compassion

[DAN E BOY]

Compassion: sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortune of others.

If possible, how do you get more compassion for your fellow man?

Personally, i don't have much compassion for others, i don't really care about the suffering or misfortune of others. To be honest, all i really care about is myself, and even close family members have told me i need to gain more compassion for others. How is this done if you don't really care about the well being of others?


Serious question, sensible replies please.

[Lord Testicles]

Take MDMA.

[Quail]

Imagine yourself in their place and think how you would feel?

[consuming negativity]

understanding leads to compassion

can you give us an example of a time where you displayed a lack of compassion?

[Futility Personified]

Be in a position to receive it, or just listen to people.

[DAN E BOY]

understanding leads to compassion

can you give us an example of a time where you displayed a lack of compassion?


Well all the time really.

I see people in the news mourning the death of loved one's, or had health issues or just general ''bad luck'', and i think to myself ''well that's happened to me, you just have to get on with it''.

[consuming negativity]

Well all the time really.

I see people in the news mourning the death of loved one's, or had health issues or just general ''bad luck'', and i think to myself ''well that's happened to me, you just have to get on with it''.

there's nothing abnormal about this. i'm the same way - laughing at the news.

[motion denied]

i care about others

Actually, sounds to me rather odd that people would not care for one another.

[DAN E BOY]

there's nothing abnormal about this. i'm the same way - laughing at the news.



Good. glad to hear that.

[BIXX]

Edgemaster.

This is a joke by the way. I think its probably pretty normal, not giving a fuck about people on the news etc...

[The Feral Underclass]

What is happening right now...?

[DAN E BOY]

What is happening right now...?




I asked a question about compassion in my OP and people are answering it.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I feel sympathy for most people, even those I don't like or have actually done something to me in the past. I mean yeah it's hard to shed tears for random people on tv, but that's because of the way you're receiving the information rather than a lack of compassion for other people in my opinion.

[DAN E BOY]

I feel sympathy for most people, even those I don't like or have actually done something to me in the past. I mean yeah it's hard to shed tears for random people on tv, but that's because of the way you're receiving the information rather than a lack of compassion for other people in my opinion.



If this is true, you must be a very kind person. But pretty much the opposite to how i operate.

[cyu]

Take MDMA.


Apparently this is technically true http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA

* Increased sociability and feelings of communication being easy or simple

* Entactogenic effects – increased empathy or feelings of closeness with others

Anyway, for non-chemical methods http://www.revleft.com/vb/proof-plutocrats-unfit-t180387/index.html

individuals manipulated to feel they were of lower social class performed better in the Task which requires that participants identify emotions

researchers randomly put participants in the mindset of feeling either powerful or powerless. They asked the powerless group to write about a time they depended on others for help. It turns out, feeling powerless boosted the mirror system — people empathized highly.

those who identified themselves as being on a relatively low social rung were consistently more generous with limited goods.

Prior to becoming leaders or followers, we asked participants to vote on what a responsible leader should do. Most endorsed the pro-social option; just 3.33% said that leaders should take antisocial decisions. when they became leaders, participants succumbed to the corruptive effects of power.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm with Nietzsche in that sympathy and "pity" are not worthwhile. No one likes being pitied. Compassion as something that arises from genuine empathy is another story, though, and I differentiate between sympathy and empathy. Often times sympathy to me just seems like someone feeling better about their own lives by observing the car wreck that is someone else's life, and that's a terrible phenomenon.

[Rafiq]

Remember Robespierre: Pity is treason.

[Futility Personified]

After a long bender on an unknown hallucinogen I wrote extensively about pity and how detrimental it was. Iirc, as I tore it up, the basis was that to pity someone you have to view yourself as being on a higher level, either psychologically or physically (which I interpret as in the most practical sense, having your physical needs met). I still think that pity as an emotion endorses a sense of superiority, but we are hardly in a classless society so despite the liberal sentiments I think it still plays a part.

Pity is currently part of the toolset of empathy and compassion, as upsetting that it is that it is required, it still is necessary to help other human beings.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I dig Robespierre's intent and everything, but really in a revolutionary situation one should still be capable of passing judgements against enemies, in spite of any empathy felt for the individual. Attempting to turn that off or relying on the ability to turn it off speaks to a greater personal weakness I think, or maybe a lack of true conviction even.

I'm interested in the separation between empathy and sympathy some of you are making. Pity for sure seems like superiority in disguise, sympathy not so much I guess I always use it interchangably with empathy without giving it a thought.

[Rafiq]

Empathy in principle's character is owed to the highest bidder. Both empathy and pity, as mentioned, presume relations of power. A revolutionary does not empathise - they *identify* with themselves. For radicals, we do not look towards injustice with feelings of "empathy" but identification - not with thinking 'This could be me' but righteously with 'This IS an affront to me and a hindrance to my own sense of freedom'. The difference is that rather than feelings of sorrow derived from the hypothetical, the could-be, the suffering of the damned is identified with as a direct attack on oneself constantly. Not because as human we are capable of the same suffering, but because by the existence of oppression we do suffer. It is the music of a barbarous foe, the war-cry of capital.

Revolutionaries do not know empathy, they know allegiance. We don't empathize with the class enemy not in the name of some utilitarian goal to which we suppress our emotions for, rather because in serving a cause which we not only perceive but internalize as just, our emotions should not express dissonance in the first place.

[cyu]

I'm interested in the separation between empathy and sympathy some of you are making.


Maybe it's the difference between charity and revolution.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Can you elaborate?

Rafiq, I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying. Do you only feel empathy (or allegiance as you choose to call it) in the context of oppressive power dynamics? Would you feel nothing for a random person walking in front of you who trips and smashes their face on a concrete floor?

[Rafiq]

The point is that empathy as a politicized principle is alien to Communism. As a justification or means of legitimization of the cause.

If one trips and falls, you can only feel bad, in the face of an unavoidable consequence of gravity. To approach oppression in the same way is to see oppression as an unavoidable consequence of life. The point is that we internalize the struggle for freedom as constant and *possible*. Not a romanticized drama to which we keep distance but an active struggle.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Well that is a good example of the difference between pity and empathy then. Pity comes from a position of power which coincides with a failure to intervene. To simply feel bad for someone and nothing else is indeed a useless exercise. I guess my next question would be if a person were to fall and knock themselves unconscious, would you intervene only to recoil once you realize that this person is a recognizable class enemy?

[The Intransigent Faction]

There's something called "compassion fatigue" that's a sadly common phenomenon these days. Numbness should not be confused with being dismissive toward the suffering of others, though.

It's one thing to be a sociopath, but "compassion fatigue" happens because intense feelings are felt in the first place. It's a psychological coping mechanism.

[cyu]

I'd probably say inaction is an independent factor - sometimes inaction is the result of fear or cowardice, irrespective of class identity.

If someone in the ruling class wants to help, they may choose charity. They maintain control of the situation - they are the agent of change. The oppressive structure of society remains, though they may have temporarily alleviated some of the symptoms.

If someone in the ruling class chooses revolution instead of charity, they may buy weapons for the poor. They join the poor in becoming agents of change, and the goal is to overthrow the oppressive structure of society, not alleviate it.

[Rafiq]

Well that is a good example of the difference between pity and empathy then. Pity comes from a position of power which coincides with a failure to intervene. To simply feel bad for someone and nothing else is indeed a useless exercise. I guess my next question would be if a person were to fall and knock themselves unconscious, would you intervene only to recoil once you realize that this person is a recognizable class enemy?

You're missing the point. The point is that within the context of actual struggle and conflict - empathy can have no place. One does not have to "feel" as another does in struggle as though there are two individuals. The suffering of the damned cannot be articulated as an affront to human decency but an offensive in the domain of a real existing struggle. The point of reference is not mere individuals but the place these individuals have in the wider context of a struggle - providence comes from the heavens and not proximity.

[DAN E BOY]

This discussion has gone in a very strange direction.

I was asking if people know how to be more compassionate, perhaps through personal experiences, and some are trying to say that sympathy and empathy are not a good thing. . . .

Sincere sympathy can be a commendable thing. Feeling sorrow for others pain is not something that is confined to class, it's purely an emotional thing. And some (including myself) have less and less sympathy for others as time goes by.

Quail pretty much made the best definition of empathy, something that could lead to more compassion perhaps?







Imagine yourself in their place and think how you
would feel?

[Rafiq]

You ask how to be more compassionate. Why do you want to be? To be a more engaged radical? Then your reasons are insufficient. To feel more familiar socially, I.e. non politically?

You don't make a convincing argument about not being capable of it. You are incapable of expressing compassion because your objects of expected sympathy are faulty - you're alienated from the real experience of it. Seeing suffering on TV is just as impactful in our society as seeing it in cinema, it is an abstraction we articulate and fit within our paradigm of identity based story telling. One needs real experience in order to understand. Compassion doesn't come from rationally or ethical justification but from being able to relate to experiences. If you don't feel compassion on that level, it's probably for a good reason (I.e. someone on TV suffering a break up - who cares? Reason dictates they will get over it).

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

You're missing the point. The point is that within the context of actual struggle and conflict - empathy can have no place. One does not have to "feel" as another does in struggle as though there are two individuals. The suffering of the damned cannot be articulated as an affront to human decency but an offensive in the domain of a real existing struggle. The point of reference is not mere individuals but the place these individuals have in the wider context of a struggle - providence comes from the heavens and not proximity.

No I think we're agreed on your point. My issue has been whether a person should be capable of empathy in the first place, even for an enemy. robespierre wasn't a sociopath incapable of empathy. In fact his pre-revolutionary history suggests the opposite; that he was a kind person who had spent his life providing for his family after his father abandoned them and defending the poor in court. That quote shouldn't be separated from the man who authored it. Necessity or justice is one thing, training yourself to view the enemy as something wholly alien is something else.

[cyu]

Reminds me of http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/power_paradox/

power is wielded most effectively when it’s used by people who are attuned to, and engaged with the needs and interests of others. empathy and social intelligence are vastly more important to acquiring and exercising power than are force, deception, or terror.

studies also show that once people assume positions of power, they’re likely to act more selfishly, impulsively, and aggressively, and they have a harder time seeing the world from other people’s points of view. This presents us with the paradox of power: The skills most important to obtaining power and leading effectively are the very skills that deteriorate once we have power.

one can be powerful without needing to try to control, coerce, or dominate. Indeed, when people resort to trying to control others, it’s often a sign that their power is slipping.

one’s ability to get or maintain power, even in small group situations, depends on one’s ability to understand and advance the goals of other group members. When it comes to power, social intelligence—reconciling conflicts, negotiating, smoothing over group tensions—prevails over social Darwinism.

research shows primates who try to wield their power by dominating others and prioritizing their own interests will find themselves challenged and, in time, deposed by subordinates.

empirical studies find that leaders who treat their subordinates with respect, share power, and generate a sense of camaraderie and trust are considered more just and fair. Social intelligence is essential not only to rising to power, but to keeping it.

studies have found that people given power in experiments are more likely to rely on stereotypes when judging others, and they pay less attention to the characteristics that define those other people as individuals. Predisposed to stereotype, they also judge others’ attitudes, interests, and needs less accurately.

power encourages individuals to act on their own whims, desires, and impulses. When researchers give people power in scientific experiments, those people are more likely to physically touch others in potentially inappropriate ways, to make risky choices and gambles.

Perhaps more unsettling is the wealth of evidence that having power makes people more likely to act like sociopaths. They are more likely to tease friends and colleagues in hostile, humiliating fashion.

anthropologists have found that cultures where rape is prevalent and accepted tend to be cultures with deeply entrenched beliefs in the supremacy of men over women.

Power is given to those individuals, groups, or nations who advance the interests of the greater good in socially-intelligent fashion. Yet having power renders many individuals as impulsive and poorly attuned to others, making them prone to act abusively and lose the esteem of their peers.

[Rafiq]

No I think we're agreed on your point. My issue has been whether a person should be capable of empathy in the first place, even for an enemy. robespierre wasn't a sociopath incapable of empathy. In fact his pre-revolutionary history suggests the opposite; that he was a kind person who had spent his life providing for his family after his father abandoned them and defending the poor in court. That quote shouldn't be separated from the man who authored it. Necessity or justice is one thing, training yourself to view the enemy as something wholly alien is something else.

Most people, as people, are capable of empathy. The point is where it should be employed - and it's relevance to the struggle. For Communists the enemy is precisely an enemy because he is not alien. If the enemy were alien - animal like, it would not in the true sense be a real enemy or opposing subject but something almost akin to an animal. The enemy is rationally explicable - "like us". In the field of battle there should be no misunderstanding, as there never really has been in true moments of revolutionary conflict. There are individuals who will to the death defend the existing order to retain their positions of power and there are those struggling against it. Even if everyone was perfectly capable of understanding each other and their unique perspectives - conflict would still be present - all the more present at that. One ought not to allow the idea that understanding another person's perspective or subjectivity should be impactful in the domain of struggle - that's my point. These are largely the implications of empathy.

One not ought to confuse empathy is a principle with radical-identification. Robespierre, regardless of his initial predispositions, defended the poor in court and came to identify with them, not because he felt bad for them but because he identified himself, his own ego and being with their plight.

[Lily Briscoe]

I bet I could best Rafiq in a duel

[Rafiq]

I bet I could best Rafiq in a duel

I fail to see the relevance here.