Smartest person you kn(e)w

[smcder]

@burntstate

I don't think you have to give up any general iq smarts to become more compassionate. When you know more about other people, you understand their situation better and can understand why people do what they do. So IMHO as intellect increases so should compassion. I know that hatred can work like a capacitator to interupt the flow of compassion which makes evil scientists, evil geniuses and capitalists out of some smart people. But my experience has taught me that the more I increase my awareness of other people's situations the easier it is to forgive them.

This is very interesting to me ... we definitely need a definition of compassion.

Right now, I think of compassion as a state of mind and not dependent on what you know of the other person's situation or their motivations. I don't think compassion alone tells you what to do in a given situation. Is it more compassionate to maintain life support or to unplug it? Two people of equal compassion could come to different conclusions in the same set of circumstances. A person with greater intelligence and knowledge of the situation could also come to a different conclusion but we need to be very careful whether we want to say they could come to a more compassionate solution ... this is something I'm not sure of.

So, right now, I'm not sure there is any necessary correlation between intellect and compassion - nor to intellect and potential compassion - as long as you have normal human intelligence I think compassion can be developed basically without limit in terms of to whom it's directed, the amount and quality. Compassion then is a quality I think can be intentionally developed and applied indiscriminately to all regardless of our knowledge of their circumstances.

As to forgiveness, I think that also can be applied as a general principle without regard to another's situation. Forgiveness can even be for the sole benefit of the person doing the forgiving. There's a good talk on this - I believe around South Africa - I will try to find it - it's calling on all harms to one to even be remembered in forgiveness.

What I understand you to say with

the more I increase my awareness of other people's situations the easier it is to forgive them

... is that you now know the more you understand someone's situation the easier it is to forgive them. So, if you know that in advance - then it seems you can now extend it to every situation going forward? In other words, now you don't actually have to wait to increase your awareness (although it never hurts) in order to make it easier to forgive someone, because your experience has taught you what will happen when you do. In other word, again I'm saying forgiveness is a quality that can be developed independently of how you think about a situation ... so it, like compassion - becomes a habitual quality or state of mind - an approach to the world.

Note: compassion and forgiveness aren't get out of jail free cards - if someone hurts me, I may call on myself to forgive and even to remember the hurt as forgiven, but I will remember the hurt and take steps to prevent future harm - in part, not doing so and allowing someone to hurt me again, may be hurtful to them.

I don't think people live by general principles, or always apply logical thinking to emotional situations. Learning about other people's situations is about life experience, call it a kind of social wisdom that coincides with intellect.

I think that's interesting too ... because I think we all do live by general principles, whether explicitly stated or not.

Further, I think we can apply general principles to things like love and compassion and I think we would be wise to do so ... otherwise we risk applying these qualities discriminately, according to personal preference.

 

[smcder]

Here's the talk

Exclusion and embrace - Big Ideas - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/url]

 

[Randall]

How about switching the question around: How much compassion would you be willing to exchange for an increase in intelligence? Personally I would be willing to make that trade-off because right now I have plenty of compassion, but I'm not quite super-smart enough to be able to easily acquire the resources needed to alleviate the problems associated with the issues that give rise to feelings of compassion without compromising my own security beyond what I'm comfortable with.

I donate modestly to the food bank. I dropped some coins in the Salvation Army collection basket over Christmas, but I have next to zero income, so giving it all away to people less fortunate than me would just put me in the same boat as them, and I'm smart enough to know that would be just plain stupid, and quite frankly I'm also too selfish for that. I need to maintain a certain level of personal comfort even if other people have less; and I don't think it's our responsibility to help out anyone unless we really want to, nor do I like being extorted emotionally by pleas for charity.

 

[smcder]

How about switching the question around: How much compassion would you be willing to exchange for an increase in intelligence? Personally I would be willing to make that trade-off because right now I have plenty of compassion, but I'm not quite super-smart enough to be able to easily acquire the resources needed to alleviate the problems associated with the issues that give rise to feelings of compassion without compromising my own security beyond what I'm comfortable with.

I donate modestly to the food bank. I dropped some coins in the Salvation Army collection basket over Christmas, but I have next to zero income, so giving it all away to people less fortunate than me would just put me in the same boat as them, and I'm smart enough to know that would be just plain stupid, and quite frankly I'm also too selfish for that. I need to maintain a certain level of personal comfort even if other people have less; and I don't think it's our responsibility to help out anyone unless we really want to, nor do I like being extorted emotionally by pleas for charity.

Ok ... I'll switch the question around for you:

How much compassion would you be willing to exchange for an increase in intelligence?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

How about switching the question around: How much compassion would you be willing to exchange for an increase in intelligence? Personally I would be willing to make that trade-off because right now I have plenty of compassion, but I'm not quite super-smart enough to be able to easily acquire the resources needed to alleviate the problems associated with the issues that give rise to feelings of compassion without compromising my own security beyond what I'm comfortable with.

I donate modestly to the food bank. I dropped some coins in the Salvation Army collection basket over Christmas, but I have next to zero income, so giving it all away to people less fortunate than me would just put me in the same boat as them, and I'm smart enough to know that would be just plain stupid, and quite frankly I'm also too selfish for that. I need to maintain a certain level of personal comfort even if other people have less; and I don't think it's our responsibility to help out anyone unless we really want to, nor do I like being extorted emotionally by pleas for charity.

You bring up many interesting points.

When I worked at the homeless shelter one of the interesting things I saw repeatedly was acts of generosity. Like giving for anyone, these were complex acts - people nearly always benefited in some way: gain in social status, re-assurance gained by knowing they had something to give or that someone else was worse off than they were, the simple good feeling that comes with giving, even just reinforcing their idea of themselves as someone who gives ... and also acts of generosity were currency and people kept sharp track who gave back ... as, I think we are all wired to do ...

But, often as not - and unlike for most of the non-homeless, this generosity did put the giver in a situation of being less comfortable, in a very real, phyical sense. Sharing a can of food meant that person went to bed hungrier. Sharing a campsite meant the sharer might more likely be detected by the police or might sleep uneasily as they were not 100% sure about the person they were sharing with ... sharing information about resources of any kind, meant they were now split by one more person.

Yet I saw people make these gives over and over. Of course, most of them had long since become inured to certain kinds of physical discomfort. They slept in cars, in stables, in wooded areas ... abandoned houses, etc and ate what they got when they got it. No air conditioning in summer and no heat in winter. So a little more discomfort could be factored into the give.

So, I guess there is indeed a calculus of physical comfort and autonomy (having enough to keep yourself fed, clothed and sheltered) ... and simply selling all you have and giving it to the poor invokes any of a number of complex calculations taken solely from that perspective and likely wouldn't help anyone for very long and would put you in a position then of having to take.

But ... is there any supportable argument to having more than this minimum amount? And does our sense of compassion allow us to fully rest easily knowing that others don't have that minimum?

 

[smcder]

"The compassion of the wise man does not render him a victim of suffering. His thoughts, words and deeds are full of pity.

But his heart does not waver; unchanged it remains, serene and calm. How else should he be able to help?"




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Randall]

Ok ... I'll switch the question around for you:
How much compassion would you be willing to exchange for an increase in intelligence?

I would give up enough compassion to give me an edge sufficient to allow me to make a far more substantial material contribution to ending the problems that give rise to the need for the compassion in the first place. As it is now I feel emotional about the plight of those less fortunate, but I'd gladly give up that feeling to be able to actually do much more than empathize. I don't think people need to have compassion to know what the right thing to do is, and that the problems need material solutions more than just people's empathy. I don't want my guilt assuaged. I'd be happier having no guilt to assuage and the means to do something material and substantial. I'd be happier seeing other people suffer less whether I had any compassion for them or not.

 

[smcder]

I would give up enough compassion to give me an edge sufficient to allow me to make a far more substantial material contribution to ending the problems that give rise to the need for the compassion in the first place. As it is now I feel emotional about the plight of those less fortunate, but I'd gladly give up that feeling to be able to actually do much more than empathize. I don't think people need to have compassion to know what the right thing to do is, and that the problems need material solutions more than just people's empathy. I don't want my guilt assuaged. I'd be happier having no guilt to assuage and the means to do something material and substantial. I'd be happier seeing other people suffer less whether I had any compassion for them or not.

So what would motivate you to actually do the right thing and why would you be happier seeing other people suffer less? This seems to me to be the definition of compassion ... I don't think compassion has to do with feeling guilty.

Would you be happier just from the satisfaction of providing a material solution or even just having the means to do so? Without compassion there would certainly be any if a number of options available ... One might argue that empathy and compassion already make decisions "hard" and without them a small number of people might be able to provide material solutions.

Could the solution for example be to reduce the earths population to a billion or so with an engineered virus and then evenly distribute material goods - keeping population in check going forward by "draconian" methods?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

Online Etymology Dictionary


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

My results

You have completed the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale.

The LSRP measures two scales.

Scores range from 1 (low) to 5 (high).

Your score from primary psychopathy has been calculated as 2.4. Primary psychopathy is the affective aspects of psychopathy; a lack of empathy for other people and tolerance for antisocial orientations.

Your score from secondary psychopathy has been calculated as 4. Secondary psychopathy is the antisocial aspects of psychopathy; rule breaking and a lack of effort towards socially rewarded behavior.

With two scores, results of the LSRP are very suitable for being plotted. Below is the distribution of how other people who have taken this test have scored.


You score for primary psychopathy was higher than 62.34% of people who have taken this test.

You score for secondary psychopathy was higher than 94.64% of people who have taken this test.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Randall]

So what would motivate you to actually do the right thing and why would you be happier seeing other people suffer less? This seems to me to be the definition of compassion ... I don't think compassion has to do with feeling guilty.

It's possible to be happy for the wellness of others without having to feel sympathy for their misfortunes ( which is the definition of compassion ), and people can be motivated by what makes them happy, not just by doing something to avoid feeling unhappy. Also, sympathy for the misfortunes of others isn't the only thing that tells us the difference between what is right or wrong. Hypothetically, it should be possible to be completely dispassionate and still do the right things based on needs for survival, health, education, standard of living, etc.

Would you be happier just from the satisfaction of providing a material solution or even just having the means to do so? Without compassion there would certainly be any if a number of options available ... One might argue that empathy and compassion already make decisions "hard" and without them a small number of people might be able to provide material solutions.

It seems to me that the largest portion of suffering and misfortune could be alleviated with material solutions, and to be clear about that I include things like schools, doctors, counsellors, and such in that category because even though education and counselling in the purest sense aren't "material", we still receive those benefits by way of having the material facilities and people in place. So yes I would be happier having the extra intelligence points required to boost me into a position to provide those things on a wider scale than to feel compassionate while not having the means to do nearly as much about it.

Could the solution for example be to reduce the earths population to a billion or so with an engineered virus and then evenly distribute material goods - keeping population in check going forward by "draconian" methods?

I don't need compassion to know that mass-murder is wrong. I don't think any other reasonably intelligent person does either.

 

[Constance]

I don't need compassion to know that mass-murder is wrong. I don't think any other reasonably intelligent person does either.

One needs something more basic, though, which phenomenological philosophers identify as openness to others and to the world (both to nature and culture). Empathy and compassion are natural expressions of human and other animal consciousness provided that these qualities have been expressed toward and received -- experienced at least to some extent -- by individuals in their infanthood and childhood, and also supported by the dominant ideology/world view of the societies in which individuals develop into adulthood and carry on their lives. What I'm getting at is expressed well in the works of an early phenomenologist, Max Scheler, which I've been meaning to bring forward in the Consciousness and the Paranormal thread. I'll cite him first here and then also in that other thread. Here is an extract from the article on Scheler at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosohy, with the link to the whole article.

Max Scheler

2. The Meaning of Philosophy and Phenomenology

“. . . At the end of his life, Scheler wrote that the central issue in his thought and writing was the question regarding the meaning of the human being (GW IX, 9). This question not only guided his ever expanding philosophical endeavors, but also defined his approach and understanding of philosophy. Like many of the Lebensphilosophen (philosophers of life) who had influenced him, Scheler strove to save philosophy and thought from the reductive mindset of the positive sciences and to a degree, American pragmatism, a mindset that defined the human being as mere homo faber (tool-maker). The human being is without a doubt a practical being, seeking to master and manipulate his or her environment to achieve desired results and avoid future suffering. For Scheler, practical knowledge and practical consciousness are genetically the first form of knowledge for the individual. Yet, human beings are not necessarily tied to practical affairs and have the ability to comprehend and regard the world in terms of its essence or being. Philosophy, for Scheler, is the “loving act of participation by the core of the human being in the essence of all things” (GW V, 68). The move from the practical to the philosophical is motivated by wonder, a concern for the world as it is in itself, a question of what the world means (GW VIII, 208).

Hence, what motivates philosophical thought is the love of a world full of wonder and the willingness to participate in its meaning. This “loving participation” of philosophy is, however, distinct from the classical notion of love (eros) as a lack. Love is understood by Scheler here in terms of the Christian sense of agape, loving as giving. The human being as a loving, philosophical being is not motivated to know by a sense of a lack, as is the case with eros, but is rather motivated by the abundance and surfeit of the meaning of the world (GW VI, 84). Modernity's ethos of control and domination has transformed the world into a mere object of utility. As a means to reawaken a sense of wonder, Scheler called for a rehabilitation of virtue, in particular the virtues of humility and reverence (GW III, 15). The philosopher lives in reverence of the world, in astonishment of the world’s inexhaustible depth and secrets (GW III, 26).

Philosophical thought attends to the core meaning of knowledge as a Seinsverhältnis, an ontological relation. Knowledge, according to Scheler, is a relation between beings, a relation wherein a being ‘participates’ in what another being is in itself (GW VIII, 203). It is the humble divesting of oneself that opens one up to the other (GW VIII, 204) and presupposes the loving willingness to be open to that which is other.

Following Augustine, Scheler takes the emotional and affective life as foundational for any form of knowledge (GW VI, 87). Before the world is known, it is first given. Love is that which opens the human being up to the world, to that which is other. This openness demonstrates that there is a moral precondition for knowledge. Knowledge is possible only for a loving being (GW V, 83). This love is the movement of transcendence, a going beyond oneself, an opening to ever richer meaning. Love is always already directed to the infinite, to absolute value and being (GW V, 90). With this understanding of the relation of love to knowledge, Scheler declares that “knowledge is ultimately from the divine and for the divine” (GW VIII, 211).

It was not until he read Husserl's Logical Investigations and learned of the idea of phenomenology, however, that Scheler came upon a style of thinking that best captured for him the loving disposition of philosophy. Although he was greatly indebted to Husserl's genius and originality, Scheler was often critical of Husserl when describing the nature of phenomenology. For Scheler, phenomenology is unequivocally not a method, but an attitude (GW X, 380). Grasping the meaning or essence of an object has meant, since Plato, a type of disengagement from or suspension of an object's immediate and present existence. The intent of this disengagement is not to abstract from an object of cognition as it exists, but rather to look at the object as it is in itself. Phenomenology cultivates a shift in seeing so that the world is no longer taken for granted, as it is in the natural worldview, but is regarded critically. The phenomenological attitude does not negate the practical or the “natural” world and way of being. It merely holds the world in abeyance and brackets it by suspending judgment. Such a suspension is motivated not by a disdain or a devaluation of the practical life, but by a love of the world. It is in this respect that Scheler describes phenomenological attitude as a psychic technique comparable to Buddhist techniques of suffering (GW VIII, 139).

Scheler shares the conviction with the others such as Adolf Reinach that the essential insight of phenomenology is that by bracketing the world, one can intuitively and immediately grasp the essence of an object of cognition. This grasping of the object is never complete, but merely partial insight of the thing itself (GW V, 199). Scheler rejects the Kantian and neo-Kantian position that all knowledge of an object is mediated and manufactured knowledge. Whereas Modern thinkers suffer from a fundamental mistrust in the world, the phenomenologist assumes a fundamental trust. It is the world that gives itself to intuition, beckoning us to participate ever more fully in its significance. By virtue of this loving trust, the world itself is given. The phenomenological attitude is an expression of this trust and demonstrates that the human being is fundamentally open to that which is other.

3. Value Personalism . . . . .

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scheler/#Bib

 

[Constance]

The hypothetical situation is that there are 7 billion people on the planet ... if that many people remain, in a few years everyone will be dead ... But if action is taken now to reduce the population to 1 billion - then that 1 billion stands a very good of survival.
According to the criteria above the choice is clear. It seems only an emotional response would say "no I refuse under any circumstances to bring about the death of six billion people, even if it likely means the extinction of the human species."

What would Max Scheler say? I don't know because I haven't yet read enough of his philosophy. What I would say is that the situation you describe {which I don't think requires that we contemplate reducing the population through mass murder} is that this is a situation our species has brought on itself by ignoring the warnings made fifty years ago by Obama's science 'czar' and other scientists, and that having brought ourselves and other living creatures to the brink of such an option we ought to adopt the appropriately tragic attitude and take the consequences of a protracted death of our and other species. In other words, live it out in time, consciously and regretfully, while trying to remediate the ecological problems we've created. Intentionally killing off a proportion of our species would leave the survivors in insupportable grief and guilt. Those left would be demoralized by an 'original sin' next to which the Biblical one pales in comparison. The idea is unthinkable.

Of course if this path is taken after the 'Singularity' occurs, no one will be functioning with the emotional sensitivity required to care.

 

[Constance]

Steve, there are two statements you've posted that I've wondered about. The first is this:

That sounds more like empathy - which to me is neutral, the saint and the sadist are both capable of great empathy.

Would you clarify how you're using (or receiving) the concept of empathy there?

The second is this one, which I want to respond to:

"The compassion of the wise man does not render him a victim of suffering. His thoughts, words and deeds are full of pity.
But his heart does not waver; unchanged it remains, serene and calm. How else should he be able to help?"

These kinds of Buddhist tracts have put me off Buddhism for years. Why should the compassion of a "wise" or even an 'ordinary' human being "not render him a victim of suffering"? Can we really manage not feeling the suffering of others? What gives us the right to? And how does one manage that? I sometimes feel that much of Buddhism amounts to an effort to escape from the human condition, an effort to become alienated from natural consciousness and its tribulations. To be as far out of the world as one can be while remaining in it.

 

[smcder]

What would Max Scheler say? I don't know because I haven't yet read enough of his philosophy. What I would say is that the situation you describe {which I don't think requires that we contemplate reducing the population through mass murder} is that this is a situation our species has brought on itself by ignoring the warnings made fifty years ago by Obama's science 'czar' and other scientists, and that having brought ourselves and other living creatures to the brink of such an option we ought to adopt the appropriately tragic attitude and take the consequences of a protracted death of our and other species. In other words, live it out in time, consciously and regretfully, while trying to remediate the ecological problems we've created. Intentionally killing off a proportion of our species would leave the survivors in insupportable grief and guilt. Those left would be demoralized by an 'original sin' next to which the Biblical one pales in comparison. The idea is unthinkable.

Of course if this path is taken after the 'Singularity' occurs, no one will be functioning with the emotional sensitivity required to care.

That's a very interesting answer ...

The criteria that @ufology presents above it seems to me would say that survival is important and if it's a dispassionate decision - then I'm not sure why it wouldn't say we should save a billion people?

Yet @ufology may be saying that mass murder is wrong under any circumstances - even if it means the extinction of the species.

In response to your pint about grief ... Another idea is that a small group could force the scientists to do the work at gunpoint and afterwards turn themselves over for trial ... the rest of the survivors would not have any guilt - and then the question is do the saviors of mankind go down as the greatest
mass murderers in history?

And that's how it goes with hypotheticals - you keep tweaking and tweaking until things start to get clear ... when skillfully applied (a law professor with lots of experience) the teacher brings forth from the student the appropriate rule of law or perhaps discovers a new one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Constance]

Ah, the law. Justice is a social goal long sought in human affairs and philosophy and rarely achieved to date. Indeed, less so in our time when the laws of the land are more plainly, obviously, manipulated by the powerful against the powerless. I'm not looking to law schools for the answers, nor to the legislators of our time in this country. I've had enough experience with them and the way they do business to know better.

 

[smcder]

Steve, there are two statements you've posted that I've wondered about. The first is this:



Would you clarify how you're using (or receiving) the concept of empathy there?

The second is this one, which I want to respond to:



These kinds of Buddhist tracts have put me off Buddhism for years. Why should the compassion of a "wise" or even an 'ordinary' human being "not render him a victim of suffering"? Can we really manage not feeling the suffering of others? What gives us the right to? And how does one manage that? I sometimes feel that much of Buddhism amounts to an effort to escape from the human condition, an effort to become alienated from natural consciousness and its tribulations. To be as far out of the world as one can be while remaining in it.

I'm glad you asked about this - let me see if I can make it clearer

"The compassion of the wise man does not render him a victim of suffering. His thoughts, words and deeds are full of pity.
But his heart does not waver; unchanged it remains, serene and calm. How else should he be able to help?"

This means the wise man doesn't become a victim of his compassion ... being a victim of compassion seems to be what @ufology is concerned about ... as expressed in the desire to be dispassionate or to feel less compassion in exchange for the ability to do something about a situation ...

... a very common example is something I heard frequently when I was a foster for the Humane Society. People would say

"I'd love to be a foster for the Humane Society but I'm so compassionate, I wouldn't be able to give them up to their new owners, it would tear my heart out ... therefore I'm not going to be a foster."

or

"I'm not going to the animal shelter to find a pet, because I'd want to take them all home ..." (as a result of this - the animal they might have selected could end up euthanized) - so the person in both cases couldn't tolerate the emotional pain they felt compassion would bring to them, so they didn't act at all.

People often say this about relatives in the nursing home - that it's just too painful to visit.

So, in Buddhism, the opposite choice is made - to face the most painful of situations skillfully.

What the passage above says is that wise man's thoughts, words and deeds are full of pity (compassion is a better word - "pity" here is not a good translation) ... but his heart does not waver in other words, he doesn't let the fact that he is full of compassion prevent him from acting ...

his heart remains unchanged means that it is serene and calm (and it means that he is resolved to act for the good) ... the last part how else should he be able to help? means if he didn't maintain serenity and calm, he wouldn't be able to act effectively - he would be like the people who didn't become animal fosters because they felt it would be too painful, he would turn away.

So, this is actually the opposite of

Can we really manage not feeling the suffering of others? What gives us the right to? And how does one manage that? I sometimes feel that much of Buddhism amounts to an effort to escape from the human condition, an effort to become alienated from natural consciousness and its tribulations. To be as far out of the world as one can be while remaining in it

... in that the passage says that you move forward with a heart full of compassion, maintaining serenity and calm in order to act effectively. This is not at all unlike the kind of training given to emergency workers - this was hammered home to us in EMT class ... if you get to the scene of a car wreck and you fall apart - you are worse than no good, you are a danger ... so you act according to your training and you get the job done then you go home and deal with all the emotion. The problem was we weren't given any tools to deal with it.

In Buddhism you do that training in meditation, which is not the popular vision of escaping to blissful states, but rather you stabilize the mind and then grapple with the passions, at times even evoking painful situations in order to deal with them. It really is like emergency or martial arts training. Since I've benn meditating, I've felt a greater range of emotions and more intensely.

Pema Chodron I think is one to make this clear in Western language. The problem with quoting from the suttas as above is that everything is interlinked and words are used in specific ways ... but sometimes I like to take the chance that it will convey.

Here are some quotes from Pema Chodron that might have better served my point
Pema Chödrön Quotes (Author of When Things Fall Apart)

“…feelings like disappointment, embarrassment, irritation, resentment, anger, jealousy, and fear, instead of being bad news, are actually very clear moments that teach us where it is that we’re holding back. They teach us to perk up and lean in when we feel we’d rather collapse and back away. They’re like messengers that show us, with terrifying clarity, exactly where we’re stuck. This very moment is the perfect teacher, and, lucky for us, it’s with us wherever we are.”
“Compassion is not a relationship between the healer and the wounded. It's a relationship between equals. Only when we know our own darkness well can we be present with the darkness of others. Compassion becomes real when we recognize our shared humanity.”

 

[smcder]

Ah, the law. Justice is a social goal long sought in human affairs and philosophy and rarely achieved to date. Indeed, less so in our time when the laws of the land are more plainly, obviously, manipulated by the powerful against the powerless. I'm not looking to law schools for the answers, nor to the legislators of our time in this country. I've had enough experience with them and the way they do business to know better.

I'm not suggesting we do so, I'm just saying that I have found the method of using hypotheticals, the Socratic method, to be a helpful (if tedious) tool in thinking about complex situations that don't have a hard and fast set of rules. Coming up with good hypotheticals that tease out the fine points of someone's position, the assumptions they are making - is very difficult.

 

[smcder]

Steve, there are two statements you've posted that I've wondered about. The first is this:



Would you clarify how you're using (or receiving) the concept of empathy there?

The second is this one, which I want to respond to:



These kinds of Buddhist tracts have put me off Buddhism for years. Why should the compassion of a "wise" or even an 'ordinary' human being "not render him a victim of suffering"? Can we really manage not feeling the suffering of others? What gives us the right to? And how does one manage that? I sometimes feel that much of Buddhism amounts to an effort to escape from the human condition, an effort to become alienated from natural consciousness and its tribulations. To be as far out of the world as one can be while remaining in it.

Here is how I am using empathy, I first read about this during the waterboarding controversy - the point was made that a good interrogator or torturer needed a kind of empathy (from the German mit-fuhlen "to feel with" ...) in order to better understand how to manipulate or inflict suffering.

Empathy Definition | Greater Good

"For more: Consider the dark sides to empathy: Some argue that sociopaths can use empathy to help them exploit or even torture people, and caregivers risk feeling emotionally overwhelmed if they can’t regulate their empathy."

Three Kinds of Empathy: Cognitive, Emotional, Compassionate - Daniel Goleman

"The first is “cognitive empathy,” simply knowing how the other person feels and what they might be thinking. Sometimes called perspective-taking, this kind of empathy can help in, say, a negotiation or in motivating people. A study at the University of Birmingham found, for example, that managers who are good at perspective-taking were able to move workers to give their best efforts.
But there can be a dark side to this sort of empathy – in fact, those who fall within the “Dark Triad” – narcissists, Machiavellians, and sociopaths (see Chapter 8 in Social Intelligence) – can be talented in this regard, while having no sympathy whatever for their victims. As Paul told me, a torturer needs this ability, if only to better calibrate his cruelty – and talented political operatives no doubt have this ability in abundance"