My new religion: New Age Hedonism

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Experiment (Survey)

I will present to you the experiment (survey) to be performed that would support my theory of an objective good and bad. What I am trying to do here with this whole discussion is to establish an objective good and bad (our emotions). I am trying to somehow make this work. To do that, then that would require some support for my theory. This is my theory worth sharing and discussing regardless of your objections such as that this idea of mine is nonsense. Many ideas were deemed as nonsense at the time. But, sure enough, they ended up being true. I have had emotional trauma in my life and these were such horrible states of mind that they cannot possibly be a matter of my way of looking at them.

Words themselves cannot possibly hold such horrible power. It has to be the emotions themselves that hold the objectively beautiful power (positive emotions) and the objectively horrible power (negative emotions). As a side note, positive emotions would be euphoric states induced by the brain's biochemicals (serotonin, dopamine, oxytocin, and endorphins). They could be feelings of joy, intense love, or a feeling of relaxation. Negative emotions would be feelings of dysphoria such as feelings of anger, hopelessness, and despair.

But continuing on here and getting to the point, an experiment (survey) would support my theory. I will now present it to you:

If a person loved his own feeling of misery or hated a certain positive emotion he had, then he would be having a subjective positive thought in regards to an objectively negative (bad) emotion and he would be having a subjective negative thought in regards to an objectively positive (good) emotion. You can have subjective judgments in regards to objective things. You can judge your positive emotions (which are objective wanting and liking) as not being any form of wanting and liking. But said judgment would be false. Go ask as much people as you can as to whether they think that their positive emotions are an objective wanting and liking.

I bet they would tell you "no" and that they instead have their own personal wants and likes. If this survey were to be conducted and most people were to say "no," then this would clearly indicate that people are having false judgments in regards to their emotions. I said earlier that our positive emotions are an objective form of wanting and liking. There is a study on this that I will quote out to you right now:

We have found a special hedonic hotspot that is crucial for reward 'liking' and 'wanting' (and codes reward learning too). The opioid hedonic hotspot is shown in red above. It works together with another hedonic hotspot in the more famous nucleus accumbens to generate pleasure 'liking'.

‘Liking’ and ‘wanting’ food rewards: Brain substrates and roles in eating disorders

Kent C. Berridge 2009 Mar 29.

‘Liking’ and ‘wanting’ food rewards: Brain substrates and roles in eating disorders

It just really gets to me that people are not in touch with their emotions. They instead dismiss them. If so many people are going to say that their positive emotions are not any form of wanting and liking for them, then it is quite obvious to me that they are also denying the fact that they are the inner light to our lives as well. According to my logical argument, a positive thought (good value judgment) simply does not line up with a negative emotion and neither does a negative thought (bad value judgment) line up with a positive emotion. That is why subjective good value judgments have to reflect an objective good (our positive emotions) while a subjective bad value judgment would have to reflect an objective bad (our negative emotions). This survey might not prove my theory, but it would at least be a starting point.

Now, I know that many people won't take a liking to my spiritual analogy, but I am just going to use it anyway. If god existed, then his light would be sheer objective goodness. There are many people who would judge god as something horrible. Their judgments would be wrong. Even if they had the light of god flowing through their conscious being, they could still judge it as something bad due to their ignorance and lack of enlightenment to the real truth.

When I feel the most profoundly beautiful positive emotion from nature or from a song, then I can clearly tell that this is a form of beauty that goes beyond words (value judgments). It is NOT just my way of looking at these emotions and judging them as beautiful. That also applies to all the horrible misery and emotional trauma I've had as well. These were literally horrible states of mind. So, what I mean by an objective good and bad would not be a concept or idea such as that it is a bad thing to harm someone. Rather, I mean that good and bad are the actual emotions themselves. When you are in a positive emotional state such as feeling a profound joy from nature, then that state is literally sheer goodness itself. It's as though the light of god and all of its sheer objective goodness has engulfed your conscious being. Objective goodness would be the same thing as objective wanting and liking (our positive emotions). So, they would be synonymous.

Tones And Expressions

If you were to witness a baby or a child, then this child would display positive tones and expressions if he were to feel a positive emotion. Likewise, he would display negative tones and expressions if he felt a negative emotion such as anger or fear. He would display angry tones/expressions as well as fearful ones. However, there are a few exceptions since people can actually display negative tones/expressions when feeling a positive emotion and they can display positive ones when feeling a negative emotion. But the point I am trying to make here is that our brains are wired by default to respond to positive emotions with positive tones and expressions and to respond to negative emotions with negative tones and expressions. This means that there is some reflection going on here.

These positive tones and expressions would have to reflect the inherent positive nature of our positive emotions. The same applies to our negative emotions. This would also have to mean that positive thoughts reflect positive emotions and negative thoughts reflect negative emotions. It's no different than the objective wanting and liking (our positive emotions). People tend to respond to these emotions in wanting and liking ways. These wanting and liking expressions, thoughts, and tones reflect the inherent wanting and liking characteristics of our positive emotions. From here, it would follow that if people display thoughts, tones, and expressions that indicate their lives are good, beautiful, and worth living while having positive feelings of excitement or joy, that this would also reflect the inherent goodness and beauty of our positive emotions. The same rule applies to negative emotions.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Our positive emotions are an objective good and our negative emotions are an objective bad.

^ I'll leave this vapid bundle of fuzzy categories to those who wish to pretend that it's cognitively meaningful.

Note to Reader: This post is continued below!

^ an objective bad ...

 

[Terese]

But what makes you feel good can also be used for bad. An extreme version would be feeling good about oneself to an enormously egotistic degree, and disparaging those as worthless and not good as him.

 

[BSM1]

^ I'll leave this vapid bundle of fuzzy categories to those who wish to pretend that it's cognitively meaningful.

^ an objective bad ...

Good call...

 

[PureX]

I think the attached image pretty much says it all.

 

[idav]

But what makes you feel good can also be used for bad. An extreme version would be feeling good about oneself to an enormously egotistic degree, and disparaging those as worthless and not good as him.

OK, our president is also Commander and Chief you know.

7.) There is an objective form of wanting and liking. It would be our positive emotions. Here, I will quote it out to you:



It would follow from here that our positive emotions are an objective form of positive wanting and liking, our negative emotions being an objective form of negative unwanting, disliking, as well as wanting, while having neither positive nor negative emotions would be an objective form of neutral wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking.

This means that there is no subjective form of wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking since this would be the neutral form. It would be no different than saying that, since emotions come in two forms: positive and negative, then having neither positive nor negative emotions would be a neutral emotion. This neutral emotion would not be any real emotion at all.

Since emotions are the same thing as objective wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking, then the neutral emotion would, therefore, have to be no real form of wanting, liking, unwanting, or disliking. Without our emotions, then we could have thoughts of wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking just as how we can have thoughts of seeing things when we are blind, but that would not be any real form of wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking just as how that would not be any real form of sight either.

Here is just one more argument to support the idea that no subjective wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking exist. Those things are no different than saying that objects, situations, moments, etc. matter to you in positive or negative ways. Recall what I said earlier in premise #5. But since nothing can matter to us without our emotions, then there can't be any subjective wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking.

8.) To summarize all of my previous premises, since the objective form of wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking (our positive and negative emotions) allow us to experience the good and bad qualities of life, then it would have to be our subjective wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking that allow us to perceive the good and bad qualities of life.

A positive thought would allow us to experience an objective positivity (goodness) which would be our positive emotions while a negative thought would allow us to experience an objective negativity (badness) which would be our negative emotions. But since the subjective form does not exist, then we cannot perceive good or bad value in our lives in the absence of our emotions. Rather, it would instead be thoughts of wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking (i.e. good and bad value) that make us feel positive and negative emotions.

9.) Emotions are, therefore, objectively positive (good) and objectively negative (bad) just as how a charge can either be objectively positive or negative. Just consider our emotions to be the good and bad "charges" as opposed to simply positive and negative charges.

Therefore,

Conclusion: Our positive emotions are the only things that can allow us to see the good values in our lives, our negative emotions are the only things that can allow us to see the bad values in our lives, while having neither positive nor negative emotions wouldn't allow us to see any good or bad values in our lives at all. Therefore, the experience of good and bad values in our lives via our emotions is actually a higher and transcended perception of good and bad values in our lives while our value judgments alone (emotional viewpoint) does not give us any perception of good or bad values.

Our emotions would, therefore, be an objective source of experienced positivity (goodness) and negativity (badness). If you wanted to perceive the good values in your life despite feeling a negative emotion, then you would need to feel a positive emotion in despite of that negative one and vice versa. Also, if there was an item such as heroin which was nothing but bad and you felt a positive emotion from it, then you would be seeing it as something good even though it is bad. It would just be your own personal perception in regards to the heroin.

Lastly, let me add something else here to extend upon this logical argument. It is currently believed that we can still see the good and bad values in our lives even without any emotions. People act as though this is something that matters. For example, if you were getting high off of heroin and you thought that it was a bad thing since it would ruin and destroy your health in the long run, then seeing the bad value in that heroin would imply that this is something that matters to you. But without emotions, then nothing can matter to us. This means that if the heroin addict did not feel a negative emotion from thinking it is a bad thing, then it would not matter to him. As long as he is feeling a positive emotion, then things can only matter to him in positive ways since he cannot experience the bad value.

Therefore, it is a misconception to say that we are seeing the good and bad values in our lives in the absence of our positive and negative emotions as this would imply that things can still matter to us and be important to us even without any emotions. That is why we wouldn't be seeing any value in our lives at all without our emotions. Rather, we would just simply be acknowledging value. I realize this sets up a bad model for society because this would mean that good or bad situations wouldn't matter to us without the respective emotion. But this is the only way it can be because our emotions are truly the only things that can make things matter to us in either a positive or negative way.

Very Brief Hedonistic Logical Argument

This logical argument is a very brief extension of the one I've just presented to you:

1.) Positive emotions are an objective form of perceiving good values in our lives. You could consider it, in a way, to be our positive emotions making an objective good value judgment.

2.) Negative emotions are an objective form of perceiving bad values in our lives. You could consider it, in a way, to be our negative emotions making an objective bad value judgment.

3.) Having no emotions at all would be an objective form of perceiving neither good nor bad (neutral) value in our lives. Since our emotions are an objective form of perceiving good and bad value, then having neither positive nor negative emotions would be considered a neutral emotion. A neutral emotion would be an objective form of perceiving no value (neutral value) in our lives. A neutral emotion would not be any real emotion which means we cannot perceive any real value in our lives without our emotions.

Therefore,

Conclusion: Positive emotions are the only way to live and be an artist. Having negative emotions or no emotions at all would be no way to live or be an artist.

The Values That Humanity Lives By Are Duds: Humanity is currently living by their own personal value systems which are not the objective, emotional good and bad. They think these sorts of value systems work to bring their lives real perceived joy, beauty, and goodness. But that would be no different than someone with a dud product that does not work. The person becomes deluded into thinking it works. I mean, it does work, but not the way these people think it works.

Our value systems work to help us make wise decisions so that we may avoid harm and foolish choices. So, I will admit, they are still vital. But they do not work to bring our lives any real perceived goodness, beauty, joy, etc. Value judgments alone without emotions are an empty (no quality) standard of living. These objective, emotional values are instead the higher and true values to live by. I call them the consciousness based values since these are values not based on our personal judgments. Rather, they are based upon realizing our own inner conscious light and darkness.

So, what it all comes down to is this. We as human beings need the objective goodness (the inner light) as a part of our conscious being. Otherwise, our lives would be empty. But the question is, can the light take on a form for us besides our positive emotions? Can it take on the form of character strength and development? I just don't think so. I think emotions are everything to our human existence and they are the only inner light and darkness to our lives. I just think that we as a human race are leaving out the light and darkness and personally defining our own values in life.

It would be no different than if you were blind and you personally defined your own version of sight. That version of sight would not actually allow you to see. That is why I cannot live my life by words alone (value judgments). Words are just words and it is my inner light that I seek. For people to just dismiss my inner light really gets to me and makes me look at humanity as nothing more than mere machines who cannot comprehend and understand me and my higher values. Rather, such higher values are simply dismissed out of hand as tripe, nonsense, childish shenanigans, etc. If you are going to be offended and insulted by this, then too bad. I am tired and fed up with my own inner light being dismissed and now it is time I returned the favor.

Gratification does not equal good.

 

[shunyadragon]

I disagree with your use of 'objective.' I would substitute subjective every where you use it. Concepts like positive versus negative emotions, have highly subjective meanings.

 

[Sanzbir]

1.) Positive things can only be positive things while negative things can only be negative things. It would make no sense to say that something positive can be something negative or that something negative can be something positive just as how it would make no sense to say that something good can be something bad or that something bad can be something good. It's like saying that water can be fire or that fire can be water. These are two distinct things.

Scorpion venom.

To a human, that is a "negative". It causes difficulty breathing, muscle twitching, sweating, nausea, vomiting, and hypertension.

To a scorpion, it is a "positive". It is a source of protection, self defense, and aid in hunting and feeding.

A man is walking down the street, and a $100 bill falls out of his pocket and is caught by the wind. Several days later a hobo finds the bill a fair distance away from where it was lost.

To the man, this event was negative.

To the hobo, this event was positive.

I pay $20 for a copy of a bad kung fu movie that I love. My wife makes the exact same purchase.

For me, this purchase is a positive, I value the bad kung fu movie more than I value the $20. For my wife, this purchase is a negative, since she values $20 much more than the silly movies she does see the value of.

Conversly if you trade the bad kung fu movie with a paranormal romance novel, suddenly for me the deal is a negative and it becomes a positive for my wife.

With these three examples here, it makes no sense to assert positive and negative are static and absolute properties.

2.) Positive always equals good while negative always equals bad. There is no exception to this rule and it would make no sense to say otherwise. The only exception would be something such as positive and negative charges since this would be a different definition of positive and negative. But when you say things such as the positive qualities of life, then these are always the good qualities of life. Likewise, when you say the negative qualities of life, then these are always the bad qualities of life.

Using my above Man and Hobo example. One single event, the loss of the bill, is concretely positive for one man, negative for the other man, and neutral for pretty much everyone else. It makes no sense to argue that this was positive always, or negative always. It objectively was different in value to each person.

Therefore, I posit positive isn't always positive and negative isn't always negative. Even when we are talking about the exact same event or thing, it can be different to different people.

3.) Positive thoughts are always value judgments of things having good value in our lives, negative thoughts are always value judgments of things having bad value in our lives, while neither positive nor negative thoughts (neutral thoughts) are always value judgments of things having neither good nor bad value in our lives. These would be neutral value judgments. Value judgments allow us to see the good and bad values in our lives according to this premise. However, I later switch it on over to emotions. So, just go with this premise for now.

Here starts my confusion, I will explain shortly.

4.) If something had no good value and we saw good value in it anyway or if something had no bad value and we saw bad value in it, then that would just be our own personal perception. It wouldn't comply with reality, but it would just be our own personal perceived value. Perhaps you could liken it to a hallucination. It would be like a mother feeding her child vegetables. Even though the vegetables are good for the child, the child sees nothing but bad value in them since he hates them. This would be the child's own personal perceived bad value in regards to those vegetables.

Here is where I stop being able to follow your logic here. It seems like, to me, that point #3 you make contradicts this point here, and #7 extremely contradicts this point!!

#7 states that positive emotions determine that something is good, and negative emotions determine what is bad, so this point here at #4 is contrary to everything else you write.

Take the example of the kid and the vegetables. They cause negative emotions: disgust and revulsion, in the child, and thus the child eating vegetables should be a negative by your own standard, right??

But you say it is a positive that the child only feels is a negative?? But if he feels it is a negative it should be a negative according to what you say... so I am completely lost here as to what you are trying to say.

5.) Positive thoughts are always subjective wanting and liking while negative thoughts are always subjective not wanting things or disliking things. Having neither positive nor negative thoughts would be neither subjective wanting, liking, unwanting, or disliking. When something matters to you, then you either want it, like it, not want it, or dislike it. If you didn't, then it wouldn't matter to you at all. In addition, there can also be a negative form of subjective wanting which would allow us to perceive things as having bad value in our lives. Such a form of wanting would be something such as wanting to harm someone or give up on life.

6.) Positive and negative thoughts are what allow us to perceive, not simply acknowledge the good and bad values in our lives. Acknowledging things is different than perceiving things because, if you were blind, then you could acknowledge the existence of objects, but you would not be able to see (perceive) them. Simply acknowledging the good and bad values would not be any genuine positive or negative thought and, thus, would not be any genuine good or bad value judgment.

Rather, it would just be something akin to a random, insignificant thought of things having good or bad value in your life. However, acknowledging values is still vital anyway since we can make wise decisions even if we did not want, like, dislike, or not want. Why say that it is still vital even though acknowledging values can't matter to us? According to the conclusion that my logical argument reaches, our value judgments would still have to be vital even though they can't matter to us without our emotions or without the respective emotion.

The blind man example doesn't exactly work since there is more ways than simply sight that you can use to perceive things.

 

[Sanzbir]

7.) There is an objective form of wanting and liking. It would be our positive emotions. Here, I will quote it out to you:

It would follow from here that our positive emotions are an objective form of positive wanting and liking, our negative emotions being an objective form of negative unwanting, disliking, as well as wanting, while having neither positive nor negative emotions would be an objective form of neutral wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking.

This means that there is no subjective form of wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking since this would be the neutral form. It would be no different than saying that, since emotions come in two forms: positive and negative, then having neither positive nor negative emotions would be a neutral emotion. This neutral emotion would not be any real emotion at all.

Since emotions are the same thing as objective wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking, then the neutral emotion would, therefore, have to be no real form of wanting, liking, unwanting, or disliking. Without our emotions, then we could have thoughts of wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking just as how we can have thoughts of seeing things when we are blind, but that would not be any real form of wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking just as how that would not be any real form of sight either.

Here is just one more argument to support the idea that no subjective wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking exist. Those things are no different than saying that objects, situations, moments, etc. matter to you in positive or negative ways. Recall what I said earlier in premise #5. But since nothing can matter to us without our emotions, then there can't be any subjective wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking.

My admittedly silly counterpoint here is: Kinky People.

The existence of kinky people seems to discredit this notion, as there are obviously existing people who view positively emotions you would associate with being negative.

Obviously it would probably violate some sort of rule to get into detail here, but "negative" emotions like suffering, shame, helplessness, etc... there are people who like those feelings and seek them out.

So how can those negatives be negatives?? Even emotional states are subjective, otherwise kinky people would not exist.

8.) To summarize all of my previous premises, since the objective form of wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking (our positive and negative emotions) allow us to experience the good and bad qualities of life, then it would have to be our subjective wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking that allow us to perceive the good and bad qualities of life.

A positive thought would allow us to experience an objective positivity (goodness) which would be our positive emotions while a negative thought would allow us to experience an objective negativity (badness) which would be our negative emotions. But since the subjective form does not exist, then we cannot perceive good or bad value in our lives in the absence of our emotions. Rather, it would instead be thoughts of wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking (i.e. good and bad value) that make us feel positive and negative emotions.

So basically like in some of the philosophical banter scenes of the Woody Allen movie Love and Death, "Subjectivity is objective."

I can follow that reasoning: the objective truth is emotional responses, except not all people have the same subjective value in even emotional responses.

Again, the kinky people.

9.) Emotions are, therefore, objectively positive (good) and objectively negative (bad) just as how a charge can either be objectively positive or negative. Just consider our emotions to be the good and bad "charges" as opposed to simply positive and negative charges.

So I get what you are overall saying, but again, I don't think it's true. Emotional experience isn't objective, because then kinky people wouldn't exist. Until your ideas can explain BDSM, then I don't think they work, as silly of a counter-point as that may be.

But interesting reading and ideas none-the-less. You're undoubtedly closer to finding an objective standard of good and bad than most people who assert such an objective standard exists.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm sensing a person who tends to overthink issues...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

When I said that positive things can only be positive things and that negative things can only be negative things, I was actually referring to things such as positive and negative charges. ...

A recommendation: when you're chest deep in drivel, stop digging.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So if it's new age hedonism, what was old age hedonism?

Is this like the Protestants splitting from the Catholic Church?

 

[shunyadragon]

Experiment (Survey)

I will present to you the experiment (survey) to be performed that would support my theory of an objective good and bad as soon as I explain some things first. People currently believe that good and bad are subjective. For example, what is good for one person might be bad for another. But I think our positive emotions are an objective good and our negative emotions are an objective bad.

Again, I will disagree up front on your assumptions. People currently believe?!?!?! who are you referring too here?

In reality morals and ethics are not subjective nor objective in the history of humanity. Morals and ethics, and good and bad, are human social constructs, and in some cases contracts that individuals must submit to or else, that have objective and subjective attributes, and not based on personal preferences as to what is good for one is bad for another. Morals and ethics are the foundation properties of societies, communities and groups. Yes, individual may disagree, but if they violate the morals and ethics of a society they will be punished and possibly severely punished. This is true of both human and some primate societies,

There are fundamental objective and consistent Morals and Ethics common to all human societies such as 'wrongful death, and theft of property. There are subjective attributes of morals and ethics in the variations between between cultures and the evolution of morals and ethics over time.

I am trying to somehow make this work. To do that, then that would require some support for my theory. This is my theory worth sharing and discussing regardless of your objections such as that this idea of mine is nonsense. Many ideas were deemed as nonsense at the time. But, sure enough, they ended up being true. I have had emotional trauma in my life and these were such horrible states of mind that they cannot possibly be a matter of my way of looking at them. Words themselves cannot possibly hold such horrible power. It has to be the emotions themselves that hold the objectively beautiful power (positive emotions) and the objectively horrible power (negative emotions).

I would leave out the subjective considerations of emotions and personal experience to keep things on less biased perspective.

But continuing on here and getting to the point, an experiment (survey) would support my theory. I will now present it to you:
If a person loved a feeling of misery or hated a certain positive emotion, then he would be having a subjective negative thought in regards to an objectively positive (good) emotion and he would be having a subjective positive thought in regards to an objectively negative (bad) emotion. You can have subjective judgments in regards to objective things. You can judge your positive emotions (which are objective wanting and liking) as not being any form of wanting and liking. But said judgment would be false. Go ask as much people as you can as to whether they think that their positive emotions are an objective wanting and liking.

I consider this confusing concerning what would be objective and subjective by definition.

Enough for now this post is very long.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You haven't allowed me to clarify yet.

Seriously?

 

[shunyadragon]

A recommendation: when you're chest deep in drivel, stop digging.

. . . and keep it short and coherent focused on the subject.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have pointed out to you an experiment that would blatantly support my theory and, yet, here people are ignoring it, judging my writing as incoherent, and mocking my insights. I am not a perfect writer. I don't have that much education when it comes to writing and conveying my ideas coherently. But I have conveyed them coherent enough when it comes to me explaining that experiment. Go ahead and fully read and address it when you get the time.

I have read your posts and find it difficult to respond to the length. This what I find a problem with coherency. I am not the only one, because Jaywalker Soule also objected.

Up front I have specifically objected to how you use objective versus subjective in describing emotions, and morals and ethics.

I believe my posts on this have been specific and directly to the point of disagreement.

 

[YmirGF]

I have read your posts and find it difficult to respond to the length. This what I find a problem with coherency. I am not the only one, because Jaywalker Soule also objected.

Up front I have specifically objected to how you use objective versus subjective in describing emotions, and morals and ethics.

I believe my posts on this have been specific and directly to the point of disagreement.

You are certainly not alone in this analysis either @shunyadragon

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

I have read your posts and find it difficult to respond to the length. This what I find a problem with coherency. I am not the only one, because Jaywalker Soule also objected.

Up front I have specifically objected to how you use objective versus subjective in describing emotions, and morals and ethics.

I believe my posts on this have been specific and directly to the point of disagreement.

Alright, no problem. I will go ahead and address it. What I mean by an objective good and bad would not be a concept or idea such as that it is a bad thing to harm someone. Rather, I mean that good and bad are the actual emotions themselves. When you are in a positive emotional state such as feeling a profound joy from nature, then that state is literally sheer goodness itself. It's as though the light of god and all of its sheer objective goodness has engulfed your conscious being. Objective goodness would be the same thing as objective wanting and liking (our positive emotions). So, they would be synonymous.

 

[Ponder This]

I think it is a very interesting proposition: to say that positive emotions are objectively good and that negative emotions are objectively bad. I think that you will need to address the following:

1. Preference to negative states:

a. Anger Addiction: Anger is classified as a negative emotion, but some people feel the increase of certain chemicals in the body created by states of anger. Do you place anger as good in your new classification?
b. Fear Addiction / Thrill Seeking: People sometimes will place themselves in genuinely dangerous situations deliberately in order to trigger their own fear response. Fear also releases certain chemicals in the body.​

2. Benefits of Negative Emotions:

a. Grief: Extreme sadness often follows the loss of a loved one, but the powerful negative emotions are a powerful form of emotional healing. People actually benefit from taking the time to grieve properly and failure to grieve can have serious deleterious effects on a person's health.
b. Pre-performance Anxiety: Often people will experience anxiety before a performance, but, properly embraced, the emotional energy of nervousness actually enhances a person's performance by making him more attentive and alert.​

3. Positive Emotions of Questionable Value:

Drug Addiction: People with drug addictions seek out substances that create extreme emotional states: pleasure, joy, whatever. The wanting or liking of these states is not unlike the wanting of liking of negative states and so are not differentiated by that measure. However, drugs have a clear harmful effect. Moreover, the positive states induced by the drugs and followed by extreme negative states. So we cannot dissociate the positive emotional state from the negative emotional state. One will follow the other.​

4. Miscellaneous Considerations:

People often seek out particular emotional states "positive" or negative" and there does not appear to be a common objective measure of preference. For example, some people really like the blues despite that fact that the blues are associated with the negative emotional state of sadness. It's clear that 'wanting' or 'liking' sadness is a very real thing. It seems clear that we can't simply associate positive emotions with 'wanting' or 'liking'.​

Well, I think you need to examine these particular objections to your theory of "good" and "bad". It could be that we associate the positive emotional states linguistically with "good" and the negative emotional states with the word "bad", but aside from a connotation of language, I think you have a bit more work to show that positive and negative emotions really define an objective measure. Good Luck!

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

I think it is a very interesting proposition: to say that positive emotions are objectively good and that negative emotions are objectively bad. I think that you will need to address the following:

1. Preference to negative states:

a. Anger Addiction: Anger is classified as a negative emotion, but some people feel the increase of certain chemicals in the body created by states of anger. Do you place anger as good in your new classification?
b. Fear Addiction / Thrill Seeking: People sometimes will place themselves in genuinely dangerous situations deliberately in order to trigger their own fear response. Fear also releases certain chemicals in the body.​

2. Benefits of Negative Emotions:

a. Grief: Extreme sadness often follows the loss of a loved one, but the powerful negative emotions are a powerful form of emotional healing. People actually benefit from taking the time to grieve properly and failure to grieve can have serious deleterious effects on a person's health.
b. Pre-performance Anxiety: Often people will experience anxiety before a performance, but, properly embraced, the emotional energy of nervousness actually enhances a person's performance by making him more attentive and alert.​

3. Positive Emotions of Questionable Value:

Drug Addiction: People with drug addictions seek out substances that create extreme emotional states: pleasure, joy, whatever. The wanting or liking of these states is not unlike the wanting of liking of negative states and so are not differentiated by that measure. However, drugs have a clear harmful effect. Moreover, the positive states induced by the drugs and followed by extreme negative states. So we cannot dissociate the positive emotional state from the negative emotional state. One will follow the other.​

4. Miscellaneous Considerations:

People often seek out particular emotional states "positive" or negative" and there does not appear to be a common objective measure of preference. For example, some people really like the blues despite that fact that the blues are associated with the negative emotional state of sadness. It's clear that 'wanting' or 'liking' sadness is a very real thing. It seems clear that we can't simply associate positive emotions with 'wanting' or 'liking'.​

Well, I think you need to examine these particular objections to your theory of "good" and "bad". It could be that we associate the positive emotional states linguistically with "good" and the negative emotional states with the word "bad", but aside from a connotation of language, I think you have a bit more work to show that positive and negative emotions really define an objective measure. Good Luck!

A charge could either be positive or negative and you could certainly judge a negative charge to be something good if it was helpful. You could also judge it to be a positive charge. But the negative charge would still be negative. Our emotions are like positive and negative charges, in a way. However, our emotions would be good and bad "charges." So, the positive and negative that applies to our emotions is an objective (intrinsic) good and bad while the positive and negative that applies to charges is simply positive and negative. This means it doesn't matter how you judge your emotional state; a positive emotion can only make your life truly perceived as good and your negative emotions can only make your life truly perceived as bad. This objective good and bad would be an emotional definition of good and bad rather than the definition of good and bad that we as human beings are familiar with.