Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
When it comes to the nature of the subject's own impressions, it is very easy to understand. I want to repeat the effect of “liking”, “disliking” – I don't want to, or even want to avoid repetition. If you want to continue looking (or take another look) at a natural landscape, a fire, a large predator, or a naked girl, then you “like” them: even if you are afraid to get to know the predators (quite reasonably) or girls (and this is in vain), stick your hand in the fire, or be inside the “landscape” and live in it. If you don't want to watch it again, then you don't like it.�
Since interaction with the outside world takes place through several channels and has different intensity, the same object can be liked in one relationship or situation and disliked in another. In general, you should distinguish between “likes” and “dislikes” 1) within different channels (type, sound, smell, taste, contact, stay) and 2) by the intensity of exposure. Regarding the differentiation of exposure channels: something looks beautiful, but it stinks (visually I like it, but the smell is repulsive); a girl is beautiful and sexy, but it would be better if she was silent; a predator attracts the eye, but is dangerous in direct contact (by the way, it will probably stink from the mouth); etc. As for the intensity of exposure: it's nice to warm up by the fire on a cold night, but it's better not to stick your hand in the fire; some music is pleasant at normal volume, but at high it can become a tool of torture.
In the general case, which is not directly related to physical survival, any “like” is purely subjective. Therefore, in such cases, there is no objectively “right” or “wrong” perception.
I think that no one can answer this question better than you.
I think you'd better listen to yourself at such times and I think then you'll understand what's going on.
My opinion is that if we talk specifically about the natural landscape, then after a long stay in the city, any change in the situation will cause causal sensations. The subconscious mind also plays a significant role, because historically man was a creature of nature and in the environment of this very nature he feels a certain harmony and peace. Again, the factor of the absence of urban noise affects, which allows the brain to relax. In general, I think that everything that concerns nature actually causes only positive emotions and feelings in humans (not counting mosquitoes and midges).
But about man-made things, here it is necessary in each specific case to understand separately.