Merged My Philosophy of Life

[bruto]

In fact, I have recommended several Stoic books, including the Enchiridion, on page 12.

Sorry, must have missed that. Good.

 

[calebprime]

Good answers.

I'll think about this some more, and read some more of your text.

The basic answer to your "Why" question, I think, is that I find happiness in excited states of mind rather than contented ones.

Contentment tends to feel sort of dead and sad to me.

Omne animal post coitum triste, as my homies say.

The conventional wisdom -- who knows, maybe the only wisdom -- is that as we age, the happiness of contentment replaces the happiness of excitement.

By excitement, I don't mean: Strobe lights, or snorting cocaine off the snout of an alligator, or power*, or even danger. Nor Nazis in stylish polished leather boots.

(Although, who knows, I wouldn't rule that stuff out for others, only me.)

I mean the excitement of the mind working at its peak, or ecstatic self-forgetting in the presence of art.

A sorta Schopenhauerian, Nietzschian kinda thing.

More later.

============

* here meaning political, personal, monetary, or physical power

 

[Philosofer123]

The basic answer to your "Why" question, I think, is that I find happiness in excited states of mind rather than contented ones.

Contentment tends to feel sort of dead and sad to me.

If you feel dead and sad, then you are not really content.

That said, to go beyond contentment sometimes involves excited states of mind, such as joy.

So, in my view, both contentment and certain exited states of mind (such as joy) count as happiness.

 

[Akri]

Akri, thank you for a very thoughtful critique of parts of my philosophy.

You're welcome

If I did not include retaining one's mental faculties in the definition of peace of mind, then one could achieve peace of mind (now simply defined as the absence of significant negative emotions) by, for example, knocking oneself unconscious.

You say that as if knocking ones' self unconscious is necessarily a bad thing, yet I don't see anything in your philosophy (which I admit to not having read all of, so I may have missed a relevant bit) that would make losing ones' mental faculties a bad thing. You've declared it bad here, but it seems to me that you haven't actually explored why it should be bad in order to work that reasoning into your philosophy.

Also, many of the psychological methods in the document for maintaining peace of mind require a certain level of cognitive functioning to be effective.

But if the ultimate goal is peace of mind, and a person can achieve that piece of mind via the loss of their mental faculties, then what does it matter if they are unable to use some of the methods you suggest?

Finally, generating positive emotions by reflecting on the fact that one is not currently experiencing negative emotions (see near top of page 6) requires a certain level of self-awareness and self-reflection.

You defined peace of mind as simply the absence of significant negative emotion. The ability to ponder this lack of negative emotions never entered into it.

In my view, peace of mind is both necessary and sufficient for contentment. I felt that some argument was required to establish this non-obvious conclusion, which is why I spent time on formulating those arguments.

This does not answer my question at all. The question was "how are peace of mind and contentment different?"

I know that contentment can be lasting because I myself have maintained a state of contentment for long stretches of time. I am not aware of anyone who is in a continual state of joy or bliss, and I believe that it is generally accepted in the psychology community that such strong positive emotions are temporary in nature.

Alright. But why does it matter that other emotions are more temporary than contentment? Does something bad happen if I constantly aspire to be happy, but spend most of the time being content with only brief spikes of more positive emotions?

One may still vow to act a certain way--and carry out one's vows--in the absence of ultimate responsibility. Please note that I do not deny that we have compatibilist free will.

Alright then.

Interesting point, but it does not counter my claim that emotional detachment promotes peace of mind.

That's because I wasn't trying to counter that claim. I was trying to point out that, to me, the loss of emotional attachment is not in any way worth the peace of mind gained.

Additionally, I'm not sure that true emotional detachment grants peace of mind. That's something I would associate with mental illness (both because some mental illnesses can cause that state, and because some people with mental illness will seek out that state as a coping mechanism), rather than with a healthy state of mind.

I agree that there is a tension between emotional detachment and cultivating true friendships. But that does not counter my claims that each of these methods individually promote peace of mind.

So you're simply offering each of those as ways to achieve the end goal, and not saying that both should be done?

 

[Philosofer123]

Akri, thanks again for your thoughtful feedback. I appreciate your continued engagement with my philosophy.

You say that as if knocking ones' self unconscious is necessarily a bad thing, yet I don't see anything in your philosophy (which I admit to not having read all of, so I may have missed a relevant bit) that would make losing ones' mental faculties a bad thing. You've declared it bad here, but it seems to me that you haven't actually explored why it should be bad in order to work that reasoning into your philosophy.

Recall that happiness is the ultimate goal (for reasons provided in the document), and that peace of mind is just the most effective way of which I am aware to achieve that goal. And one cannot be unconscious and happy at the same time. Therefore, knocking oneself unconscious (to achieve peace of mind) would thwart the ultimate goal for which one is striving (happiness).

But if the ultimate goal is peace of mind, and a person can achieve that piece of mind via the loss of their mental faculties, then what does it matter if they are unable to use some of the methods you suggest?

Good point (though remember that the ultimate goal is happiness, not peace of mind). I would just note that in practice, one would not be able to know that one will achieve happiness via the loss of one's mental faculties. And since losing one's mental faculties would preclude a number of methods to maintain peace of mind (and through this, to maintain happiness), the ex ante tradeoff in practice would not be worth it.

You defined peace of mind as simply the absence of significant negative emotion. The ability to ponder this lack of negative emotions never entered into it.

Again, the ultimate goal is happiness. By losing one's mental faculties, one may lose the ability to self-reflect on one's lack of negative emotions (and to be happier as a result).

This does not answer my question at all. The question was "how are peace of mind and contentment different?"

Peace of mind is the absence of significant negative emotions, and contentment is being satisfied with one's situation. My arguments show that peace of mind is both necessary and sufficient for contentment, which is a non-obvious conclusion.

Alright. But why does it matter that other emotions are more temporary than contentment? Does something bad happen if I constantly aspire to be happy, but spend most of the time being content with only brief spikes of more positive emotions?

Nothing bad happens in that situation. But that does not refute anything in my philosophy.

That's because I wasn't trying to counter that claim. I was trying to point out that, to me, the loss of emotional attachment is not in any way worth the peace of mind gained.

You appear to be saying that the loss of emotional attachment would result in fewer positive emotions, which would be worth more to you than the negative emotions that would be eliminated from the loss of emotional attachment. But if one has peace of mind, then one is content and therefore does not feel the need or desire for positive emotions. By contrast, with emotional attachment, one may not be content for much of the time due to the negative emotions associated with emotional attachment.

Additionally, I'm not sure that true emotional detachment grants peace of mind. That's something I would associate with mental illness (both because some mental illnesses can cause that state, and because some people with mental illness will seek out that state as a coping mechanism), rather than with a healthy state of mind.

Remember that peace of mind is defined simply as the absence of significant negative emotions. Almost by definition, emotional dettachment would reduce or eliminate certain types of negative emotions. If you are arguing that emotional detachment would cause other types of negative emotions, then please elaborate. Merely "associating" emotional detachment with mental illness does not show anything.

So you're simply offering each of those as ways to achieve the end goal, and not saying that both should be done?

Almost. I am saying that each of those promotes peace of mind. What I do not explicitly say is that in some cases, one must choose between them, and I do not provide explicit advice on how to choose. I would examine each case of potential good friendships, try to determine how beneficial each potential friendship is expected to be, and allow emotional attachment when the expected benefits of the potential friendship outweigh the expected costs of emotional attachment. Perhaps easier said than done, but I believe that this is the best way to go about it.

Again, thank you for your detailed comments and searching questions. Please feel free to critique other parts of my philosophy as well.

 

[Akri]

Recall that happiness is the ultimate goal (for reasons provided in the document), and that peace of mind is just the most effective way of which I am aware to achieve that goal. And one cannot be unconscious and happy at the same time. Therefore, knocking oneself unconscious (to achieve peace of mind) would thwart the ultimate goal for which one is striving (happiness).

Alright. What about being on drugs? Drugs impede ones' mental faculties, but they can make the user happy.

Nothing bad happens in that situation. But that does not refute anything in my philosophy.

You said we should aspire to peace of mind rather than more positive emotions. But if nothing bad comes from aspiring to the positive emotions then why not do so? Isn't happiness the ultimate goal?

You appear to be saying that the loss of emotional attachment would result in fewer positive emotions, which would be worth more to you than the negative emotions that would be eliminated from the loss of emotional attachment. But if one has peace of mind, then one is content and therefore does not feel the need or desire for positive emotions.

Assuming that one can achieve peace of mind through emotional detachment. I don't accept this assumption to be universally true. It certainly isn't true for the people I know with dissociative disorders.

Remember that peace of mind is defined simply as the absence of significant negative emotions. Almost by definition, emotional dettachment would reduce or eliminate certain types of negative emotions. If you are arguing that emotional detachment would cause other types of negative emotions, then please elaborate. Merely "associating" emotional detachment with mental illness does not show anything.

Research dissociative disorders. Or look up the studies done on how the lack of emotions impedes even simple decision-making (without being emotionally attached to either outcome people are unable to make choices). Or talk to someone who has severe clinical depression (after a certain point with depression you stop caring about anything).

 

[Philosofer123]

Alright. What about being on drugs? Drugs impede ones' mental faculties, but they can make the user happy.

As I am sure you know, getting hooked on drugs has a number of negative consequences that can disturb one's mind. However, hypothetically speaking, if a "wonder drug" existed that makes one happy and has no adverse side effects (including addiction or any side effect that would harm those for whom I have empathy), then I would have no problem with it. But remember my claim: aiming for peace of mind is the most effective way of which I am aware to achieve and maintain happiness. I am not aware of any wonder drugs.

You said we should aspire to peace of mind rather than more positive emotions. But if nothing bad comes from aspiring to the positive emotions then why not do so? Isn't happiness the ultimate goal?

I said that aspiring to peace of mind is the most effective way of which I am aware to achieve and maintain happiness. At the same time, I note that positive emotions can make one feel even better, and that prudence and moderation are the keys to enjoying them. But "aspiring" to feel positive emotions all the time is an unrealistic goal, and one is a recipe for disappointment. Also, "aspiring" to feel positive emotions all the time may result in bad decisions (such as taking drugs) that will produce positive emotions in the short term, but may disturb one's mind in the longer term.

Assuming that one can achieve peace of mind through emotional detachment. I don't accept this assumption to be universally true. It certainly isn't true for the people I know with dissociative disorders.

I see no reason why one cannot achieve peace of mind through emotional detachment. To frame it as a question, what negative emotion does emotional detachment necessarily cause?

Research dissociative disorders. Or look up the studies done on how the lack of emotions impedes even simple decision-making (without being emotionally attached to either outcome people are unable to make choices). Or talk to someone who has severe clinical depression (after a certain point with depression you stop caring about anything).

Dissociative disorders and depression in involve other negative states of mind that are not related to emotional detachment. And emotional detachment is not the same as "lack of emotions". My philosophy allows for positive emotions.

 

[Akri]

As I am sure you know, getting hooked on drugs has a number of negative consequences that can disturb one's mind.

Yes. But while you're on the drug you're happy and don't care about the negative effects. When the drug wears off you take more. Near-constant happiness without caring about the negative side affects. Which means near-constant peace of mind as well. If your ultimate goal is simply to be happy then there's no reason to object to this way of doing things. In fact this may be the best way to achieve happiness.

After all, happiness is simply your brain releasing certain chemicals that make you feel good. Since your goal is simply the releasing of these chemicals drugs is a pretty good way to go about it.

I see no reason why one cannot achieve peace of mind through emotional detachment. To frame it as a question, what negative emotion does emotional detachment necessarily cause?

It causes the lack of emotions, which is in no way the same as peace of mind, and it certainly does not lead to happiness.

Dissociative disorders and depression in involve other negative states of mind that are not related to emotional detachment. And emotional detachment is not the same as "lack of emotions". My philosophy allows for positive emotions.

How will you experience positive emotions if you are emotionally detached? Where will these positive emotions come from? What will trigger them? You're not going to use drugs, so what will you use? You won't derive happiness from friends, family, or pets, because you have no emotional attachment to any of them.

And dissociative disorders cause emotional detachment, which is very distressing for the sufferers. If you think that the emotional detachment aspects of dissociative disorders and depression have nothing to do with why those conditions are problematic then you clearly haven't done any research on the topic.

 

[Dinwar]

You appear to be looking at this from the perspective of "What can I remove from life to make it better?" Let's spin that around: Let's say you were a human conciousness in an oyster that experienced constant, never-ending orgasm. Oysters have no real choices in life--they are non-cephalized benthic, sessile filter feeders. Would you consider that a good life? If not, why not?

 

[Philosofer123]

Yes. But while you're on the drug you're happy and don't care about the negative effects. When the drug wears off you take more. Near-constant happiness without caring about the negative side affects. Which means near-constant peace of mind as well. If your ultimate goal is simply to be happy then there's no reason to object to this way of doing things. In fact this may be the best way to achieve happiness.

After all, happiness is simply your brain releasing certain chemicals that make you feel good. Since your goal is simply the releasing of these chemicals drugs is a pretty good way to go about it.

In practice, this does not work. Most drug addicts experience severe and chronic negative emotions, for a variety of reasons related to their drug addiction and the problems it causes.

It causes the lack of emotions, which is in no way the same as peace of mind, and it certainly does not lead to happiness.

How will you experience positive emotions if you are emotionally detached? Where will these positive emotions come from? What will trigger them? You're not going to use drugs, so what will you use? You won't derive happiness from friends, family, or pets, because you have no emotional attachment to any of them.

Again, emotional detachment is not equivalent to the lack of emotions, and it does not cause a complete lack of emotions. I can be emotionally detached and still enjoy such positive emotions as gratitude (simply feeling fortunate that I am alive and well), amusement, wonder, and serenity, among others.

And dissociative disorders cause emotional detachment, which is very distressing for the sufferers. If you think that the emotional detachment aspects of dissociative disorders and depression have nothing to do with why those conditions are problematic then you clearly haven't done any research on the topic.

Then perhaps you can enlighten me and explain why emotional detachment itself--as opposed to dissociative disorders or depression--is "distressing", as you claim. Keep in mind that one does not have to suffer from a dissociative disorder or depression to cultivate emotional detachment.

 

[Philosofer123]

You appear to be looking at this from the perspective of "What can I remove from life to make it better?" Let's spin that around: Let's say you were a human conciousness in an oyster that experienced constant, never-ending orgasm. Oysters have no real choices in life--they are non-cephalized benthic, sessile filter feeders. Would you consider that a good life? If not, why not?

Yes. And if you disagree, please explain.

But let me add that I would not choose to become a joyful-human-consciousness-in-an-oyster, solely because this would likely harm those for whom I have empathy, including family and close friends. Facing such a choice would constitute one of those extreme hypothetical situations (such as Nozick's Experience Machine) where empathetic feelings would not be adequately incorporated into one's state of mind.

 

[Akri]

Again, emotional detachment is not equivalent to the lack of emotions, and it does not cause a complete lack of emotions. I can be emotionally detached and still enjoy such positive emotions as gratitude (simply feeling fortunate that I am alive and well), amusement, wonder, and serenity, among others.

Why would you feel fortunate that you're alive and well if you're not emotionally attached to your life? Actually why would you want to be alive at all if you're emotionally detached? Why would you care?

Also, I find it interesting that you didn't list happiness among the amotions you expect to achieve while emotionally detached, and instead relegate it to the "among others" section. I would think that your ultimate goal would make the start of the list, or at least be worth mentioning explicitly. Especially since I specifically challenged the notion that you could be happy without any emotional attachment to things from which you could derive such happiness.

Then perhaps you can enlighten me and explain why emotional detachment itself--as opposed to dissociative disorders or depression--is "distressing", as you claim.

Because human beings need emotion to function properly. Emotional attachment is an important part of how we make decisions and interact socially. Being emotionally detached doesn't simply mean that you don't feel negative emotions, it means you don't care about anything because caring is a type of attachment. And if you don't care about anything you can't function properly, because that kind of emotional attachment is a necessary part of human decision-making. But even if you could make proper decisions you wouldn't want to, because emotional detachment means you don't care if you're making proper decisions.

 

[Philosofer123]

Why would you feel fortunate that you're alive and well if you're not emotionally attached to your life? Actually why would you want to be alive at all if you're emotionally detached? Why would you care?

I would care to be alive because I care about being happy. Emotional detachment, in the context of the document, refers primarily to detachment from other people. It does not preclude caring about being happy (which is virtually unavoidable due to our psychological constitution), and related to this, it does not preclude the enjoyment of simply being alive and well. In fact, it supports the enjoyment of life by eliminating a number of negative emotions. And as I point out in the document, one may take pleasure in the fact that one is not currently experiencing significant negative emotions.

Also, I find it interesting that you didn't list happiness among the amotions you expect to achieve while emotionally detached, and instead relegate it to the "among others" section. I would think that your ultimate goal would make the start of the list, or at least be worth mentioning explicitly. Especially since I specifically challenged the notion that you could be happy without any emotional attachment to things from which you could derive such happiness.

Recall that I define happiness as any of a spectrum of agreeable mental states ranging from contentment to intense joy. Happiness is not an emotion itself; it is a range of emotions that includes the positive emotions that I listed.

Because human beings need emotion to function properly. Emotional attachment is an important part of how we make decisions and interact socially. Being emotionally detached doesn't simply mean that you don't feel negative emotions, it means you don't care about anything because caring is a type of attachment. And if you don't care about anything you can't function properly, because that kind of emotional attachment is a necessary part of human decision-making. But even if you could make proper decisions you wouldn't want to, because emotional detachment means you don't care if you're making proper decisions.

Again, emotional detachment is not the total lack of emotion. Nor does it mean that one does not care about anything. Our psychological constitution is such that just about everyone cares about being happy. And emotional detachment does not preclude happiness, as shown by the list of positive emotions that I previously listed that are consistent with emotional detachment. Therefore, one who is emotionally detached may still be effective at making decisions that promote one's happiness.

 

[Akri]

I would care to be alive because I care about being happy. Emotional detachment, in the context of the document, refers primarily to detachment from other people.

You want to be detached from other people, but you also want to have some people you care about. Correct?

If that's the case then you're using an overly-dramatic (and misleading) phrase to refer to normal human interactions. Not caring about every single person you ever cross paths with isn't "emotional detachment" anymore than not liking every single food you encounter is "food detachment".

And as I point out in the document, one may take pleasure in the fact that one is not currently experiencing significant negative emotions.

I'm not sure that the simple absence of negative emotions is enough to cause pleasure. In order to feel pleasure at the lack of negative emotions you need to be actively aware of their absence. So if you've been experiencing a lot of negative emotions then you may be very pleased when you're no longer experiencing them, but if a lack of negative emotions is the default then you'll stop thinking about it.

After all, how often do you stop and think to yourself "man, it feels so great to not have a bullet wound in my chest"? For a less ridiculous example, do you constantly pause to enjoy the fact that your clothes don't itch? Obviously if you were just wearing itchy clothes then changing to something comfortable will bring great pleasure, but if you haven't worn itchy clothes in over a month then you may not even think about the experience unless something directly draws your attention to it.

In fact, it supports the enjoyment of life by eliminating a number of negative emotions.

Which ones?

And does eliminating negative emotions actually support enjoyment of life? There are certainly some enjoyments that can't happen without negative emotions. I feel a great rush of pleasure when I overcome a challenge that had been frustrating me before. And negative emotions can be great motivators in the right context (the founders of Child's Play Charities were initially motivated by their anger at the media for portraying gamers in such a negative light).

Again, emotional detachment is not the total lack of emotion. Nor does it mean that one does not care about anything.

You cannot care about something that you are emotionally detached from. Caring is an emotion directed toward something, and to be emotionally detached from that thing you can't have any emotions toward it. So you cannot care about the things which you are emotionally detached from.

 

[ufology]

Over the past few years, I have formulated my philosophy of life, a 13-page Google Doc ... I welcome any constructive criticism that you may have.

Interesting. I have a brief comment on Free will impossibilism. There is more than one way to look at this issue, but if we consider free will to be the ability to make a conscious decision, then logic and measurable evidence suggest that free will is an illusion ( though a very convincing one ). The reasoning is that thoughts require the combined effort of many neural connections, but before millions of connections can be established, someplace the first connection must be made, followed by the next and the next and the next in rapid succession, sometimes so fast they may seem synchronous ( but there is no definitive evidence for that that I'm aware of ). So by the time a thought emerges from the brain into consciousness, it's already fully formed, so you literally don't know with 100% certainty exactly what you may or may not decide next. Recent studies with brain scans have proven this by being able to correctly predict what answer a participant will give before they are aware that they will make that choice. So if choices are made before we're aware of them, then how does that count as what we commonly think of free will?

 

[JoeMorgue]

While living two miles away from the family home.

Yeah people often forget (or conveniently ignore) the fact that at least Thoreau had the good sense to only pretend to get away from it all.

As to the broader question of the OP if you are assigning a "philosophy" to your life you are almost certainly making it more complicated then it needs to be. Get enough sleep, eat healthy foods, take at least one good dump a day. Once that is taken care of trying to reduce the suffering of conscience creatures and try to learn at least one new thing about the world a day.

Everything else is just a metaphor.

 

[Dinwar]

Yes. And if you disagree, please explain.

We aren't discussing my philosophy of life. If you're unwilling to discuss yours, why bother with this thread?

To answer your question, no, I would not consider it a good life. I have specific goals I want to accomplish in my life, and I can't do that as an orgasmic oyster.

But let me add that I would not choose to become a joyful-human-consciousness-in-an-oyster, solely because this would likely harm those for whom I have empathy, including family and close friends. Facing such a choice would constitute one of those extreme hypothetical situations (such as Nozick's Experience Machine) where empathetic feelings would not be adequately incorporated into one's state of mind.

Okay. So the only thing keeping you from becoming an orgasmic oyster is your "empathy" (however you define it) towards family and close friends, the latter of which you chose. This means that what's preventing you from living a life of pure bliss is your obligations to others. They are holding you back.

More seriously (not that the above isn't a serious criticism, but it's a criticism of your wordig not your meaning), it's your assumptions about harming those around you that prevents you from taking the path you deem to be a worthy end. It's what you think they think. Note that you talk about empathy, NOT knowledge of their opinions. You talk about feelings, not data.

You've also set empathy up as the critical aspect of morality. There are a number of assumptions inherent in such a set-up, not the least of which is the idea that emotions are dominant over rationality--which contradicts your whole anti-emotion stance.

And as I point out in the document, one may take pleasure in the fact that one is not currently experiencing significant negative emotions.

Pleasure is the absence of pain?

You cannot care about something that you are emotionally detached from. Caring is an emotion directed toward something, and to be emotionally detached from that thing you can't have any emotions toward it. So you cannot care about the things which you are emotionally detached from.

I want to emphasize this point. I once thought as you do, Philosofer123. It is a VERY serious error--a potentially deadly one, and I mean that quite literally. Emotions and emotional attachment are CRITICAL to life. Human life requires action, and actions require choices. Studies of dissociative disorder clearly show that emotions are vital to making choices, and my own experiences bear this out. When I could shut emotions down entirely, I couldn't decide on anything. I was very obedient, but not very involved. A person without emotions (or is "emotionally detached" or whatever euphamism for this state that you wish to use)--speaking from personal experience--is essentially a robot made of meat. They suck at being a human, because they've abandoned one of the things that makes us human; they suck at being a robot because meat is fragile.

It seems to me that your entire philosophy is nothing more than a defense mechanism against what you consider negative emotions. The fact that you equate pleasure with the absence of pain is a very good indication of that. The thing is, such a view is false. Pleasure is every bit as real as pain, and every bit as rational (which is to say, some is, some isn't). The trick isn't to cut yourself off from them, or to dissociate yourself from emotions--the trick is to figure out why you experience negative emotions and to fix those problems, while at the same time seeking out positive ones. And no, I don't expect you to believe me, not in one conversation. It took me a decade to work through that error. I'm giving you my answer; unfortunately, you have to work out the details yourself I've found.

As to the broader question of the OP if you are assigning a "philosophy" to your life you are almost certainly making it more complicated then it needs to be.

The fact that someone can make such a statement on an ostensibly educational forum and expect to be taken seriously is quite a damning commentary on Western civilization. What you're saying is that we shouldn't engage in introspection, that we shouldn't try to figure out why we do what we do and what to do moving forward. The whole of our culture is built on people who quite emphatically disagree with you.

 

[Philosofer123]

You want to be detached from other people, but you also want to have some people you care about. Correct?

There is nothing in my philosophy that implies that I "want to have some people I care about". Good friendships promote peace of mind, but not because I care about my friends--that's just a side effect.

If that's the case then you're using an overly-dramatic (and misleading) phrase to refer to normal human interactions. Not caring about every single person you ever cross paths with isn't "emotional detachment" anymore than not liking every single food you encounter is "food detachment".

There is nothing overly dramatic or misleading. What I mean by emotional detachment--detachment from other people--should be clear in the context of the document:

"Cultivating self-sufficiency and emotional detachment promotes peace of mind. Dependence on others (whether it be emotional, psychological, financial, physical or otherwise) makes one vulnerable to a variety of circumstances that can disturb one’s mind."

I'm not sure that the simple absence of negative emotions is enough to cause pleasure. In order to feel pleasure at the lack of negative emotions you need to be actively aware of their absence. So if you've been experiencing a lot of negative emotions then you may be very pleased when you're no longer experiencing them, but if a lack of negative emotions is the default then you'll stop thinking about it.

After all, how often do you stop and think to yourself "man, it feels so great to not have a bullet wound in my chest"? For a less ridiculous example, do you constantly pause to enjoy the fact that your clothes don't itch? Obviously if you were just wearing itchy clothes then changing to something comfortable will bring great pleasure, but if you haven't worn itchy clothes in over a month then you may not even think about the experience unless something directly draws your attention to it.

I did not say that the simple absence of negative emotions causes pleasure. As you point out, one needs to be actively aware of their absence, and there is nothing stopping me from being actively aware of their absence for the rest of my life. I can always remember negative emotions that I felt as a child, and feel fortunate that I am not experiencing those emotions now.

Which ones?

Grief, empathetic suffering, anxiety and fear related to things that have happened or may happen to those about whom you care.

And does eliminating negative emotions actually support enjoyment of life? There are certainly some enjoyments that can't happen without negative emotions. I feel a great rush of pleasure when I overcome a challenge that had been frustrating me before. And negative emotions can be great motivators in the right context (the founders of Child's Play Charities were initially motivated by their anger at the media for portraying gamers in such a negative light).

Eliminating negative emotions may also eliminate certain types of positive emotions. But as I point out in the document, once one does not suffer from significant negative emotions, one does not feel the need or desire to feel positive emotions.

While negative emotions may increase motivation, one does not need negative emotions in order to be motivated.

You cannot care about something that you are emotionally detached from. Caring is an emotion directed toward something, and to be emotionally detached from that thing you can't have any emotions toward it. So you cannot care about the things which you are emotionally detached from.

Agreed. But so what? This does not refute any of my points.

 

[Philosofer123]

We aren't discussing my philosophy of life. If you're unwilling to discuss yours, why bother with this thread?

I answered your question, and I am happy to discuss my philosophy.

To answer your question, no, I would not consider it a good life. I have specific goals I want to accomplish in my life, and I can't do that as an orgasmic oyster.

But then the question immediately arises: why do you want to accomplish your goals?

Okay. So the only thing keeping you from becoming an orgasmic oyster is your "empathy" (however you define it) towards family and close friends, the latter of which you chose. This means that what's preventing you from living a life of pure bliss is your obligations to others. They are holding you back.

I define "empathy" in the document. And it is not my "obligations to others" that is preventing me from living the oyster life, it is simply the fact that I empathize with them.

More seriously (not that the above isn't a serious criticism, but it's a criticism of your wordig not your meaning), it's your assumptions about harming those around you that prevents you from taking the path you deem to be a worthy end. It's what you think they think. Note that you talk about empathy, NOT knowledge of their opinions. You talk about feelings, not data.

You can never be certain what another person feels. But why is that relevant?

You've also set empathy up as the critical aspect of morality. There are a number of assumptions inherent in such a set-up, not the least of which is the idea that emotions are dominant over rationality--which contradicts your whole anti-emotion stance.

Remember that I am a moral skeptic, so I do not set anything up "as the critical aspect of morality". I never claim or assume that "emotions are dominant over rationality". And I do not have an "anti-emotion stance"--I simply strive to eliminate negative emotions.

Pleasure is the absence of pain?

No. All I am saying is that one can take pleasure in the realization and understanding that one is not suffering.

I want to emphasize this point. I once thought as you do, Philosofer123. It is a VERY serious error--a potentially deadly one, and I mean that quite literally. Emotions and emotional attachment are CRITICAL to life. Human life requires action, and actions require choices. Studies of dissociative disorder clearly show that emotions are vital to making choices, and my own experiences bear this out. When I could shut emotions down entirely, I couldn't decide on anything. I was very obedient, but not very involved. A person without emotions (or is "emotionally detached" or whatever euphamism for this state that you wish to use)--speaking from personal experience--is essentially a robot made of meat. They suck at being a human, because they've abandoned one of the things that makes us human; they suck at being a robot because meat is fragile.

You have not been reading this thread very carefully. I define emotional detachment as detachment from other people, not detachment from everything.

It seems to me that your entire philosophy is nothing more than a defense mechanism against what you consider negative emotions. The fact that you equate pleasure with the absence of pain is a very good indication of that. The thing is, such a view is false. Pleasure is every bit as real as pain, and every bit as rational (which is to say, some is, some isn't). The trick isn't to cut yourself off from them, or to dissociate yourself from emotions--the trick is to figure out why you experience negative emotions and to fix those problems, while at the same time seeking out positive ones. And no, I don't expect you to believe me, not in one conversation. It took me a decade to work through that error. I'm giving you my answer; unfortunately, you have to work out the details yourself I've found.

Again, I am not saying that "pleasure is the absence of pain" (see above). And I do not define emotional detachment as "dissociating myself from emotions" (see above).

On a personal note, I have been living my philosophy for a few years, and I consider myself to be a very happy person--despite having faced certain challenges and setbacks that would likely make most people unhappy. So I am a living counterexample to your bleak portrayal of what you believe would happen to someone following my philosophy.

 

[Dinwar]

On a personal note, I have been living my philosophy for a few years, and I consider myself to be a very happy person--despite having faced certain challenges and setbacks that would likely make most people unhappy. So I am a living counterexample to your bleak portrayal of what you believe would happen to someone following my philosophy.

So you don't actually want to discuss it. You've already got the answers, and want to preach. Got it. I'll not waste your time or mine any further.

ETA: The reason I'm saying that is that you played what you consider a trump card. Nothing anyone says is going to sway your opinion about this, because you've got what you consider sufficient evidence. Until and unless you are willing to accept that your evidence isn't complete--something that my experience suggests cannot come from outside--this conversation cannot be productive. Any time any of us presents an argument, you can simply say "But I'm living my philosophy and I'm happy." You're not looking for critiques if you find that argument sufficient. I'm not upset by this or anything, and don't mean to sound like I am--I merely am recognizing that this conversation isn't going to go anywhere, so there's no point in it.