Posted: Mar 17, 2014 7:34 pm
by hackenslash
Philosofer123 wrote:I have already explained why I define free will in the way in which I do.

The explanation doesn't stop the definition being bollocks, does it?

Not at all. I am happy to admit that some of the techniques in my document eliminate certain positive emotions along with negative emotions. But many positive emotions remain (see page 13). And in the "negative hedonism" section of the document I provide support for the assertion that aiming for peace of mind is the most effective way of which I am aware to optimize one's state of mind over one's lifetime. If you are aware of a more effective way to optimize one's state of mind over one's lifetime, then please elaborate.

I saw page 13. It doesn't help. All you're left with is a cherry-picking of what you like. If that's what you're going to do, why not just do it without all the Emperor's New Clothes?

I classify as "negative" any emotion that feels uncomfortable.

Yes, you said, and repetition doesn't help it any.

Regarding fear, one does not need to feel uncomfortable to avoid something harmful. Prudence is all that is necessary. Regarding boredom, one does not need to feel uncomfortable in order to make a positive change. Recognizing the benefits of a positive change is all that is necessary.

Well, none of it is actually necessary, even in the vernacular sense of necessary, let alone the technical.

What "vast range of human experience" does my philosophy exclude?

Most of it. Frankly, it looks like a lot of effort for a framework that's ultimately thought-free and laden with wibble. The Emperor's nakedness is still visible even to children.