I agree on what humiliation is if we add that humiliation is the feeling of perceived loss of status. When I think about the things people feel humiliation about, cooking is one of them. If we had a philosophy forum get-together and I cooked meal for everyone or baked some cookies and you told me it was inedible, I might feel humiliated about that.

I watch a lot of anime and this is actually a trope where female characters will cook badly and either the men will say it was good to avoid humiliating the woman or the female character will notice it was bad and feel embarrassed about it. I suppose it's up to them whether they are embarrassed or humiliated.

It's also a trope in anime for women to feel very competitive about cooking and particularly feeling insecure if they can't cook as well as another woman.

I don't believe that cooking shows are responsible for cooking being perceived as competitive. I think that competitions do humiliate people but I think if cooking shows humiliate people for being awful at cooking then this is actually a good thing for people who suck at cooking because it lowers the bar for them and gives them more confidence in themselves (unwarranted confidence).

I think in general our society is actually becoming more ideologically disposed against competition. Instead, we tell everyone that it's not about winning but having fun, everyone is special and great. There's a growing victimhood culture where losing is being celebrated and it's not just on the left. Look at the "incel" community, where status is achieved by failing at literally the most core competition on Earth which is reproduction rights, many there brag about being low-status, undesirable men. You are shamed if you are a "chad" and everything is just easy for you and you get all the women so we don't like you.

Ideas like race/gender quotas and equality of outcome which attempt to lessen competition in the workplace. These are ideas pushed by the mainstream media too.

I would be surprised if nothing became more competitive due to the kinds of stuff you're talking about but in general, I think the media is against competition. The reason zero-sum competitive cooking, singing and talent shows are popular is most likely because people are more inherently interested in such things. Anime is another example, there's another trope of "self-insert" characters where the protagonist just kind of goes around being awesome and styling on all his adversaries.

People have always and will always think about things in competitive terms and will enjoy competition and the public humiliation of not just losers but anyone really. There is a LOT of tv focused on the humiliation of people besides competition, though again, I think people just always wanted this and now TV are just trying to give the people what they want.

What do those things have to do with humiliation and what makes you believe that we didn't always have a penchant for things like sensationalism and melodrama? If society is trending towards isolation, passivity and despair, why is the media partly to blame for this and why do you think society is trending towards those things?

Usually, by this point, I'd be responding to you with my own opinions but I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to have opinions about yet.

Which direction is that?

Are you saying humiliation is socially constructed? If so, are you saying it's a recent thing? I find it hard to understand your position or what this thread is about.

Rich (or socially established) whites maintain their identity by denying it and decrying identity in general. So too maintaining and denying dignity-through-de-dignifying. — csalisbury

Nobody decries identity, I assume you mean they decry group identity and by group identity, you mean that they decry the notion that they should be dealt with purely based on what groups they belong to. Is that correct?

I've heard of people who reject biological differences b/w people but not both nature and nurture differences as would be with AI (possibly).

I think happiness is a byproduct of a healthy ego, healthy interpretations, a positive outlook for the future and some other things.

Interpretative problems need to be resolved interpretatively, there's a whole world of possibilities interpretatively speaking but that's a bit of a divergence from the topic of this thread. The point is that if that for most things, we don't know how it interacts with you until we hear about how you interpret it and what you think it causes.

Are dreams a curse or a boon? For me, there are only two factors: interpretation and causation. Since causation is heavily tied to interpretation, that's usually an option to making something bad good rather than getting rid of it. If what dreams do is show you this fantastic you and the great life that never seems to materialise and that causes you to resent or despair but dreams can be a boon for other people then all that's left is causation and interpretation.

We can infer from this that there's a way of interpreting the existence of your dreams in a way which isn't detrimental. I suggested a possibility but if you are personally feeling that your dreams hurt your well-being then you already know what the problem is for you.

I also want to add that biological differences and the relationships with other interpretations can mean that dreams are not beneficial for you and nothing you do will change this. That's why despite what I said, one can forsake dreams to remove the problems they cause. Just understand that dreams are reinforced as habitually recurring interpretations and you probably can't get rid of them without fixing those.

If you continually use ways of thinking predicated on the concept that the possibility of your dreams materialising still exists then while consciously rejecting the idea of having dreams, that won't work. So you need to be wary of such habits and aim to replace them with ones that make sense with your new views about dreams.

I would agree fundamentally speaking but exchange this idea of appearances with interpretations. If reality is a dream then it is not a dream as humans experience it but something far more consistent and rule-based. Whether we are living in something like the Matrix or not, pragmatism reigns supreme as the answer because the implications are all the same to the pragmatist and whether we want a good life or a good dream, we must play by the rules.

I think there are certain implications for your understanding which are wise to keep in mind but many interpretations of your idea lead to nothing but pain and disaster. So, is there something you think people should do differently or should think differently as a result of coming to the same understanding you have?

Purpose is an interpretation, it is an invention. What shall we do with a useful invention? Throw it away?

Then you have the capability of choosing which is better. To me that is enough. Of course you have a preference for this or that. Preferences play a role in evaluating what is better or worse. But it's also not quite right to say that they are the same as mere opinion either -- we have elements of an art and principles by which said art is made, a history to draw from, and -- importantly -- reasons we can provide to others as to why this is better or worse than something. — Moliere

Interpretations aren't preferences, on this, we agree but nonetheless, interpretations are fundamentally arguments and not based on anything that can be used to as a premise for demonstrating an objective truth, would you disagree with that?

Well, I was explicit in allowing you the opportunity to reject the evidence of the individual's testimony, though stronger evidence is available in some cases. I am not entirely sure what you are talking about with regards to your premise, not sure how the act of inference denatures a premise or what signposts are moving.

You can question your premise whenever you want, sometimes you will be forced to question your premise and that's far better than taking your premise for granted. Empathy isn't nearly as problematic in the hands of people like Joshs who intend to question what they learn from it. It's more of a problem when people take a premise from empathy and start building conclusions and using that conclusion as a premise in more conclusions and it all started from some really weak premises which got taken for granted as true.


We are of the same mind on this Brett, I can see where you're coming from, to simplify someone else's existence to the level required for empathy does mean that you're characterising them based on just a small bit of information. As though a homeless man is JUST a homeless man and not "Bill" who's really so much more than that.

Don't you think things like forgiveness, redemption and repentance are applicable to particular actions that would be entirely ignored by other religions, cultures or relationships? Is the wrongness of those actions really innate if this were the case?

I have been thinking about this topic a lot since I looked at this thread. I think that impetus for morality comes from within, it is biological and interpretation always leads back to the source eventually. Still, that impetus can be directed... how much can you twist and bend something until what it's based on changes? Very peculiar question. I still need to think about it.

Ah yeah, "learn to love what you have" was a poor summary of what I meant, better is "learn to be happy with less".

If someone gave me a long list of things they believe would make them happy, I would question the size of the list first. I would almost bet there would be contradictions in such a list. — Brett

Yes, I agree with that. I think also that people want things because they think that thing will give them something it won't. It can also be a more arduous task to attain something like respect depending on how you intend to get it. If you really want respect, are you going to be a responsible, nice person or try to buy a nice car and wear fancy clothes? Two people can want the same thing but the requirements are steeper.

We may also want respect because we think it will give us something else like self-esteem. Once again, self-esteem can be more easily attained than by getting respect and so on.

Equally though, perhaps trying to attain respect is worthwhile and really will increase your happiness if you get it. Just because it's hard work doesn't mean you should just look for an easier option. It's not easy for me to decide what approach is generally better for people though I lean towards eliminating/downsizing pre-requisites.

A person gives you a long list of things they say they believe would make them happy.

Do you advise them that they should reconsider whether they really want all those things (eliminate), reconsider the scale of their desires (downsize) or encourage them to work hard and fulfil their pre-requisites?

Learn to love what you have or work hard to get what you want, that kind of thing. That's the simplified version.

I don't even hold the position of speakers creating rules... I think that the whole thing is nonsense.

I entered this thread with the intention of sharing a perspective which I thought would improve your position, not argue further.

I only stayed in this thread because you continue with your dishonesty but you keep going and it's no longer worth the effort. The notion that you only assert rules exist for individuals is untenable with the assertion that by demonstrating I understand your words (through the rules of English) you've demonstrated objective meaning.

It is as expected, difficult to communicate with people who judge and condescend immediately.

I asked you to find a quote of me saying that the problem with using empathy as a tool for understanding is because it is imperfect... what the hell is this quote? Also, what do you think I edited? My OP hasn't been edited since you responded to me lol. You just made some stuff up which doesn't jive with any of my posts in this thread and there are many. I'm not going to go through them all and edit them for any reason.

When did I ever talk about existence or knowledge? You mean the existence of rules? If you were talking about English then I'd be correct but since you started talking about an individual's rules / unstated rules then I'm not sure, I have not personally ever articulated or understood my "rules" for language use. You called me an idealist on the basis that I didn't accept English had particular rules, a claim which for you substantiated the existence of objective meaning, you said you demonstrated a paradox merely by showing that we could communicate with each other. I can substantiate all claims I've made with quotes as necessary.

Your argument has completely changed, most of what I said was relevant only to English as a shared language.

As far as your own personal rules go, in so far as they are independently coherent, this is all interpretation. Meaning doesn't exist without interpretation, that's my position.

The meaning of your rules to plants, rocks and gas and whatever else is left without intelligent life - it's not even a question of whether it exists or not, the idea of meaning doesn't even exist anymore.

Objective meaning doesn't even make sense as a concept - it means what to whom? How does it mean something to nobody? You take a concept like meaning which is necessarily possessed by one and play with the notion of it existing independently and call those who disagree with you idealists. Absurd! You have never witnessed meaning held by no one in your life but you've taken your thought experiment too far and you've lost sight of what meaning actually is.

Funny. You say that I'm not making sense, then you talk of rules which could very well not exist, — S

Naturally, if the speaker can make a rule then he can make more rules (in the future).

You are now talking about English as if everyone has their own personal English which was not the case before, again, I can substantiate this if needed.

In this case, I actually agree that you don't need my argument, that was intended for the idea that there is one English.

Likewise with access. I reject the bad idealist logic which ties existence and knowledge together, and this is no place to regurgitate that bad logic. — S

What are you talking about? Mind-independent knowledge or "does a tree make a sound in a forest does anybody hear it?" type stuff? I don't think you ever understood what I was saying despite your enthusiasm to tell me I'm wrong because this has nothing to do with it. I don't know if I want to explain it again either.

Depending on information necessary to confirm or refute we could be capable or incapable but there are contexts which are fairly uncontentious.

For instance, incorrect characterisations in so far as incorrect but plausible interpretations of cause for expressing emotion. The baby as an example, believing it is crying because it is has an itchy rash because you perceive/imagine through empathy the qualities of causing "crying" in the rash but the baby only stops crying when given milk bottle, supporting idea the baby was crying because it was hungry. Could probably think of more concrete examples if needed.

As we go into adults, they can specifically recount their reason for display of emotion and offer corrections to imagined reasons obtained through empathy. This occurs too with actions such as with the soldier not wishing to talk about his experience in war; presumed to be because of traumatic experiences but the individual soldier could recount "bored of talking to people about his experiences" or "feeling tired and don't want to talk at all".

Things only become harder to confirm/refute incorrectness when we are talking about the "experience" of things but in most cases, we can verbalise feelings with some accuracy and observe disparities which lean towards different experiences. My anger may occur due to different reasons, it may manifest itself differently and it may result in different motivations - most of this can be identified.

I can only imagine higher requirements for confirmation/refutation than communication to result in an inability to confirm/refute correct or incorrectness of claims made through empathy but even that only covers just some claims. There's possibiy examples where we legitimately can't confirm/refute and in that case, you may have a point.

In conclusion. there is not much need for "imagining" empathy to be wrong when we have methods of knowing when it was or wasn't.

Well, I just use the word understanding in the sense that the meaning synthesises to a point where it is complete without interpretation, I understand you think people always interpret, which I agree with.

That whole quote, more or less. You say that I'm unable to articulate the rules when I am. You say that that I'm unable to point towards where they're written when I am in some cases, although that's not even necessary anyway. — S

Let me further refresh your memory.

Very odd question. I would advise them to learn the language in the usual ways, and use the usual resources, such as a dictionary or a language learning app. We've all learnt a language as children through to adulthood, and that entails learning language rules. A great deal of it is automatic for us, of course. We learnt the rules long ago. You understand what I'm saying without any need to learn the rules. — S

I've already addressed this. Once again, some degree of ambiguity is not sufficient to refute my argument. In these cases, the speaker presumably knows what he meant to a higher degree of accuracy. The speaker would be the rule setter. So the rule would be that this particular word in the speakers statement has this particular meaning. Once the rule is set, the speaker is no longer required. Why would it be otherwise? This is what you must account for if you intend to argue against me. I'm still waiting for a proper response to this from you. Are you going to attempt to justify your idealist premise? — S

I understand your argument as well as anyone who can understand an argument that doesn't make sense can. The rules you are talking about could very well not even be in existence yet, certainly, they are unknown to you when someone else is speaking, why would you promise you can articulate rules you don't even have access to?

As for the first quote I provided, it doesn't appear that you can actually refer to any kind of legitimate source for rules, it's just a free for all - how can you provide rules for English? Or my usage of words? You can speak for yourself and hypothetical people at BEST and I don't think you could even do that without a lot of effort, repeated tries and you'd probably need help.

I do not wish to reignite the same argument that I gave up on when I don't have a plan on how to handle it differently, see your position in a new light or indeed see you in a new light. I am just curious as to how it appears as though your positions have changed. Are you perhaps just making it up as you go?

I didn't think you would appreciate it but the senselessness of your argument bothered me so I did it all the same.

I will for the sake of curiosity, humour you and ask you to tell me where I am wrong? I think I can give quotes from you to substantiate my recounting of your argumentation.

No, he is saying that the rules of language can be understood without the use of interpretation. He argues that language can have rules which result in that language functioning using those rules to generate objective meaning (i.e meaning which doesn't have to be interpreted).

You able to "create rules" but you are unable to articulate the rules that currently exist or point anyone towards where they are written. It is poor for someone to suggest there are rules which lead to objective meaning but then they are not able to articulate what rules they're talking about. I struggled to understand how someone can think that's a reasonable position, the argument is incomplete. So I gave some thought to making your argument comprehensible.

The "rules" you have tried to create in the past don't even account for context, figurative use, metaphorical use, specific boundaries for usage, they don't generate the specificity required for objective meaning and they don't even make sense as rules for how the word is currently and correctly used.

That's why using a ruleset which accounted for a range of possibilities in interpretation and usage is more realistic. You could argue this ruleset has formulated ranges of possibilities which when put together (much like the chess game) are independently coherent.

I don't mind dealing with arguments which I believe are wrong but I don't think yours even makes sense. I realise we hit an impasse at this before and I don't believe I'm better equipped to overcome it now than I was back then so if you think there's no merit in how I've recommended the "rules" of a language be referred to then I'll just move on.

An "apple" refers to a category of things which are different in some ways but similar in others, the word is used literally, figuratively and could be expanded and contracted to include particular differences but not others - for instance the introduction of a genetically modified orange "apple" could still called an "apple". It can be used to refer to an actual apple or an image of an apple which may allow for further departure from the actual qualities of an apple such as being different in size or proportions to what is found in the real world yet it's still called an apple.

Languages as they do not offer rules which encompass the variety of interpretations for what an apple could be or even is in so far as the word is used. Expressions like "the apple of my eye" make no sense when using the definitions offered by dictionaries. The context of the usage of the word can change the meaning but again, you won't find rules for this.

Your argument that language operates on rules which are not dependent upon intelligent species doesn't hold up to scrutiny in that there are no rules as you suggest. You mean it figuratively at best but there's no need for such ambiguity provided you acknowledge the parameters that hold all of these interpretations and contexts for the word that do exist or could exist in the future together. As the emergence of these interpretations and contexts did not constitute a departure from the English language but rather added to it in a way which did not change the language fundamentally.

This idea of a "fundamental English" which serves as parameters for interpretations that don't break the rules is useful to you. You don't have to define "dog" because provided there are rules for establishing what a "dog" is and correcting unworkable deviations from those definitions then you have an English which accommodates figurative use, metaphorical use, alternative interpretations (particularly with regards to specificity) and so on.

I think the notion that English incorporates a range of definitions but also excludes definitions based on rules is a better argument than your current one which is relying on rules which you can't actually articulate but maybe you don't see the merit.

Doesn't matter to me because I think both arguments are wrong (as arguments for objective meaning), my version just seems less wrong in a technical sense.

I'd describe you as not sceptical enough, I'm surprised you're still talking about this.

We don't agree on this topic but I don't think to resume our discussion in this thread would lead to anything constructive.

So let's set that idea aside so that I can try to help.

There's another thread I saw, "Do all Chess games exist in some form" which I thought paralleled the question here in some regard. The rules of chess make the game, they exist as a rule-set which has meaning transcendent of interpretation (as far as you're concerned) and so all the possibilities for language use within the rules of language could also be conceivable possibilities. This kind of logic, I believe it bolsters your argument. As all the inadequacy for dealing with specificity in definitions and rulesets which your previous understanding ignored or couldn't articulate is now resolved by the concept of possibilities within a ruleset.

Meaning proving humans interpret words and rulesets differently and changing them to some degree and proving the inadequacy of rules in the meaning of language would no longer be a relevant critique. Since the rules of the language incorporate the possibilities of variations in interpretations and superficial rules or rule implementation.

I don't think you ever admitted that this was a weakness in your argument but I did and so I thought this counterargument I created to some of my criticism might help you in some way.

In the context of subjectivity, what is not a lie is not then the truth. I also think I would not define lie in a way which meant that which is not a lie is then truth in any context.

but add in the possibility that the philanthropist could likely kill the bus driver if the mood ever strook him, and the driver know there would never be any consequences to the philanthropist — Alfa

I like how you talk as if this kind of possibility doesn't exist or never existed. A bus driver in North Korea today knows if King Jong-un wanted him dead, he'd be dead and he knows there'd be 0 consequences for King Jong-un.

What we choose to focus on and what we choose to interpret to gain meaning in our lives and how we interpret those things sometimes strays towards the larger than life concepts. Infinite time, unbelievable scales in nature and space, unimaginable amounts of people, economies, businesses, nations which all eclipse you and your efforts.

Existentialism occurs because of that kind of attitude, but when you focus on a child you helped, a friend you kept your promises to and a role you filled. That's where we find our purpose and our meaning and it is a beautiful thing.

It depends on your interpretation and more specifically the intricacies around how you deal with holding yourself to your expectations.

I wouldn't say wanting things that might fail is dangerous but an inability to handle failure, error or defeat can cause a lot of stress and frustration. People who are appalled with themselves for not being able to do something they consider "basic" and just wind themselves up for no reason.

Another case is when people become psychologically desperate because their self-worth is dependent upon attaining or retention of what they want. They experience contempt for what they are because they have expectations for themselves that are better than that.

There's also shame, embarrassment, insecurity, self-loathing, anxiety and so on when you are perceiving yourself negatively because you have this mindset where you meet your expectations is EXPECTED, there's nothing to be proud of here. When you fail to meet your expectations, that's something to be ashamed about, it's a character deficiency.

There are many alternative mindsets to this which give good results and make having goals and dreams not harmful at all. Expectations can be insidious killers.

I wouldn't go that far in all situations but for me personally, I probably wouldn't care at all about people being beaten and abused as long as it was far away from me, without empathy being a factor.

Let me share one of my theories with you too, when you go into the ring swinging wildly and with eyes closed, your punches are going to miss. The whole first half of your post is prefaced upon this idea that I've said empathy is flawed therefore we can't use it. I challenge you to quote where I've written anything like this.

When you can do that perhaps we can discuss more on what you've written. I don't think your post deserves much attention because of how - dare I say it - fallacious, the whole thing is. You call opinions facts, you strawman, you are blabbering on about "imperfection" and such that is completely missing from anything I've talked about. The concept of using imagination to gain complicated knowledge and understanding is stupid and I've talked extensively about why that is, what alternatives exist and why empathy is a terrible tool for understanding people.

Ironically, you criticise me for bringing up that people can't empathise with groups like it's another fallacy of mine. Many people in this thread are still to this very day, in disagreement with me that you can't empathise with groups. Evidence that people try to empathise with groups is everywhere, this is a thread criticising that idea among other things.

I am currently talking with Joshs about the idea of empathy being used as a contributor among other things to gain understanding. You can read my replies to him about this, empathy is not as good of a starting position for understanding as alternatives and it doesn't help to further your understanding from the start position. Nobody in this thread has been able to contest these ideas in the slightest and most people just stop responding to me when I ask them to give me good counterarguments to these ideas.

You're a badass though right? Read my last response to Joshs or creativesoul and you give me an answer.

And yours didn't? Go back and read your answer to my post, its close to a fallacy-riddled interpretation of the writing I did instead of trying a more linguistic pragmatic approach before acting like the ideas are beneath you. — Christoffer

I don't really see it but I will reflect on whether I think your interpretation is reasonable or not.

Stop using terms like "ignorant" in such an arrogant way if you at the same time complain about the tone of someone else. A little self-awareness would help. — Christoffer

I always get called out for using the word ignorant... Don't take it personally, I consider myself ignorant of many, many things and I use the word carelessly. I think what I said is going to become relevant as I reply to your post.

how we lean back more when someone is calling the shots, the pressure of choice is reduced, — Christoffer

So I am really not trying to be condescending, you may be aware of everything I am going to say and you've just said things in a way that don't 100% reflect your understanding but interpretation is a perilous tool for making assertions. Actually demonstrating causation correctly is really hard, now I don't know as much about psychology as you seem to, so I'm not going to contest how you've laid things out.

I'm just going to compile a list of interpretations you've made. It's possible we're dealing with different information but assuming we're on the same page, these are hard for me to accept.
1.

but it's one of the most famous to show how authority isn't something we can easily spot when we are under the veil of its rule — Christoffer

The Milgram experiment appears to me to be very upfront about the importance that the subject obeys the instructions given to him by the examiner. I would find it hard to believe you disagree with this but regardless, I think this is a shaky premise based on interpretation and not a demonstration.

2.

But it also pointed out how we lean back more when someone is calling the shots, the pressure of choice is reduced, which is why when the variations of the study and the replications of the study were made, they could see how the level of obedience lessened and heightened by the level in which the authority called the shots. If the authority person pointed out that the study "demands them to comply" that "it's not their responsibility", the obedience increased. This behavior is attached to their sense of agency of what they are doing, the more responsible and controlling the authority is, the more obedient they got, i.e the less they acted out on their own free will and even continued past just doing what they were told. — Christoffer

Maybe you've withheld information that demonstrates your interpretations but with what you've given me, this is just one possible interpretation. It could show that people resign to strong displays of authority due to fear or a desire not to fight or that perceived culpability plays a big role in our resistance to performing immoral actions perhaps because we think there'll be reduced repercussions or resulting in reduced guilt.

None of this is really even taking one step closer towards the idea that people subconsciously want to off-load choices to authority figures.

3.

Therefore, freedom in choice requires energy in order to think responsibly about the choices and because we strive for conserving energy we seek comfort in paths of least resistance, which we don't find in responsibility, but rather in giving up choice and responsibility to others. — Christoffer

Your premises, if true, still don't necessarily lead to your conclusion, it's just another interpretation.

It may just mean that people want to choose the path of least-resistance irrespective of what that is. If an authoritative figure asks me to do something and I want to choose the path of least-resistance then I may comply. Alternatively, if they ask me to do something and then my friend says "no, we're not doing that". Now I've got to decide whether to argue with my friend or the authority figure, it's all too hard for me and so I just quietly step back and let my friend argue and just go with the flow.

Now I don't actually think that many people are like this, I think it's much more complicated but I digress. It's also true that people can off-load choices to non-authoritative figures such as friends or by metrics like what's popular or trying to follow standard conventions. It might be a byproduct of the unwillingness to make choices that authoritative figures rise to power more easily and that might be a fair claim but I don't agree that the claims you've made have been substantiated ahead of alternatives.

Think about authority figures in your own life. If you would have to make a choice for everything around you, that kind of freedom will soon crush you under the weight of its sheer magnitude. You always give away choices in order to find the path of least resistance, you give others the choices you could have made as long as it doesn't affect you in a bad way. You don't choose what to choose, you only choose when the responsibility is or isn't something you want to give away. — Christoffer

It was pretty bold of you to make this request, is this how you behave personally? Ever since I was a toddler until today, I've hated the idea of anyone having authority over me including parents, teachers, bosses and so on. I have a rather domineering attitude towards others and I always want to make the choices and argue with people who make choices for me instinctively. I guess some people have to be this way otherwise who's going to be in the positions of authority?

I am not going to argue that some people are followers but they don't just follow authority. They follow trends and what's popular, they seek to emulate others, they worship others (even non-authority figures) and so on. None of this is taking a step closer to people subconsciously wanting to off-load responsibility to authority figures except perhaps as a byproduct of a desire for something else. Which if you had argued it was a byproduct of something like a sheeplike mentality, fear or any other number of things - I would think that was a fairly reasonable claim.

So in the case of authoritarian regimes. Part of the reason people accept totalitarian authority is that they give up the responsibility of how the country is run, they trust their leader because its comforting. Its the same in religion, you give up authority over yourself to a God or institute in order for the comfort of following a path rather than creating your own. — Christoffer

If I was put in charge of a heart surgery and a heart surgeon (or anyone really) came along asking "err, would you like me to take over here?", I'd definitely say yes. I'd feel a big sense of relief that I didn't have to try to lead a medical team to do a heart surgery because I know nothing about it. I can think of many possible reasons for this but none of them involve a subconscious desire to off-load choices to authoritative figures.

I don't think you've established the premises necessary to justify your claims and I don't know where this debate can go if you disagree.

Your post comes off as very condescending, I don't mind arguing with people but in my experience, it's not very productive discuss things with people who look down on you but perhaps it wasn't your intention.

It is also concerning to talk to people who seem ignorant of the possibilities for valid alternative interpretations. The Milgram experiment hardly showed that people crave authority, it just showed that people have a proclivity towards obedience in the context provided in the experiment. It doesn't weaken your position but I'm not sure how you think it helps it either.

A schedule is like an authority that you invent. You (unintentionally) form its rule over you and when you are (unintentionally) ruled under it you feel that sense of tranquility with not having the pressure of freedom. — Christoffer

You are correcting a confusion that never existed, I was not meaning to imply that your views were strange because you thought a schedule was literally an authority that ruled over someone. I don't think it even reads like I implied that - if that is indeed the only criticism you have of my comment. I don't know since you didn't say anything except emphasising "like".

I just don't agree that people feel a tranquillity due to not having the pressure of freedom. I don't know the basis for this claim and what's what I was asking for.

Well, I won't say you're wrong, it may be the case that expectations and dreams are the same thing for you.

I might dream of being extremely rich but my expectations aren't so high, if I don't become extremely rich then that's okay and what I expected but if I don't meet my expectations of having a certain amount of wealth that might be a problem for my ego. That's my view.

I can give my answers but it's really all a matter of interpretation.

Personally, I see freedom as more of an intellectual thing. It's about being able to choose things for yourself; your will. When you're being forced to act against your will then your freedom is impaired.

Some people might take that to mean that you are forced to walk because you can't fly, you aren't free to act out your will. I have never really thought that way but it's an extension of the same logic.


Where are you getting your information? Authoritative governments rise to power easily because people want to be ruled over? That's a first for me.

A schedule is like an authority that you invent. You form its rule over you and when you are ruled under it you feel that sense of tranquility with not having the pressure of freedom — Christoffer

Most people schedule because it's necessary not because they dislike freedom... Another claim I'm tempted to criticise harshly but if you had anything to back it up I'd like to see.

We must always think beyond ourselves to see truths and the truth is that we want freedom and when having it we want to be ruled. A contradiction between our intellectual ideas and our emotional inner life. — Christoffer

I really just don't see any of this...

.

Freedom is both an interpretation as a concept and a feeling but the conditions and nature of each are different. Freedom as a concept means defining freedom and freedom as feeling means interpreting your feelings as being "feeling free" which suggests something more personal and intuitive.

For instance, in the Matrix, you are not free because you are trapped but you feel free because you are unaware. Or you might feel free to live life the way you want but in reality that's only true so long as the way you want means you take care of yourself and your responsibilities.

You can be free to do certain things and not others, intellectually you might see that as freedom but you don't feel free because the things you want to do are the things you can't do or vice versa. Many things to consider... In any case, it's clear there are differences.

I am not presenting criticism in this thread towards empathy as a motivator. If you say the world would be a worse place without empathy, I would not disagree with you.

Dreams aren't what's harmful, expectations are harmful. Expectations can ruin people. Balancing your expectations isn't easy, you don't want to expect mediocrity from yourself but if your expectations aren't met, how will you respond? Is it so bad to have a cushioned fall when you fail to meet your expectations? Does it need to be so bad that mirrors haunt you as you grow old because you don't like what you see, viewing your life as missed opportunities and repeated failures to meet your expectations?

I hope you haven't forgotten I am talking about empathy as a tool for understanding people. Half the people in this thread either forgot or never bothered to read OP.

I think empathy as a guide for behaviour is an interesting topic that would take a while to really unpack.

One on hand, a teenager who can't understand why their parent wants them to keep their room clean (because they themselves don't care about having a clean room) seems irrelevant to the overall issue that they should care about what their parents want because well, their parents are doing so much for them and it's not a big deal to clean your room. So empathy just becomes guessing if you can't relate and it's a bit silly.

However, on the other hand, it's a fairly good indication that you shouldn't do something to somebody if you imagine they won't like it - they probably won't, it's just a good assumption to make.

I usually deal with sentiments, follow social conventions and reading body language and etc. In scenarios where I really know nothing, I use something similar to empathy, whereby I make assumptions based on common interpretations. Like if your husband calls you useless, the marriage probably isn't going well. That's just putting 1+1 together really.

Empathy has a big impact on me for many moral considerations though. When I think about how it must feel to be beaten by your husband, molested by a father/uncle, fired by a company you've been loyal to. That really can bother me at times and without empathy, I don't know if I'd care as much.

When we empathize with a group of people, say young American blacks, it means that we understand the all too common difficulties that group faces on a daily basis. We can know that young black men get harassed by police far more than whites. We can know that young black men get sentenced far more often and for much longer sentences for the same crimes as whites. We need not know anything at all about their personal particulars to be able to empathize with them as a group, based upon what is common to the group. — creativesoul

This is so stupid, hurts my eyes to read.

Groups are comprised of individuals, who are not just black men being harassed by police officers. You are clearly trying to imagine what it's like to be subjected to a specific action or event and that's all.

Once again, same question, what do you think you've learned by empathising with them? Tell me one thing. It's a nuisance to be harassed by police officers? Great insight.

You wouldn't try to use your imagination to learn about any other complicated topic like even basic chemistry or biology. Why would anyone try to use it for something as complicated as understanding other people? Only an idiot would try.

Even if you came up with an idea of how it feels, you still need to contend with the fact that not every African-American man is even subjected to police harassment and those who are will have dramatically different perspectives about it. Logically, at best, you have the ability to understand a possible interpretation/reaction/feeling towards police harassment and even THEN you could have just listened to people who have been subjected to police harassment to get a clear understanding of how other people have perceived it in the past and the effects.

I think the main part of your argument relies on incredulousness that mainstream ideas aren't being taken for granted as true. Not uncommon on forums like these but characteristically leaves you supremely lacking in any justification for any of your assertions which makes for poor conversation.

Are you serious...? You haven't even understood that you've spent most of your time in this thread arguing against positions I don't have.

What a donkey.