My support for hedonism

[Spockrates]

I'm back. So I was trying to think of a more clear and cogent way to describe what I think you are telling me is true. The previous argument was difficult for me to understand, but I think this one is easier for me to follow:

1. It's a scientific fact that pleasant emotions are the only thing that is valuable to, has worth for and is good for human beings.
2. Unpleasant emotions are the only things that lack value, worth and goodness for human beings, and so they alone give our lives no value, no worth, no goodness.
3. Pleasant emotions are the only things that have value, worth and goodness for human beings, and so they alone give our lives value, worth and goodness.
4. Logic can feel no emotions. So it is impossible for logic to add to or subtract from the value, worth and goodness of our lives.
5. Sensations of physical pleasure and pain are not emotions. So it is impossible for physical pleasure and pain to add to or subtract from the value, worth and goodness of our lives.
6. A life without value, worth and goodness is not worth living.

Therefore, a life without pleasant emotions is the one and only kind of life that is not worth living.​

My question: Does this accurately show your logical argument as we currently comprehend it?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Yes, it is correct. Except for one thing. It's not just the pleasant/unpleasant emotions that define our lives as good or bad. The physical pleasant/unpleasant sensations themselves also define our lives as good or bad as well since these physical sensations also feel good or bad. What I mean by physical sensations would be if someone punched you, and you felt pain. Pain is an unpleasant physical sensation. As for a pleasant physical sensation, that could be if someone massaged you. However, those pleasant physical sensations I don't live by. I live by the pleasant emotions since they are very profound to me. I live by them for this life and my composing dream. I don't think those pleasant sensations can be anything pleasant at all anyway since my pleasure is completely turned off as I've said before.

 

[Spockrates]

...The physical pleasant/unpleasant sensations themselves also define our lives as good or bad as well since these physical sensations also feel good or bad.

So physical pleasure is also valuable to, of worth to and good for you?

...However, those pleasant physical sensations I don't live by. I live by the pleasant emotions since they are very profound to me. I live by them for this life and my composing dream. I don't think those pleasant sensations can be anything pleasant at all anyway since my pleasure is completely turned off as I've said before.

So emotional pleasure is the only thing that is valuable to, of worth to and good for you?

But which of these is the truth? Seems to me Socrates was correct. For he said:

No matter what the subject, there is for those who wish to deliberate well upon it always one and the same starting point: You must know what it is you are deliberating about, or you will inevitably fail altogether. Most people, however, are not aware of their ignorance of a thing’s essential nature, and because they think they know all about it, they fail to secure agreement about the meaning of the terms of their inquiry at its beginning. As they proceed, they reap the predictable harvest of this oversight: They disagree with one another and even contradict themselves! Now, you and I must not be guilty of this fundamental error that we condemn in others.

(Phaedrus, 237)​

What Socrates was warning his friend about--and his words of caution might be of help to us, too--is that if we fail to correctly define the words we use, we won't get very far in coming to the correct conclusions. So if I think value means what is moral, and you think value means what is emotionally pleasant, then I'll get the wrong idea what you mean by the word. So we will contradict one another until we agree on the meaning of the word.

Not only that, but if we are not quite sure of the meaning of the word, we will end up contradicting ourselves! I think, perhaps this is what is happening now. You have been saying:

Value = only emotional pleasure
​

But just now you said:

Value = physical pleasure, too
​

Then you quickly restated:

Value = only emotional pleasure​

So should we reevaluate the definition of value? Should we say it is not only emotional pleasure, but also sometimes physical pleasure?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Good value would be defined as the pleasant signal that the area of the brain "Nucleus Accumbens" obtains and other areas of the brain that experience pleasant feelings/emotions. But even though the pleasant physical sensations hold good value, the pleasant emotions such as profound love, beauty, motivation, etc., those hold much more good value to them. Same thing applies to unpleasant feelings/emotions. So my definition of good and bad value is not moral at all. Good and bad value would be defined as the pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions themselves.

 

[Spockrates]

But even though the pleasant physical sensations hold good value, the pleasant emotions such as profound love, beauty, motivation, etc., those hold much more good value to them.

So physical pleasure is also valuable?

Good and bad value would be defined as the pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions themselves.

So emotional pleasure is the only thing that's valuable?

Both statements cannot possibly be true. Which one do you choose?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Physical pleasure would be defined as if someone massages you, then that sends a pleasure signal to the Nucleus Accumbens. Emotional pleasure is also the same thing as well since a pleasure signal is also sent to the Nuclues Accumbens as well. Both are activity in the Nuclues Accumbens and other areas of the brain that experience pleasant feelings/emotions. Therefore, good and bad value would be defined as the pleasant/unpleasant feelings (physical sensations) and emotions.

 

[Spockrates]

Physical pleasure would be defined as if someone massages you, then that sends a pleasure signal to the Nucleus Accumbens. Emotional pleasure is also the same thing as well since a pleasure signal is also sent to the Nuclues Accumbens as well. Both are activity in the Nuclues Accumbens and other areas of the brain that experience pleasant feelings/emotions. Therefore, good and bad value would be defined as the pleasant/unpleasant feelings (physical sensations) and emotions.

...

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

It's both physical pleasure/displeasure and emotional pleasure/displeasure that have the good and bad value.

 

[Spockrates]

Matt:

Please accept my apologies. Family crisis kept me away. I hope you are interested in picking up where we left off, today.

 

[Spockrates]

So I was thinking about the fruit tree analogy. The tree produces fruit that tastes good. One might say that if we define the word value this way,

(A) Value = anything that causes pleasure
​

instead of this way,

(B) Value = anything that is pleasure
​

Then if (A) is true, we might say the fruit has value, in that eating it causes the pleasurable feeling in the eater.

Given (A) I suppose we would also say the tree itself, which causes the apple is also valuable. In this way of thinking about value, it's not only the effects that have value, it's also the causes of those effects.

Of course, if the causes fail to produce the effect in me, but do produce the effect in you--or the other way around--I suppose the truth would be that it does have value for you but not for me--or the other way around.

Do we here also agree?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Actually, I think this is how it would work out. I still think that (B) is the only thing that is true and I am going to explain. If we have a pleasant thought about something and that sends a pleasure signal to our brain and gives a pleasant emotion, then I think we might actually be feeling pleasure from the thought in of itself. Therefore, the thought itself would actually be the pleasant emotion. But here again, we can only feel pleasure from our thoughts and such alone only providing we have our pleasant feelings/emotions to do so. So it would be a pleasant feeling/emotion that is actually speaking words and such (thoughts) to us. Since I said that only our pleasant feelings/emotions have good value and worth, then this would mean that a pleasant thought such as a thought regarding an apple would have good value and worth since that thought would actually be a pleasant feeling/emotion. However, the apple itself would not hold any good value or worth since it is not a pleasant feeling/emotion.

 

[Spockrates]

I hear what you are saying, but I'm still not yet convinced. I mean, ask some people what value is and they will tell you (A). Ask others and they will agree it is (B). Still others will choose (C) and say both are true! So I wonder what I am to do. Do you agree, at least that just as there are intelligent people who agree with you there are also intelligent people who disagree?

 

[Spockrates]

I mean, if you and a Starbucks employee had a disagreement about the amount of change due to you after purchasing a latte, you could use the calculator app on your phone to settle the dispute. If you and a bus driver had a difference of opinion about the number of miles it will be to make the trip from Chicago to LA, you could use the odometer on the bus to prove who is correct.

But if two people don't agree about what the word valuable means, there is no such tool to measure it. Value and worthlessness, goodness and evil, right and wrong, justice and injustice--these are things about which intelligent people often disagree. Indeed, the recent violent outbreak between rival biker gangs in Waco, Texas was likely caused by such a difference of opinion.

Aren't such disagreements the things that arguments, acts of violence and even wars made of?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

I do realize that there are many intelligent people would disagree with my definition of value. But there has been such a tool to measure value, both good and bad. As it turns out, that good and bad value refer to our conscious/unconscious experiences which would be our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions. Also, wars do indeed result from our different definitions of good and bad. Therefore, this is why it was absolutely necessary to scientists to settle this dispute. They have now proved that good and bad value refer to something scientific which would be our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions in our minds as I've said before. But many people are unaware of this proven scientific fact which is why there are still disputes to this day.

 

[Spockrates]

...

I do realize that there are many intelligent people would disagree with my definition of value. But there has been such a tool to measure value, both good and bad. As it turns out, that good and bad value refer to our conscious/unconscious experiences which would be our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions. Also, wars do indeed result from our different definitions of good and bad. Therefore, this is why it was absolutely necessary to scientists to settle this dispute. They have now proved that good and bad value refer to something scientific which would be our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions in our minds as I've said before. But many people are unaware of this proven scientific fact which is why there are still disputes to this day.

I suppose scientists are not immune to the war on values, either. I've heard many a physicist, chemist, geologist and biologist say the scientific method has value. Their reason given: It is an effective method for determining the probability of a scientific theory, rather than a pleasant emotion. Ask a scientist why the scientific method has value, she is highly unlikely to talk about how the method makes her feel good. She is more likely to talk about how the method is a cause of determining scientific fact.

But would you say such scientists are misusing the word value, and should instead say the scientific method is useful, but not valuable? Should scientists not use the adjective to describe the scientific method, because a method of logical investigation cannot possibly be a pleasant feeling?

That is, should we say the scientific method itself is not valuable, worthy or good, but the feelings it causes can be?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

There are those scientists who are unaware of the proven fact that only our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions have good and bad value. So they are left to think that the scientific method has value. But then there are those scientists who are aware of the fact that only our pleasant feelings/emotions have good value and that the scientific method is merely something useful, but does not hold good value. So it would be correct to say that the scientific method is not valuable, worthy, or good, and that only the pleasant feelings/emotions have good value and worth.

 

[Spockrates]

There are those scientists who are unaware of the proven fact that only our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions have good and bad value. So they are left to think that the scientific method has value. But then there are those scientists who are aware of the fact that only our pleasant feelings/emotions have good value and that the scientific method is merely something useful, but does not hold good value. So it would be correct to say that the scientific method is not valuable, worthy, or good, and that only the pleasant feelings/emotions have good value and worth.

Then I think we would have our work cut out for us in trying to get support from any reputable scientists. For I've never heard or read of any ever saying the scientific method is not valuable, worthy or good for anything!



But if you can find just one such quote by a well respected scientists, I'll eat my words. Do you know the name of one of the neurologists you keep mentioning who says the scientific method has no value? I'd be interested in reading what she has to say about how the method has no worth to her and is good for nothing.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

At this point, I cannot find any and it would take me forever to find. So maybe perhaps someday you or I will come across one or even an article on the internet that says this. But in the meantime, you are free to ask any neurologist or scientist and hope that you will find one of these types of neurologists or scientists I've mentioned.

 

[Spockrates]

At this point, I cannot find any and it would take me forever to find. So maybe perhaps someday you or I will come across one or even an article on the internet that says this. But in the meantime, you are free to ask any neurologist or scientist and hope that you will find one of these types of neurologists or scientists I've mentioned.

Then let's use the scientific method to investigate the lack of value of the scientific method.

Purpose: To determine whether or not it is a scientific fact that the scientific method has no value, no worth and is not good for anything.

Research: You and I have never heard or read of any scientist proposing the scientific method is valueless, worthless and good for nothing.

Hypothesis: We hope that one day we will find reputable scientists who believe the scientific method is valueless, worthless and good for nothing.

So how do you propose we develop an experiment to prove or disprove our hypothesis? Should we begin by searching the Internet to see what the most respected scientists have to say?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Well, we do know that how we define good value and worth in our lives comes from us being motivated and inspired to live on for other things in life and to live for others. Otherwise, if we didn't have any motivation or inspiration, then we would not find any reason to live at all. So we would have to find some way to define motivation and inspiration as only being our pleasant emotions. We would then have to define our acts and expressions without our pleasant emotions as being nothing more than mere acts of atomic processes and not acts of motivation or inspiration.

So going back to my example with how our brains are wired to send emotional signals, then why is it that we need emotions if our thoughts and such alone serve as motivation and demotivation?