Comments

  • Willpower is over prescribed as a solution for problems
    Willpower, in terms of what Judaka is saying, strikes me as being a last resort; everything else has failed, it’s now down to willpower, when in fact the failure is already complete.
  • Willpower is over prescribed as a solution for problems
    Long hours of meditation, is that willpower?
  • Willpower is over prescribed as a solution for problems
    Overcoming fear is an interesting side of it; people who surf very big waves, climb mountainsides without ropes. None of it necessary.
  • Willpower is over prescribed as a solution for problems
    not that you asked me, but if you did, you might find an answer if you trained to do a half marathon, and then ran a half marathon.. :p — wax

    I myself do not have the willpower for such things, and quite often when challenged along those lines i’ll just step aside and say I don’t really need it that badly. I’m not sure if I’ve ever really been tested.
  • Willpower is over prescribed as a solution for problems
    not that you asked me, but if you did, you might find an answer if you trained to do a half marathon, and then ran a half marathon.. :p — wax

    I was really thinking of it in evolutionary terms, why do we have it, if we really do have it?
  • Willpower is over prescribed as a solution for problems
    One place I do hold to account for its proliferation is the United States. Their whole ‘can do’ mentality occupies virtually every aspect of their culture. In some cases it’s produced astounding results, like landing on the moon, architecture, domination of natural resources. Not to mention getting excessively rich. In the long run, though, has it been worth it? Are the results worth it, more importantly are they reallythe result of willpower, and are the expectations that anyone can do it realistic?
  • Willpower is over prescribed as a solution for problems
    ↪Judaka


    Another interesting point of view from you, Judaka.
    Where do you think this idea of willpower comes from? Where could we track its origins?
  • Human or societal agreement
    I just thought, some of the agreements that go on in society are like:
    'I'll turn a blind eye to your exploitation of stuff in the normal range of exploitation, and I'll do the same for you'     — wax

    I tend to think that’s how things are going now. Until someone treads on someone’s toes, then the unspoken agreement is under pressure. For instance, countries ignore human rights issues in countries because it suits them, this tacit agreement lasts until interests put pressure on the agreement. Which suggests a pretty cynical view on agreement. But is that what agreement is in essence?
  • Human or societal agreement
    It just occurred to me that suddenly I realise that agreements are being made on my behalf without consultation.
  • Human or societal agreement
    Humans come before society. Society gave them opportunities to evolve intellectually. Co-operation and it’s benefits seem to me to be the glue. That co-operation is a kind of agreement, isn’t it. So I can go along with there being a human agreement being the first.

    But somehow it begins to break down over distance. Or is that just over differences? There seems to be a perceived threat from something different. Which is understandable. I feel that one has to get some benefit from an agreement, even if you make trade offs. An agreement might be reached between tribe or village, but country to country is a problem. For one you don’t even know who they are except what you’re told. Imagine North Koreans trying to understand us. Is distance, then, the problem.
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    Nope. Not good enough. Bye.
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    Why?
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    Give me an example.
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    What sort of knowledge can imagination be?
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    Both consist entirely of thought/belief. Not all thought/belief is true. Knowledge must be. Imagination need not be. Not all thought/belief is well grounded. Knowledge must be. Imagination need not be. — creativesoul

    Well it seems to me you are saying knowledge must be true, imagination need not be. Those are almost opposite things, even if they consist of thought/belief.
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    Judaka and you both seem to me to be working from a few mistaken notions... The position requires a strong, sharp, and complete dissection of imagination from knowledge... — creativesoul

    But from what I understand here you said our mistake was to dissect imagination from knowledge, to separate them, that it’s not possible to divorce the two.
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    Judaka and you both seem to me to be working from a few mistaken notions... The position requires a strong, sharp, and complete dissection of imagination from knowledge...

    It's quite simply not possible... at all... to divorce the two.

    Both consist of thought/belief, as does understanding.     — creativesoul


    I’m assuming you don’t mean that imagination and knowledge are the same thing, but that they are linked. For instance Einstein imagined himself sitting on a photon of light then went on to write his formula for relativity.

    Would that be a fair statement of what you mean?
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    ↪creativesoul


    I might have created another problem by introducing the novel. But it’s here so I might as well deal with it.

    The two claims are only contradictory in the light you’re seeing them.

    Yes the writer uses imagination to create a character, and that character might seem real. But it’s still a fictional character, not real except in the world of that novel, also not real. This is probably the great quality of great fiction, it gives us the rare experience, not at all real, of getting inside someone’s mind. Great writers produce characters who seem to live on outside the book as if they are real.

    But the writer is still the creator of the character, just, as it seems to me, you are creating the character of the person you are empathising with by taking what signals they give and what your own experiences are. So you are both creating a character that you then respond to.

    Judaka’s question, to me, is just the eternal question; can we understand the world through our feelings and ideas?
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    It’s worth considering how the writer’s use of character in a fictional story gives us a greater understanding of people than empathy can because they give us more information about a character than empathy ever will.
    — Brett

    Imagination doesn't lead to understanding though... so you say.     — creativesoul


    It’s because the writer creates the character, (in a God- like way) that he understand it fully. That’s my point. Because he creates it he understands every aspect of it. Whereas in reality we live outside the lives of people around us.
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    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

    Let me break this down.

    1) Engaging with the terms, what they mean, is the actual meaning of empathy that, in part, exists in
    the idea of empathy.

    2) Empathy is, partly, engaging with the terms and their meaning about empathy.

    What might some of these terms be? Caring, listening, concern, sharing?

    So “the terms” take us back to the meaning of empathy. What is it?

    Which means you’re statement is a question about what empathy means.

    Is that right?
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    I don't read posts carefully if they are not addressed to me, and if the thread is extensive, 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 sure what you’re referring to as Judaka’s “solution”. Solution to what?

    He wanted to test the idea of empathy being worthless for understanding.
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    ↪creativesoul


    I’m going to try and empathise with you, because you appear to want to win something here at all costs. I don’t know you so I’m going to use my imagination and what I can glean from your posts.

    Sometimes you seem quite aggressive, almost like there’s issues of anger with those who disagree with you. I don’t know, I’m just using my imagination. Maybe you have some issues with your past that cause this aggressive nature. I imagine that those issues with people who disagree with you may have something to do with issues of authority. Could be teachers, parents, the boss, I’m not sure, but I do empathise with your situation. Authority is something we all have to live with. Maybe you might consider previous experiences with authority, was it you or was it them? I don’t know, I’m just using my imagination and my own experiences with authority when I was young.

    If you’d like to share thoughts and feelings I’d be happy to listen.
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    Is there a valid refutation in the midst of that? A valid criticism? An argument of your own perhaps? — creativesoul

    Of course there is.

    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. — Judaka
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    ↪creativesoul


    All imagination consists in/of thought/belief.
    True.

    Some thought/belief is true.
    True. But you don’t yet know which one.

    Some imagination is true.
    True. But you don’t know which parts.

    Some true thought/belief is well grounded.
    When it’s been tested against certain knowledge.

    Some true imagination(s) is(are) well grounded.
    Ditto.

    All well grounded true belief is knowledge.
    After it’s been tested against certain knowledge.
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    It’s possible that empathy is a modifying behaviour. Because you believe you understand someone you are more inclined to accept them or co-operate with them. You’re creating an acceptable other by projecting yourself onto them and so making them like you, making them “likeable”. It’s not necessary to understand someone to co-operate with them, its necessary only that you believe you can work together, or that you may gain something.

    Does anyone really empathise with someone who is arrogant, rude, cynical, just plain dislikable. Very rarely I would think.
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    It’s worth considering how the writer’s use of character in a fictional story gives us a greater understanding of people than empathy can because they give us more information about a character than empathy ever will.
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    Yes, I do. I realised what I’d done after I posted it, that is quoting the lowest figure.
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    Empathy is mainly about getting a sense of another person's situation especially regarding happiness/suffering and isn't that an ethical issue? — TheMadFool

    This is true. You can get a sense of another person’s situation.
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    Listening lead to better understanding. Empathy leads to better understanding. — creativesoul

    Listening may lead to partial understanding. I’m not sure what you mean by better understanding. Better than no understanding?
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    We can't read minds but we can make a rough estimate of the physical and mental state of other people. Can't we? We can't be 100% right but empathy has an accuracy of over 50% meaning its better than just random guessing. — TheMadFool

    So 50% of the time we can have a rough estimate of the physical and mental state of others. Is that really an understanding?
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    What makes that a problem? — creativesoul

    Because you are using imagination in place of certain knowledge. You’re not directly experiencing the situation of the other, you’re experiencing ideas of the other, your ideas.

    I’m not sure which arguments I should be addressing.
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    I certainly can imagine how unfulfilling life may be in a slave's eyes. I can certainly imagine how fearful for one's own health, well-being, and safety one may be when they are under the thumb of one who cared little to nothing at all about them as a person. — creativesoul

    That’s the problem, it’s just your imagination.
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    ↪TheMadFool


    We can't be 100% right but empathy has an accuracy of over 50% meaning its better than just random guessing. — TheMadFool

    I can’t just accept those figures at random like that. Nor do I think anyone could come up with any percentages.

    But, yes, we can make a rough estimate of the physical and mental state of other people. And that would contribute enough to enable people to co-operate, which is all that’s required for survival, besides the obvious. But I wouldn’t call it, necessarily, an understanding

    A social rule doesn’t need any understanding, it only needs agreement or adherence. Nor, I imagine, are social rules always agreed to by concensus, or necessarily based on ethics. Sometimes they’re enforced through violence.

    It’s interesting about dogs, because they may seem to have empathy, but does an animal of that intelligence really understand another dog? Is cowering in deference to a bigger dog an understanding or instinct?
  • Why is our upbringing so diametrically different than adulthood?
    What kind of maniacal mind comes up with this?[/quote

    Most of my thoughts are Darwinian based, so I tend to view everything from that perspective.

    The evolutionary drive of man is to procreate, reproduce the species in numbers that offers greater chance of survival and passing on of genes, then nurturing and support of the young until they are able to set out and begin their own version of the same story.

    For male and female the offerings are different. A son might help to support the family, a girl is a burden to be married off, maybe in exchange for something beneficial to the family.

    The father anticipates the son staying around. But how does the son find a wife? Maybe from within the tribe or village or neighbouring village. But if, for whatever reason, there are no women to chose from, none suitable, then the young man must set out on his own.
    At what age would he do it? When he feels the need for a women and when he feels strong enough, physically or mentally, to go it alone. This is how genes are spread, and maybe good genes at that if he proves himself good enough to survive.

    He doesn’t know much except what he’s bothered to learn or what was forced upon him. Many of those things may be of no use to him in the new world. Prepared or not he goes anyway. He can’t refuse.

    This is a very old story. The young man who goes out into the world; the journey of the archetypal hero.

    That same event happens in all cultures, but sometimes it remains merely symbolic; the rituals of entering adulthood, even 21st birthdays.     — Wallows
  • Why is our upbringing so diametrically different than adulthood?
    What kind of maniacal mind comes up with this? — Wallows

    This is your question, though. Right? Why is it this way?
  • Why is our upbringing so diametrically different than adulthood?
    My experience was completely like this. Completely controlled as a child with no preparation for adulthood. Then turn 17 and expected to fend for myself. — Andrew4Handel

    My own experience was very much like this. I wasn’t completely controlled, but there wasn’t much preparation either. Once out there I found my way by trial and error. The fact that I survived doesn’t necessarily mean I learned the right things.

    What does adulthood mean? It can’t be age because there are many “adults” out there who behave like children. Being a parent can accelerate that state, but then many parents mess up their children by behaving like children..

    Maybe the question needs a bit of clarity. Adulthood might be cultural, but each culture seems to use it in a knowing way.
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    ↪TheMadFool


    So, are you saying we’re, all of us on this forum, or most of us, purposely misunderstanding each other?
  • Fulfilling or eliminating/downsizing pre-requisites to happiness
    I think we all accept that happiness is transitory, so whatever we do we probably won’t have the amount of happiness we would like. Nor do I think moments of happiness vary in quality; you’re happy or you’re not. Though is being content the same as happiness?

    So will the re-requisites for happiness, whatever they are, create more happiness? If you’re a poor dirt farmer ploughing the hard fields day in and day out, you might want another horse or a barn, maybe even a wife. I imagine any of those things would make the farmer happier. Maybe because he had so little of it to begin with.

    Some people believe a simple life is the best for us, and they want to create that society. So going back to the dirt farmer, who has a very simple life, how close do you get to him before you cross the line into misery? This seems to me to be the process of eliminating.

    Downsizing is different. Do we need two bathrooms? Do we need a bedroom for each person in the house? Do we really need all the things that put a strain on the energy grid, or to use them as often and thoughtlessly as we do? Do two people really need to live in a big house?

    People still want things. There are reasons for that which is a big subject. That desire also happens to drive the economy which also makes our life richer: we can travel, meet other people, xperience other cultures.

    “Learn to be happy with less.” Isn’t that just elimination?

    Should it be; try to chose what you need as opposed to what you want? That does mean eliminating, or downsizing your delusions of grandeur.

    But I have a problem. I’m really happy and content in the country, I’d like to live there. But I like access to libraries, cafes, etc. I really feel that I need both. So I forsake owing property in the country. And I’m still quite happy with the way things are. But I could convince myself, for the sake of my happiness, to get a mortgage and buy a country property. And in the end it’s just wanting more. Once there would I want something additional again? What’s more the extra mortgage could end up making me stressed and unhappy.
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    That of course doesn't prove anything but wouldn't a tool so ineffectual as you describe it have been discarded a long time ago. It works so it's still in use. — TheMadFool

    Quite possibly it’s still around because it satisfies this narcissistic experience. Which is not to deny, as a consequence, that it has also contributed to society, but not to understanding people in the way Judaka is referring to.
  • Empathy is worthless for understanding people
    Empathy may even be viewed as an act of narcissism, in the way Susan Sontag, commenting on the anti-war movement (Vietnam), saw it as “an opportunity to cultivate their feelings ... self deluded and narcissistic, a moral vanity that depended on feeling good about one’s capacity for feeling bad”.
Home » Brett