Originally Posted by Philosofer123
You are still defining happiness by a negative in this statement.
I did--my own experience. The fact that you accept YOUR experience as proof, but reject MY experience as even evidence, is yet another indication of the shallow depth of your thought on this matter.
That in no way ensures that your thoughts have any depth to them. The fact that you can't even see your own assumptions, or the dissonence between your alleged beliefs and what you are actively advocating, demonstrate that while you've spent a lot of time thinking about this, it hasn't done very much good.
See the quote I quoted. You may THINK that's what you're doing, but in reality you're doing something else entirely.
Non sequitor. The fact that a person isn't feeling joy at this very instant in no way necessitates them feeling frustrated when they do not.
This is not true by definition. It is only supported by your unnamed and unexamined assumption about the nature of desire. It is entirely possible to say "That was nice. I'm happy I did that. Now let's move on." It is entirely possible to experience joy without feeling frustrated during any, much less all, times one does not feel joy. Your refusal to accept that in no way justifies your stance.
I just explained, at length, that making feeling good about the absence of negative emotions your primary way to feel good is round-about (in that it approaches the objective from the opposite direction). If you're merely going to quote my statements, without reading them, why bother quoting them at all? As for what's wrong with it, you are training your brain to focus on the negative. Humans are creatures of habbit. That is not a good habit to cultivate. If nothing else, you'll need increasingly negative emotions to feel the resultant positive emotions.
You are still focused on a negative in an attempt to reach a positive--a roundabout method that places the entire emphasis squarely on the negative, and which defines pleasure as the absence of pain and not a thing in and of itself. You are contradicting yourself and abandoning even the pretense at rational and coherent diction at this point.
Funny how you say that, but what you actually argue for is a focus on the negative. And even funnier how you ignore the connection between events and emotions inherent in my statements.
Again, actions are the important thing--you can say you accept an idea, but if you then proceed to ignore it there's no reason for us to accept that you accept it. What I'm seeing is an advocacy of stoicism due to a fear of negative emotions, a philosophy that's built out of post-hoc justifications to support that conclusion, and a refusal to accept those facts.