Deviation Actions
Other Person's Response: Your values are founded upon natural impulses. But, there's so much more value to life. Yes, it is natural to seek pleasure, and to avoid misery. But, that doesn't mean it's the only source of value in life.
My Reply: Here's my mindset. I have always been the type of person to take natural alternatives. Many people would tell me things, such as:
"Don't try this! It just won't work! Just because people believe it works doesn't make it so. Instead, try this natural alternative, which will work wonders for you!"
I also take the natural alternative approach when it comes to positivity. Therefore, I think our natural, hedonistic desire as human beings to seek positive emotions, and to avoid the negative ones, such as misery and sadness, is something we're supposed to live by. Also, as I said earlier, I think our hedonistic desires reflects our divine nature as spiritual beings, since our divine nature is eternal and blissful. Anything that goes against, or attempts to transcend this, isn't the holy way of life.
This means that Buddhists, who talk about giving up our hedonistic desires, and obtaining what they call a transcended state, is restricting of our divine nature. The Buddhist way was, therefore, never anything positive. If you were a Buddhist, you'd be expected to refrain from hedonistic impulses, and you'd be expected to give up your ego. It's like locking up a wild animal inside a cage, since it restricts our souls from being wild, Divine Hedonists.
This is why I don't agree with the Buddhist version of what they call divine, a god, or transcended. I have my own version. That version would be a wild, mystical, divine animal who seeks the holy, inner light (positive emotions). So, I think positive emotions are the only transcended states, since they're the only positive mental states. How can you say that a state is transcended if it's nothing positive?
That's why I'd have to redefine the transcended state Buddhists speak of as being "nothing," "empty," or "restricting of our true divine nature." With all of this being said, even Buddhists are delusional to have a positive attitude about their ways of life, and to somehow think their ways offer someone an alternative to a life of positive meaning, love, joy, or compassion. I think people are so content, such as the Buddhists, that even they don't realize they're delusional and in denial.
People are so dedicated to their religion, whether it be Buddhism or Christianity, that they deny and dismiss their positive emotions as being any source of positivity in their lives. Rather, they think that Jesus is the only source of positive meaning, or that something more, or greater, than their positive emotions, is the source of love, joy, beauty, and positive meaning. That's why I presented that link to the emotional perception theory of value, and my own personal religion that's based upon this theory.
As you can see here, I have my own personal religion, which I call the Emotional Religion/Divine Hedonism, since it's a religion based upon emotions. I don't agree with any other religion, worldview, or philosophy. Therefore, I have my own spiritual path, and other people have theirs. What really frustrates me is when I'm expected to take the spiritual path of someone else, or adhere my life to a different philosophy. Such spiritual paths, and philosophies, are things I don't agree with in the first place.
Other Person's Response: The Buddhists are far more intelligent people than you, and I'm quite sure they'd see every flaw in your personal views.
My Reply: I personally do not agree with a non-hedonistic based lifestyle. I think our divine nature is hedonistic. Not bearing our cross for Jesus, or any of these other things that restrict and threaten our hedonistic desires. Given that our divine nature is hedonistic, we should be on some planet that's compatible with our divine nature.
Such a planet would be a blissful utopia. Going back to my plant analogy earlier, where I said positive emotions are the soul's sustenance, if you want your plants to grow and thrive, why send them to a world where water and sunlight is scarce? Why not send them to a world where water and sunlight is abundant?
Other Person's Response: Then you have a very basic, simplistic, childish, shallow, and limited view of spirituality, religion, and the divine.
My Reply: Some people might say my religion is for little children, and not for mature adults. But, people shouldn't dismiss my religion at first glance as being childish and shallow because I support this worldview with many arguments. In other words, there's more than meets the eye to my worldview, and you shouldn't judge a book by its cover. Therefore, all I'm asking is that others fully read through my packets to gain full insight into my worldview before jumping to conclusions.
Other Person's Response: According to you, giving into our natural hedonistic impulses is divine. This is the opposite of what most religions say because they say giving them up, and transcending them, is divine.
My Reply: I agree. My personal views oppose the vast majority of humanity.
Other Person's Response: As far as I'm concerned, an absence of bad is good. Like I said, I think Schopenhauer was right about that. Good is the absence of bad. It's the opposite viewpoint of the idea that evil is the absence of good. Christians pathetically fail to deal with the problem of evil. They say evil doesn't exist, as it's merely the absence of good.
On the contrary, if there's nothing bad, then it doesn't even matter whether there's anything good or not. The slightest bit of mild concern about your lack of good feelings is a slight bit of badness.
Without even mild concern, literally no one cares that there's no good feelings. So, it literally doesn't matter. Also, look at the positive feeling of relief, for instance. It's a removal of pain, and, yes, someone who's miserable feels miserable. But, that doesn't mean their misery can't improve, and it doesn't mean that he can't give pleasure to others.
My Reply: Positive emotions is the good life, negative emotions is a bad life, and having neither positive nor negative emotions is a neutral life of no value, which would be apathy. That's my personal view. It would be like how, if you have neither a positive nor negative charge, then you can only have no charge at all.
Not having a negative charge does not equate to having a positive charge. So, if you have no bad in your life, that does not equate to good in your life. You need positive emotions to have good in your life, just as how you need a positive charge to have a positive charge.
It's also the same as positive numbers, negative numbers, and the number zero. The number zero may be greater than the negative numbers. But, that doesn't make zero a positive number, since it's still a neutral number. Also, you need your positive emotions to perceive it as being beautiful and worth living for when giving pleasure to others.
Other Person's Response: You have no right to tell another human being that they're delusional, and that their lives have no value if they don't feel positive emotions.
My Reply: Since people are denying my personal experience, why shouldn't I return the favor, and deny theirs?
Other Person's Response: We create our own reality of experience by what we think. Emotions were never the perception of value. Rather, you have made them the perception of value by your way of thinking.
My Reply: I think this would be a chicken and egg question. Is it me having this worldview in the first place that has made my emotions into perceptions of value? Or, is it my emotions being perceptions of value in the first place that has led me to this worldview?
Other Person's Response: You mentioned earlier that people think there's an intellectual form of emotions. Could you give me more insight into this?
My Reply: Sure. People put emotions into two categories. The 1st category would be the lower, basic emotions, such as a feeling of sexual arousal, a feeling of excitement to go to the carnival, or feeling panic from being in a dangerous situation. Many people deem these as the shallow emotions. But, then there are the higher emotions founded upon morality, character, and intellect.
Even if a person couldn't feel the basic emotions, other people would still claim that this person can have value in his life through his higher emotions. I'm not sure if these higher emotions exist. I don't think our thoughts and beliefs alone can be any real emotional state. I think it can only be the basic emotions that are the real emotions. I could be wrong though. One last thing here.
People have asked me to clarify what I mean when I say "higher" emotions and "shallow" emotions. When I write things, whether they be essays, or philosophical arguments, there might be many things I need to clarify that I didn't know I needed to clarify. Maybe this is one of the reasons why many people find my writing gibberish, or incoherent. So, for now, I'll just clarify this point I've presented.
When a person only judges someone by his physical appearance, that can be deemed as shallow. But, judging a person based on who he truly is on the inside is something "more" (or something "higher"). Many people refer to the intellectual/moral form of emotions as being something more, or higher, since these emotions go beyond that of a wild, hedonistic animal, living for pleasure.
In short, people would say that, if you live by the intellectual/moral form of emotions, then you're something more than a wild, hedonistic animal. But, like I said earlier, I don't think these higher emotions exist. I think that people just wish to go beyond their animal impulses and, as a result, believe in the existence of these higher emotions, when they really don't exist.
Other Person's Response: As people experience pleasure from “higher level” emotions (if such a distinction really exists) from a variety of intellectual activities, it would appear you're wrong.
My Reply: We as human beings are metaphorical creatures, and I think we tend to sometimes believe metaphors are the real things themselves. A metaphorical version of hunger and thirst is not real hunger and thirst, and neither is a metaphorical version of emotions any real emotions either.
Other Person's Response: So, when people say they get intellectual based pleasure from doing a crossword, reading, writing a poem, or watching a friend win a race, you think they're just lying? You'll really need to provide some evidence for this. Otherwise, we can only conclude that you're completely delusional (or lying).
My Reply: Yes. But, as long as they could feel the basic, hedonistic pleasures, then I consider that to be real pleasure.
Other Person's Response: Where is the evidence that everybody lies about this?
My Reply: This has been my own personal experience, and all I'm doing here is wondering if I'm telling the truth or not. I really don't know if I'm lying or not.
Other Person's Response: You cannot assume that, because you're unable to get intellectual based pleasure from art, or a beautiful sunset, that no one else is.
My Reply: I was just wanting others to keep an open mind to my idea, and not be convinced of anything just yet.
Other Person's Response: As what you are now claiming is obviously false, there isn't much scope for being open minded about it. You might as well ask that people be open minded about the Earth being flat.
My Reply: What makes you think it's false? Also, if you really thought it was false in the first place, then you wouldn't even be asking for evidence for my idea. I think you were open minded about it, but are now just ignoring my idea by dismissing it as false. When you feel a basic, positive emotion, this can be described as a sensation of pure joy and beauty, since our positive, basic emotions give our lives beauty and joy.
In order for our intellect alone to give our lives beauty and joy, then it would have to experience a sensation of beauty and joy. This would be no different than saying that, in order for our intellect alone to experience hunger and thirst, then it would have to experience the actual sensation of hunger and thirst. So, the sensation of beauty, horror, joy, etc. that comes about through our basic emotions has to be experienced through our intellect alone in order for intellectual beauty, horror, joy, etc. to exist.
Other Person's Response: You're claiming that everybody in the world (including me) is lying, and you provide no evidence to support this.
My Reply: Alright then. This would just be my own philosophy.
Other Person's Response: I don't think you can call a belief in something that is obviously false a "philosophy". Believing the Earth is flat isn't a philosophy. It's a delusion. Believing that man didn't land on the Moon is not a philosophy. It's a delusion. Believing that everybody else in the world is lying to you is not a philosophy. It's a delusion.
My Reply: I don't actually believe my idea. I'm just sharing this idea based upon my own personal experience. Consider it a hypothesis.
Other Person's Response: Let me butt in here for a moment and say something. I actually agree emotions are perceptions of value, since I'm an emotional theorist. But, could you give me an example of someone who says they aren't perceptions of value?
My Reply: I have interacted with people on forums who claimed that our emotions are just simply how we feel about things, and nothing more. I revealed to them how they're the perception of value. But, they denied this. If you want, I could give you the link to this discussion I had. I can't trust humanity when they make the claim that their thoughts and beliefs alone are higher emotions, and a real source of value in their lives. Here is one link. This is a guy named Dimebag who makes a distinction between emotions and value. There's one other guy who disagrees emotions are perceptions of value, and I think his name is ScienceGuy:
