About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 9:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Empathy is responding to the same sense of life.........   isn't it?

Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 10:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert M,

No. Unless just being alive and sharing a common nature is that sense of life. There are too many documented cases to ignore of people who suddenly throw themselves in harm's way to save perfect strangers (just as one example).

But on a personal level:

How long could you listen to a man being tortured and screaming in agony without getting very irritable and upset - even wanting to do something dangerous to get the people to stop? You empathize with the man's pain.

Have you ever seen a person in great pain get sudden relief. The change in the look on his face - the sudden relief - makes you smile in pleasure.

How about pornography - the "I see sex, I want to engage in sex" impulse?

These are just three examples. Life is full of them and these reactions are automatic.

The first reaction (a person throwing himself in harm's way to save a stranger) is not evasion of the danger either. It is a direct automatic impulse to remove both the stranger and himself from the danger, but going in to get the stranger first.

The second and third reactions are not just individual value judgments of negating pain. They are a direct automatic reactions to (2) hearing the suffering of another and (3) seeing the suffering of another end.

The fourth reaction can be short-circuited through volition after a time - "I find that disgusting!" and actually feel disgust, not hidden desire - but it needs a lot of work to get there.

These automatic "species" reactions are based on a subconscious mirror, so to speak - seeing another with the same reactions, limitations, etc. as you have.

Disclaimer once again. They neither supplant nor negate individual value judgments on the subconscious level. The coexist with them and have their own nature (initially automatic, not volitional).

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/13, 10:20pm)


Post 22

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 5:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
hi Michael,

"Sanjay (or Coalton? - what is the story here?)"

It is Sanjay Velamparambil. I was very skeptical when came across SOLO the first time and hence reluctant to use the real identity. Coalton Trail is a trail near my house where I frequently run.

Your arguments are reasonable and illuminating.

you wrote: "So when I said empathy was good, I meant that empathizing with another (trying to feel what another feels) is a subconscious response to the good - but in this case to another member of the same species and based on the species thriving part in our brains, not just the individual valuing part, which stems from the conceptual and volitional level."

So would it be correct to deduce that at some point in our evolution, there was a need to be in a group for survival? That is interesting.

Let me do some reading on this and we shall continue this conversation after that.

Sanjay


Post 23

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 7:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sanjay,
So would it be correct to deduce that at some point in our evolution, there was a need to be in a group for survival?

Not necessarily. You can get the same result from individual selection if preserving the group helps the individual survive. Mutual individual benefit isn't group selection because "group" has such a transient meaning that it becomes gibberish when you talk about selecting groups.

Sarah

Post 24

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 7:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sanjay,

I agree with Sarah. But I also look at another aspect.

Banding together in groups is called flocking. Some species do it and others do not.

Human beings have flocked since recorded history, with sporadic and extremely rare exceptions of hermit-like people, loners both by choice and those stranded by accident.

I would state that empathy is not the cause of flocking, though. Neither is survival nor free choice as sole reasons (although they do have some importance after the faculty of volition develops). I think it goes deeper than all that (although I am speculating right now). I believe that the same species related impulse (instinct, preconceptual behavior pattern, whatever) that generates the drive to flock also generates the emotion, empathy.

For as individual as a person is and can become, he/she needed the sexual encounter of two other members of the same species in order to exist at all. This is a fact and the implications are wide in philosophical terms - and just real as individual awareness.

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/14, 7:45am)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.