Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Empathy

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 6:53:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
My work computers block all videos, they don't want me to have a heart here.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 6:55:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I smiled at the start, but only because when I'm told that I will smile or laugh at something, I try not to smile/laugh and end up doing so anyway regardless of the material. But overall, I'm pretty heartless it would seem.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 6:59:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I smiled until the music played.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 6:59:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 6:44:03 PM, theLwerd wrote:
If this video doesn't make you smile, you're never getting a girlfriend lol.



fixed.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 7:01:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 6:59:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I smiled until the music played.

Agree.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 7:02:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
That's interesting. Maybe if you just randomly came across it without me prefacing it the way I did...? I actually thought about not saying anything because doing so would automatically make you view the video differently (no use debating it - that's a psychological certainty). I'd say maybe it's a girl thing but I know that's not true. I guess you would have had to be in a situation where that has happened to you. I guess anyone who's been in a situation of success and could relate to that type of personal achievement on that level (fame/success) about one's passion... It doesn't seem anyone here has. Maybe one day if you get published or your music is on the radio or you win a grand scale election, etc etc, you will know that. I've had that on a smaller scale so I can relate.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 7:02:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 6:58:48 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I smiled because I love that song.

........and she's hot.

Check and Check.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 7:34:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 7:27:19 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 1/18/2010 7:02:14 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I've had that on a smaller scale so I can relate.

How so?

Winning various competitions entered, hearing a song you wrote being performed by yourself and/or others and getting great feedback, accomplishing a personal goal or task like starting up a particular club or organization, doing something you're proud of and that others can appreciate or benefit from, etc etc. Just general success lol however you define it I guess or how it pertains to your passion or values. I'm sure everyone experiences it. I guess to the degree that you value achievement might determine how you relate to this woman (Nikki Jean). I don't know. I'm not a psychology major lol I don't know exactly what created empathy. I just know I had a huge visceral response of happiness and smile from ear to ear d felt so happy for her. I'm glad she got to experience that and feel that. I like when other people are happy lol I dunno.
President of DDO
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 7:51:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I smiled because I thought the topic was about feeling empathy towards people who also could not get their CDs open.

It's a strange thing. I'm fairly repulsed when I see violence in real life, but I'm perfectly fine with massive amounts of gore and brutality when it appears on a screen.

If my friend and/or loved one were to go through this situation in front of me, of course I would be glad for them. I don't care one bit about the stranger in this video o.o
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 7:53:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 7:51:46 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I smiled because I thought the topic was about feeling empathy towards people who also could not get their CDs open.

I thought that was the point of the video until she got it open.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 7:54:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 7:48:21 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/18/2010 6:59:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I smiled

Yeah right.

You don't picture me smiling?

Well, could be useful I suppose.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 8:00:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 7:54:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/18/2010 7:48:21 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/18/2010 6:59:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I smiled

Yeah right.

You don't picture me smiling?

Well, could be useful I suppose.

Eh. I'll grant it as a possibility, but not a common occurrence. :P

Useful how, by the way?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 8:03:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 8:00:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/18/2010 7:54:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/18/2010 7:48:21 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/18/2010 6:59:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I smiled

Yeah right.

You don't picture me smiling?

Well, could be useful I suppose.

Eh. I'll grant it as a possibility, but not a common occurrence. :P

Useful how, by the way?

Career plans: Military, then politics, which is military by other means. You don't think it useful in such professions to be thought of as incapable of smiling? :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 8:07:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 8:03:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/18/2010 8:00:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/18/2010 7:54:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/18/2010 7:48:21 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/18/2010 6:59:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I smiled

Yeah right.

You don't picture me smiling?

Well, could be useful I suppose.

Eh. I'll grant it as a possibility, but not a common occurrence. :P

Useful how, by the way?

Career plans: Military, then politics, which is military by other means. You don't think it useful in such professions to be thought of as incapable of smiling? :)

That's very strange... I've got the same career ideas. Now then... In the military, decorum is certainly important; in politics, however, one must (in this system) be very personable, part of which concerns one's ability to "put on a happy face", as it were. :P

Though it may be slightly irrelevant, what branch/occupation, and what sort of political office?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 8:12:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Branch undecided, intelligence officer, and whatever political office is available to a libertarian extremist, which is probably frankly one that relies more on fear than personableness tbh, unless there's a sea change. A political ideology as devoid of compassion as Objectivism's ain't gonna get nowhere by kissing babies, it would be like the Buchanan wing of the Reform Party releasing a porno. Might get somewhere by making one's enemies think it eats babies for breakfast though.

Besides, unlike the internet, political campaigns tend to involve lots and lots of cameras, making smiling possible to disseminate if this half-thought-out bit of nonsense is wrong. :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 8:29:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 8:12:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Branch undecided, intelligence officer

If that's the case, are you going to some kind of academy/OCS?

and whatever political office is available to a libertarian extremist, which is probably frankly one that relies more on fear than personableness tbh, unless there's a sea change.

Ruling through fear? Hmm. Interesting tactic. I wasn't aware that your ideology sanctioned the mass manipulation of panic for personal gain?

A political ideology as devoid of compassion as Objectivism's ain't gonna get nowhere by kissing babies, it would be like the Buchanan wing of the Reform Party releasing a porno.

Well, I wouldn't say it's devoid of compassion. It warns against operating on pure emotion, but the ultimate purpose of that philosophy is one's own happiness, if memory serves.

Incidentally, though, that brings up some questions that have been bugging me.

I understand that Objectivism mandates decisions that don't stem from emotional stimuli, but 1) Aren't emotionally-driven decisions occasionally (for some, often) unavoidable? 2) Does lack of emotion in decision-making necessarily mean that one has to deal with others in a cruel, "cold" manner? 3) It also seems like an Objectivist society is unfeasible, as the philosophy seems to presuppose that we all live in a world of strangers, with no ties to family, friends, or a significant other. I understand that a market might be able to function (at least for a while) through maximizing self-interest, but it doesn't seem like families, friendships, relationships, communities, etc. could function properly if people didn't care/worry about each other.

Might get somewhere by making one's enemies think it eats babies for breakfast though.

...... Om nom nom?

Besides, unlike the internet, political campaigns tend to involve lots and lots of cameras, making smiling possible to disseminate if this half-thought-out bit of nonsense is wrong. :)

Lol. Half-thought-out?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 11:29:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 8:29:40 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/18/2010 8:12:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Branch undecided, intelligence officer

If that's the case, are you going to some kind of academy/OCS?
Do you mean presently (no), or...?
I plan on entering through OCS/OCC after college, yes. 12 to 14 week course.


and whatever political office is available to a libertarian extremist, which is probably frankly one that relies more on fear than personableness tbh, unless there's a sea change.

Ruling through fear? Hmm. Interesting tactic. I wasn't aware that your ideology sanctioned the mass manipulation of panic for personal gain?
What the hell else does governing consist of? Hell, if there's one good check on government power, it's not trying to pretty it up by pretending it's something other than it is.


A political ideology as devoid of compassion as Objectivism's ain't gonna get nowhere by kissing babies, it would be like the Buchanan wing of the Reform Party releasing a porno.

Well, I wouldn't say it's devoid of compassion. It warns against operating on pure emotion, but the ultimate purpose of that philosophy is one's own happiness, if memory serves.
Wiki: "Compassion is a human emotion prompted by the pain of others. "

You just proved that its main concern is the opposite of compassion in two different ways


Incidentally, though, that brings up some questions that have been bugging me.

I understand that Objectivism mandates decisions that don't stem from emotional stimuli, but 1) Aren't emotionally-driven decisions occasionally (for some, often) unavoidable?
In what sense are you speaking?

2) Does lack of emotion in decision-making necessarily mean that one has to deal with others in a cruel, "cold" manner?
Which others?
Beggars? Generally. Romantic partners? not so much. ;)

3) It also seems like an Objectivist society is unfeasible, as the philosophy seems to presuppose that we all live in a world of strangers, with no ties to family, friends, or a significant other.
It's a rebuttable presumption on the latter two, it just requires a good, selfish reason (Family, at least for family's sake, is a big no-no- one might, for example, have children, if one enjoys child rearing enough to be worth the price-- but this is no excuse for continuing to care about them if they mature and prove not to be worthless, and one should never treat a family member with any preference that doesn't derive from your interests)

I understand that a market might be able to function (at least for a while) through maximizing self-interest, but it doesn't seem like families, friendships, relationships, communities, etc. could function properly
Properly? To what purpose by what standard?

if people didn't care/worry about each other.
Again, rebuttable presumption. As you can see from my constant whining about lack of getting laid, my own interests are not completely lacking in use for involvement for all others :).


Might get somewhere by making one's enemies think it eats babies for breakfast though.

...... Om nom nom?
It's a joke.

Besides, unlike the internet, political campaigns tend to involve lots and lots of cameras, making smiling possible to disseminate if this half-thought-out bit of nonsense is wrong. :)

Lol. Half-thought-out?
Heh, yep. Ultimately I doubt anyone's going to derive anything from whether I smile, especially now that I've posted it, and considering how smiling is part of laughing, and I laugh frequently and so can't be unsmiling no matter what I do. But hey, was worth thinking about.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 12:07:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 8:29:40 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
1) Aren't emotionally-driven decisions occasionally (for some, often) unavoidable?

The idea is not to breed robotic responses nor the opposite in being ruled by what you feel. Emotions are useful in evaluating one's mind, one's rational intent, and in that sense emotions can aid a great deal in decision making. The key is knowing what the emotion is telling you and why. Without which you are acting on floating abstractions.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 12:10:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Also the vid show someone expressing a high level of joy. There is indeed reciprocal value in that. Maybe as theLwerd says it's an experience related thing. That or you are all growing into disillusioned young nihilists. :D
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 2:44:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 11:29:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/18/2010 8:29:40 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/18/2010 8:12:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Branch undecided, intelligence officer

If that's the case, are you going to some kind of academy/OCS?
Do you mean presently (no), or...?
I plan on entering through OCS/OCC after college, yes. 12 to 14 week course.

Right. I meant future. Cool deal.


and whatever political office is available to a libertarian extremist, which is probably frankly one that relies more on fear than personableness tbh, unless there's a sea change.

Ruling through fear? Hmm. Interesting tactic. I wasn't aware that your ideology sanctioned the mass manipulation of panic for personal gain?
What the hell else does governing consist of? Hell, if there's one good check on government power, it's not trying to pretty it up by pretending it's something other than it is.

If you're working for an agenda which maximizes rights and minimizes government intervention, why rule through fear? :P

A political ideology as devoid of compassion as Objectivism's ain't gonna get nowhere by kissing babies, it would be like the Buchanan wing of the Reform Party releasing a porno.

Well, I wouldn't say it's devoid of compassion. It warns against operating on pure emotion, but the ultimate purpose of that philosophy is one's own happiness, if memory serves.
Wiki: "Compassion is a human emotion prompted by the pain of others. "

Well, still, it's pretty hard to avoid an emotional response when someone you care about is in pain.

You just proved that its main concern is the opposite of compassion in two different ways

I would imagine, though, that some people couldn't be happy without acting out of a sense of compassion for others.

Incidentally, though, that brings up some questions that have been bugging me.

I understand that Objectivism mandates decisions that don't stem from emotional stimuli, but 1) Aren't emotionally-driven decisions occasionally (for some, often) unavoidable?
In what sense are you speaking?

In the sense that, in real-time, it doesn't seem like one could always avoid making emotionally motivated decisions. Theoretically (on paper, I suppose) it's fairly easy to be logical, consistent, and objective; in person, though, with less time to deliberate and process things, it would be far more difficult to act in a manner consistent with Objectivist Ethics.

2) Does lack of emotion in decision-making necessarily mean that one has to deal with others in a cruel, "cold" manner?
Which others?

All others.

Beggars? Generally. Romantic partners? not so much. ;)

Right; but, as Objectivism allows you to use others as a means to an end (barring the initiation of force), it doesn't seem like a particularly fulfilling philosophy, much less one that would let you build lasting relationships.

Ultimately, it just seems like it tries to exclude things that are part of human nature, most notably the emotional considerations. I guess that it puts too much faith in the individual as a "super-rational" being; but, coming out of communism, Ayn Rand would naturally be an advocate of individual welfare. :P

3) It also seems like an Objectivist society is unfeasible, as the philosophy seems to presuppose that we all live in a world of strangers, with no ties to family, friends, or a significant other.
It's a rebuttable presumption on the latter two, it just requires a good, selfish reason (Family, at least for family's sake, is a big no-no- one might, for example, have children, if one enjoys child rearing enough to be worth the price-- but this is no excuse for continuing to care about them if they mature and prove not to be worthless, and one should never treat a family member with any preference that doesn't derive from your interests)

It will sound mushy, I know, but Objectivism just sounds... disrespectful - maybe careless, I'm not sure what word I'm looking for. I find it difficult to support a lack of caring or compassion towards parents, siblings, or even one's own children. That seems like an environment which isn't conducive to strong family ties, which in turn are often crucial to healthy development. It just seems to me like self-interest is an important consideration, but not the only one. I'm sure that Objectivism is hard for most to swallow.

I understand that a market might be able to function (at least for a while) through maximizing self-interest, but it doesn't seem like families, friendships, relationships, communities, etc. could function properly
Properly? To what purpose by what standard?

In the sense of effectively, rather than "correctly"; really, I can't see how these types of relationships could function at all. Romantic relationships, for example: while one enters into them for personal satisfaction, one is often required to make personal sacrifices to maintain them. If both partners were just out for themselves 100% of the time, I can't imagine how a couple would work out.

if people didn't care/worry about each other.
Again, rebuttable presumption. As you can see from my constant whining about lack of getting laid, my own interests are not completely lacking in use for involvement for all others :).

Lol. Well, you understand a problem I have with Objectivism, at least.

Curiously, do you have any examples of an Objectivist society?

Might get somewhere by making one's enemies think it eats babies for breakfast though.

...... Om nom nom?
It's a joke.

I know. That's why I employed the meme.

Besides, unlike the internet, political campaigns tend to involve lots and lots of cameras, making smiling possible to disseminate if this half-thought-out bit of nonsense is wrong. :)

Lol. Half-thought-out?
Heh, yep. Ultimately I doubt anyone's going to derive anything from whether I smile, especially now that I've posted it, and considering how smiling is part of laughing, and I laugh frequently and so can't be unsmiling no matter what I do. But hey, was worth thinking about.

You mean, half-thinking about? :)