I am on the mission here to destroy the moral version of good and bad since it has mocked and insulted me long enough. It is deluded ignorant nonsense to say to a severely crippled depressed person that he/she can still have good meaning in his/her life. The moral version of good says that if we personally judge our lives to have good meaning through our thoughts, then that will make it so. But this is nonsense because this would mean that we could go up to a severely crippled depressed person and say in a joyful/excited tone: "Yipee! Your life is so wonderful since you told yourself that your life was great! Forget the fact that you were on the brink of suicide and were hardly able to function! Your life was so wonderful!" This, right here, is the deluded mocking/insulting ignorant blatant lie that is the moral version of good. It would be no different than telling a person with Parkinson's or a stroke: "Yipee! You can still fully function mentally because you told yourself you can!" It would also be no different than telling a blind and deaf person: "Yipee! You can still see and hear since you told yourself you can!" The fact is, there has to be a scientific version of good and bad that humanity and science is currently unaware of. It would have to be our good moods (pleasant emotions) that are the scientific version of good and it would have to be our unpleasant feelings/emotions (such as depression) that would be the scientific version of bad. Good and bad would have to be senses like sight, hearing, and smell
So they are scientific terms like sight, hearing, and smell. Just as how a blind and deaf person cannot give his/herself sight and hearing through his/her thoughts alone, we cannot give our lives any good or bad meaning either without our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions. If you were to say the phrase: "My life is nothing but hopeless," then that would be no different than saying: "My life is nothing but bad and has no good meaning." Therefore, since depression is a feeling of hopelessness, then if you were to struggle with depression, then you would feel that your life is nothing but bad. Here again, thoughts of our family and such still giving our lives good meaning during our depression won't give our lives any good meaning since we don't have our actual sense of good meaning which would be our pleasant emotions (our reward system). In conclusion, I myself struggle with depression and anhedonia (absence of all my pleasant emotions). This moral version of good and bad is a deluded and mocking/insulting lie towards people such as me who struggle with these illnesses. It is time we destroy this moral lie and instead create a better life. An eternal blissful life of no more suffering, depression, and anhedonia created by science in the future and have people such as me who have missed out resurrected so we can live this life. We would create this eternal blissful life based upon the scientific version of good and bad since scientists would be encouraged like never before to find cures and treatments knowing that our pleasant emotions are all that we have in our lives to make us good people and our lives good.
The scientific version of good and bad is different than the moral version of good and bad. It is a feeling/emotional version of good and bad and is not any moral or any other version of good and bad. I realize that science has no moral lessons to teach us. So you might say that there is no scientific version of good and bad. Like I said before, morality is not the same thing as good and bad. So it would no longer be morality. We would instead have to refer to it as something different. We would instead have to refer to it as us interacting and socializing as human beings and nothing more. Good and bad would instead have to be something completely different. It would have to be the scientific version of good and bad which would be the feeling/emotional version of good and bad.
tl;dr
>scientific version of good and bad
I don't understand what you think science means.
Science is merely a series of repeated actions that parametrize the natural world.
You cannot define good in a scientific way because 'good' is not a natural force, object, or concept that has bearing on the prediction of natural events.
'sight' 'hearing' 'smell' are not scientific concepts. The organs and structure of the eye, the ear, and the nose can be defined in terms of the physical world (not made into "science," because - and this bears repeating - science is nothing more than a process by which the natural world is parametrized and made predictable through models) but the way in which we interpret the signals of pure data they send to the brain as 'sight' 'hearing' and 'smell' are purely internal and psychological phenomena, and can be refuted or debated along with moral conceptions of 'good' and 'bad.'
Explain to me where this idea that good and bad could be parametrized came from. Explain what you think the word science meant when you wrote this
>>944840
>rationalizing good and bad
there is a harry potter line for this
"there is no good and evil... there is only power and those too weak to seek it."
a nine year old can swallow and understand that.
Good and bad are nothing but a unit of measure for a social agreement. What we perceive as beneficial for the general good is good and vice versa. By definition, good and bad are unscientific because we all have our own ideas of it.
You suffer and act as if you never had a chance to pursuit happiness, since it's much more comforting to claim the role of a victim than realizing that your misery is the result of your own undoing. The last human freedom is to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual. To me it seems like you have an existential vacuum. Do something about it.
To find out more, read Viktor Frankl "Man's Search for Meaning".
>>948120
>You cannot define good in a scientific way because 'good' is not a natural force, object, or concept that has bearing on the prediction of natural events.
So much this.
The edge cut me from here.
>>948120
>You cannot define good in a scientific way because 'good' is not a natural force, object, or concept that has bearing on the prediction of natural events.
> Implying implications
