Below’s a janky and inconclusive rant trying to answer if reality is happy or unhappy. No answers, only questions:

 

happiness / suffering and reality are independent

or are they?

 

what I’m saying is, existential truth is part of THE truth, the truth about reality,

but in the same time

existential truth is vastly different for someone whose happy, vs someone whose suffering

 

it sounds like nonsense but it’s not, bear with me,

 

so for the happy person, the vision of the unhappy reality makes no sense

because it would RUIN the happiness,

so what happens is — in his happiness — he sees everything through a rose-coloured glasses. it’s tinted pink. He feels the happy emotion and everything he looks at is part of that ‘happiness’ he experiences

AND furthermore philosophically:

of course he will describe the world as that of ULTIMATE BLISS,

otherwise what would be the point of happiness?

if he was to take a negative stance, or even neutral — would be to DENY this happiness he experiences now, and believes in

which would be… quite unhappy, DISTURBING

There’s 0 incentive to create philosophy of UNHAPPINESS. It just doesn’t make sense from the incentives standpoint

If you must create philosophy (which, arguably, you don’t) — then it makes no sense to create unhappy philosophy

 

…unless of course you ARE indeed unhappy,

in which case of course emotionally your reality is unhappy — therefore your reality is unhappy period

And whatever is ‘good’ — is only good insofar as it is less unhappy, less unpleasant,

And if you must create philosophy — then it would be a LIE to describe the world as happy. Your subjective experience is nevertheless AN EXPERIENCE, an EMPIRICAL FACT. Which must be accounted for

NOR is there any incentive to create a ‘happy world philosophy’. Because nothing is happy. Things are less unhappy, at best

 

What about the NEUTRAL outlook?

Well again, if you’re happy — it would make no sense to debase, demote your experience

And if you’re unhappy — it would be disingenuous. Happiness you not truly know, and neutral sounds like a false consolation. Neutral + unhappy = really just unhappy

 

Of course we can do mathematics — regardless if we’re happy or not

But mathematics has no bearing on existential problems, does it

Problem of happiness does, however

 

Therefore I believe the conclusion is,

It’s impossible to decide whether existence is happy, unhappy, or neutral

Because any answer but the one compatible with our state — would be incompatible = nonsensical, wrong, AND useless

But then again we observe happy AND unhappy people — so both can’t be true, reality can’t be both

So you can’t say that reality is neutral — there’s no incentive to believe that

But you can’t say it’s happy or unhappy — because some are happy and some are unhappy

 

I would call it IMPOSSIBILITY to answer this existential question

 

AND perhaps likewise ALL existential questions are impossible to answer,

It’s impossible for a human endowed with purpose to live and create — impossible to question purpose intrinsic to existence

He will make up a purpose, regardless if it makes sense or not, if it’s coherent or not

 

I’m not writing it to take any existential position,

I already took mine, which is that of PURPOSE supremacy and HAPPINESS ultimacy. Works for me, for the aforementioned reasons

I’m just noticing the paradoxical nature of EXISTENTIAL questions,

So that I don’t have to waste more FUCKING TIME on them

And build my own existentialism on:

-personal happiness

-and coherent pragmatic values