WritersBeat.com
 

Go Back   WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table

The Intellectual Table Discussions on political topics, social issues, current affairs, etc.


Empathy

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 10-25-2017, 01:02 PM
fleamailman's Avatar
fleamailman (Online)
Samuel Johnson, obviously!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,300
Thanks: 2,353
Thanks 3,777
Default


("...guess there is just good old "understanding", which leaves one uncommitted emotionally, then there is that "empathy" beyond that understanding there that leads one to feel perplexed at oneself, much like when faced with a tragic hero, or that feeling in support of the bad guy against one's better judgement, well those type emotions perhaps, and lastly there is genuine sympathy where one is emotionally siding with someone who doesn't give one any tangs of guilt in doing so..." ventured the goblin suspecting that one could never quite tie these abstracts down, why, because they probably meant different things to different folks, then smiling "...apart from that though, I did like reading those two mentioned books, btw does anyone here feel empathy for mcbeth and sympathy for hamlet...", while outside the moon in its night's sky above just seemed to laugh sideways at the goblin in his ignorance below, to which the goblin then wondered if it was empathy sympathy or understanding, but whatever it was the moon was not telling in its slow ark across the enveloping darkness)


Last edited by fleamailman; 10-25-2017 at 01:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-25-2017, 01:59 PM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,634
Thanks: 198
Thanks 691
Default

Originally Posted by Myers View Post
Thinking that you know what's best for everyone and empathy are not the same thing.
All of these things are sold on the basis of empathy for the poor and oppressed.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-25-2017, 02:21 PM
Myers's Avatar
Myers (Offline)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,725
Thanks: 337
Thanks 352
Default

If it's not really empathy, is it?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-25-2017, 03:40 PM
eripiomundus (Offline)
The Next Bard
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 407
Thanks: 27
Thanks 109
Default

When we imagine something the same part of our brain is activated as when we experience something or remember something, and to a certain degree we react emotionally as if it were actually happening. Empathy is when we imagine another's experience and thereby evoke within ourselves a semblance of it. The depth and accuracy of our imagined experience dictates how closely we can empathise, so if you've never experienced anything even remotely close to the experience you're trying to empathise with you may not be capable of recreating in yourself the same emotional content or impact as the person you're empathising with.

The more willing you are to imagine another's perspective the more empathetic you are in general.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-25-2017, 04:30 PM
Loser&Loner's Avatar
Loser&Loner (Offline)
Intellectually Fertile
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: By the sea
Posts: 153
Thanks: 19
Thanks 17
Default

Originally Posted by eripiomundus View Post
When we imagine something the same part of our brain is activated as when we experience something or remember something, and to a certain degree we react emotionally as if it were actually happening. Empathy is when we imagine another's experience and thereby evoke within ourselves a semblance of it. The depth and accuracy of our imagined experience dictates how closely we can empathise, so if you've never experienced anything even remotely close to the experience you're trying to empathise with you may not be capable of recreating in yourself the same emotional content or impact as the person you're empathising with.

The more willing you are to imagine another's perspective the more empathetic you are in general.
That makes a lot of sense, I have a graphic imagination and can picture other people's scenarios happening to me, even if they are scenarios I will probably never encounter. I started happening when I began writing, you get so close to all those characters, and progressed when I went through some situations that really humbled me.
__________________
My words are edible
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-25-2017, 04:32 PM
Loser&Loner's Avatar
Loser&Loner (Offline)
Intellectually Fertile
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: By the sea
Posts: 153
Thanks: 19
Thanks 17
Default

Originally Posted by Myers View Post
Well, that's pretty close in my book.

But the other side of the coin is that you have to admit it when the experience is so far outside of what you can really understand and appreciate that you just have to throw up your hands and say -- I don't get it.

That's a form of empathy too -- and it also may be an indication that it's a good time to keep your mouth shut.
Do you mean those moments someone may be going through something terrible and you want to lay the pity party on them but really they just need to be left alone?
__________________
My words are edible
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-25-2017, 04:33 PM
Loser&Loner's Avatar
Loser&Loner (Offline)
Intellectually Fertile
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: By the sea
Posts: 153
Thanks: 19
Thanks 17
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
How about this... One of the most dangerous feelings known to man. 😊

Communism is based on it, killed everyone.

Statism is based on it, kills everyone.

Regime change is based on it, kills everyone.

And so on... History is filled with supposedly well meaning intellectuals who so love the masses they'll do anything for the 'greater good'.
Huh?
__________________
My words are edible
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-25-2017, 04:40 PM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,634
Thanks: 198
Thanks 691
Default

Originally Posted by Myers View Post
If it's not really empathy, is it?
How so? If you haven't watched it for me this really is the best debate for and against the Iraq war: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9y_qQUippQ

Christopher who I'm happy to describe as one of my heroes is motivated by empathy and solidarity with the Iraqi people.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-25-2017, 05:00 PM
Loser&Loner's Avatar
Loser&Loner (Offline)
Intellectually Fertile
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: By the sea
Posts: 153
Thanks: 19
Thanks 17
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
All of these things are sold on the basis of empathy for the poor and oppressed.
Dude, that makes no sense. Communism is about empowerment for the working class. Marxism is the dream but it's just another game of politics. Not all people who are poor and oppressed want the same thing. Empathy is about catering to individual needs, it would be impossible for an entire government system to do. We are talking about an emotion here not a system.
__________________
My words are edible
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-25-2017, 05:08 PM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,634
Thanks: 198
Thanks 691
Default

Originally Posted by Loser&Loner View Post
Dude, that makes no sense. Communism is about empowerment for the working class. Marxism is the dream but it's just another game of politics. Not all people who are poor and oppressed want the same thing. Empathy is about catering to individual needs, it would be impossible for an entire government system to do. We are talking about an emotion here not a system.
Communism, egalitarianism, charity, socialism, religion.

We're constantly called upon to have empathy for the most vulnerable in our societies, and this finds expression within political systems, as do all emotions.

I'm just pointing out that for however helpful it is, it is also very dangerous, it's not that hard to understand.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 10-25-2017, 05:13 PM
Loser&Loner's Avatar
Loser&Loner (Offline)
Intellectually Fertile
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: By the sea
Posts: 153
Thanks: 19
Thanks 17
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
Communism, egalitarianism, charity, socialism, religion.

We're constantly called upon to have empathy for the most vulnerable in our societies, and this finds expression within political systems, as do all emotions.

I'm just pointing out that for however helpful it is, it is also very dangerous, it's not that hard to understand.
You are blaming empathy for tyranny. Not human greed and corruption but empathy. Not propaganda or a lack of education for the masses but empathy. That would be like if someone were to blame Obama's failures on hope because he used that as his campaign slogan.
__________________
My words are edible
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Loser&Loner For This Useful Post:
brianpatrick (10-25-2017)
  #42  
Old 10-25-2017, 08:27 PM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,634
Thanks: 198
Thanks 691
Default

Originally Posted by Loser&Loner View Post
You are blaming empathy for tyranny. Not human greed and corruption but empathy. Not propaganda or a lack of education for the masses but empathy. That would be like if someone were to blame Obama's failures on hope because he used that as his campaign slogan.
Consider the many thousands of socialists and communists from the mid-nineteenth century until now working day and night debating, theorising, experimenting socially, organising and recruiting tirelessly. You read their work and you see men and women transfixed by the problem of poverty and inequality, including Marx. Marx died in obscurity, didn't kill anyone, wasn't motivated by greed, lived mainly in squalor for most of his life. Does that mean that his ideas weren't dangerous in any way? And that it was only human greed and corruption which poisoned them?

It's a leftist thing to be empathetic, that's the main charge against the right is that they have no heart.

So, driven by empathy, these people end up constructing their own prisons, and setting the stage for tyranny. When someone asks me to support their communistic programme, because y'know, I should be empathetic, I'm not supposed to be wary, because I can't see the link between it and tyranny? This is what I mean when I say it can be dangerous and I could give a whole heap of other examples (aid to Africa is a good one). Hope is too.

Would I blame Obama's failures on hope? Not solely, I would say that we're under a collective delusion that governments know what they're doing and one day our saviour will come, ie: that we just need the right individual at the helm of the state to fix everything, which is a useless hope and pretty dangerous in and of itself sure.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-25-2017, 10:02 PM
eripiomundus (Offline)
The Next Bard
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 407
Thanks: 27
Thanks 109
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
Consider the many thousands of socialists and communists from the mid-nineteenth century until now working day and night debating, theorising, experimenting socially, organising and recruiting tirelessly. You read their work and you see men and women transfixed by the problem of poverty and inequality, including Marx. Marx died in obscurity, didn't kill anyone, wasn't motivated by greed, lived mainly in squalor for most of his life. Does that mean that his ideas weren't dangerous in any way? And that it was only human greed and corruption which poisoned them?
Communism dangerous? Hardly. If you take the time to read Commuinist literature you'll see they're only seeking greater equality. That's hardly dangerous unless you happen to be of the wealthy minority who would be hard-done-by if such a policy were effected. Many, if not most, of the deaths attributed to communism resulted from resistance to communism by wealthy land-owners who were set to lose their wealth in the face of the new regime, not by virtue of communist doctrine. The ideas themselves are fairly reasonable. It was absolutely greed and corruption (not just inside the communist state but applied from the outside also) that caused the implementation of communism (socialism really) in the USSR to be such a bloody affair. All in all communism as an ideal is far superior to capitalism if you take it from an equality standpoint.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-25-2017, 11:46 PM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,634
Thanks: 198
Thanks 691
Default

Originally Posted by eripiomundus View Post
Communism dangerous? Hardly. If you take the time to read Commuinist literature you'll see they're only seeking greater equality. That's hardly dangerous unless you happen to be of the wealthy minority who would be hard-done-by if such a policy were effected. Many, if not most, of the deaths attributed to communism resulted from resistance to communism by wealthy land-owners who were set to lose their wealth in the face of the new regime, not by virtue of communist doctrine. The ideas themselves are fairly reasonable. It was absolutely greed and corruption (not just inside the communist state but applied from the outside also) that caused the implementation of communism (socialism really) in the USSR to be such a bloody affair. All in all communism as an ideal is far superior to capitalism if you take it from an equality standpoint.
OK so we're getting somewhere. Communism is based on empathy, among other things, but empathy is a central motivation.

Read plenty of communist literature, and I hope you can see in my post that I was defending its motives.

The reason why it's dangerous is that it must call for central management of resources, or 'public' ownership if you will, which requires the expansion of the state, which always results in totalitarianism.

I put statism in the same bag. And tax.

There's a lot of black and white thinking here. I suppose if I said love was dangerous it would also be controversial.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-26-2017, 03:27 AM
Loser&Loner's Avatar
Loser&Loner (Offline)
Intellectually Fertile
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: By the sea
Posts: 153
Thanks: 19
Thanks 17
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
Consider the many thousands of socialists and communists from the mid-nineteenth century until now working day and night debating, theorising, experimenting socially, organising and recruiting tirelessly. You read their work and you see men and women transfixed by the problem of poverty and inequality, including Marx. Marx died in obscurity, didn't kill anyone, wasn't motivated by greed, lived mainly in squalor for most of his life. Does that mean that his ideas weren't dangerous in any way? And that it was only human greed and corruption which poisoned them?

It's a leftist thing to be empathetic, that's the main charge against the right is that they have no heart.

So, driven by empathy, these people end up constructing their own prisons, and setting the stage for tyranny. When someone asks me to support their communistic programme, because y'know, I should be empathetic, I'm not supposed to be wary, because I can't see the link between it and tyranny? This is what I mean when I say it can be dangerous and I could give a whole heap of other examples (aid to Africa is a good one). Hope is too.

Would I blame Obama's failures on hope? Not solely, I would say that we're under a collective delusion that governments know what they're doing and one day our saviour will come, ie: that we just need the right individual at the helm of the state to fix everything, which is a useless hope and pretty dangerous in and of itself sure.
They were driven by the need to change regimes, and when you change entire regimes for another regime conflict arises because not everyone believes or wants the same thing? Empathy becomes a problem when you only empathize with one side. Empathy has to go both ways but people are hypocritical and selfish, down to the core. We can only empathize with people who want or believe what we consider is right- that is a type of discrimination.


'For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours!'

I looked then and saw that his robes, which had seemed white, were not so, but were woven of all colours, and if he moved they shimmered and changed hue so that the eye was bewildered.

I liked white better,' I said.

White!' he sneered. 'It serves as a beginning. White cloth may be dyed. The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken.'

In which case it is no longer white,' said I. 'And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.





They say love makes people do terrible things. No it doesn't- if satan were real that was one of his most powerful lies he molded into our society.

"I killed her because I loved her and she cheated on me!"

Uhm... If you love someone and they cheat on you, and you rejected all the little lizard brain feelings that would come from that and replaced it with empathy and wisdom you would either forgive them for a lapse in judgement (monogamy is harder for some than others) or your love for them would allow you to forgive them and let them go because you want them to be happy and obviously they found a better fit for themselves or just honestly don't feel the same way about you. That emotion that clouds out love and empathy at a moment like finding out your partner has been unfaithful is called jealousy and fear at loosing what you had.




As for "the left" thinking "the right" do not have hearts? That is another blanket statement. This whole left vs right thing is a distraction the elite are using to distract us about the huge gap between the rich and the middle-class among other things. It isn't important! Of course the extremely wealthy want us arguing over stupid race issues and not scrutinizing them. If I were them that's exactly what I would want to so I don't hate them for it. Boom- right there- that is empathy!
Let me ask you something, does it make you feel better that your side is right and the other is wrong? "urgh, stupid lefties they don't even know. "urgh greedy conservative, I know nothing about them other than stereotypes I believe and shove down their throat"


Here is my analogy for the stereotypical "righty"


A man sits at a table where everyone is eating several slices of bread off their own plate and while he leaves his own plate of bread untouched, he very boldly takes bread off of all the other plates; all the while lecturing people not to share their bread with anyone, not even the people who are sit at other tables with no bread at all because then they won't learn how to make their own bread or they will just keep coming back for more.


Asshole.


Now for the stereotypical "lefty"


The lefty has their own plate of bread and looks around at all the others, he notices that some plates have more bread than the others, so he empties his plate of bread and stuffs his pockets and walks around taking handfuls of bread from all the plates- double for those with more. Then he climbs on the table, takes a napkin, covers his face so that he is blind and throws the heap of bread from the collection plate and into the air yelling, "BREAD FOR EVERYONE!"



Idiot.


The reality: the makers of the bread have most hoarded away and molding and they use that bread to trade with other people with the most bread and laugh at the sheep sitting at the tables.
__________________
My words are edible

Last edited by Loser&Loner; 10-26-2017 at 03:47 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 10-26-2017, 03:46 AM
Loser&Loner's Avatar
Loser&Loner (Offline)
Intellectually Fertile
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: By the sea
Posts: 153
Thanks: 19
Thanks 17
Default

I do understand what you are trying to say JC, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
__________________
My words are edible
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-26-2017, 04:09 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,634
Thanks: 198
Thanks 691
Default

Originally Posted by Loser&Loner View Post
They say love makes people do terrible things. No it doesn't- if satan were real that was one of his most powerful lies he molded into our society.

"I killed her because I loved her and she cheated on me!"
I get the want for keeping these terms pure, ie: love is all we need. But it's like anything, can be a force for good or ill.

I can love someone so much I keep taking them back after however many betrayals creating toxic relationships or being a 'sucker' for love. Or love them in a way which blinds me to their flaws... or leads me to become over-protective. I could love myself so much that I become narcissistic. I could love the world so much that I commit infanticide, y'know, for their sins or something. I could love everyone, rendering love meaningless, with no standard to live up to... conversely, I could love based on arbitrary things like race or social standing.

All of these things have negative effects it's not an exact science because we're just poorly evolved mammals compelled to love and be loved but without knowing how to channel that emotional in strictly positive ways. It's certainly where philosophy is required to help us define it and act according to said definition. I feel a new thread coming on...
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.

Last edited by JohnConstantine; 10-26-2017 at 04:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-26-2017, 04:29 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,634
Thanks: 198
Thanks 691
Default

Originally Posted by Loser&Loner View Post
As for "the left" thinking "the right" do not have hearts? That is another blanket statement. This whole left vs right thing is a distraction the elite are using to distract us about the huge gap between the rich and the middle-class among other things. It isn't important! Of course the extremely wealthy want us arguing over stupid race issues and not scrutinizing them. If I were them that's exactly what I would want to so I don't hate them for it. Boom- right there- that is empathy!
Let me ask you something, does it make you feel better that your side is right and the other is wrong? "urgh, stupid lefties they don't even know. "urgh greedy conservative, I know nothing about them other than stereotypes I believe and shove down their throat"
.
So I don't have a side. The right left dichotomy is useful to map out some basic ideas, ie: large state vs small state, social safety nets vs freer markets, heavy redistribution vs lower taxes.

I'm pretty politically simple. I'm happy for people to do what they like so long as no force is involved. That obviously invalidates the state though, just a minor thing.

This is probably another dangerous idea born out of love and empathy.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-26-2017, 07:29 AM
Loser&Loner's Avatar
Loser&Loner (Offline)
Intellectually Fertile
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: By the sea
Posts: 153
Thanks: 19
Thanks 17
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
I get the want for keeping these terms pure, ie: love is all we need. But it's like anything, can be a force for good or ill.

I can love someone so much I keep taking them back after however many betrayals creating toxic relationships or being a 'sucker' for love. Or love them in a way which blinds me to their flaws... or leads me to become over-protective. I could love myself so much that I become narcissistic. I could love the world so much that I commit infanticide, y'know, for their sins or something. I could love everyone, rendering love meaningless, with no standard to live up to... conversely, I could love based on arbitrary things like race or social standing.

All of these things have negative effects it's not an exact science because we're just poorly evolved mammals compelled to love and be loved but without knowing how to channel that emotional in strictly positive ways. It's certainly where philosophy is required to help us define it and act according to said definition. I feel a new thread coming on...
Interesting point but I do think there are other words that would better suit feelings that explain, "loving too much" and I think that word is obsession- correct me if I'm wrong. As for loving yourself so much that you become narcissistic- well, people do love to throw that word around without really knowing what it means. People with narcissistic personality disorder actually hate themselves but can't face it, usually because of some past trauma. Speaking from experience- a good dose of humble pie and empathy stew is the cure for that, but narcs are usually unable to feel those emotions. You can be vain, which appears like you love yourself too much but that isn't love, it's vanity. love that becomes tainted morphs into knew words like vanity and obsession because they are no longer love.

Empathy is different than love so we got off topic. You can feel empathy for someone you love and you can feel empathy for someone you hate, that's the beauty of it. Empathy is a tool you need to treat someone the way you would want to be treated in their place. A good judge would need a high level of empathy so he can look at someone who committed a crime, address the facts, the feelings involved that made the criminal commit the crime, and deduce when possible that it could have happened to anyone, including themselves, that way they can hand out a just punishment because they realize (using empathy) that if they were in the criminals spot they would want to be punished fairly too.
__________________
My words are edible
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-26-2017, 08:38 AM
JohnConstantine's Avatar
JohnConstantine (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,634
Thanks: 198
Thanks 691
Default

Originally Posted by Loser&Loner View Post
Interesting point but I do think there are other words that would better suit feelings that explain, "loving too much" and I think that word is obsession- correct me if I'm wrong. As for loving yourself so much that you become narcissistic- well, people do love to throw that word around without really knowing what it means. People with narcissistic personality disorder actually hate themselves but can't face it, usually because of some past trauma. Speaking from experience- a good dose of humble pie and empathy stew is the cure for that, but narcs are usually unable to feel those emotions. You can be vain, which appears like you love yourself too much but that isn't love, it's vanity. love that becomes tainted morphs into knew words like vanity and obsession because they are no longer love.
Sorry to go off topic but I've often thought about this. It's definitely important to have an ideal standard of love, and to this end we might want to define its negative offsprings as something else altogether. I would certainly tell that to my daughter for her own protection but whether I truly believe it I'm not entirely sure.

If we do this -- define love only by its ideal form -- I think it's fair to say that large sections of society are incapable of love. It would follow, for example, that one cannot be at once in love and jealous. I've been on the receiving end of a jealous, possessive, obsessive love -- however philosophically useful it is to do so, on a human level it's difficult for me to compartmentalise the genuine aspects of it, and its tainted forms, it appears to be a package deal. To put it another way, in my experience people can genuinely love each other whilst engaging in a highly toxic relationship.

You see the problem? I couldn't ever teach my daughter that, and I know it's not strictly rational, but it is my experience I can't get away from that.
__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 10-26-2017, 10:16 AM
Loser&Loner's Avatar
Loser&Loner (Offline)
Intellectually Fertile
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: By the sea
Posts: 153
Thanks: 19
Thanks 17
Default

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine View Post
Sorry to go off topic but I've often thought about this. It's definitely important to have an ideal standard of love, and to this end we might want to define its negative offsprings as something else altogether. I would certainly tell that to my daughter for her own protection but whether I truly believe it I'm not entirely sure.

If we do this -- define love only by its ideal form -- I think it's fair to say that large sections of society are incapable of love. It would follow, for example, that one cannot be at once in love and jealous. I've been on the receiving end of a jealous, possessive, obsessive love -- however philosophically useful it is to do so, on a human level it's difficult for me to compartmentalise the genuine aspects of it, and its tainted forms, it appears to be a package deal. To put it another way, in my experience people can genuinely love each other whilst engaging in a highly toxic relationship.

You see the problem? I couldn't ever teach my daughter that, and I know it's not strictly rational, but it is my experience I can't get away from that.
Very few people are incapable of love actually when you look at it in percentages, but yeah psychopaths are out there- I think they say 1% of the population is. Having said that most people are incapable of addressing more than one emotion at a time, it's hard, our brain has a lot of stuff it's taking care of at any given time and on top of that it has to process emotions like, love for your partner ,horniness for that hot co-worker, impatience for the idiot in the car in front of you etc. Love is difficult even on it's own, it's a force like every other emotion and it needs reigns. That is why when you say I love you it is supposed to be life changing, but people are so flippant with the word it is loosing meaning. I love my husband but sometimes my low level of patience makes me forget it and I let other emotions like anger and disgust distract me. After we talk it out I empathize with his POV as he does mine and we don't kill eachother. Rinse, wash, repeat.

I like what Louis CK said about people, how most people aren't willing to back out of doing their very favorite thing, they won't even compromise for doing their second favorite thing. People are c****, love is hard, fire is hot.

I think with my kids I am going to lead by example rather than lecture them about these things, they need to figure it out themselves unfortunately.
__________________
My words are edible

Last edited by Loser&Loner; 10-26-2017 at 11:56 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-26-2017, 10:30 AM
Loser&Loner's Avatar
Loser&Loner (Offline)
Intellectually Fertile
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: By the sea
Posts: 153
Thanks: 19
Thanks 17
Default

Emotions are like parallel lines that do not cross but exist at the same time. Your anger will never be sadness, your sadness will never be happiness, your love will never be hate but... you can laugh when you are sad, you can hate someone you love, you can empathize with someone who disgusts you, you can be in love with your partner but lust after others... the list goes on and on.

Negatives and postives both exist in separate charges. Negative emotions all connect with one another, as do positive ones.
__________________
My words are edible
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-26-2017, 05:11 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,837
Thanks: 330
Thanks 651
Default

Originally Posted by Loser&Loner View Post
If people were conditioned to feel pure empathy would they gamble their money away?
Why do you think per empathy would preclude a desire for risk?
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-27-2017, 01:34 AM
Loser&Loner's Avatar
Loser&Loner (Offline)
Intellectually Fertile
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: By the sea
Posts: 153
Thanks: 19
Thanks 17
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
Why do you think per empathy would preclude a desire for risk?
In a non-existant fantasy world that would implode from too many paradoxes.
__________________
My words are edible
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-28-2017, 07:28 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,837
Thanks: 330
Thanks 651
Default

Originally Posted by Loser&Loner View Post
Dude, that makes no sense. Communism is about empowerment for the working class. Marxism is the dream but it's just another game of politics. Not all people who are poor and oppressed want the same thing. Empathy is about catering to individual needs, it would be impossible for an entire government system to do. We are talking about an emotion here not a system.
People project empathy to have people buy into "collectives", be it communism, socialism, etc.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBmFwKH5bVY

Once someone declares that they know how you feel, then they can deliver the prescription for the woes.
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-28-2017, 07:31 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,837
Thanks: 330
Thanks 651
Default

Originally Posted by Loser&Loner View Post
You are blaming empathy for tyranny. Not human greed and corruption but empathy. Not propaganda or a lack of education for the masses but empathy. That would be like if someone were to blame Obama's failures on hope because he used that as his campaign slogan.
part of the hopey changey thing was empathy. We know you're oppressed, and I got your back. I'll even stop the Ocean's from rising further if you vote for me.
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tribute to Selfishness Cityboy Free Writing 4 09-16-2016 04:50 PM
Empathy (or am I crazy?) Tor Free Writing 32 08-29-2014 09:44 AM
empathy Tor Poetry 17 11-29-2013 05:45 PM
Empathy ViiRain Poetry 0 05-10-2012 11:31 AM
The Pinocchio Syndrome: Breathing life into "wooden" characters Devon General Writing 0 12-03-2011 11:56 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:01 PM.

vBulletin, Copyright 2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.