Life has no objective meaning.

What is the meaning of life having no meaning? The answer is clearly subjective. If someone decided to commit suicide because life has no objective meaning, that means they thought their subjective argument of "no objective meaning means no reason to live" was sufficient reasoning for suicide. So they've created an argument for subjective meaning being sufficient for the ultimate act while maintaining it's not good enough for everything less. Doesn't make much sense to me.

If a thousand people see something and tell you about it, you must interpret whether a thousand people seeing the same thing means it happened or not. If you say yes, it's an epistemological argument you're making just as if you say no. So it is subjective and people need to make up their own minds about what degree of belief about what is true, based on what evidence they have.

I think that racism is a subgroup of a type of thinking which makes assumptions about people that are not only unsubstantiated in any acceptable way but are inherently detrimental. It's a hateful and ignorant way of looking at people which is based off nothing rational or reasonable, at least most of the time.
I think racism stands out above other categories of this way of thinking because of its destructive history.

The real question isn't whether racism is wrong but being able to decide what is and what isn't racism. For example, I don't dislike Chinese people but I seriously dislike mainstream Chinese culture. The collectivism, materialism, racism, shallowness and rigidness towards discipline and image over freedom, I hate it. If I said I didn't want any Chinese immigrants because there's a high probability of them subscribing to that detestable culture, am I a racist?

If people want to retain their nations previously unambiguous ethnic identity are they still racist if they associate that with the retention of their culture and national attitudes? Is it actually untrue that immigration from different cultures won't disrupt that? Is it unfair for them to feel that way? When ethnic minorities are celebrated for wanting to preserve their own cultures?

I have my own answers to these questions but I don't think others do and that makes it very difficult for them to actually argue against what they perceive as racism. Hypocrisy is rampant, we're encouraged to celebrate ethnic histories but told it's the worst thing possible for white people to want to defend their ethnic heritage. Ethnic groups are taught to be proud of their heritage but white people bringing it up is considered racist in of itself. Other ethnicities in other countries wanting to preserve their ethnic identity aren't criticised.

If you're not racially motivated then racial differences shouldn't matter.

I don't like it when people discriminate to draw conclusions which are entirely impossible based on the level of information they have.

I am using discrimination as in "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another". People value things differently and understand things interpretatively, so they're going to dislike others based on their reasons. I am a moral relativist, I can only argue for the utility of my views. I don't believe racists are objectively wrong, this thread is just about plotting a logical course of action for those who dislike racism. If you disliked sexism though, I'd advocate the same course of action and anything else (though some things aren't as fixable as others due to biological considerations).

I think that unlike race, there are actual differences between cultures, genders and other factors. It all comes back to drawing unreasonable conclusions based on insufficient information or just being objectively wrong in your assertions.

The thing is that what you're saying mostly makes sense only from a racially concerned perspective. Having the same skin colour as me doesn't make you similar to me, what are we celebrating? I know I'll have a hard time convincing people that celebration of different races is a bad thing but when you do that, you're saying race is important. You are highlighting this difference when we want to be doing the opposite. You can't make your race a big deal in a positive way and then be shocked when people start to think racially in unflattering ways.

I'm not really a believer in equality, interpretatively speaking, discrimination is necessary but it doesn't have to be based on race.


There's a difference between something being relevant interpretatively and something being visible. Ask what does it "mean" for someone to be a certain ethnicity and try to reduce the answers you come up with. There are already many other things which are interpretatively relevant but prejudicial like attractiveness, intelligence, temperament, preferences, status, wealth, fashion and so on. To me, racism can only be reduced by replacing "this person is x ethnicity therefore they're probably w y z" with "this person is articulate therefore they're probably "a b c".

I'm not saying people should try to be "colour blind" literally just figuratively and by that I mean interpretatively. It's not necessarily the case that the alternatives are fairer but I think they're less divisive and distracting.

I do find that people who spend a lot of time online are more likely to just deal with ideas and merit because that's what they're used to - seeing as they're used to not even knowing the race, gender, appearance, status and so on.

Ethnicity is different because it's not a choice and it doesn't even mean anything. I am not trying to remove all prejudice, I am just asking whether if you wanted to remove a prejudice, whether it would be best to try to make it irrelevant interpretively or not.

There will be separation by groups in many ways, different characteristics will be judged and so much more. I offer no solutions on how to entirely eliminate prejudice, nor do I think it is possible even for a single person to eliminate their own prejudice.


Yeah, well it got created as an opposite to black rather than trying to be an accurate description. I don't like it either but I guess I don't care that much.

I don't remember Fooloso as being a conspiracy theorist, he had appeared to me to be just saying that it existed on both sides when I previously read him using the same examples in the same topic. Perhaps he agrees with you that the modern extreme left is benign? Doesn't seem like he said that though and it wouldn't matter if he did.

I'm not sure what you think you're debating with me, when my only issue with you is that you think the modern extreme left is benign. Just seems like you're making even more assumptions about me, you want me so bad to be some right-winger who only hates the left because he's an unreasonable ass.

I think any real thinker worth something, doesn't consider themselves left or right but hasn't adopted any of those skewed ways of looking at the world. Interpretatively and politically, being their own person.

Anyway, I've already been tired of talking to you, even your way of approaching demonstrating causation is ridiculous and you think to defend yourself by making stuff up about me and my views. I don't enjoy talking about politics, the truth is we're always stuck in a bad situation, we have to choose our poison. I just want some incompetent government who realises we have a good thing and doesn't try to ruin it. Someone who thinks the extreme left is a good or even the best choice is just scary.

Fooloso's post is about how political correctness occurs on both sides, your response was that the modern extreme left is benign.

You have no idea what I stand for or what I believe. You did tell me what I needed to know I suppose, I was justified in my actions towards you and I won't wait for this conversation to end to start disregarding what you say.

I'm talking about the modern extreme left, I never said that you said the extreme left was always harmless but pretty much the exact opposite. What's your stake in all this anyway?

I got no idea what that comment is supposed to mean. Nobody is an advocate of political correctness and if you wanted a particular type of example you should have said as much, I didn't write the OP.


So you were being serious, you're a moron. If you came here telling me the extreme right are just "chaps who care about their ethnic identity" I would have lambasted you the same way I did when you came and talked about the modern extreme left like they're no big deal. So don't talk to me like I'm some kind of extreme right apologist because I point out you have an extremely imbalanced perspective.

Talking to you about the dangers the extreme left presents seems like a waste of my time. You tell me not that people who like political correctness are harmless (not that I'd agree) but that the literal extreme left is harmless. I assure you that the extreme right is not out there doing what the extreme right did in the 20th century but don't worry, I don't forgive them for that. That I don't forgive the extreme left is something you can be mad about, I'm sure it's entirely unreasonable to you but I don't care to argue about it.

If such a thing was your intent it was well veiled... I sadly don't think enough see your views as absurd and that encourages me to think you were serious. I no longer know if you were serious or not but if you weren't then I apologise, if you were then there's that's that.

Actually, I'll also point out that's an absurd characterisation of the extreme right as well. I will make a point to discard what you say in the future as you suggest, what a joke.

I hope you don't expect too much from me, I agree that you'll hear more about political correctness being bad than actual political correctness. Nobody says they're in favour of political correctness because the term is necessarily denigrating. The idea behind political correctness is that you're omitting information or condemning things on the basis that they might offend people. I just googled some extreme examples rather than talk forever about my own experiences.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/10-examples-ridiculous-political-correctness-150911412.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADRy0h6Qxr9C2OfBHQhHlDCEfatuMLnOWzRC8EojdEqxpvnBW8Ahy1UXTP1Sq1-YWXLzJmSYOBvn8QLEiaPBmvxgceMRs1MoI5al7QjOFjRlklpFhdV8FoUXdLPx4nE80CLCqKoi-WuSvlSN-Aunhq5T46O-aGRAJ3SFjHyVHuL4
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoliticalCorrectnessgoneMad


I've had this chat with Fooloso in other forums and it's important to realise that it occurs from both sides but only because people wrongly believe it doesn't. Acting as though the extreme left is benign is absolutely ridiculous, do you perhaps know nothing about history at all? Clearly, you haven't been paying attention to the present either.

There's all kinds of different "white" cultures which aren't racial, people who like country music for example. It would just mean that, for example, hip hop is no longer "black music" but just music that anyone can make and listen to and it's as relevant that mostly black people do as it is that mostly people with black hair do. The way "black" people speak just becomes a way of speaking for people from particular areas.

I'm not trying to destroy "black" culture but in my view, there's already no such thing as "white" culture and nothing was destroyed to achieve that.

Political correctness is both an ideological invention and a way of avoiding fights. I think political correctness as an ideological invention is most prominent when people are using the idea of "not offending" people to shutdown attempts to discuss things in entirely reasonable terms. I think that asking "how are you" is pretty much a terrible misunderstanding of what political correctness is and your explanation of what it is is far more accurate. It is merely a way of acknowledging someone in an ingratiating manner which shows feelings of goodwill.

Well, that is certainly true but I do not feel that people who openly think and speak in racial terms receive the condemnation they should and treating problems racially and implementing racially sensitive solutions is publicly thought of as necessary. If black people have been set back by racial oppression then it's only fair to give black people advantages to catch back up, that's how people think.

Instead of just embracing black people as the same as any American which is what people like Martin Luther King jr wanted and seeing poor people as poor people rather than thinking "poor black people". I do hold the media accountable like you do but it is larger than them.

There's a difference between being allowed to talk about differences and highlighting them. I am not saying the word racism should be removed from the dictionary or that the term "black communities" should be banned. It is about navigating the appropriate actions as someone who wants to lessen the extent of racism.

If you can point to a cause that impacts people on a racial basis then shine a light on it and let's all condemn it and try to change it. It's just a matter of how the human mind works.

If you're told "black people are more likely to cause crime than white people" what does that even mean? It means nothing until someone starts talking about why that is. If you can tell me why that is then shine a light on a non-racial problem like "black people are generally less educated than white people and less educated people generally commit more crimes". Don't make it a racial issue, we can actually aim to do something about a lack of education but not just for black people but all Americans (or w/e nationality).

Or if the problem is that the police unfairly target black people then again, actively contest this idea so it no longer happens. The question is how to actively contest genuine racism and my view is that the best way is to show a new way of looking at the same thing. So if a percentage of the reason black people commit more crime is that they're unfairly convicted of more crimes due to a prejudicial justice system then how is that going to be changed?

I would assume that the involved people are looking at likelihood to commit crime racially because there's a focus on the racial factor. There are so many other factors we could be concentrating on rather than the likelihood of the ethnicity of perpetrators. There are so many ways to classify people but we choose to focus on race and for me, that's the main cause of racism. By talking about things in a racial framework all the time, it's inevitable that people think about things racially and form opinions about people and things in racial terms. It's shocking to me when people act like racism is surprising, given how prevalent race is - it makes no sense to expect something else.

You've made a lot of good points Robson. I can see that if you see continuity between what you think you would do in a situation and what someone else is doing in that situation, you may gain insights into what they could be thinking, particularly if the reason seems obvious.

The question really becomes, just how many thoughts are capable of causing that action? The limitations of empathy as a tool for understanding in such a context are clear when you:
1. Apply it to groups.
2. Apply it to people you don't know

At least, it seems you understand the problems with doing that which mostly comes down to incomplete information and multiple possibilities of "why" with no way of eliminating any of them (with empathy). Even with people we do know, where we have some information, the problem becomes how specific we need to be. The greater the specificity needed, the greater the knowledge requirements are and mostly this can only come from that person specifically. Realistically if we have the ability to ask questions, we should just ask them how they feel and why rather than make assumptions.

I think that if you know someone well though, empathy is possibly not the best because you actually know them well enough to not use empathy. For example, I know my dad doesn't like criticism - even if I'm okay with criticism, I know how he will not like it if someone complains about something he has done.
As a result of my understanding, my predictions become more accurate than what they would be if I used empathy (at least your definition for it).

I do agree that the idea of empathy has become very politicised and people misuse it to mean "understanding people for the sake of viewing them more favourably" even though empathy doesn't mean that at all. The problem is that when you "put yourself in someone else's shoes" you have put a presumably reasonable, unemotional person in place of someone who is emotional and is not thinking logically. It makes people seem better than they are when you use empathy like "here's a possible reasonable explanation for why this person is acting this way". It's also true that you (as a person in their shoes) have nothing to do with what is happening to you. I think for those reasons it is such a popular word politically.

This post was about extent for novelty in interpretative structures and challenging alternative ideas about how they explain the existence of undesirable interpretations. Putting aside any biological impetus, there have been cultures/religions in the past that really emphasised particular ways of looking at the world and prioritising/thinking about the concepts they found relevant.

Spartan culture really promoted your ability as a warrior, in the past Christianity focused on piety, purity, responsibility to God and church and so on. So a person living in a culture in that time is likely to perceive the world through the lens of those interpretative structures.

If we look back to the 1960s, 70s, 80s - we saw culture changing (mostly due to technology and changing attitudes) by completely shifting what was important interpretatively. It seems that this is how change occurs.

All sorts of things wouldn't be relevant if society at large didn't care about it so much. I view race as such a thing, I was brought up to not factor someone's race into my decision making or understanding of a person. This would have continued but because of how society is, it's not entirely possible to not have an opinion on the issue of race.

It's not just racism, there are "ethnic communities", ethnic histories (as opposed to national), ethnicity matters for politics and so many things. The government and universities in the US offer special treatment to different ethnic groups. All of these things encourage people to think in racial terms, factor it into their understanding about whatever it touches.

Instead of talking about why your race doesn't matter, the opposite is mostly occurring. I feel this new focus for us to "solve" racism will lead to more racism, it seems inevitable to me. This could apply to anything though, making something more interpretatively relevant will make all interpretative uses more common and not just the desired one. This idea has changed how I think about a lot of things such as fairness and parenting.

If my culture didn't care about the things I care about - could I still care about them? To what extent am I focused on things for reasons that have nothing to do with causation or truth, but simply prevalence? Are the interpretations I have of things always based on what I want them to be or did I just have to have an opinion about something because everyone else does?

The reality is that I could go through each post and find multiple lies in each one, the latest is that I asked for empathy, that I have conflated the claims of empathy as a pre-requisite to understanding with it being conclusive and that I deny both. Last post you made up a lot, I asked you to back up your words and not only do you fail to do that but you lie even more. You still haven't stopped misrepresenting me. There is a discussion going on between Gary and Gary's Judaka but I'm not involved and really, I don't care.

Healthy mindset? I think that depends on the context.

I would like to be wealthy, with a wife I'm in love with and great kids, working for myself and with many hobbies that I enjoy.

When I was younger (I'm 26 now) I thought about the kind of character I wanted to have and the kind of outlook I wanted. A dream is kind of a sad term because a dream becomes an ambition when you have a plan. So a dream is not something that is likely to occur, that's how one way you can destroy dreams - by having a realistic plan.

I do fantasise about maybe one day writing a book about something and some of my ideas being useful to others. Or about being rich or becoming one of the best at something and experiencing great victories. If such things happen then yay but I don't need them to happen for me to live happily-ever-after.

If I thought these desires were unhealthy then I would strip them of their value interpretatively as I previously described. Perhaps to some extent, I've done that enough to the point where I can accept them not happening. I don't really care if my ideas are useful to others, I don't need to be rich or be the best and if I did feel that these things had to happen for w/e reason then I imagine that could be a burden on me.

Your response was much like I expected, lazy and pathetic. You didn't paraphrase any of my views but only continued to act as though you know me well enough to make the assertions you do.

I don't know where your ideas about me came from but you seem to think you understand me well. This thread was never about me whining about people misusing empathy to understand me, if you want to make assumptions and roll on with them then go ahead. I am here to learn and practice philosophy, continue to revel in your ignorance and only stop at your leisure. However, it is not possible to learn about anything when someone is off in their own little world is it?


What is the argument you made which has not been addressed?

Hmm, this isn't going anywhere, my response would lead us back to where we started.

Thx for chat but I'm done here.

I understand what you're saying creativesoul, I've met many who've argued the same things. I am willing to grant you that you may be able to add to your pool of theories with empathy in a manner which is useful, in contexts where you have experience. My title is hyperbole.

I think we may also disagree on what empathy is and what it isn't, here's an example. I am introvert and for the life of me sometimes, I can't fathom how an extrovert thinks. Intellectually I understand but I'd feel much more comfortable trying to understand an introvert than an extrovert because I have my own experience as an introvert. So when an extrovert talks about their experiences, I got no idea what they're talking about emotionally.

This doesn't mean I will try to empathise with any introverts I see but I can relate to their experiences. Is that empathy? I would argue it's not but we may disagree on this? I think it would be very difficult for me to understand an alien than another human for these reasons but I still I will at best use empathy to create theories. I don't agree with how others have said that they would use empathy and if everyone used empathy in the way I'm describing, this thread wouldn't exist.

I don't think that we will agree on what empathy can accomplish, how useful it is and how harmful it is as a tool for understanding people. You've provided mostly examples of where empathy is not only useless but harmful, such as understand people you've never met, who went through experiences very different from yourself.

I think what you'll find is that people will appreciate that you've made an effort to empathise with them and gloss over inaccuracies or specifics to show appreciation. The shallow understanding achieved through empathy is not something entirely required by empathy and the deeper down the rabbit hole you go, the more we see important differences which will probably never show up in anything but a very deep conversation.

People accuse me in this thread of not being capable of empathy but this is unfair, I am a keen observer of people and I have the natural ability like anybody else. If we're talking about lower level examples, I think where I disagree with people is at the level of specificity. I also disagree that empathy is needed to understand anything at the surface level and it's conflated with other tools like reading body language, listening and understanding contexts.

If we're talking about understanding complicated issues using empathy, understanding groups or understanding people outside of a specific context, forget it.

Honestly, I have ideas but I don't know. I think it's not easy to tell when willpower is the solution and when it's not. There's the virtue signalling aspect of it as well.

EDIT: You meant what is willpower? Probably a better question asked to google than me. I would probably acquiesce any of my views to the standard psychological literature to which my current understanding is mostly predicated upon.

Excellent analogy.

Weight loss is the best example of overprescribing willpower as both the solution and problem, I find most overweight people are terribly ignorant about how weight loss actually works and they're fed lies by everyone around them - even the experts. Dieting is a terrible solution for overweight people, it doesn't even make any sense. Eventually, your willpower will fail you and then you just go back to eating what you're used to.

Most people who try to lose weight, make plans that rely completely on superhuman willpower. It's so sad because even experts think that's the best way to do it. Ignoring the psychological aspect of food to be dealt with by willpower and discipline. Even the idea of "cheat days" goads people into thinking they lack willpower. There's no attempt at sustainability, education or even just trying to introduce better habits one at a time.

The truth? No running, skipping or situps are required, you can easily eat smaller portions of high-calorie food and still lose weight at a rapid pace and the main reason people are overweight in the first place is due to how they try to fulfil hunger with high-calorie food and they keep that food around the home.

Mind you, I keep saying most and that's what I mean. Not saying this is the only reason people can be overweight.

Why don't plans to lose weight incorporate an understanding of human behaviour instead of pretending more willpower is the answer? Just ridiculous.

I've always wanted to play the madman who proclaims that the end is coming, this will give me something to use.

Seriously though, I think global warming can still be stopped just since people like Elon Musk say it can but it's clearly not going to be stopped because none of the big governments care enough. Oh well, I just hope it's going to be my grandchildren or great-grandchildren who suffer and not me.

Humiliation definitely isn't predicated on valuing other peoples' opinions it's predicated on caring about other peoples' opinions. That care is not necessarily based on respect either.

You can feel humiliated by messing up in front of someone you look down on precisely because you look down on them and you don't want them thinking you're not better than they are. That's why people with big egos can be very defensive and insecure, they have to be the best at everything, never admit they're wrong, they are never graceful in defeat and don't like to praise others.

Or—my ego sayin’ this might be an even better rebuttal—big egos necessarily require insecure egos to be subservient in order to so be or become big egos. Deprived of subservient insecure egos, big egos become insecure egos themselves — javra

Big ego comes from a feeling of superiority which is generally reinforced either with biological proclivities or interpretative reinforcement. That can be a belief in your intellectual superiority, the superiority of your character or beliefs but those are just relatable examples, there are lots.

Lots of people thinking you're awesome can create that feeling of superiority but it isn't the only pre-requisite.

So if a person wears extravagant clothing not to show off or to get compliments but due to it being an honest portrayal of what they deem to be aesthetic, and is well grounded in their reasoning and emotions, some popular other claiming the attire to be awful will not humiliate the person—because the person will know better. No big ego required. Though the experience would likely yet be unpleasant for the individual. — javra

Goth culture is a classic example of this being true. They expect others not to like their attire, it's not something they predicate their ego on that everyone will like it and I suppose they become desensitised to it. Someone like Gandhi is an example of a very strong ego, which means, it's based on very strong and stable things. Things like his beliefs, his morals and his motivations - not things which people other than himself can challenge easily. Compare that to how cool you think you look, well, people can contest that very easily and that's a huge problem for you. It means you need to take those kinds of criticisms seriously. They assault your belief in yourself, your pride and your identity.

In the book/movie Dangerous Liaisons, the villainess had one of the bigger egos one can imagine. Yet when publicly booed at the end of the story, was mortified by humiliation. Does this seem unrealistic to you? (Other easily expressed examples don’t currently come to mind). — javra

@praxis gave a perfect example of Trump, a person who isn't fazed whatsoever by criticism because it appears he views a failure to see him as a great guy is a character deficit in of itself. He calls the media liars, he gives racist explanations for why African-Americans didn't vote for him and he insults his opponents viciously.

Much like a Goth, Trump is still not like Gandhi in having a strong ego, it's just that Trump has become desensitised and dismissive of most criticism from most people. Your villainess may have predicated her ego on a perceived outward perception of her which when undermined caused humiliation. I think doing this to some degree is normal and healthy but having a big ego makes you more susceptible to it and not less. Only people who have conditions for their ego which preclude certain criticism or criticism from certain people can make those ideas irrelevant. I think truth is an example for most people, that's why being in denial to avoid humiliation is so common.

So, basically, my proposition is this: that inhibitions are evidence of an active will-power, without which, a person can neither be said to be intentional in application of intelligent influence and, to some degree, even the instinctive reactions are diminished. — BrianW

The problem with this idea is that many inhibitions have a neurological source that is not conscious and cannot be consciously rejected without great difficulty, if at all.

In general, I would, of course, say that particular inhibitions exist for reasons beyond mere character deficits like cowardice or simply being diplomatic. Though I think some of your examples just demonstrate that people are contradictory, capricious and complicated.

I am not criticising as a motivator, I agree that people make an effort to understand each other only because empathy caused them to care in the first place. I consider this to be the strongest counterargument to my position, it was something I knew already but my interpretation is that empathy as a motivator is not helping you to understand, it's just making you want to understand but I will respect disagreement on this issue.

I think you had many opportunities to bring up less contentious examples than things like slavery and police targetting of black youth, which are fairly preposterous examples that are easy to dismantle.

Take something like empathising with someone losing their car keys, it's annoying to you so it's a fair assumption that they find it annoying too. Everyone decided to bring up trying to empathise with groups or empathise on complex issues and represented the worst in utilising empathy as a tool for understanding people.

I am sure in the cases where you listen to what people are saying, you read their body language and try to confirm/deny assumptions you're making - that you reach a greater understanding. The question remains as to whether empathy did anything to help. If you had gone and talked to someone, asked them what's wrong, listened to them and asked them how they felt about it - you've already got all the information you wanted to get by using empathy. So what was the point of imagining it?

I think empathy for better or worse, suffers from implicit biases which are extensive and you may take what they say and try to imagine what it's like but it's more likely you're wrong than right and by quite a margin. You may get pieces of the truth which you could then further seek to confirm/deny but once again, why didn't you just ask more questions instead of imagining things?

As for groups, go do some research, listen to people and try to understand the facts. I don't know what information you're seeking to attain through empathy that you can't get a far more accurate picture by just doing a little research or investigation (by asking questions for example). I've asked you but you haven't given answers.

If you want to agree to disagree then it's probably for the best, we've been going in circles for a while now.

EDIT: I always want to mention that you can make logical conclusions without empathy.

Another Kitchen Nightmares example which I think is pretty instructive on this you can watch if you want but I'll just explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUvl9D_IMW8

Sushi Ko is a failing Japanese restaurant with an old chef as an owner named Akira who no longer cooks. When Gordon Ramsay eats there, he thinks the food is disgusting but he already knows that Akira should be aware that the food is awful. Usually people either defend the food (denial), act defeated (given up) or accept they're wrong and don't know what they're doing.

When Akira a chef who should know better didn't argue back, it seemed obvious for Gordon to assume he's given up and when he talked to the family and they agreed, this seemed all but confirmed.

We don't need to empathise with Akira, his actions speak for themselves and with a little insight, we can make strong causal arguments that didn't require us to just believe everything Akira says.

Well, you may have decided not to leave the thread but I don't have much more to say to you. You tell me I'm working on mistaken notions but you don't say what, I give you the problems of empathy and you don't give counterarguments.

At this point, since there's so much I've said that you haven't argued against, there's no reason for me to change my argument just because you're ignoring it, all that's left is for me to repeat myself. You act as though I haven't provided any arguments but realistically if they're so weak you would have just dismantled them rather than ignoring them.

I think that there are situations where you could have provided some stronger arguments for your position. Such as an actual slave trying to empathise with another slave. However, nobody in the thread has actually provided counterarguments to the specifics of my argument. Many come here and assert their own positions, which is fine, but don't tell me my argument is weak when most people just left the thread before even trying to justify their positions against my arguments.

The only people who remain sadly, are people who don't feel that they need to deal with my arguments. You, themadfool and gary. I don't think any of you are even capable of explaining my position. You just say they're invalid without even saying what was invalid and really, they're clearly relevant problems.

Until you actually deal with my arguments, it's just an endurance contest. I didn't create this thread for that.

Your quote doesn't even mention using imagination. I'm sure he's talking about the expressed views of the characters, knowledge about their history provided in the book and other things of that nature.

I disagree strongly with your position but I know of a lot of smart people who agree with you, no hard feelings.

To play devil's advocate, a culture predicated on an understanding without science is clearly going to be undermined by it. It's not a scientific truth that using science is better than not using science, the importance the West places on science could be seen as a Western idea. I think that they are protesting their worldviews (which are objectively incorrect) are being undermined by science, it's a cultural issue.

Certain interpretations of Islam, for instance, would clearly have to change if Western science was accepted completely. I'm sure Muslim scientists are fine but the general populace's interpretation of Islam clearly runs contrary to what we've learned through the scientific method. If someone wanted to teach that "the scientific method and testing shows both genders to be of equal intelligence" since that would undermine certain interpretations of Islam, would we be surprised if such people didn't want that? Would it be surprising if they rejected that being taught because they don't want their children to be "Westernized"?

They are also arguing against is the use of science as an interpretative focus in their cultures. For things to be true or not true based on the scientific method completely changes how people look at things.

It's also a power thing because if children go to school and learn about Western science and start to focus on those ideas, their parents don't have the same chokehold on knowledge that they used to. Indigenous "elders" who don't verify their beliefs using the scientific method is going to be in competition with teachers who do. It's a war over the child's mind.

Just some ideas based on bits and pieces I understand, I can't speak to the validity of them with regards to the people referred to in the articles provided.

It is that untraceable growth in the meaning of terms and the ability to engage them that is the meaning we, partially, recognize in the concept of "empathy" — Gary M Washburn

What terms? What's that got to do with empathy?

Do you suppose you have a right to be understood? Where could such a supposition possibly come from but an inability to trace the source of your terms, either to your own Humpty-Dumpty dogma, or as a mystical gift from the community or from some divine or regulatory authority? — Gary M Washburn

....

Have I said I think I have a right to be understood? I have argued against the use of empathy as a tool for understanding people because I think it leads people towards falsehood, not because I felt it was giving me a bad shake. What terms are you referring to?

. Synthesis is the ultimate term of an untenable supposition in the continuity of analysis. That is the enigma that got philosophy going to begin with and that still is yet to be resolved — Gary M Washburn

What?

but from what I can see in a cursory browsing of this discussion it seems your "solution" is very far from being philosophically well-founded, and more like a kind of techno-babble folk psychology. — Gary M Washburn

I'm not going to answer this for you, I completely expect you to run away. I want you to construct for me some semblance of what you think my solution is. I am not asking for the whole thing, just enough to prove your point.

In general, I think people are born competitive and most animals are extremely competitive besides humans. It's just how things are and culturally cooking may have been portrayed in television as educational and non-competitive but what we're seeing now is just the natural progression of things.

I think you are reminiscing about a past that never really existed but perhaps I'm wrong. It's just unsurprising to me that a treasured skill is thought of competitively. I'm a rather competitive person myself, I don't like to lose and if I don't think competitively about something it's just because I don't care about it. It's been like that since I was young and since then I've met kids who were exactly like me - can't stand to lose, in anything and the cultural representation of this is a product of our biological values interpretative proclivities.

In short: The less humble, the greater the ego(ism), and hence the greater the potential humiliation—and, thereby, the greater the want/need to crush others who could make one humble. (acknowledgedly, this coming from someone with an ego of notable size, me thinks). Those who are humble in dignified manners, however, will in due measure not be humiliated by ridicule (though they might lose their ability to accomplish what they want). — javra

I think you'll actually find the greatest potential humiliation comes from not big egos but weak egos and insecurity. Imagine this, a girl has been trying to choose a dress for the prom, she thinks about it really hard and goes with this yellow dress, she's really not sure about whether others' will like it but she hopes they will. She goes to prom with her yellow dress and walking in she sees one of the most popular girls in school. She laughs and says "omg what a disgusting dress" in front of everybody.

She's horrified! All of her worse fears came true.

What if it wasn't an insecure girl though, someone who wore this yellow dress and didn't care at all. She thinks "who does this bitch think she is, making fun of my dress?"

More examples like imagine you really enjoy tennis, your new friend from work hears about this and asks you to fill in for his partner who can't play, you agree - confident in your skills. You rock up, thinking you will be showing off your skills but quickly as you start to play, you realise these guys are much better than you.

Your co-worker is watching you mess up all the time and saying "don't worry about it" but you feel you're letting him down. Everyone from work thinks you're really good at tennis, how would you feel thinking you'll be exposed when you go back to work after the game? Did he tell anyone?

What's the difference between feeling embarrassed and humiliated?

It's about whether you perhaps think your teammate is not actually fine with you making mistakes, you wonder if he is thinking "oh god, this guy sucks, I should have asked someone else" or not. This feeling of losing status. I agree with unenlightened on this. People who think their high status is untouchable are less likely to feel humiliated than people who care about their status and fear to lose it. So whether you've got a big ego or not, only impacts how likely you are to perceive loss of status, bigger ego mightn't see it as easily because they always see themselves in an unrealistically positive light.

Excellent analysis :lol:

Hmm, there is not much winning to be had in arguments about philosophy. It is rare beyond belief to see someone admit they are wrong but very common to see both sides of the debate believing they won it just as I suppose we both think now. I am not here to win any debates, I want to see the strength of my arguments and perhaps see the weaknesses in my arguments as pointed out by others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaRUALK3550&t=189s

So, here is a pretty good example showing what empathy does do and what it doesn't do, in everyday life.

The reality tv show kitchen nightmares shows Gordon Ramsay meeting an owner after having argued a lot about what changes need to be made to the restaurant. He goes to visit her and tries to understand her better and get on the same page. I think he does a good job of it but look carefully at what actually occurs.

Firstly, he is responding to:
1. Expressed sentiments
2. Knowledge he has about the restaurant business and the likely effects of owning a failing business.
3. Information he has about her and her son

She says that things are very stressful for her, she feels let down by her son and a lot of personal information which she considers relevant. Gordon takes her side, empathises with her difficulties and tries to pick her back up and comfort her.

I think this is great but let's look at exactly what he understood and how he understood it. He says:

1. She's dealing with a lot of stress
2. She's agitated and deeply concerned
3. She's letting the negativity of the business impact her

None of this knowledge is being acquired with imagination, it's all been laid out before him and he is making statements backed up by quite a lot of evidence. She expressed all those things with her body language and statements, it's likely that someone with a failing business and debt is going to be stressed and deeply concerned about that.

He isn't really promising to understand these things in any detail beyond what has been laid out for him. He hasn't ventured into the realm of imagination and started deducing beyond what is well-evidenced. Although he clearly empathises with her on an emotional level, the basis for his understanding is intellectual and is based off on his understanding of her sentiments, body language and the situation.

I think this is how empathy should operate and it can only really work with a single individual rather than a group. That's not to say you can't expect owners of failing businesses to be stressed and concerned. You can do that, I'm just saying that there's a difference between making a causal argument and using empathy (putting yourself in that situation) even if the answer is similar, empathy just goes too far in its predictions.

I will read over what I've said in this thread later with fresh eyes and keep copies of my responses which I want to use to better my argumentation and understanding. You can continue to win against me in your mind, I would imagine a real victory that can be attained in a game would be more satisfying but each to their own.

So many games you could play, where winning is all that matters and yet you're here, how perplexing.

I think naughtiness refers to the breaking of rules, mostly rules which are not stopping you from doing something terrible. You can be naughty by breaking the rules of your diet, by saying something mean that you shouldn't have, things of this nature. The rules can be your own, social convention or someone else's like a parent or the law.

For instance, someone might be "naughty" for being overtly sexual and I think that's because there's an implication that they shouldn't be doing that. The playfulness in that expression is that you are behaving in a manner with regards to sexuality that is not publicly acceptable and so you are being "naughty".

Evil has nothing to do with rules, breaking the law doesn't make you evil, breaking rules doesn't make you evil. I think that this is the difference.

You wouldn't dare apply your absurd logic about imagination to any other field, you wouldn't use it to try to understand any science field, to learn any game to do anything where we could clearly see whether you were good/understood that thing or not.

I'm not criticising someone like Einstein using imagination, he's doing that for inspiration and to explore possibilities which he will then confirm or investigate. I also use imagination like this for people, if I see someone crying, I may come up with some reasons why that might be and then either confirming or not confirming but hardly saying I understand something because I did that.

Only because you have never witnessed the results of whether empathy is giving you correct answers or not, do you presume it could be effective. I do think if you make an effort to empathise with someone and they are in a situation where they wanted you to empathise with them, you're not going to receive a detailed account of your inaccuracies.

When you're not talking about imagination; reading body language, seeing expressions, interpreting sentiments, you're not talking about empathy. Trying to apply causal arguments to the existence or denial of freedom is similarly, not empathy.

I'm not getting anywhere with imagination so instead let's consider how something like slavery is not the same for everybody.

Surely, it matters who enslaved you and how you're being treated - are you being fed, are you being beaten/raped, how gruelling are the tasks you are forced to perform, were you constantly injured/sick, how educated you were. were you being regularly humiliated and so much more? Surely, all these things matter in how someone is experiencing slavery?

Then people with different temperaments, personalities, levels of intelligence and all the reasons for varying interpretations and emotional proclivities surely experienced those individual things differently? Not everyone who is raped feels exactly the same way about it. People experience it, react and are changed by it differently, surely you see that?

Then people like TheMadFool tell me there's a 50%+ chance of understanding what's going on, I wonder exactly what he's talking about? Understanding whether someone is sad or not? As though empathy is the only way to draw a connection between emotions and sentiments.

You are at best imagining a single possibility for how someone experienced and was impacted by slavery and realistically the whole topic is too complicated for you to do anything but understand sentiments. You'd be much better off just reading a diary from a few slaves/former slaves, you'd already be miles ahead of someone who was using empathy.