Which one of the following neutrality would you consider the better one to exist:

 

Nothing

 

or something and the opposite of that something

 

 

for e.g.

 

nothing

 

or matter & anti-matter

 

or if you may

 

neutral emotions

 

or joy & sorrow

 

In my opinion joy & sorrow is better because it may hold some downsides with the sorrow but its worth it because any sorrow will just empathize joy. What do y'all think?

Which one of the following neutrality would you consider the better one to exist:

 

Nothing

 

or something and the opposite of that something

 

 

for e.g.

 

nothing

 

or matter & anti-matter

 

or if you may

 

neutral emotions

 

or joy & sorrow

 

In my opinion joy & sorrow is better because it may hold some downsides with the sorrow but its worth it because any sorrow will just empathize joy. What do y'all think?

Why can't you have it all?

Why can't you have it all?

 

touché. good point, of course you could if you wanted but I was just posting if you had to choose.

touché. good point, of course you could if you wanted but I was just posting if you had to choose.

You can't, actually. Contrary to Nietzsche, it is impossible to transcend good and evil. Joy and sorrow are going to be experienced in one form or another. Neutrality is a secondary emotion. You can be neutral about being happy, sad, or neutral but you can't totally replace happiness and sadness with neutrality. If you did, you would be either happy or sad about just being neutral, I think. Of course, this is my opinion based on personal introspection. Maybe someone else will post that they're completely neutral about being neutral and they experience no other feelings at all in any way. I would suspect them of lying or repressing true emotions, though.