Life is all about pleasure

[MattMVS7]

I see two solutions to Matt's problem.

 

(1) Accept that another's pleasure is as valuable as his own.

 

(2) Accept another metaethical position. Ethical pragmatists hold that ethics can be improved through inquiry. In fact, viewing inquiry as foundational to ethics can supplement rather than supplant. You can hold both positions.

 

I think it's nonsense that Matt separates "pain" from that which "feels bad". They're both experiences, they're the same experience, and neither results from the other.

 

I never separated pain and despair from "feeling bad." I have, in fact, been saying all along that good is pleasure, bad is suffering, and neutral (neither good or bad) is everything else in life. Also, I do value others and their pleasure. But my beliefs state otherwise since you are only in your own mind and cannot feel the pleasure and suffering of others and that, therefore, you can only experience your own pleasure and suffering which means that only your own pleasure and suffering are the only good and bad things to you. All thoughts are neutral and the thought (idea) of others suffering is neutral (neither good or bad) which means that others suffering from your perspective is neutral regardless of what you think otherwise.

[MonDie]

 

I never separated pain and despair from "feeling bad." I have, in fact, been saying all along that good is pleasure, bad is suffering, and neutral (neither good or bad) is everything else in life. Also, I do value others and their pleasure. But my beliefs state otherwise since you are only in your own mind and cannot feel the pleasure and suffering of others and that, therefore, you can only experience your own pleasure and suffering which means that only your own pleasure and suffering are the only good and bad things to you. All thoughts are neutral and the thought (idea) of others suffering is neutral (neither good or bad) which means that others suffering from your perspective is neutral regardless of what you think otherwise.

 

I can't experience my future suffering either, but I still use this moment to take measures to avoid it. I do so because I extrapolate from my own present experience.

Edited November 10, 2014 by MonDie

[MattMVS7]

 

I can't experience my future suffering either, but I still use this moment to take measures to avoid it. I do so because I extrapolate from my own present experience.

 

And even that idea (thought) you just presented to me now would be neutral (neither good or bad).

[MonDie]

 

And even that idea (thought) you just presented to me now would be neutral (neither good or bad).

 

But it's rational.

It's rational when you're evaluating a state of affairs. From this perspective, a good state of affairs is one that has more happiness and less suffering.

I don't know what perspective you are taking.

[MattMVS7]

 

But it's rational.

It's rational when you're evaluating a state of affairs. From this perspective, a good state of affairs is one that has more happiness and less suffering.

I don't know what perspective you are taking.

 

The perspective I would be talking about would be from the perspective of this meaningless universe (which would be materialism and naturalism).

[MonDie]

What's the meaning of "meaningless" here?

 

I think your pessimism is unrealistic.

Edited November 10, 2014 by MonDie

[MattMVS7]

What's the meaning of "meaningless" here?

 

I think your pessimism is unrealistic.

 

What I mean by meaningless would be that everything is just a bunch of atoms and particles and that's it. And that our own thoughts and everything else is just the activity of a bunch of atoms and particles and that's it (though our pleasure and suffering are the only good and bad things despite the fact that they are also the functioning of atoms and particles).

Edited November 10, 2014 by MattMVS7

[MonDie]

The universe is meaningful wherever we exist and have the technology and will to intervene. It's only meaningless if we give up.

[MattMVS7]

The universe is meaningful wherever we exist and have the technology and will to intervene. It's only meaningless if we give up.

 

Beliefs such as materialism and scientism are well supported views from many scientists and intelligent people. They are not just simply perspectives from people who give up on life or who have a pessimistic attitude.

[MonDie]

I don't see your problem, Matt.

Edited November 10, 2014 by MonDie

[MattMVS7]

I don't see your problem, Matt.

 

It is because living a neutral life will cause others to feel depressed (such as me) regardless of the fact that it would be irrational for me to feel that way and that I should just instead have no depressing thoughts about this and should instead have neutral thoughts that don't cause me any bad feelings.

[MonDie]

I wasn't trained for this!

[Strange]

I think your pessimism is unrealistic.

 

Some people think that depression is a more realistic viewpoint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism

[MattMVS7]

Finally, if materialism is true, then you would be delusional to find meaning in your life since life has no meaning.

[Strange]

Finally, if materialism is true, then you would be delusional to find meaning in your life since life has no meaning.

 

Nonsense. Even if materialism is true we can create meaning.

 

That is the same silly argument that says computers or brains cannot be intelligent because they are machines.

[MattMVS7]

But there are things in science that do have objective meaning. For example, the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun is a scientific fact and you would, therefore, be delusional to think otherwise. Same thing with creating our own meanings in life if materialism is true and that life really has no meaning.

[Strange]

if materialism is true and that life really has no meaning.

 

But that isn't what materialism says. You are inventing that to suit your won purposes.

[MattMVS7]

 

But that isn't what materialism says. You are inventing that to suit your won purposes.

 

Or whatever scientific belief that says this which I think is scientism.

[Strange]

 

Or whatever scientific belief that says this which I think is scientism.

 

No "scientific belief" (whatever that means) says that.

 

You may be thinking of nihilism (which obviously has nothing to do with science).

[tar]

MattMVS7,

 

Niether am I trained for this, and sorry am I also that your pleasure centers are not operational.

 

But I have a question. Did you, or do you have any comment on the 100 things that make you feel good.

 

That is, do you differenciate between a pleasing sound and an irritating one?

Can you tell the difference between a beautiful sunny day and a cold and stormy one. Do you prefer one over the other? Is there a smell you would like to smell again and take a deep breath of, and another that makes your nose curl up and close up? Would you rather be right then wrong? Would you rather get the joke than remain clueless. Would you rather win an argument than lose one? Would you rather pet a kitten or a pocupine? Would you rather have someone softly run their fingers through your hair, or hit you in the head with a frying pan?

 

I ask these questions because the things that most people with working pleasure centers would characterise as good are pleasurable, nice helpful and pleasing things, and those things that one tries to repeat and organize ones life toward achieving. Food and clothing and shelter from the storm and the claws of predators classically are good things. They satisfy survival stategies and it would be no surprise to learn that we seek the reward that "good" things bring. Perhaps you lack the endorphines and reward chemicals that others possess. But you probably understand why someone would feel comfort and wellbeing more from a gentle hug than a punch in the nose.

 

In this, even though you do not have the chemical reward, you still have the sense and memory enough to put yourself in someone elses shoes and imagine why they would rather see the puppy suckle its mother than search in vain for a mother that has been killed. You "know" which is good and which is bad. You don't need the reward chemical to know which situation would have provided it for you, should you have a working chemical factory in your brain.

 

The neutrality that you are proposing is not an easy thing for the rest of us, who have feel good chemicals, as well as feel bad chemicals, and therefore the lack of the feel bad, which is good, and the lack of the feel good, which is bad, to guide our thinking, learning, feelings and activities.

 

I do not know anything about your condition, and am just speculating that there is a chemical deficiency or malfunction of some sort, but your thesis is fully guided by the missing component. If you would have the component that you are missing, you would feel complete. Which sounds entirely sensible. And to this you thesis is correct. That is that pleasure is a guiding component to life. It would be sensible to forward a theory that if surviving made us feel bad, we wouldn't do it. However the correlary would be that if surviving was a rewarding experience, we would do it every chance we got.

 

Since your thesis, and my current one, that evolution has created a set of reward chemicals that reward positive activities (ones promoting life and survival) and a set of punishment chemicals that cause us to avoid destructive anti survival activies, say the same thing, one could do the right thing, the good thing, the pleasant and constructive thing, based on intellect alone, even without the chemical that would reward and verify the action.

 

Regards, TAR

[Strange]

Finally, if materialism is true, then you would be delusional to find meaning in your life since life has no meaning.

 

Your own argument contradicts this: You say that pleasure defines what is good. But pleasure is purely a mechanistic result of chemical interactions. Therefore, materialism creates pleasure, which defines good, which gives meaning to life.

 

If you want to be a nihilist, then be a nihilist. Don't try and find false justifications in science.

[MattMVS7]

 

Your own argument contradicts this: You say that pleasure defines what is good. But pleasure is purely a mechanistic result of chemical interactions. Therefore, materialism creates pleasure, which defines good, which gives meaning to life.

 

If you want to be a nihilist, then be a nihilist. Don't try and find false justifications in science.

 

It doesn't give meaning to life. It just simply says here that pleasure is good in of itself and that is it.

 

Now I am going to add another important thing here:

So for you to believe that any personal meaning you create in life holds true for you and holds true for your own personal life would be no different than saying that "I know that it's a scientific fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. But I don't have to believe that it holds true for me as a person nor that it holds true for me in my own personal life and that I can create any personal meaning I want and instead believe that meaning holds true for me and holds true for my own personal life. I can believe anything I want such as that the Earth is flat and is the center of the universe and that words don't have to mean what they mean or that scientific facts have to be what they are. I can say that the color blue is actually the color black, that hot is cold, etc. and this will hold true for me and my own personal life while in actual reality itself it doesn't hold true at all. And even if these personal meanings don't hold true at all for me and in my own personal life, I can still have them anyway in my life and live by them anyway."

So as you can see here, this would be nonsense since it is a scientific fact that life has no meaning and that we are also a bunch of meaningless atoms and particles. This is no different than the mindset of a religious person who has a delusional belief in a God and the supernatural. Therefore, it's not just religious people and delusional people who are the only ones delusional. Even atheists, highly intelligent people, and scientists themselves can be delusional here. Sure, you can still live by those personal meanings you have created in life despite knowing that they are not true since this universe does not tell us how we should think, but it would all still be nonsense anyway. I don't even care about the fact that if we didn't have any created personal meanings in life, that we would all be dead since we would all just be sitting there and not finding any reason to get up and eat, socialize, or do any other activities. We would all still be living nonsensical and delusional lives anyway for being human and living our personal lives and making the best of this life regardless of the fact that this is in our evolutionary design to do so and that this is how evolution designed us. It's only if this life had an objective meaning through there being a God and an afterlife of eternal joy would we find reason to live our lives and find that meaning in our lives.

Now if you are going to ask something such as that "To be is not to be? To be is not the way to be?" what I would have to say to that would be that there is no "way" in the first place since even that quoted word is a personal meaning. Also, to say that concepts such as value, worth, and beauty do exist in this universe, but are not things that are scientific and can't be defined by science and, therefore, you are free to live by them and not view them as being delusional since they are separate from this universe and are not a part of this meaningless universe and can't be defined by this meaningless universe, this would be false. These concepts are created by the meaningless atoms and particles in our brains that come up with these concepts in the first place (so these might be measurable concepts in the future through advanced neurological technology that can measure the amount of value, worth, and beauty in this person's mind by measuring the amount of activity of those atoms and particles that have created these concepts in this person's mind). Therefore, these concepts ARE the functioning of those atoms and particles that have created them in our brains and are, therefore, meaningless as well and to view them as being true for yourself and true for your personal life would be delusional nonsense.

How we come to the conclusion (the scientific fact) that this universe is meaningless is through scientific evidence. Therefore, you might be thinking that since there is also scientific evidence for created personal meanings being accomplished as something meaningful in life, in helping ourselves and others, doing great things in life, keeping us alive, etc. that this would somehow mean that these created meanings are not delusional nonsense. But this would be false. This entire universe and everything in it is all meaningless and the meaningless of all these things is what defines even our own personal created meanings in life. The scientific fact of this universe being meaningless tells us that our created meanings are false just like how the scientific fact of the Earth revolving around the sun tells us that we would be false to have created personal meanings that say things such as that the Earth is the center of the universe and that the sun revolves around the Earth instead.

Edited November 12, 2014 by MattMVS7

[Strange]

So for you to believe that any personal meaning you create in life holds true for you and holds true for your own personal life would be no different than saying that "I know that it's a scientific fact that the Earth revolves around the sun.

 

Nonsense.

[MattMVS7]

 

Nonsense.

 

The scientific fact of this universe being meaningless tells us that our created meanings are false just like how the scientific fact of the Earth revolving around the sun tells us that we would be false to have created personal meanings that say things such as that the Earth is the center of the universe and that the sun revolves around the Earth instead.

[Strange]

The scientific fact of this universe being meaningless tells us that our created meanings are false

 

Of course it doesn't. You might as well say that Newton's law of gravitation explains why I don't like garlic.

 

As you clearly don't have anything sensible to say, I will take no further part in this.