[0xBABAD00C]

> The only realm in which humans are an unimpeachable source of truth is that of their own feelings and experiences

Side note, but this strikes me as extremely wrong, based on 35 years of living among humans. Humans have unsurpassed abilities of self-deception, cognitive dissonance tolerance, and building monumental mental models to hide the truth about themselves from themselves.

As one economist put it, your 'self' isn't the CEO, it's the PR department. You produce a PR-approved spin of your own experiences and feelings for your internal, conscious consumption.

[bena]

I think the error is including experiences.

I am the sole source for what I'm feeling. Whether I admit that or not is another story, but if I think I feel sad, then I feel sad.

Now, whether that emotion is justified is another story and whether the related experience should induce sadness can be up for debate and if I'm interpreting the situation correctly and all of that.

But we can't argue that I'm not feeling sad. I would probably have said that "The only realm in which humans are an unimpeachable source of truth is that of their own feelings and perspectives"

[nitwit005]

> but if I think I feel sad, then I feel sad.

Our sensitivity to our own emotions doesn't seem to be that great. People talk about happiness sneaking up on you, or having a realization that they're unhappy in a relationship. Presumably the feelings were there, but they weren't conscious of it.

I suspect if I did have dials in my head that displayed the level of each emotion, I'd go insane trying to move the needles. There may be some logic to the arrangement.

[bena]

This doesn't actually go against what's being said.

Unexamined feelings are still felt. I'm still the only one who can tell you with 100% accuracy what I'm feeling.

Even if you're technically wrong about what you're feeling, there's no way for me to verify that you're wrong. You are still the sole arbiter of absolute truth on that matter.

Because people love to read into things that aren't there. Apparently, I have a very threatening face when I'm concentrating on something and I look kind of angry. I'm not. And it's kind of exhausting to have people try and tell you what you're feeling when they have no clue as to what's actually going on inside of your head.

[perl4ever]

As a counterpoint, consider how people say depression is anger turned inward, or perhaps the opposite, that anger is self-hatred turned outwards.

Another concept is, when you have chronic pain, you may forget what it's like not to hurt. And then one day you don't and you suddenly have perspective.

What I'm saying, I guess, is that generally no other person can tell you your feelings or emotions though they may try. But that doesn't mean you are necessarily correct in what you think they are.

[andrewflnr]

Sole source, yes, but that doesn't mean you're reliable. For anything more complicated than "sad", and maybe even for that, self-deception and lack of self-knowledge can be issues. For example, have you correctly identified exactly what it is you're sad about? I know I've caught myself believing dumb things about my feelings.

[bena]

Like I said in my post, everything surrounding it is up for debate. But you can't tell me what I'm feeling. If I say, "I'm sad", that's the end of the story. It's not up for debate.

Even if I'm lying about what I'm feeling, there's no way for you to really know. There's always some room for doubt.

[username90]

You know that you are sad, but you generally don't know why so you guess. And your own guess about the source of your feelings usually isn't any better than what other people would have guessed about you.

[bena]

Which is why I said the feeling may not be justified. But my feelings are what they are. Not being able to explain why I'm feeling them does not invalidate the fact that I do feel them.

You cannot tell me what I'm feeling.

[Terr_]

Or just modify it to "their own feelings and subjective experiences."