Emotional Philosophy13.sep.25
Dear Audience,
Here is my emotional philosophy :)
It is an instinct of debate to pre-empt so that’s what I'll do first.
Criticisms of this worldview:
- It is very black and white
- Certain beliefs are not evidence-based
- It contains martyr-like thinking
- It is not sustainable, but sustainability is not the point.
- side note: I am very privileged and I acknowledge that.
Goal: I want to change the world, completely and positively. End suffering. Ease life. Make everyone safe and happy.
→ What if cyclical suffering is what gives life meaning for others?
—Reduce cyclical suffering to a point where suffaring does not feel like suffering, but a bearable challenge that mates life interesting.
Prerequisites: Full undergrad admission to MIT, win the IPhO/MO, full A*'S for IGCSES + 1 O-Level + A - Levels, full/ close to full SAT score, invent new machinery (bring my current ideas to life ).
→ These are NOT the goal itself, but necessary prerequisites to even start it.
Philosophy: Achieve my goal, then decide to leave or stay.
→ Why leave?
* may not be applicable in absence of human greed
—Life contains cyclical suffering*, and I am tired of convincing mysef that they are all just lessons. I can't have this many lessons, can I? When people pass, the living say that they are "at rest" anyway, because life constantly goes better days > suffering > lesson > better days, and I'm tired of that cycle.
So while theoretically If I hate myself or my life now, I can make it better, even better than I could have wanted, and I do truly believe that, but the cycle is always there. I think this is the only logical reason for suicide; I don't understand why others are capable of being so convinced that they are stuck in a bad life (given that they are not in an addictive/poverty trap, not a war refugee, no chronic illness and etc., objective circumstances where one is OBJECTIVELY out of control. Maybe chemical imbalances in the brain can be considered an out-of-control circumstance but I'm not here to argue about this), when they are clearly capable of bettering their lives.
And if that were truly the only reason to not want to live, then just improve your lives? (This is disregarding emotional inertia but that's a separate topic) That said, the only logical reason to want to die is if you know it gets better, but you know the cycle will go on and you choose to not remain trapped.
→ Reasons to stay? Yes.
—Inventing, learning, science, math, every art form, nature, the world itself. But unpaired with achievement / contribution, my will to die overrides all of this.
Philosophy on self: I believe I am fully limitless and capable, but my emotional self is secondary / irrelevant to me. If something is psychologically painful, it does not matter to me while it may matter to my emotional self, but that self is secondary / irrelevant to me, as long as I achieve my goal. I don't care if I die in pursuit of it as long as I achieve it. In fact, to me, this guarantees, or at least, increases its likelihood by a LARGE margin because I do not care of the personal cost, particularly, I don't care if I am the cost.
→ Primary contradiction:
—Part of my goal is to end suffering, and in pursuit of that, I am suffering. But I will be the last one who suffers, that’s the point. My suffering in exchange for everyone else’s peace is worth it. And pursuing this goal gives me a reason to live and makes me happy, anyway. Coexistence of happiness and suffering. So, inherently, this goal is selfish.
→ If my emotional self is secondary/ irrelevant, why go to therapy?
- Gain a fuller perspective on what my narrow worldview might inevitably miss, and discern if I'm open to change or not.
- Emotional self is only irrelevant in pursuit of my goal. If it happens to hinder it in any way, I need to tend to it to a certain extent.