Hey, I bet you didn't think this was how your thread was going to go? Are you pleased it took this turn? — counterpunch

I didn't expect it to be about me. How about you?

:party:

Well, you must have researched me. But, I kind of developed new emotions. I used to live with severe depression, and would hardly feel much of any emotions apart from some happy states of mind and a lot of anxiety.

So, no, I'm not naked. :monkey:

I always counted it as something we continue to fail at. — Valentinus

How so? You mean a poor EQ rather than a IQ?

You weren't angry? It took you 14 minuets to respond to a post that required no response. You were plenty angry. So, again, do you think that expressing anger is indicative of low EQ? — counterpunch

Maybe I am angry. I more wallowsome as of recent.

I just started a better thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11023/do-emotions-contain-their-own-set-of-logic

Isn't being angry is indicative of nervousness more than low EQ? — SpaceDweller

More agitation, yes?

Shawn had every reason to be angry with my post, yet chose not to express it. — counterpunch

Fine, I wasn't even angry. Yet, I do consider myself a stoic-wannabe. Stoics are emotionally developed no, CP?

Do you think being angry is indicative of low EQ? — counterpunch

Not really. I think impulsiveness is though...

Then why don't you like being angry? Do you not deserve to be satisfied? — counterpunch

I just wallow. :blush:

But, I do post a lot of threads about anger, stoicism, and emotions in general.

You must be quite angry and yet have contained yourself. I think it's okay to tell an asshole like me, to go fuck myself. Why didn't you? — counterpunch

I don't like being angry. Do you?

Isn't anger like one of the most self-satisfying emotions?

Then, yes. It was presumptuous!

lol. — counterpunch

Well, what do you think about emotional intelligence and empathy?

I imagine you've done extensive research on semiotics, and are going to reference Jung or Nabakov. Perhaps throw in some Sassure. This should be interesting. — counterpunch

I haven't actually, last time I read a book in full, was quite a while.

I was hoping you could possibly reference something about those authors?

I suppose this is mostly about men(?) rather than women?

I mean, I get your point with issues like impulsivity due to instant gratification online or on TV or through your smartphone... But, then you witness what's going on with children, soaked up in red bull or monster drinks playing online games and LOL'ing away, or some kind of disturbing amount of 'meme's' encapsulating emotions...

What's going on?

Usually when someone with a superior IQ is asked a question and show little to no effort in finding the correct answer, that can be an indicator of their intelligence. You should read the stories of Shannon at college in MIT or von Neumann "Johnny" at work and how effortlessly they found answers in their fields.

When working with a model, you need to simplify parameters.

But, your point seems apt in describing complex phenomena with general statements about their described state in terms of accepted norms for their respective behavior.

Depends on the scope used in the statement, no?

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1002618/how-to-find-the-shortest-proof-of-a-provable-theorem?

One need not pontificate or wax ones carrot over being here first or second or last.

Spoof a ledger transaction and make money!!!

Or just wait until the ledger system gets so obfuscated by spoof transactions that it halts the whole system and forces it to centralize.

For the complexity class of NP-complete for BQP=P, then it's not all apples and oranges between a quantum computer and a classical computer, is it?

Once that is established, then perhaps it makes sense to compare the two complexity classes and derive some unitary measure, yes?

What are your responses to those questions, just wondering?

Should I post this on StackExchange?

How would you go about this?

@jgill and @TonesInDeepFreeze you might be interested.

Cheers

I think @Monitor brings an interesting point.

Is it that "empathy" enables one to be ethical? On the other side of the spectrum, you have psychopathy, which seemingly is at odds with ethical behavior.

Was it really more 'intelligent' handling over at PF?

I try and make it more interesting with #GuestSpeakers and #ReadingGroups. Those are my two main contributions.

I plan to start a new reading group discussion group.

Pretty interesting to see the responses.

The history of philosophy is seemingly devoid of treating empathy as an important goal to be enhanced or cherished despite its importance.

I don't know what that means apart from the typical quip that this may in large be part due to philosophy being a male dominated field.

What do others think?

But would empathy help you navigate through an ethical dilemma? — frank

Which kind?

I think what you're saying is that you think people should be more empathetic. — frank

Not that I can ever impose such a thing on people; but, I'm coming from a POV where there's nothing wrong with being more empathetic, or is there?

I always thought empathy was the initial impulse behind ethics. — Tom Storm

Seems true on face value, yes? But, in practice its restricted to those whom we most care about.

So, its care or empathy...

Professional ethics is mostly about duty. You should have the courage to be a whistleblower. Don't take kickbacks. That sort of thing. — frank

Are you sure? Is this going to end up a discussion about feminist ethics if so?

Can I at least say that ethics should be more concerned with empathy? On what grounds, someone may ask? Well, I believe it is simply not discussed enough in ethics given its importance.

Can you have ethics without empathy? — Monitor

I'm not entirely sure, the history of philosophy from the ancients is devoid of identifying empathy as a virtue. Quite puzzling if you think about it. Love was talked about often, yet, empathy somewhat omitted. Men?

The word importance implies a moral fact. — Monitor

So, to me it seems as 'important' as stating a moral fact.

Perhaps the realization that as a social animal, the lives of other people are important to us. — Monitor

No disagreements on this. Perhaps, its role in ethics is undervalued, even, to say this outright?

I'll state it another way. Who would want to internalize 'rugged individualism' in regards to how MLK professed it?

And, yet the right and many on the left embrace it.

No kidding. Nor do you want to. — Xtrix

Well, with grandiose quotes like those I don't suppose I would want to. As if embracing rugged individualism would bring about anything of utility.

But one of the greatest (and easily overlooked) ways of keeping people apart is by encouraging the internalization of "rugged individualism" as an ideal. — Xtrix

I have no idea what this means.

OK, then you said:

"I'd like to get reactions to this assertion from the Forum."

So, you don't care for my reaction, that's fine by me. I already said that its a de facto reality, as per:

I really don't know what you mean by this. Are you describing a reality or are you describing an attitude about the poor? — Xtrix

And, yes it's also an attitude.

I don't quite see the utility of the quote. OK, so I'm poor, have to pull myself up by my bootstraps, and have to struggle to get ahead. By the way, this quote of rugged individualism isn't any new thing, as Reagan promoted it to the right in his days.

So, do idiots believe that they have to just bite the bullet and muster the willpower to pull themselves from their own bootstraps? Is that what this topic is about?

What happened to pragmatism?

I don't think you're understanding that quotation.

Martin Luther King isn't say that being poor is individualistic, he's exposing a common attitude taken by those in power: they decry socialism and encourage "rugged individualism." In reality, it's actually the reverse of that -- i.e., what we actually have is socialism for the rich, where they get tax cuts, subsidies, bailouts, and protections, while the poor are told to be rugged individuals who shouldn't be asking for handouts from the "Welfare state." — Xtrix

Yeah, so I'm asking what's so individualistic about being poor? Are you only arguing for what the right tells to do?

Who said being poor was "individualistic"? What are you talking about? — Xtrix

It's promoted as the title of your thread:

"Socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor."

Yes, me-ism died. It's now rugged individualism with a shotgun under your bed.