DeletedUser8396
Guest
All actions are products or results of other actions – all a response to another set of stimuli. All actions affect how one interprets the world as every action changes the world slightly and this interpretation of the world shapes how we feel in a current moment. These feelings influence our actions and that then influences future acts by both ourselves and by others.
So, actions come from feelings, which come from our interpretation of the world. Then what if one were to ask what one would desire to change about the world? Among several individuals, I received multiple instances of things which they would change. Such examples included: social irritants, impossible goals, ignorance, jealousy, and corruption. All these have a singular trend within themselves – they are a negative aspect of life.
This is not entirely too surprising, as the very nature of seeing the world and the interpretations we have of it would be naturally improved (or so we believe) were we to remove that which causes negative interpretations and, therefore, feelings. The things listed above, though, are awfully specific and, if removed individually, would not grant much of a shift in the individual’s interpretations of the world as the grand majority of other things would still remain.
Then there exists an underlying question: which would remove the greatest amount of ill feeling from the world? Which of all things in existence, when removed, would result in a greater amount of good feelings? Let us find the answer:
As actions are logical extensions of the feelings, then one would determine that ill actions would stem from ill feelings and if ill feelings were removed, the ill action would as well. We may then say that we could judge our solution as being the thing which, when removed, results in the greatest decrease in ill actions. From this point, it is mere observation and stipulation of social interaction. In order to save time, I will propose my answer for prime removal: I propose to remove love. As calloused and ill-thought out it may seem, removing what is thought to be the chief positive force, take a moment to look at the effects:
Were I to remove love, I would, by necessity, remove all the effects of love’s absence. I suffer from no delusion that love causes a grand portion of positive feelings and positive actions, but equally so I am not deluded to think the absence of love causes much ill. By removing love I remove the feeling of being unloved. I also remove the ability to hate, as hate is a mere inversion of love. I also remove love-based jealousy, which accounts for much of evil seen. By the removal of love, I solve much of the most ill feelings possible.
As the most basic instinct and base requirement of all actions by a individual is that the individual continue to live and to have a more fulfilled life, we may then assume that life is the chief end of actions. If life is the chief positive end of actions, then if something being added or removed adds an abundance of life, we may assume that by that fact alone it is causing the greatest benefit. Therefore, I conclude that by removing the feeling of being unloved - I successfully eliminate most suicides, by removing the capability to hate - I remove practically all murders, and, by removing love-based jealousy – I remove a great majority of wars not stopped by the removal of hate. Therefore, the removal of love results in a great reduction of death and, by extension, the greatest increase in positive feelings.
Surely if the removal of something causes a net increase in positive feeling and action, the thing being removed must be seen as a negative force. Therefore I must conclude with some level of certainty that love is a negative force in society.
Unless we consider the following:
If we remove love, and this causes us to also remove the negative extensions of love (such as those listed above), we must assume that it removes also the positive extensions of love, which would result in a loss of resistance to any and all resistance to the taking of life as well as the desire to preserve it, aside from one’s own life. In fact, life would in essence be devalued to such an extent that murder would be seen as nothing more than a neutral force.
I suppose in order to support the prior claim of life becoming meaningless I should show why we value life. As said before, feelings are influenced by the way we interpret the world, and the world is influenced by action. Action, in order to exist, requires life. Therefore life is the motivating force for there to be a world for us to interpret, and, by extension, feelings for us to experience. Were all life aside from our own to cease to exist, feeling would also be limited to only that which we could enact.
We appreciate life because of the feeling which it grants us. Yet we also see life being disregarded as useless and invaluable by some. This often, if not always, results from the culmination of negative feelings toward the individual(s) in question. Therefore, our value of a particular life is judged by how much positive feelings are produced from it toward ourselves.
Love, in it’s very essence is our ability to care for particular things. Topping the spectrum of care, if we remove love we also remove all ability to care about particular things. This then means that we lose the ability to care about the individual’s causing the positives and only care about the positive feelings in themselves. Were the individual producing the positive feelings be instantly replaced by another just as capable of producing the same level of positive feeling, we would then cease to regard the prior person whatsoever, assuming we did before. They would be a means to positivity, rather than an end in themselves, resulting in us no longer seeing them with human value or of equal life worth. If they are not of equal value to our own selves, then murdering them should not bring about any ill feelings in our own selves or any other individual aside from the one being murdered.
This disregard for life, were love to cease to exist, would arguably cause all positive feelings cease to come about as it would be likely humanity would eventually, with enough time, die out as the society we would create would become isolated individual pleasure seekers solely concerned with their own selves.
Then I would argue this: all negatives and positives which have an opposite cannot be removed from society or else they cause a decrease in quality of life, which is the chief of all positives. For example, if we remove jealousy, we must also remove appreciation and gratitude, as jealousy is the negative manifestations of such. As I would argue all things have their opposites, then the resultant thing which must be removed in order to achieve a world with the greatest amount of happiness is: nothing.
Interestingly enough, when I asked others what they may remove, one did suggest to remove nothing. Although unaware of the end result of my aim, “nothing” is the accurate answer to what may cause the greatest, best possible of potential worlds to exist.
So, actions come from feelings, which come from our interpretation of the world. Then what if one were to ask what one would desire to change about the world? Among several individuals, I received multiple instances of things which they would change. Such examples included: social irritants, impossible goals, ignorance, jealousy, and corruption. All these have a singular trend within themselves – they are a negative aspect of life.
This is not entirely too surprising, as the very nature of seeing the world and the interpretations we have of it would be naturally improved (or so we believe) were we to remove that which causes negative interpretations and, therefore, feelings. The things listed above, though, are awfully specific and, if removed individually, would not grant much of a shift in the individual’s interpretations of the world as the grand majority of other things would still remain.
Then there exists an underlying question: which would remove the greatest amount of ill feeling from the world? Which of all things in existence, when removed, would result in a greater amount of good feelings? Let us find the answer:
As actions are logical extensions of the feelings, then one would determine that ill actions would stem from ill feelings and if ill feelings were removed, the ill action would as well. We may then say that we could judge our solution as being the thing which, when removed, results in the greatest decrease in ill actions. From this point, it is mere observation and stipulation of social interaction. In order to save time, I will propose my answer for prime removal: I propose to remove love. As calloused and ill-thought out it may seem, removing what is thought to be the chief positive force, take a moment to look at the effects:
Were I to remove love, I would, by necessity, remove all the effects of love’s absence. I suffer from no delusion that love causes a grand portion of positive feelings and positive actions, but equally so I am not deluded to think the absence of love causes much ill. By removing love I remove the feeling of being unloved. I also remove the ability to hate, as hate is a mere inversion of love. I also remove love-based jealousy, which accounts for much of evil seen. By the removal of love, I solve much of the most ill feelings possible.
As the most basic instinct and base requirement of all actions by a individual is that the individual continue to live and to have a more fulfilled life, we may then assume that life is the chief end of actions. If life is the chief positive end of actions, then if something being added or removed adds an abundance of life, we may assume that by that fact alone it is causing the greatest benefit. Therefore, I conclude that by removing the feeling of being unloved - I successfully eliminate most suicides, by removing the capability to hate - I remove practically all murders, and, by removing love-based jealousy – I remove a great majority of wars not stopped by the removal of hate. Therefore, the removal of love results in a great reduction of death and, by extension, the greatest increase in positive feelings.
Surely if the removal of something causes a net increase in positive feeling and action, the thing being removed must be seen as a negative force. Therefore I must conclude with some level of certainty that love is a negative force in society.
Unless we consider the following:
If we remove love, and this causes us to also remove the negative extensions of love (such as those listed above), we must assume that it removes also the positive extensions of love, which would result in a loss of resistance to any and all resistance to the taking of life as well as the desire to preserve it, aside from one’s own life. In fact, life would in essence be devalued to such an extent that murder would be seen as nothing more than a neutral force.
I suppose in order to support the prior claim of life becoming meaningless I should show why we value life. As said before, feelings are influenced by the way we interpret the world, and the world is influenced by action. Action, in order to exist, requires life. Therefore life is the motivating force for there to be a world for us to interpret, and, by extension, feelings for us to experience. Were all life aside from our own to cease to exist, feeling would also be limited to only that which we could enact.
We appreciate life because of the feeling which it grants us. Yet we also see life being disregarded as useless and invaluable by some. This often, if not always, results from the culmination of negative feelings toward the individual(s) in question. Therefore, our value of a particular life is judged by how much positive feelings are produced from it toward ourselves.
Love, in it’s very essence is our ability to care for particular things. Topping the spectrum of care, if we remove love we also remove all ability to care about particular things. This then means that we lose the ability to care about the individual’s causing the positives and only care about the positive feelings in themselves. Were the individual producing the positive feelings be instantly replaced by another just as capable of producing the same level of positive feeling, we would then cease to regard the prior person whatsoever, assuming we did before. They would be a means to positivity, rather than an end in themselves, resulting in us no longer seeing them with human value or of equal life worth. If they are not of equal value to our own selves, then murdering them should not bring about any ill feelings in our own selves or any other individual aside from the one being murdered.
This disregard for life, were love to cease to exist, would arguably cause all positive feelings cease to come about as it would be likely humanity would eventually, with enough time, die out as the society we would create would become isolated individual pleasure seekers solely concerned with their own selves.
Then I would argue this: all negatives and positives which have an opposite cannot be removed from society or else they cause a decrease in quality of life, which is the chief of all positives. For example, if we remove jealousy, we must also remove appreciation and gratitude, as jealousy is the negative manifestations of such. As I would argue all things have their opposites, then the resultant thing which must be removed in order to achieve a world with the greatest amount of happiness is: nothing.
Interestingly enough, when I asked others what they may remove, one did suggest to remove nothing. Although unaware of the end result of my aim, “nothing” is the accurate answer to what may cause the greatest, best possible of potential worlds to exist.
Last edited by a moderator: