question? I did not ask if the IDEA was pleasurable. I asked if the RESULT was pleasurable. Having a good physique is pleasurable to him. Isn't it?

As for your 3rd statement, our logical reasons are never genuine reasons. Only our feelings of pleasure make our lives genuinely good and worth living.

If logical reasons are never genuine, sincere and real, then why are you giving me logical reasons now? But if you are saying logical reasons are not genuinely emotional but are genuinely logical, then I concur.

As for your 4th statement, fear is a response to run away. Therefore, this soldier's act to fight was forced (faked) and not genuine. She was having the flight response. Therefore, if she has chosen to run away, then that would be a genuine act. Only her having the fight (anger) response would make her act of fighting genuine.

Go back and read my new argument that I made earlier since it explains more on this. Actually, since feelings of compassion might motivate us to fight, then perhaps her act was something genuine. But if she felt no emotions or felt nothing but depression, then that said act would not be genuinely expressed. Feelings of depression (hopelessness) demotivate us while feeling neither pleasure nor suffering neither motivates us or demotivates us.

Yes, I see. A genuine act of fear might be running away. Thanks for making me think.

Staying and fighting, it seems to me is more like an act of bravery. But what a paradox that is! If the soldier feels fear, but acts bravely then she is called brave. But would you say she is not genuinely brave? Do you think the truth is that sometimes our actions contradict our emotions? or maybe there is a stronger emotion that overrules a weaker one--the emotion called desire? Most soldiers desire to be brave. Do you think desire might often be the stronger feeling in motivating us to act?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

As for your first statement here, it would be because I did it for a higher grade. Those higher grades would then get me further in life and allow me to experience more pleasure. However, that whole logical choice was nothing more than just my logical brain solving problems and making decisions. As I said before, that area of the brain does not define the good value and worth of our lives without our feelings of pleasure.

As for your 2nd statement, I am well aware that the result would give him more pleasure. However, it can only be an idea of the future that has not happened to him yet since our conscious can only be in the here and now which would only mean that our feelings of pleasure in the here and now can make our lives good and worth living. So if that bodybuilder had no feelings of pleasure and was aware of the result of him having more pleasure later on, then him being aware of that result would not make his life good and worth living. It would later on when he gets his pleasure later on. But like I said, our conscious can only be in the here and now.

As for your 3rd statement, if I had no feelings of pleasure and said something to myself through my logic area of the brain that I need to live to eat some more food to survive, live on for my family, or anything else, then they are false reasons. Our feelings of pleasure are the only incentives to living life. So even though you could say any logical reason for you choosing to live on without your feelings of pleasure, it would all be deluded (false) reasons. You choosing to live on without your feelings of pleasure is not what we would define as an incentive (motivation) to live. We would only be fooling ourselves into living. We would be living like nothing more than a conscious version of a cell or a virus as I've said before. They are not reasons that would make our lives good and worth living without our feelings of pleasure. They would simply be nothing more than just reasons being stated through our logic area of our brains and we would be just forcing (faking) ourselves into living when living this way is not genuine. The fact is, our actions and expressions can be forced (faked). For example, a sociopath can pretend to act kind and compassionate towards someone else just so that he/she can get what he/she wants. So in a way, people with no feelings of pleasure are pretending to live since they are fooling themselves into thinking their lives can still be good and worth living without their feelings of pleasure.

As for your 4th statement, since only our pleasant/unpleasant emotions/feelings motivate us or demotivate us, then her acts could only be considered genuine if she experienced a feeling of desire and compassion despite her feeling of fear. But if she did not feel any desire or compassion and only had her feelings of fear, but has chosen to stay and fight anyway, then her acts would not be genuine. They would be forced (faked) as I've said before. So if you did something in life you did not feel like doing, then that said act would not be genuine.

 

[Spockrates]

As for your first statement here, it would be because I did it for a higher grade. Those higher grades would then get me further in life and allow me to experience more pleasure. However, that whole logical choice was nothing more than just my logical brain solving problems and making decisions. As I said before, that area of the brain does not define the good value and worth of our lives without our feelings of pleasure.

Yes, I understand and agree.

As for your 2nd statement, I am well aware that the result would give him more pleasure. However, it can only be an idea of the future that has not happened to him yet since our conscious can only be in the here and now which would only mean that our feelings of pleasure in the here and now can make our lives good and worth living. So if that bodybuilder had no feelings of pleasure and was aware of the result of him having more pleasure later on, then him being aware of that result would not make his life good and worth living. It would later on when he gets his pleasure later on. But like I said, our conscious can only be in the here and now.

If you mean it would not make his life worth living for the present but would make his life worth living for the future, then here I also agree.

As for your 3rd statement, if I had no feelings of pleasure and said something to myself through my logic area of the brain that I need to live to eat some more food to survive, live on for my family, or anything else, then they are false reasons. Our feelings of pleasure are the only incentives to living life. So even though you could say any logical reason for you choosing to live on without your feelings of pleasure, it would all be deluded (false) reasons. You choosing to live on without your feelings of pleasure is not what we would define as an incentive (motivation) to live. We would only be fooling ourselves into living. We would be living like nothing more than a conscious version of a cell or a virus as I've said before. They are not reasons that would make our lives good and worth living without our feelings of pleasure. They would simply be nothing more than just reasons being stated through our logic area of our brains and we would be just forcing (faking) ourselves into living when living this way is not genuine. The fact is, our actions and expressions can be forced (faked). For example, a sociopath can pretend to act kind and compassionate towards someone else just so that he/she can get what he/she wants. So in a way, people with no feelings of pleasure are pretending to live since they are fooling themselves into thinking their lives can still be good and worth living without their feelings of pleasure.

But did you answer my question? I asked why you are using logic in your replies in this forum now. What is the purpose of using logic in the responses you write?

As for your 4th statement, since only our pleasant/unpleasant emotions/feelings motivate us or demotivate us, then her acts could only be considered genuine if she experienced a feeling of desire and compassion despite her feeling of fear. But if she did not feel any desire or compassion and only had her feelings of fear, but has chosen to stay and fight anyway, then her acts would not be genuine. They would be forced (faked) as I've said before. So if you did something in life you did not feel like doing, then that said act would not be genuine.

Acknowledged. But what about the last question? Is desire an emotion?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

As for the reason why I am using logic in my responses, it would be because I am wanting to see where this debate will lead to. I wish to see what conclusion will be reached. But here again, that does not define my life as being good and worth living since I have no feelings of pleasure and I am just simply fooling myself into living and having this discussion right now even though there truly is nothing good and worth living for in my life right now.

Now there can actually be two versions of desire. We could define the 1st version as just our thoughts and such alone without our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions. And then there is the other version which comes through our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions. The 1st version is not genuine and we would only be fooling ourselves into living without our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions. But the 2nd is genuine and makes our actions and expressions genuine. If you have a feeling of fear which is a desire to run away, then choosing to run away would be a genuine act. If you only had feelings of fear and still have chosen to stay and fight without any feelings of desire to stay and fight, then that would not be a genuine act. If you had feelings of fear, had a feeling of desire to stay and fight, and have chosen to stay and fight, then that would be a genuine act.

 

[Spockrates]

As for the reason why I am using logic in my responses, it would be because I am wanting to see where this debate will lead to. I wish to see what conclusion will be reached. But here again, that does not define my life as being good and worth living since I have no feelings of pleasure and I am just simply fooling myself into living and having this discussion right now even though there truly is nothing good and worth living for in my life right now.

It seems to me that Logic and Emotion speak to me in different ways. I helps me to imagine them as two beautiful women each vying for my affections or attention and trying to influence my decisions in her own unique way.

Logic is articulate. She speaks in words and sometimes in mathmatics. Yet try as she may to describe emotion, she will never experience it. Emotion is dumb and cannot speak. But she indeed knows what logic does not. She knows how each emotion feels. Though she cannot say a word, she instead communicates to me in strong sensations.

Logic then helps me think clearly about each one I feel, giving them names such as joy, anger, anxiety, peace, confidence, cowardice, compassion, desire and so on. When Logic speaks these words in my mind, Emotion helps me recall how they feel by helping me remember times in my past when these emotions were experienced.

There is something beautiful and wild about Emotion. To give into her is to become more wild like an animal ruled by its instincts. There is something desirable and powerful about Logic. She keeps Emotion in check, so that I might enjoy the pleasure she gives without losing control. Logic helps me understand and get the most benefit from the silent but intense feelings in me--telling me when to give in to them and when to refuse their advances and revealing when they are good and when they are bad.

Yet there is one emotion Logic cannot resist. This is its great weakness, like cryptoite to Super Man or Achiles' heal. Socrates speaks of this emotion, when he says:

Wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder.
(Theatetus)
​

So here is my question, my friend: Is wonder a good feeling or a bad one?

Now there can actually be two versions of desire. We could define the 1st version as just our thoughts and such alone without our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions. And then there is the other version which comes through our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions. The 1st version is not genuine and we would only be fooling ourselves into living without our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions. But the 2nd is genuine and makes our actions and expressions genuine. If you have a feeling of fear which is a desire to run away, then choosing to run away would be a genuine act. If you only had feelings of fear and still have chosen to stay and fight without any feelings of desire to stay and fight, then that would not be a genuine act. If you had feelings of fear, had a feeling of desire to stay and fight, and have chosen to stay and fight, then that would be a genuine act.

I'm of the opinion that (1) Logic feels nothing at all and (2) Emotion speaks no words at all. Which of these describe Desire? Is she an articulate but unfeeling twin sister of Logic? Or is she a dumb but intensely feeling twin sister of Emotion?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

First off, wonder is a good feeling. But we could also define wonder through our thoughts and such alone without our feelings of pleasure. This would be a version of wonder that holds no good value or worth to us.

As for desire, we could define desire as both logic and emotion. But the version of desire that comes through our logic alone if we had no feelings of pleasure, this version of desire holds no good value or worth to us. It is only the version of desire that comes through our pleasant emotions that holds good value and worth to us. You say that emotions speak no words. Therefore, I think you are implying that our emotions do not speak "good" or "bad" to us and that it is only our logic that comes up with those words and that they only apply to our logic. But this is false. As I've said before, good and bad are not moral value judgments. They do not point towards our logic or anything else in life. Instead, good and bad are just words we come up with to describe something and they point towards something. That something would be something scientific which would be our experiences of pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions in our brains.

This would be no different than thinking of the word "helium" and saying that our thoughts are helium. Helium is just a word we come up with that describes something scientific. That something would be an element.

 

[Spockrates]

First off, wonder is a good feeling. But we could also define wonder through our thoughts and such alone without our feelings of pleasure. This would be a version of wonder that holds no good value or worth to us.

It seems to me wonder is like an epiphany: Just as an epiphany is the feeling of elation I get when I realize something I never before knew, so too wonder is the feeling of excited expectation I get when I desire to know something new. Unlike logic, epiphany and wonder never speak to me in tangible words. They are instead wordless sensations. But I can't help but wonder if you have heard from a different Wonder. Tell me please: Since she gave you no sensation at all but merely spoke words. What did this other Wonder say to you? Exactly words did she speak? Describe a time when she instructed you and how you knew she was not actually Logic, who you mistook for Wonder?

As for desire, we could define desire as both logic and emotion. But the version of desire that comes through our logic alone if we had no feelings of pleasure, this version of desire holds no good value or worth to us. It is only the version of desire that comes through our pleasant emotions that holds good value and worth to us. You say that emotions speak no words. Therefore, I think you are implying that our emotions do not speak "good" or "bad" to us and that it is only our logic that comes up with those words and that they only apply to our logic. But this is false. As I've said before, good and bad are not moral value judgments. They do not point towards our logic or anything else in life. Instead, good and bad are just words we come up with to describe something and they point towards something. That something would be something scientific which would be our experiences of pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions in our brains.

This would be no different than thinking of the word "helium" and saying that our thoughts are helium. Helium is just a word we come up with that describes something scientific. That something would be an element.

Same question: I've never met this other Desire. The one who seduces me never speaks a word. So tell me, exactly what words did this other Desire say to you? How do you know she was not Logic in disguise?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

First off, if you are asking how desire and wonder can come from our thoughts and such alone without our feelings of pleasure, the truth is that I think we can define things how we want in life. We could say that a tree is divine rather than beautiful just as we could say that our thinking and such alone without our feelings of pleasure and our thoughts of wonder and motivation can be defined as wonder and motivation. However, since that version of wonder and motivation would hold no good value or worth to us, then it would not be genuine wonder and motivation. Wonder and motivation can only be defined through our feelings of pleasure. So does this answer your question?

But if what you are asking is how emotions can be good and bad in of themselves without our logic, then everything I've been saying in this topic already explains how. My new argument that I made a while back explains on this as well. You said before that Wonder and Desire do not speak the word "good" since they are emotions. But they have remained silent (muted) to you and many others. However, they have spoken that message "good" to me and I have finally given supporting reasons as to how only our feelings of pleasure are what is defined as good and how only our feelings of pleasure define our lives as being good and worth living.

Now if you felt nothing but sadness and expressed an excited happy tone and excited happy acts, then that would be an inappropriate response. It would be a forced (faked) expression and not a genuine expression. Therefore, if you felt nothing but depression (hopelessness) or anhedonia (absence of pleasure) and have expressed the tone and actions of pursuing your goals and dreams in life anyway as well as choosing to make the best of life anyway while you were feeling that depression or anhedonia, then those expressions and acts would also not be genuine either. They too would be forced (faked). Choosing to make the best of life and to pursue your goals and dreams in life anyway while feeling nothing but depression or anhedonia, that is not motivation or inspiration at all. It is nothing more than you just forcing your actions and expressions as I've said before.

Even if you expressed a depressive/indifferent tone while feeling nothing but depression/anhedonia, but your actions were making the best of life and pursuing your goals and dreams in life or expressing works of art through your depression or anhedonia, then those acts are not genuine. But the tone would be genuine. If you expressed a sad tone while feeling nothing but sadness, but have made the best of life and performed acts of inspiration in creating works of art while feeling nothing but sadness, then those acts are also not genuine. But again, the tone would be genuine here as well. This same concept applies for having a happy or excited tone while performing depressive, sad, or indifferent acts while feeling depression, sadness, or anhedonia. The acts would be genuine. But the tones would not be genuine. Only our pleasant emotions of inspiration and motivation would make our inspired and motivated actions and motivated/inspired tones genuine.

One last thing I would like to say here is that I am power, energy, life, and transcendence. That mindstate can only come through my feelings of pleasure. Being in this logical mindstate with no feelings of pleasure is the opposite of "life," power, energy, and transcendence. It is being in an utterly inferior dull, bland, "settled down" biological robotic mindstate. Therefore, I detest this mindstate and way of life since it is utterly inferior and has no vigor (life) to me. This is not how I live my life and this is not how I compose. I live to be transcended and to experience the greatness and beauty of this life. That can only come through my pleasant emotions.

 

[Spockrates]

First off, if you are asking how desire and wonder can come from our thoughts and such alone without our feelings of pleasure, the truth is that I think we can define things how we want in life. We could say that a tree is divine rather than beautiful just as we could say that our thinking and such alone without our feelings of pleasure and our thoughts of wonder and motivation can be defined as wonder and motivation. However, since that version of wonder and motivation would hold no good value or worth to us, then it would not be genuine wonder and motivation. Wonder and motivation can only be defined through our feelings of pleasure. So does this answer your question?

Good morning. I'm not sure I understand your answer, as I don't know how you are defining the word genuine. When you say wonder and desire devoid of emotion is not genuine, do you mean such emotionless wonder and desire is not real and does not exist? If so, I agree.

But if what you are asking is how emotions can be good and bad in of themselves without our logic, then everything I've been saying in this topic already explains how. My new argument that I made a while back explains on this as well. You said before that Wonder and Desire do not speak the word "good" since they are emotions. But they have remained silent (muted) to you and many others. However, they have spoken that message "good" to me and I have finally given supporting reasons as to how only our feelings of pleasure are what is defined as good and how only our feelings of pleasure define our lives as being good and worth living.

So did you hear the actual word good spoken in your mind? Did you hear the word itself--albiet with your thoughts, instead of your ears? Or did you feel some sensation that convinced you it was good?

Now if you felt nothing but sadness and expressed an excited happy tone and excited happy acts, then that would be an inappropriate response. It would be a forced (faked) expression and not a genuine expression. Therefore, if you felt nothing but depression (hopelessness) or anhedonia (absence of pleasure) and have expressed the tone and actions of pursuing your goals and dreams in life anyway as well as choosing to make the best of life anyway while you were feeling that depression or anhedonia, then those expressions and acts would also not be genuine either. They too would be forced (faked). Choosing to make the best of life and to pursue your goals and dreams in life anyway while feeling nothing but depression or anhedonia, that is not motivation or inspiration at all. It is nothing more than you just forcing your actions and expressions as I've said before.

OK, so let's say I'm depressed over something I did to hurt a relationship with someone I love dearly. I have a strong feeling of desire to repair the damage done. I have a sensation of wonder if there might be some way to convince the one harmed to forgive me. Would you say I'm feeling more than sad? Would you say I'm also feeling deep desire and wonder? If so, would you say these emotions of desire and wonder are good and valuable, or bad for me and worthless to me?

Even if you expressed a depressive/indifferent tone while feeling nothing but depression/anhedonia, but your actions were making the best of life and pursuing your goals and dreams in life or expressing works of art through your depression or anhedonia, then those acts are not genuine. But the tone would be genuine. If you expressed a sad tone while feeling nothing but sadness, but have made the best of life and performed acts of inspiration in creating works of art while feeling nothing but sadness, then those acts are also not genuine. But again, the tone would be genuine here as well. This same concept applies for having a happy or excited tone while performing depressive, sad, or indifferent acts while feeling depression, sadness, or anhedonia. The acts would be genuine. But the tones would not be genuine. Only our pleasant emotions of inspiration and motivation would make our inspired and motivated actions and motivated/inspired tones genuine.

But what if you share in sadness with another. Let's say you and friend are sad about the same thing. Someone you both care about is in the hospital and may die. She starts to cry. You embrace her and cry, too. It's not a sexual thing, but you empathize with her, since you feel the same pain. I suppose you might say weeping with your friend is showing compassion. Would you say such a compassionate act is valuable to you or her? Is it something worth doing for your benefit or her's?

One last thing I would like to say here is that I am power, energy, life, and transcendence. That mindstate can only come through my feelings of pleasure. Being in this logical mindstate with no feelings of pleasure is the opposite of "life," power, energy, and transcendence. It is being in an utterly inferior dull, bland, "settled down" biological robotic mindstate. Therefore, I detest this mindstate and way of life since it is utterly inferior and has no vigor (life) to me. This is not how I live my life and this is not how I compose. I live to be transcended and to experience the greatness and beauty of this life. That can only come through my pleasant emotions.

Logic and Emotion tell me that is a good thing to desire! So is your desire for it good?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

As for your 1st statement, when I say that our acts of helping others and living without our feelings of pleasure are not genuine, what I mean by that is that they are inappropriate acts and were forced. I gave an example with inappropriate (forced) acts with different feelings such as with my example with expressing excitement while feeling nothing but sadness or depression.

As for your 2nd statement, I felt some sensation (pleasant emotion) that told me that it was good in of itself without my logic.

As for your 3rd statement, if you felt desire and wonder (which are pleasant emotions), then you would be feeling more than sad and those emotions would be good to you and would make your life good at the moment you felt them.

As for your 4th statement, I think compassion can come in two forms which would be feelings of pleasure such as feeling good in helping someone or feeling bad such as with that example you gave. But since unpleasant feelings/emotions define our lives as bad, then that holds no good value to you and your life would be bad at the moment. If she felt sad or depressed as well, then that would not be of any good value to her either and her life would also be bad at the moment as well. But bad emotions can actually motivate us. I gave an example with feeling fear. Even though fear is a bad emotion, it motivates us to escape. But it is a bad form of motivation that holds no good value or worth to us and makes our lives bad. Therefore, in that same sense, even though your sad compassion motivated you to empathize with her, the fact still remains that it holds no good value or worth to you and your life would be bad at that moment of sad compassion.

As for your 5th statement, my thought of desire to have that life of pleasure back to me is nothing good since I have no feelings of pleasure now to make my life good and worth living to me. Again, later on if I get my life of pleasure back, my life would be good and worth living then. But since my conscious is only in the here and now, then my life can't be of any good value or worth without my feelings of pleasure.

 

[Spockrates]

As for your 1st statement, when I say that our acts of helping others and living without our feelings of pleasure are not genuine, what I mean by that is that they are inappropriate acts and were forced. I gave an example with inappropriate (forced) acts with different feelings such as with my example with expressing excitement while feeling nothing but sadness or depression.

Sorry for being clear as mud! I was not asking about the effects--the actions. I was asking about the causes of those effects--WONDER and DESIRE. Let me try to be clearer: Since emotionless wonder and desire are not genuine wonder and desire, does that mean emotionless wonder and desire does are not real wonder and desire, and so they do not exist?

As for your 2nd statement, I felt some sensation (pleasant emotion) that told me that it was good in of itself without my logic.

And I in turn feel some sensation--pleasant emotion--that you are capable of feeling some pleasant emotion! I feel pleasant emotion about these words of logic, too:

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.
(Philippians 4:8)
​

I find the context interesting as well: It's advice Paul wrote while he was on death row. It would seem beneficial advice to keep thinking about such things, since such thoughts bring us pleasure. In your case, it would be beneficial to think about the nature of pleasure and how to best obtain it, since for you, pleasure is what is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, excellent and praiseworthy. Don't you think?

As for your 3rd statement, if you felt desire and wonder (which are pleasant emotions), then you would be feeling more than sad and those emotions would be good to you and would make your life good at the moment you felt them.

Indeed! So no matter how great the emotional pain I can always wonder about and desire relief of such pain, and so not be completely without pleasure. Such is the beauty of Hope. She has always rescued me from such a low state. I have much to thank her for, and I think she is every good desire in me.

As for your 4th statement, I think compassion can come in two forms which would be feelings of pleasure such as feeling good in helping someone or feeling bad such as with that example you gave. But since unpleasant feelings/emotions define our lives as bad, then that holds no good value to you and your life would be bad at the moment. If she felt sad or depressed as well, then that would not be of any good value to her either and her life would also be bad at the moment as well. But bad emotions can actually motivate us. I gave an example with feeling fear. Even though fear is a bad emotion, it motivates us to escape. But it is a bad form of motivation that holds no good value or worth to us and makes our lives bad. Therefore, in that same sense, even though your sad compassion motivated you to empathize with her, the fact still remains that it holds no good value or worth to you and your life would be bad at that moment of sad compassion.

As for your 5th statement, my thought of desire to have that life of pleasure back to me is nothing good since I have no feelings of pleasure now to make my life good and worth living to me. Again, later on if I get my life of pleasure back, my life would be good and worth living then. But since my conscious is only in the here and now, then my life can't be of any good value or worth without my feelings of pleasure.

On the walk to work as I was thinking about these things, an idea came to me, which I hope you will help me see more clearly. You are saying that your desire for change has no value and worth, because it is desiring what you do not have--emotional pleasure. The desire to comfort and be comforted has no value and worth, since it is desiring what you do not have--the pleasure of no longer being sad. Earlier you said the desire of the body builder to have the pleasure of a muscular body has no value and worth, for it is desiring the pleasure he does not yet have.

I'd like to say I agree at least in part, as does Paul. For although you might disagree with much of what he wrote, I think you will say this is true:

Who hopes for what he already has?
(Romans 8:24)
​

The answer I think is no one. But this raises a fascinating question: Since we both agree desire is a good and pleasant emotion, and since hope is another word for such desire, then how can it be possible to hope to be happy? I suppose the answer is that hope does give us some pleasure, but what we hope for is even greater pleasure. Don't you think?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

As for your 1st statement, I do not know how to define wonder or desire. It could be just an emotion or it could be just our thinking alone. But even so, the version of wonder and desire that comes from our thinking alone without our feelings of pleasure holds no good value or worth to us.

As for your 2nd statement, you are right in saying that my feelings of pleasure are the only things that define the good value and worth of my life. However, I can never experience any given moment of brief pleasure no matter what I think for now.

As for your final statement, I do agree. One last thing I would like to say here is that I am going to go back to my rule (concept) that I stated before which was that all good messages always have positive and uplifting/optimistic tones, neutral messages always have indifferent tones, and bad messages always have negative and depressing tones. So in your example with you who was sad and choosing to have empathy towards someone else, then your sadness would not be directed towards the good message of: "This is good to help her out and share empathy with her. I need to go and help her." Instead, your sadness would of been directed towards a bad message something such as: "This is bad. She is in pain and misery." So your sadness did not motivate you to go and help her and share your empathy with her since our sadness can't be directed towards good messages. It would of have to of been a pleasant emotion that motivated you to go and help her. But if you felt no pleasant emotion and felt nothing but sadness, then your act of being motivated to go and help her was not a genuine act. It was a forced act.

Now with fear, the message that: "I need to run and get out of here," then that is obviously a bad message since it is a warning message and you choosing to run away would be a genuine act. But if you had an uplifting and positive tone towards the message of: "I need to stay and fight in order to help this person" while feeling nothing but that fear and you have chosen to stay and fight in order to help that person, then that positive tone and your actions were also not genuine here either.

Here is one more point I would like to bring up. I am going to first bring up that rule (concept) again which is that all good messages have positive and uplifting moods, all neutral messages have indifferent moods, and all bad messages have negative and depressing moods. Therefore, just as how good messages make us feel pleasure, neutral messages make us feel indifferent, and bad messages make us feel depressed and other negative moods, so too does our feelings (moods) define the good, neutral, and bad in our lives. If we feel pleasant moods, then that defines us and our lives as being good, if we feel unpleasant moods, then us and our lives are bad to us, and if we feel neither pleasant nor unpleasant moods, then us and our lives have neutral (neither good or bad) value to us.

This is because our moods and our good, neutral, and bad value in life are directly linked. Our moods reflect the good, bad, or neutral value we have in our lives. If we feel nothing but depressed, but have a good thought in our lives anyway, then that does not define our lives as being good during that moment of depression. Our lives would only be bad since we feel depressed. This is because our minds are wired in such a way that good thoughts send pleasure signals to the brain, neutral thoughts make us feel indifferent, while bad thoughts send signals to the brain that make us feel depressed, sad, rage, etc. This is because our thoughts of good and bad are not enough to define our lives as being good or bad. Our emotions are the final resulting message from our good or bad thoughts and situations that actually gives us the message that our lives are either good or bad to us. Our emotions are the only things that give us the sense of good or bad value in our lives. If thoughts alone without our emotions is all that is necessary to live a good or bad life, then why would our brains even be wired to have those thoughts send emotional signals to our brains? It would be because, again, our emotions are what actually define our lives as being good or bad and not just the thoughts alone in of themselves without our emotions.

So it is actually the emotions themselves that are good and bad and not the actual thoughts themselves alone that are good and bad. So if you felt nothing but depression and had a good thought, but derived no feelings of pleasure from that thought, then your life is not good to you at all and neither are other people/things good to you in your life either without your feelings of pleasure to make them something of good value and worth to you. If you have chosen to pursue your goals/dreams and to live your life anyway while feeling nothing but depression or no pleasure at all, then your acts would be forced and not genuine. As for the good and bad thoughts alone in of themselves without our emotions, they would actually not be referred to as being good or bad thoughts at all and neither would anything else in life be referred to as good or bad either. We would instead refer to a good thought as being "A thought that our survival is being benefited" and we would refer to a bad thought as "A thought that there is a problem in our life. That something is hindering our survival."

Finally, I am going to give an example here. If someone was tearing your skin and you had no feelings of pain, then our lives would not be bad since we did not get the "bad" message in our brains which would be the feeling of pain. You might say that the situation itself is bad since our skin is being torn away and that we might die from that and that said situation being bad would make our lives bad. But here's the thing. It is only our brains that define our lives as being good or bad since it is our brains that make us alive in the first place. Situations themselves which are separate from our conscious brains cannot define our lives as being good or bad to us. Only our feelings of pleasure or suffering make our lives good or bad since they are conscious experiences in our brains. Our feelings of pleasure or suffering are what make our conscious perceptions and thoughts of situations good or bad to us.

 

[Spockrates]

As for your 1st statement, I do not know how to define wonder or desire. It could be just an emotion or it could be just our thinking alone. But even so, the version of wonder and desire that comes from our thinking alone without our feelings of pleasure holds no good value or worth to us.

I suspect Socrates was correct when he explained to his friend Cratylus: "Wonder is the feeling of a philosopher and philosophy begins with wonder." The Greek word for philosophy, I'm told roughly translates as Wisdom's lover, as if the one practicing the art and science has feelings akin to romantic attraction. I think, too wonder might at times be an unpleasant feeling, as when a person witnessing some hortific act of violence asks why someone would ever commit such a heinous act. There's nothing pleasant about wondering that.

But I cannot think of a time when I've wondered that I have not had a sensation--good or bad--in my head, throat, chest or stomache. The same with desire--whether it be for food, drink, sex, happiness, peace, or relief of some physical or emotional pain. I have always felt some sensation in one or more parts of my body.

Indeed, some of the ancient Greeks were of the opinion that the heart or stomache--not the brain--was the organ that was the source of our emotions, since the effects of feelings are so often felt in the chest.

So I think that unless you have a clear example of someone desiring or wondering something without feeling some emotion, I'll have to continue to assent to the idea that desire must be nothing but an emotion.

As for your 2nd statement, you are right in saying that my feelings of pleasure are the only things that define the good value and worth of my life. However, I can never experience any given moment of brief pleasure no matter what I think for now.

So were you mistaken in the previous post when you said this?

"I felt some sensation (pleasant emotion) that told me it was good in and of itself..."​

As for your final statement, I do agree.

So then, it might be that you are not completely lacking in pleasure. For wondering what the truth is about all this is, is pleasurable, and desiring--if not hoping--your condition will improve is also pleasurable, valuable, worthy, good and even great. But this wonder and desire might not yet be sufficient to make give you the quantity and quality of pleasure you long to have.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

As for me being mistaken, I am just simply referring to the time in my life before I developed this anhedonia and did have my full feelings of pleasure back then. As for your final statement, since I have no feelings of pleasure, then I would just be having the thought of me wondering if I will ever recover. I wouldn't be experiencing the wonder itself since wonder is a feeling of pleasure. But if it is an unpleasant emotion as well, then I think I would be experiencing this version of wonder that makes my life bad.

 

[Spockrates]

As for me being mistaken, I am just simply referring to the time in my life before I developed this anhedonia and did have my full feelings of pleasure back then. As for your final statement, since I have no feelings of pleasure, then I would just be having the thought of me wondering if I will ever recover. I wouldn't be experiencing the wonder itself since wonder is a feeling of pleasure. But if it is an unpleasant emotion as well, then I think I would be experiencing this version of wonder that makes my life bad.

Then I'd recommend that instead of saying you want to know the truth, you should instead say you do not want to know the truth. For to want is to desire, and we have no logical reason to believe desire is not an emotion!

Neither should you say that you want to be happy. For to want is to desire, and you said yourself you have no such good feelings of desire!

My question, then: Since you cannot possibly want the truth or want happiness, then why do you seek them? Since it is impossible for you to desire them, what is it besides feelings of desire that is causing you to seek truth and happiness?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

If what you are saying is that since desire is pleasure, that for me to want to know the truth means that I do have pleasure? That there is a form of pleasure through my thoughts alone without my feelings of pleasure? If that is what you are saying, then this is false. If, let's pretend, someone told me that I would be able to fully recover my pleasure back tomorrow and all I needed to do was some chore, then I would want to do that chore in order to have my feelings of pleasure back tomorrow even though I have no feelings of pleasure at the moment. But it would actually be a version of desire that I would be fooling myself with. If wanting is pleasure (which would be reward-seeking), then I would only be thinking that I would want that life of pleasure back even though I would not be wanting that life of pleasure back. As I said before, without our feelings of pleasure, then our acts and expressions are not genuine. Therefore, me having that thought of me wanting my life of pleasure back would not be a genuine thought. Therefore, there is no form of pleasure that can come from our thoughts and such alone without our actual feelings of pleasure.

 

[Spockrates]

If what you are saying is that since desire is pleasure, that for me to want to know the truth means that I do have pleasure? That there is a form of pleasure through my thoughts alone without my feelings of pleasure? If that is what you are saying, then this is false. If, let's pretend, someone told me that I would be able to fully recover my pleasure back tomorrow and all I needed to do was some chore, then I would want to do that chore in order to have my feelings of pleasure back tomorrow even though I have no feelings of pleasure at the moment. But it would actually be a version of desire that I would be fooling myself with. If wanting is pleasure (which would be reward-seeking), then I would only be thinking that I would want that life of pleasure back even though I would not be wanting that life of pleasure back. As I said before, without our feelings of pleasure, then our acts and expressions are not genuine. Therefore, me having that thought of me wanting my life of pleasure back would not be a genuine thought. Therefore, there is no form of pleasure that can come from our thoughts and such alone without our actual feelings of pleasure.

I'm saying desire that is not an emotion does not exist. It's an unreal fantasy. It's a deception. If I'm wrong, do you have any logical proof to convince me?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

If that is all you are saying, then I agree.

I am going to add one last important point here I thought of. Even if you had no pleasure and forced your excited tones and expressions in living life as though you are motivated and you kept on doing this so much that it became natural to you, then you might ask me: "Wouldn't this person's acts now be genuine? If his/her acts now come completely naturally and are no longer forced, then wouldn't that make her acts now genuine?"

My reply to that would be that if we have a bacteria, virus, or a cell, then those things living would not be considered them being motivated to live. They are "just living." In that same sense, people with no feelings of pleasure are not motivated to live and are also "just living." But you then might say to me that is not the case because we have a conscious and can choose our actions whereas bacteria, cells, and viruses just live without choosing their actions.

But it is still the same thing. Even though we are different, it would still be living the same way if we had no feelings of pleasure. As I said before, things can be different and also the same. For example, the color blue is different than the color red. But they are the same because they are both colors. Our thoughts may be different since they are different thoughts, but they are all the same since they are all just thoughts. They are all just the "thinking" experience in our brains without our feelings of pleasure.

Therefore, even though people who have no feelings of pleasure would live differently than a cell, bacteria, or a virus since these people have a conscious whereas they do not, these people are still living the same way because they are both not motivated. Motivation can only be defined in terms of science. That being, motivation can only be a pleasant emotion. This is because of what I said before which was that our thoughts and other brain functions alone without our feelings of pleasure are all just the "thinking" experience and other experiences and are not the experience of any pleasure, joy, happiness, motivation, or inspiration.

I am going to state one last thing here which is that actions and expressions in of themselves without our emotions are not genuine. It would be no different than a bacteria, virus, or cell expressing acts and such that appear to be love, motivation, etc. They would not be genuine acts and expressions of motivation or love. Rather, they would instead be genuine acts of science. Genuine acts of mere processes, if you will. Therefore, our actions, expressions, and tones without our feelings of pleasure that would otherwise be expressed through our feelings of pleasure, these are not genuine tones, actions, or expressions. They are just genuine actions, expressions, and tones in terms of them being mere processes and nothing more. So a person who has no feelings of love cannot express love, a person who has no feelings of motivation or inspiration cannot expression motivation or inspiration, etc. This is because you can't express something you don't have.

Finally, I said before that when I had my full feelings of pleasure back in the past, that those feelings themselves spoke "good" to me and said to me that they are what define me and my life as being good and worth living. Those pleasant emotions did not speak this in any worded or thought form. They have purely spoken this to me in a feeling form.

 

[Spockrates]

If that is all you are saying, then I agree.

Yes, that is what I'm saying, and glad we continue to agree.

Then wanting or desiring something is an emotion. Anyone who says she desires something but feels nothing when she so wants is fooling herself, and we should not believe her.

So what should we say of this feeling called Desire? Is she a pleasant feeling, or a painful one? Does she comfort us or torture us?

I am going to add one last important point here I thought of. Even if you had no pleasure and forced your excited tones and expressions in living life as though you are motivated and you kept on doing this so much that it became natural to you, then you might ask me: "Wouldn't this person's acts now be genuine? If his/her acts now come completely naturally and are no longer forced, then wouldn't that make her acts now genuine?"

I guess I'd say they might be genuine rational acts but not genuine acts of emotion. They would not, for example be acts of hatred or acts of compassion. But they might indeed be premeditated acts to achieve some logical goal.

My reply to that would be that if we have a bacteria, virus, or a cell, then those things living would not be considered them being motivated to live. They are "just living." In that same sense, people with no feelings of pleasure are not motivated to live and are also "just living." But you then might say to me that is not the case because we have a conscious and can choose our actions whereas bacteria, cells, and viruses just live without choosing their actions.

But it is still the same thing. Even though we are different, it would still be living the same way if we had no feelings of pleasure. As I said before, things can be different and also the same. For example, the color blue is different than the color red. But they are the same because they are both colors. Our thoughts may be different since they are different thoughts, but they are all the same since they are all just thoughts. They are all just the "thinking" experience in our brains without our feelings of pleasure.

Therefore, even though people who have no feelings of pleasure would live differently than a cell, bacteria, or a virus since these people have a conscious whereas they do not, these people are still living the same way because they are both not motivated. Motivation can only be defined in terms of science. That being, motivation can only be a pleasant emotion. This is because of what I said before which was that our thoughts and other brain functions alone without our feelings of pleasure are all just the "thinking" experience and other experiences and are not the experience of any pleasure, joy, happiness, motivation, or inspiration.

I agree a virus or a bacteria does not likely have any emotion, nor does it have any logical thoughts about its actions. One might say it acts purely on emotionless instinct. But do you act on emotionless instinct, or according to logical thought?

Animals, too act more on instinct than according to some reasoned decision. One might say they act purely according to their emotions. If they are angry, they do not control their temper--they bite. If they are afraid they do not try to act bravely--they run away. But do you act only according to your negative emotions, or do you also act according to emotionless logic?

Isn't it true that you are unlike both bacteria and more highly evolved members of the animal kingdom, since you've never had a discussion like the one we are having with anyone other than a human being?

I am going to state one last thing here which is that actions and expressions in of themselves without our emotions are not genuine. It would be no different than a bacteria, virus, or cell expressing acts and such that appear to be love, motivation, etc. They would not be genuine acts and expressions of motivation or love. Rather, they would instead be genuine acts of science. Genuine acts of mere processes, if you will. Therefore, our actions, expressions, and tones without our feelings of pleasure that would otherwise be expressed through our feelings of pleasure, these are not genuine tones, actions, or expressions. They are just genuine actions, expressions, and tones in terms of them being mere processes and nothing more. So a person who has no feelings of love cannot express love, a person who has no feelings of motivation or inspiration cannot expression motivation or inspiration, etc. This is because you can't express something you don't have.

You pose a fascinating dilemma. If you feel no compassion, yet act in a giving and unselfish way to benefit another, have you failed to love? I mean, is love what you feel, or what you do, or must it always be both? Isn't it possible that love can sometimes be only a feeling and sometimes be only an action and sometimes be both? I've met some Christians who were quite convinced love is not a feeling and only an action. I suppose you might find discussing the topic with them as fascinating as I did.

Finally, I said before that when I had my full feelings of pleasure back in the past, that those feelings themselves spoke "good" to me and said to me that they are what define me and my life as being good and worth living. Those pleasant emotions did not speak this in any worded or thought form. They have purely spoken this to me in a feeling form.

I've spoken to Mormons who have described something similar. They say it is not any reason or evidence that convinces them what they believe is true. It's a strong feeling of conviction they get that tells them, "This is true," without saying any words at all. It's a mystical way of discerning truth and an emotion I myself have never had the pleasure of experiencing. Since I've never felt it myself, I have no good reason to say this is no way to discern truth. All I can say is it's not something I know from experience.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

As for your 1st statement, I think desire could be a pleasant and an unpleasant emotion. I am not sure.

As for your 3rd statement, I obviously act on logical thought since this is what I am doing now. I act according to logic and don't harm or demean innocent people. Also, as I've said before, I am unlike bacteria and such since I am having this discussion. But where I was getting that is that I am actually the same in the sense that both me and the bacteria are not motivated. Motivation can only be a pleasant emotion as I've just explained earlier.

As for your 4th statement, love can only be defined in terms of science which would mean that it is a pleasant emotion and only a pleasant emotion. Even if, let's pretend, love did come through our actions and thoughts alone, then that version of love would hold no good value or worth to us without our feelings of pleasure and without our feelings of love. This is because they would only just be genuine acts of mere processes as I've said before. Therefore, that version of love without our feelings of love would be fake and we would only be lying to ourselves in calling that love. Love can only be a pleasant emotion in terms of science as I've said before.

Now when the word "love" was first invented, then if it was first a description of the pleasant emotion and we have redefined it as our actions and expressions alone without that pleasant emotion, then we cannot redefine science. We cannot, for example, say that our actions and expressions are the sun. We might be able to metaphorically portray our actions and expressions as the sun. But they would not literally be the sun. So that is why love can only be the pleasant emotion.

But when the word "love" was first invented, if it instead refers to our actions and expressions alone without our pleasant emotions, then the pleasant emotion that would otherwise be referred to as "love" would still be the only thing that would make our lives good and of worth to us. This is because our actions and expressions without our pleasant feelings are all just genuine acts of mere processes. So we would have to come up with a word that expresses the pleasant emotion that would otherwise be referred to as "love." This word would mean something far greater than love. This whole concept I have here would be no different than how the word "love" now means something far greater than the phrase "mere processes." So if it is the case that love can be defined through our actions and expressions alone without our feelings of pleasure, then that version of love would just be a mere process. The new word that we would invent for the pleasant emotion that would otherwise be referred to as "love," this new word would now mean something far greater while the word "love" wouldn't mean anything of any good value or worth to us.

But if it is the case that love can both be defined as a pleasant emotion and also our actions and expressions alone without our pleasant feelings, then we have two versions of love going on here. The version that comes from our actions and expressions alone without our pleasant feelings is nothing more than a mere process. That version would not be love at all and it would only be a lie to say it is love. The true version of love can only be a pleasant emotion as I've stated before.