Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

This topic is about the October 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches by John N. (Jake) Ferris



Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall became a National Suffragette because she too was denied of the right to vote. Many of the abolitionists were previously slaves themselves. (It is true that some of the privileged people too fought for the rights of the underprivileged, and they were appreciated in the history books as they swam against the tide)

Being the most intelligent animal on the earth, why cannot many of us understand the hardships of others' without actually facing them? How have we become so barbaric to be able to deny fellow humans their basic rights (and to justify such things and to rise against when any attempt is made to give them what they are deprived of)?

The default position may be one of immediate concerns whereas tuning into others' hardships requires a different approach or perspective. It may involve some kind of jolt or wake up call. The story of the Buddha speaks of his various experiences which involved awareness of suffering. The realisation of suffering may involve some experience of suffering, or, at least, a sense of gratitude or appreciation of the value of one's own fortunes. In some ways, turning away from the suffering of others may seem to be absurd. However, there may be some basic defence mechanisms which allow this, as a kind of numbing process. In Western civilisation, others' experience of hardship and suffering may be viewed from the lens of sensation. This may enable a distancing in which horrors are perceived as 'out there' and distant.

The remote stories of others may blur into a haze, as part of fabricated 'entertainment' and it may involve a wake-up, or shake-up before others' sufferings are taken on board as aspects of reality to be considered on an empathetic level of understanding and a perspective of compassion. It is likely that those who are most likely to be able to make this connection are those who have had a more intimate experience of personal suffering.

I agree. People that have suffered know the pain better. So it should be natural for them to feel compassionate about others' hardships. But the mysterious thing is even such people can merely turn away from those who suffer. Why?

In Lord Buddha's scenario, the prince was never exposed to any painful experiences. And he was shown no one who was suffering. So, literally, he knew nothing about pain, ailments, and suffering. The moment he saw an old guy, a patient, and a dead body (as per the buddhist literature) he began to think philosophically about suffering. I think this too suggests our innate nature of empathy, which sometimes need some waking up.

I am inclined to think that understanding of hardship is important although at times if feels as if philosophy is becoming more and more shallow. However, despite this tendency, it may be that those who seek philosophy in a deeper way come to it from a deeper level, especially in terms of making sense of suffering. Hopefully, even if philosophy dwindles to the shallow shadows of the superficial, on some level, it may prevail as a means of making sense of difficulties in life, even though philosophy may stand more as a discipline of looking at ideas critically. I wonder about the possibilities of philosophy as means of critical analysis but, also, as a way of making sense of the harshest experiences of human suffering.

It is better when a person can look at difficulties with a rational mind (it can be either philosophically or scientifically). People tend to get depressed and give up when they look at the difficulties with emotions (through heart rather than brain). But if this rational thinking can go too far and the thinker can loose his/her empathy, then it may not be quite good for the rest of the society.

[Sushan]

This topic is about the October 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches by John N. (Jake) Ferris



Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall became a National Suffragette because she too was denied of the right to vote. Many of the abolitionists were previously slaves themselves. (It is true that some of the privileged people too fought for the rights of the underprivileged, and they were appreciated in the history books as they swam against the tide)

Being the most intelligent animal on the earth, why cannot many of us understand the hardships of others' without actually facing them? How have we become so barbaric to be able to deny fellow humans their basic rights (and to justify such things and to rise against when any attempt is made to give them what they are deprived of)?

It is basic human psychology to view the world as being comprised (at the most basic level) of "us" and "them". Naturally we favor the members of us and disfavor the members of them. What differs (between individuals, societies and eras) is who are included in each group.

At one time it was more family vs not, then tribe vs not, now racial group, sexual orientation group, immigration status position and political party are dividing lines. Gender was once a popular dividing line.

I once verbalized that the event that would end racism would be if aliens landed on Earth. Then humans would be "us" and the aliens would be "them".

We always have biases towards various things. We apply it to fellow human beings as well. But I think it is different than 'us' vs 'them' when it comes to see someone who is suffering. We empathize more towards an innocent fellow who got killed accidentally by a mafia than a man who commited suicide after loosing all his money for gambling. Both have died. But we tend to rationalize the scenarios before feeling empathy (or sympathy).

I disagree. It is psychologically easier on the ego to suppose that the victim of random crime through no fault of their own is closer to ourselves (us) vs someone who is suffering because of self abusive life choices (not like us, since we are superior in our own eyes).

We may be superior in our own eyes. But we all have a conscience. So let's presume that you and me are good people in general. Then the innocent one is more close to us and we may feel more empathy towards him (or her). But if the scenario is met with a thief, whose conscience is aware of his (or her) faults, will he/she empathize more towards the bad guy who is being hurt because that guy is more close to him/her?

[Sushan]

It is psychologically easier on the ego to suppose that the victim of random crime through no fault of their own is closer to ourselves (us) vs someone who is suffering because of self abusive life choices (not like us, since we are superior in our own eyes).

Seems like this is on the right track.

If bad things happen to Alfie and not to Bruno,, that calls out for explanation.

If the explanation is sheer bad luck that could happen to anyone, Bruno is likely to be more sympathetic than if the explanation is that Alfie made bad choices.

But sometimes the explanation is that it's just the sort of person Alfie is. Neither bad choices nor something that could happen to anyone. In which case sympathy is again likely to be limited. It does seem like the race is to the swift and the battle to the strong - life"s like that.

I think we unconsciously rationalize scenarios before being emotional over them. That is why we feel different levels of empathy towards different people and different situations. We feel sorry for anyone's death. But if we get to know that the deceased was a previous killer and has been killed in a war between two gangstar parties, we feel less sorry for him/her.

[Mounce574]

I believe it is a judgment that makes it hard or people to understand other people's hardships. For example, we all see the end result of what someone's choices are. If it is a negative outcome, most people will say "I would have chosen," or "You should have done." What most people don't see is the prior series of events that led to the choices a person made. There is also the issue of looking from the outside and not mentally handling the hardship. It didn't happen to us so do we really know how it feels?

[LuckyR]

It is basic human psychology to view the world as being comprised (at the most basic level) of "us" and "them". Naturally we favor the members of us and disfavor the members of them. What differs (between individuals, societies and eras) is who are included in each group.

At one time it was more family vs not, then tribe vs not, now racial group, sexual orientation group, immigration status position and political party are dividing lines. Gender was once a popular dividing line.

I once verbalized that the event that would end racism would be if aliens landed on Earth. Then humans would be "us" and the aliens would be "them".

We always have biases towards various things. We apply it to fellow human beings as well. But I think it is different than 'us' vs 'them' when it comes to see someone who is suffering. We empathize more towards an innocent fellow who got killed accidentally by a mafia than a man who commited suicide after loosing all his money for gambling. Both have died. But we tend to rationalize the scenarios before feeling empathy (or sympathy).

I disagree. It is psychologically easier on the ego to suppose that the victim of random crime through no fault of their own is closer to ourselves (us) vs someone who is suffering because of self abusive life choices (not like us, since we are superior in our own eyes).

We may be superior in our own eyes. But we all have a conscience. So let's presume that you and me are good people in general. Then the innocent one is more close to us and we may feel more empathy towards him (or her). But if the scenario is met with a thief, whose conscience is aware of his (or her) faults, will he/she empathize more towards the bad guy who is being hurt because that guy is more close to him/her?

Excellent question. As a non thief, this is a rare situation where I have no data and no experience.

[Pattern-chaser]

I believe it is a judgment that makes it hard or people to understand other people's hardships. For example, we all see the end result of what someone's choices are. If it is a negative outcome, most people will say "I would have chosen," or "You should have done." What most people don't see is the prior series of events that led to the choices a person made.

Yes, context is all!

[Parsifal]

I read a series of discussion interestingly but I cannot but feel like something a little bit incompatible with people thought to undergo a western style education and life style, to be honest. Yes, as you guess, I am a easterner and a person somewhat faithful to Buddhism. In view of persons like me, what you argue is a deductive logic to solve why one cannot love others as own-self. In the meanwhile, we are trying to reach a state of mind which does not distinguish a person who loves and a person who is loved, namely no difference between a subject and an object. A famous Japanese philosopher named Kitaro Nishida named this kind of mind status as absolute nothingness. Under such mind status, there is also no difference among all things in the entire world including non-organic things after all. This status is like one Dr. Alfred Adler called the sense of common organization. Everything is the same, so everyone shares an empathy each other, as a result.

[Mounce574]

We always have biases towards various things. We apply it to fellow human beings as well. But I think it is different than 'us' vs 'them' when it comes to see someone who is suffering. We empathize more towards an innocent fellow who got killed accidentally by a mafia than a man who commited suicide after loosing all his money for gambling. Both have died. But we tend to rationalize the scenarios before feeling empathy (or sympathy).

I disagree. It is psychologically easier on the ego to suppose that the victim of random crime through no fault of their own is closer to ourselves (us) vs someone who is suffering because of self abusive life choices (not like us, since we are superior in our own eyes).

We may be superior in our own eyes. But we all have a conscience. So let's presume that you and me are good people in general. Then the innocent one is more close to us and we may feel more empathy towards him (or her). But if the scenario is met with a thief, whose conscience is aware of his (or her) faults, will he/she empathize more towards the bad guy who is being hurt because that guy is more close to him/her?

Excellent question. As a non thief, this is a rare situation where I have no data and no experience.

This brings into question whether a person can be reformed or not. If somebody did something wrong and they serve whatever it takes to pay back what they did, and they truly feel remorse for their actions then should we call them a thief even if they never commit another crime again?

[Pattern-chaser]

If somebody did something wrong and they serve whatever it takes to pay back what they did, and they truly feel remorse for their actions then should we call them a thief even if they never commit another crime again?

I think we should not, so as to recognise that (a) they have paid the assigned penalty for their wrongdoing, and (b) we recognise their genuine remorse too. Surely we should encourage those who have seen the error of their former ways to continue as we want them to? And we could do this, in this specific example, by not referring to them as a thief.

[EricPH]

It is better when a person can look at difficulties with a rational mind (it can be either philosophically or scientifically).

When people think with a rational mind, it is easy to think we have earned what we have, why should we give it to someone else? Helping others is sacrificial, we have to give our time or resources to someone else.

Scholars have highlighted over two thousand passages in the Bible that relate to helping the poor, the oppressed, widows and orphans.

[Sushan]

I believe it is a judgment that makes it hard or people to understand other people's hardships. For example, we all see the end result of what someone's choices are. If it is a negative outcome, most people will say "I would have chosen," or "You should have done." What most people don't see is the prior series of events that led to the choices a person made. There is also the issue of looking from the outside and not mentally handling the hardship. It didn't happen to us so do we really know how it feels?

It's important to recognize that empathy and understanding are qualities that need to be cultivated and nurtured in individuals. Our ability to empathize with others' hardships and struggles is deeply rooted in our upbringing, personal experiences, and the cultural and social environment we grow up in. Some people may be more inclined to empathize with others, while others may not have had the opportunity or the experiences that foster empathy. It's essential that we, as a society, work on promoting empathy, compassion, and understanding so that we can better relate to and support one another, regardless of our own personal experiences. Additionally, fostering open-mindedness and a willingness to learn about other people's lives and struggles can help bridge the gap between our experiences and those of others, ultimately creating a more empathetic and understanding society.

[Sushan]

We always have biases towards various things. We apply it to fellow human beings as well. But I think it is different than 'us' vs 'them' when it comes to see someone who is suffering. We empathize more towards an innocent fellow who got killed accidentally by a mafia than a man who commited suicide after loosing all his money for gambling. Both have died. But we tend to rationalize the scenarios before feeling empathy (or sympathy).

I disagree. It is psychologically easier on the ego to suppose that the victim of random crime through no fault of their own is closer to ourselves (us) vs someone who is suffering because of self abusive life choices (not like us, since we are superior in our own eyes).

We may be superior in our own eyes. But we all have a conscience. So let's presume that you and me are good people in general. Then the innocent one is more close to us and we may feel more empathy towards him (or her). But if the scenario is met with a thief, whose conscience is aware of his (or her) faults, will he/she empathize more towards the bad guy who is being hurt because that guy is more close to him/her?

Excellent question. As a non thief, this is a rare situation where I have no data and no experience.

It's indeed possible that a thief may empathize more with the "bad guy" who is being hurt, especially if they see themselves in that person. The ability to empathize can be influenced by shared experiences, values, or backgrounds, as well as by one's own self-awareness and perception of others.

However, it's important to remember that empathy is not a black-and-white concept, and people can experience varying degrees of empathy towards different individuals based on a multitude of factors. Even a thief may feel empathy for an innocent victim in certain circumstances, as they might be able to recognize the pain and suffering caused by the actions of others.

It is also worth noting that empathy is not exclusive to one's own "group" or "tribe," and it can extend beyond the boundaries of shared experiences or values. Through exposure to different perspectives and life experiences, empathy can be cultivated and nurtured in individuals, leading to a greater understanding and compassion towards others, regardless of their background or past actions.

[Sushan]

I believe it is a judgment that makes it hard or people to understand other people's hardships. For example, we all see the end result of what someone's choices are. If it is a negative outcome, most people will say "I would have chosen," or "You should have done." What most people don't see is the prior series of events that led to the choices a person made.

Yes, context is all!

Absolutely, context plays a crucial role in our ability to empathize and understand the hardships of others. As humans, we often make snap judgments based on the information immediately available to us, without taking the time to dig deeper into the circumstances that have led to a person's current situation.

A more philosophical approach to understanding the suffering of others would be to practice empathy and compassion, recognizing that every individual has their own unique set of challenges and experiences that have shaped their lives. By adopting a non-judgmental mindset, we can better understand the complexities of human existence and work towards fostering a more inclusive and empathetic society.

Furthermore, this idea raises questions about the nature of human understanding and our capacity for empathy. Are we inherently limited in our ability to truly understand the experiences of others, or can we actively work towards breaking down barriers to empathy through education, dialogue, and personal growth? These are important questions to consider as we strive to build a world in which everyone's rights are respected and valued.

[Sushan]

I read a series of discussion interestingly but I cannot but feel like something a little bit incompatible with people thought to undergo a western style education and life style, to be honest. Yes, as you guess, I am a easterner and a person somewhat faithful to Buddhism. In view of persons like me, what you argue is a deductive logic to solve why one cannot love others as own-self. In the meanwhile, we are trying to reach a state of mind which does not distinguish a person who loves and a person who is loved, namely no difference between a subject and an object. A famous Japanese philosopher named Kitaro Nishida named this kind of mind status as absolute nothingness. Under such mind status, there is also no difference among all things in the entire world including non-organic things after all. This status is like one Dr. Alfred Adler called the sense of common organization. Everything is the same, so everyone shares an empathy each other, as a result.

Thank you for sharing your perspective as someone with a background in Eastern philosophy and Buddhism. It is fascinating to consider how different cultural and philosophical traditions approach the concept of empathy and understanding the hardships of others.

The idea of absolute nothingness, as proposed by Kitaro Nishida, and the sense of common organization described by Dr. Alfred Adler, both emphasize the interconnectedness and unity of all things, transcending the boundaries between self and other. This perspective can indeed foster a profound sense of empathy and compassion, as it allows us to recognize the interconnectedness of all beings and their experiences.

In contrast, the Western approach to understanding the suffering of others often focuses on individualism and the distinction between self and other. However, both Eastern and Western philosophical traditions can offer valuable insights into the nature of empathy and the potential for overcoming barriers to understanding and compassion.

By examining these different perspectives, we can gain a more nuanced understanding of the human experience and the nature of empathy. This can lead to a greater appreciation for the complexities of human suffering and the potential for cultivating compassion across cultures and philosophical traditions.

[Sushan]

I disagree. It is psychologically easier on the ego to suppose that the victim of random crime through no fault of their own is closer to ourselves (us) vs someone who is suffering because of self abusive life choices (not like us, since we are superior in our own eyes).

We may be superior in our own eyes. But we all have a conscience. So let's presume that you and me are good people in general. Then the innocent one is more close to us and we may feel more empathy towards him (or her). But if the scenario is met with a thief, whose conscience is aware of his (or her) faults, will he/she empathize more towards the bad guy who is being hurt because that guy is more close to him/her?

Excellent question. As a non thief, this is a rare situation where I have no data and no experience.

This brings into question whether a person can be reformed or not. If somebody did something wrong and they serve whatever it takes to pay back what they did, and they truly feel remorse for their actions then should we call them a thief even if they never commit another crime again?

It is indeed an interesting question to ponder. The concept of redemption and reform plays a significant role in many philosophical and ethical discussions. The possibility of change and growth in a person's character, values, and behavior is something that many believe in, while others might be more skeptical.

From a philosophical standpoint, this question can be approached from various angles, such as the nature of personal identity, the role of social and environmental factors in shaping one's behavior, and the capacity for moral development.

In terms of personal identity, some may argue that people can fundamentally change who they are, while others might assert that certain traits or characteristics remain fixed throughout one's life. This debate can lead to further discussions about the essence of a person and the nature of human nature itself.

The role of social and environmental factors in shaping behavior is also crucial in understanding the potential for reform. It is often acknowledged that people's actions are heavily influenced by their surroundings and upbringing. Therefore, it could be argued that by providing an individual with a supportive environment, education, and resources, they can change their behavior and make better choices.

Finally, the capacity for moral development is another key aspect to consider. Many philosophers have proposed theories about the process of moral growth and the potential for individuals to develop empathy, compassion, and a deeper understanding of right and wrong. The belief in the capacity for moral development implies that even those who have committed wrongdoings can learn from their mistakes, grow as individuals, and ultimately become better people.