BEHOLD THE CRACKED.......LETTING IN MORE LIGHT !

Sharon,

Me:
"Suppose that I have the ability to administer a Vulcan Mind Meld a la Spock or be an empath like Councillor Troy of Star Trek, The Next Generation and have perfect rapport with the hypothetical child killer/rapist.. I will thus know and understand every nuance of his thoughts and emotions, and he mine."

You:
"What would you consider the best thing to do?"

You're completely evading the question. Your whole point of this thread is your contention that the solution to human problems is for all of us to be empathetic. If you don't know what to do then what's your point?

I think that you are just wanting attention and we are feeding it.

Sam

Post 81

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 10:00am

Teresa,

Judgement is a process that begins with a target behaviour. The child acts...the adult observes.....the adult interprets.....the adult makes an evaluation....the adult decides to communicate with the child, and does so.......the child listens..........the child thinks.......the child acts....the adult observes....etc.etc.

When abstract notions of good, bad, evil, naughty, wonderful are used in communicating an adult's judgement to children, it does not explain why the behaviour is so. These evaluations could be idiosyncratic and arbitrary, even. Without elaboration, no one knows what the child is feeling, thinking or understanding when these abstract words are used. Such words put children in passive positions. The child is left to agree or not.

Descriptive phrases, and words are more concrete; and are able to stimulate imagery in the child's mind. Words like effective, ineffective, helpful, unhelpful, courteous, discourteous, robust, boisterous, noisy, very elaborate, tidy, exciting. Such words relate to past actions that the child may recall and now has the language with which to evaluate and or verify. Such actions become the child's to evaluate as bad or evil or naughty, if desired. It becomes self evaluation.

Simplistic words such as good and bad limit a child's repertoire of feelings and opinions. Children need elaborate language codes to permit them to communicate effectively. Language begins with having a wonderful idea, and a willing audience. Adults who want children to think, must provide the opportunity, the skill, and the tools. Using the most elaborate, effective language with children is one way.

Children are not good or bad or evil or whatever. They are explorers; and they need language that enhances that exploration, that activity. It's that dynamic view of life Joe wrote about. I must search out that article and see what he actually said.

I hope that you can see judgement for what it should be; as an opportunity for providing learning. The adult must first judge what learning is needed or possible, on this particular occasion. Deliberately avoiding simplistic judgemental words enhances learning for both the child and the adult.

Post 82

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 10:31am

Sam,

First, I have no knowledge of those Star Wars characters. Which one is the criminal?

Attention? I want people to read Prosen's and Griffith's papers. I'm looking for serious consideration of these ideas not offhand dismissals. I'm trying to understand why empathy is a fearsome idea. I use fearsome, because humans tend to attack those they fear. Is something to be lost by looking at empathy in a serious way?

Have you, Sam, been able to read the New Essay (highlighted in red) on the www.humancondition.info website? I know that Teresa is curious about it; but it's in some kind of esoteric programme that is incompatible with her computer.

Ethan says that he is very empathetic. How do you rate yourself?

I have a lot of empathy with brutes; but not so much with timid people. As a teacher, I had the most difficult time getting a handle on the unforthcoming children. They actually suffer the most, because they use so much energy hiding it. They just can't let go. They're always looking over their shoulder, living their lives through others. Afraid to make a mistake, always needing verification.

Post 83

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 10:55am

Sharon

First, I have no knowledge of those Star Wars characters. Which one is the criminal?

Both are admirable characters and heroes. They are not from Star Wars they are from the TV series, Star Trek, the Next Generation.

Ethan says that he is very empathetic. How do you rate yourself?

Empathy is an emotion and not an action. I am very empathetic � embarrassingly so, to the extent that I rarely go to movies that I know will have an emotional content and I make sure I have my sunglasses with me for exiting the movie theater. I watch those movies on DVD. I can empathize strongly with Sean Penn and Susan Sarrandon in "Dead Man Walking" but that should have no impact whatsoever on my opinion on the death penalty. Rand was against the death penalty on the grounds that the state should not have that kind of power over individuals. Emotion should have no part in social policy.

Sam

Post 84

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 12:28pm

Sharon,

I go back to this opening line in the article proper, after the forward: (Bold mine)

The real, fundamental question about humans is why are we so competitive,
aggressive and selfish when the ideals are to be cooperative, loving and selfless? Are
humans essentially good and if so, what is the cause of our evil, destructive, insensitive
and cruel side?

Why are these the ideal?

It then goes on to mention good and evil. What is good? What is evil? Objectivism has a definition for these that's not arbitrary. If they are going to use the terms, what do they mean to them? To you?

Let me stop and ask you a serious question. I mean no insult by this. What Obecjtivist literature have you read?

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 4/27, 12:36pm)

Post 85

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 12:47pm

Sam,

I think you are limiting the boundaries of empathic behaviour. Empathy is an ability to understand and identify with the feelings of others; to experience as others do, states of mind, beliefs, and desires, as well as emotions. That from Wikipedia. It requires cognitive, instinctual and emotional integration. It is to me a most active function of the mind.

The information on the www.rootsofempathy.org and www.humancondition.org websites should be areas of active curiosity rather than topics of derision and ridicule. How could Objectivist thinking, which values the work of the human mind above all other work, not want to seek actively the ideas behind these recently discovered notions. Is it rational, Sam, to dismiss empathy out of hand, without giving it some serious consideration, first?

As to social policy, do you mean emotion on its own, should have no part? It is the total integration of the intellectual, the emotional, and the instinctive that should drive our decisions. To leave one of these attributes out of the process, is to make a less enlightened and less effective decision.

In addition to that death row criminal on Walking Tall, I appreciate that you have developed some small measure of empathy for me as well. Thank you.

Sharon

Post 86

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 1:51pm

unhappiness in the world is premised on humanity's inability to nurture its young

Wrong...... there is no inability, else there'd be nothing to say of it - it would not be known..... now, unwillingness on the part of various individuals - ahhh, then perhaps..... but - note the difference here, of tribalism or individualism - there is no such entity as 'humanity' even as there are billions of humans, each and every one of which is a distinct individual, not a cog in a soupbowl......

Post 87

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 2:54pm

Sharon:

The information on the www.rootsofempathy.org and www.humancondition.org websites should be areas of active curiosity ...

I looked at the human condition site and saw that the first item on the agenda was a discussion on whether God exists or not. You won't find anybody who calls themselves an Objectivist that thinks this is a subject of discussion, so if you want to get an audience for your views here you would be advised not to promote this site.

It is the total integration of the intellectual, the emotional, and the instinctive that should drive our decisions.

For decisions that relate to your lover, family and close friends I agree with you, but for public policy I am adamantly opposed. I cringe when I think that others can impose their views based on their emotions on me.

In addition to that death row criminal on Walking Tall, I appreciate that you have developed some small measure of empathy for me as well.

It's "Dead Man Walking", not "Walking Tall". I have no empathy for you. You espouse a philosophy that is inimical to me and will cause me harm.

Sam

Post 88

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 3:02pm

Sharon,

It's not weak communication skills. That implies you have something meaningful to say, and just can't get it across. No, you're just muddled in your thinking. You're using philosophy as a rationalization for you own feelings and desires. That's why you wish you could divert me from using logic. Logic has nothing to do with your arguments.

Look how riddled it is with errors.

"The species is very committed to thriving."

No. The "species" does not think. It is not a person. It does not have values. That's collectivism.

Also, the use of the word "thriving" is wrong here. Even if you could attribute motives to "the species", the thriving would be for the species, not for the individuals. It could mean having a massive population, where everyone is unhappy.

"Children are what nature needs in order to continue evolving."

This is mysticism. Evolution is not a goal or purpose. There is no "nature" who wishes to evolve. Evolution does not even mean progress. There's nothing inherently good about "evolution".

"Adults who value children the most have greater empathy than those who do not."

That's just wrong and baseless. The two are unrelated. Value is based on what one wants to accomplish. It's based on the standard of your life. Even if you have strong empathy, it doesn't mean you think having children is a good idea.

"Greater empathy gives a higher sense of life."

Unrelated again. Sense of life is based on one's emotional view of the world. One can have great empathy, and think the world is full of suffering and misery.

"Empathy is derived from infants."

Nonsense. Unless you're trying to claim that every adult was once an infant. But then that's just stupid.

And this line is great:

"I'm trying to understand why empathy is a fearsome idea."

I gave an explanation about the benefits of empathy. Obviously empathy is not fearsome. I think what you really want to know is why the idea of upholding empathy as some kind of intrinsic and ultimate value, which you can use to justify the enslavement of man, murder, eugenics, etc., such a fearsome idea.

And on and on you go.

This isn't reason. This is an emotional outburst. "Think of the children!". There's no content. You plead for us to feel, not to think. You uphold an emotion as the ultimate arbiter for the truth. You rationalize and avoid fundamentals.

I'm done with this topic. Clarity is obviously not the goal.

Post 89

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 11:43pm

What Joe said.

Ed
[again, I don't get the "you-must-be-a-ball-of fear" argument]

Post 90

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 3:37am

et tu Ed ?

But Ed is an honourable man.

Post 91

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 3:42am

Ed,

I'll give you another serious response after I finish trying to do, what should be The Simplest Thing in the World.

Sharon

Post 92

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 5:36am

Hi Ethan,

The furies have taken control of my print. I can't risk losing these ideas, so I want you to know that this supersizing of my response is not to gain extra attention, as Sam implied on another post. I touched something accidently, and this blue monster flew onto the screen. I have no idea how to get back the normal font, colour and size, so, this is my response to your question about whether I know anything about what Ayn Rand wrote.

I am not a scholar; but I am literate and am able to read, think and integrate ideas and feelings into the ones already in my mind. Since I have not had a willing audience over the years, for my ideas; and I am not a writer, I have had to run my ideas about issues, past myself, only. I did not enjoy the luxury of a guru, who would "put my thinking back on the rails".

Imagine, spending your whole life listening to others accuse you of thinking too much; and then, after finding a community whose members spend their time thinking about thinking and then writing about it; you are told that what you are doing and have been doing all these years, is not thinking but feeling.

Now I have to think, "How did Joe Rowlands become such an expert about me?" How can he know something about me, before I know it? How can he be correct and I not? Notice how I do not use emotionally charged words like "right" and "wrong"?

Why would a person who has been accused and argued, as able only, to communicate on an emotional level only, want to choose neutral words? Am I some kind of charlatan? Well, that's a side issue. You really want to find out if I know anything about Ayn Rand's thinking.

Since 1965, when I found Ayn Rand's interview in my new husband's collection of Playboy magazines, I have read, in this order,

The Virtue of Selfishness.
Philosophy, Who Needs it?
We, the Living
The Ayn Rand Lexicon
The Romantic Manifesto
Atlas Shrugged (I read this only last autumn)

I cannot cite chapter and verse on Ayn Rand. I have a life to live. I have projects and goals to pursue. Coming on this website is an anomaly for me.
I integrated Ayn Rand's Objectivist ideas into my life, right after reading the Playboy interview. Little did I know, that I misunderstood everything she was saying.

How could I have so wrongly, gotten the notion that a benevolent sense of life was the underlying foundation for one's way of being in the world? How could I have taken the notion, right from the beginning, that one's own sense of life was affected by the sense of life of all those in society? Well. the penny has dropped for me, and after all these years I understand completely. I understand selfishness and individualism. I also understand the interdependence of our modern technological society.

Yes, I heard Ayn Rand's ranting and railing about slavery, witch doctors, second- handers, atillas, etc. etc. I heard all that anger and frustration in her voice; but I didn't feel helpless, I felt strong and capable. I set about purposely using my mind to change the parts of the world that tried to phase me. Righting the wrongs that affected my life. I was and continue to be very unskillful; but considering that no one was guiding me, and I had to learn the best ways, by researching first, and then trying and eliminating all the less effective ways; I am proud of my life.

Feminism came along a few years after I discovered Objectivism; and being freed of stereotypical thinking, I was supported through the years by my natural tendency to think for myself. It seems to be a family trait, most intensely developed in me. I have been told by everyone who comes to know me, that I am unique. That they know of no one else like me. I used to be amazed to hear that. I knew there were people like Ayn Rand, so I didn't take that to heart. When I came on this website last spring, I expected to find kindred spirits.

Well, I'm used to disappointment.      Fortunately, the cook books have many recipes, and I know how to make lemonade from scratch.

So, Ethan there you have it. I have depth of experience and thought. My intuitions do not fail me. Benevolence is the guiding light of selfishness. Empathy, that innate instinct born with infancy is the teacher. If no one here can understand that, I can understand. I have been led around by the nose by young children since 1964. A little child shall lead them, indeed. If all this is too airy fairy, still, for you; read again as I did last night, The Simplest Thing in the World.

Henry Dorn and I have a lot in common.  I, however, have the empathy of thousands of children stored up in my sense of life. I am never be defeated. Want Ads, indeed!

I live for the future, Ethan, I am a teacher. The children are always watching and judging. They are the real thing.

And I mean it!

ahem, Sharon

Post 93

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 6:56am

Conclusions drawn from Post 86,

Semantics isn't the most important thing; it's the only thing.

Criticism is the most important route in establishing fact and changing opinion.

Pedantry is most important of all.

Thanks for the helpful tuition, Bob

I'll record them all carefully, in: My Book of Things All Young Objectivists Should Know

Sharon

Post 94

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 7:07am

Hi Sharon,

I recommend you pick up Leonard Peikoff's book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. More so than many other sources, this book takes a systematic step-by-step route to understanding Objectivism. If you read that, I think you'll come to a different opinion of Objectivism. I also recommend importanceofphilosophy.com

I can't force you to read these things, but I'll say this. Objectivism is an integrated and hierarchical philosophy. You need to get the whole picture for any of it to be useful. Ideas rest on underlying principles, and when you espouse an idea without understanding its philosophical under-pinnings you are opening yourself up to being easily refuted. You may wonder why people get frustrated with some of the ideas you espouse, and so I'm telling you why. I hate to say RTFM, but you can't start in the middle and hope to convince anyone.

Ethan

Post 95

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 7:33am

Sam,

Yes, I should have said Dead Man Walking. It's important to correct errors.

Yes, cringing is a valid response to the thought of having others make public policy based on emotions alone. Would you cringe equally as much at the thought of public policy based on the emotionless decisions of malevolent intellectuals?

Yes, I shouldn't expect to get an audience on an Objectivist forum from individuals who base their opinions on the validity of an article on the fact that the existence of God is listed as the first item on the agenda.

Yes, I espouse a philosophy that is inimical to your maintaining the untenable position that "man qua man" as an end, does not have to include one thought on children.

Yes, you will have to give your head a shake and find a way to make a legitimate place in Objectivism, for children. Yes, it is a frightening thought that you may have to invent a new premise, that you will need to do some much needed tweaking of Objectivism to include the fact that humans as animals who are capable of original thought, cannot ignore the survival of the species in its philosophical tenets.

Yes, you may have to start paying attention to who children are. You may have to spend time with them, studying them, understanding their needs, and your relation to them. You will have to regard children as slightly more than the chattels of their parents.

The harm I see, Sam, is that you will have to give up your complacent retirement and get to work on this solution.

If I have spoken in a tone more caustic than the one you have been directing at me, take one for your side. I believe in fair trade. (**)

Yes, I do mean it.

Sharon

Post 96

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 7:48am

Ethan, Is that the same Leonard Piekoff , about whom so many anal-retentive snideries have been written?

I don't need some pipsqueak bachelor who couldn't stand up to Ayn Rand to interpret my life for me. Is he the best there is?

Show me a fully integrated person, I'm a multi-sensory learner.

Sharon

Post 97

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 7:55am

Ok Sharon,

Enjoy yourself. I thought I might be nice an try to offer you some tips, but since you know it all already enjoy. I'll just write you off in my book as being not worthwhile to debate with. You talk about others being closed minded, but I can see it really applies to you. I bothered to take the time to read your linked article, but why would you bother to listen to anyone elses suggestions. This attitude and the fact that you are a teacher in frightening. The best teachers are those who are willing to continuously evaluate and integrate new ideas and check their premises.

Ethan

Post 98

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 8:20am

Hi Ed,

Sometimes I think that you and I are on the same wavelength, oops! I meant that we look at issues from the same perspective. Of course, I have no proof of that; it is, horror of horrors an intuitive notion, totally unfounded in reality, but a presence of mind$, hmm there must be a more objective word for what I mean.

If you agree with every one of Joe's assessment of my thinking, I guess Joe would call it non-thinking$, I cannot imagine, oops! formulate a single hypothesis to explain why you have come on this thread. Is it idle curiosity? Is there something you want to add? Do you have a dog you want to introduce me to?

I consider you to be one of the more fully-integrated individuals on this board, Ed. If that reduces your status among Objectivists, I regret not keeping my thoughts to myself . I am certain; as much as a human who has never read the mind of the aforesaid human can be certain, however, that you can rise above that slight.

If you Ed, in your bones$, can see nothing in this issue surrounding empathy, infancy, children, and Objectivism, I will take my notes and get off the stage.

Sharon

$ concepts to be fleshed out more fully

Post 99

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 8:29am