Some time ago (like, three or four years) I developed an idea that I didn’t want to have much to do with what I referred to as negative emotions. I still hold this view but I’ve refined the language to the idea that I refuse to allow myself to be crippled by such emotions, I will not allow myself to partake in things that aren’t useful, such as depression, and unrealistic hope. I won’t let it stop me. This sounds very grand, and I’m not saying I always (or ever entirely) succeed. All I’m saying is that I have this as something that I aim for. To me, this seems to make a lot of sense. Why not try and stop such things from causing problems if you can? However, my parents have always told me that this theory is wrong, I’m wrong, and I should stop holding the view. This is mainly because, I think, I’ve often misrepresented the idea by appearing to be attempting to entirely rid myself of emotions. Obviously without physically editing myself that’s not going to happen and in any case I never set out to do this, because as I say I don’t want useless/counter-productive emotions, I’m quite happy with the helpful ones (e.g. realistic hope, determination) and obviously I ‘like’ happiness and the like. I’m not going to question whether or not there is any reason to live if you don’t have emotions, that’s for another post.

And yet still I’m told that the basic view outlined above is incorrect, even when I try to spell it out as simply as possible as I’ve done here. My parents say that all they want is for me to be happy and that my ‘quest’ described above is somehow going to compromise this. I don’t get this. Whatever I may say about aiming for things other than happiness, how does the above compromise this? It’s supposed to leave more space for it by clearing out silly things like depression. If anyone else understands their perspective and would like to explain it to me, I’d very much appreciate it.