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

[Sushan]

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.

You make a valid point. Acknowledging the reform and remorse of an individual can be crucial in helping them reintegrate into society and continue on a positive path. The idea of forgiveness and the capacity for change has been a central theme in many philosophical and religious traditions.

The concept of rehabilitation, rather than mere punishment, is important in fostering an environment where individuals who have committed wrongdoings have the opportunity to learn from their mistakes, grow, and ultimately become better citizens.

In this context, it would be more constructive to focus on the progress and development of the person, rather than forever labeling them based on their past actions. This approach aligns with the principle of compassion and empathy, which encourages understanding and support for those who genuinely seek to change and make amends.

By refraining from referring to a reformed individual as a thief, we not only acknowledge their remorse and the efforts they have made to repay society, but we also foster a culture of understanding, compassion, and growth. This, in turn, contributes to a more empathetic and inclusive society, where everyone has the opportunity to evolve and learn from their past experiences.

[Sushan]

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.

You raise an interesting point about the balance between rational thinking and empathy. While rationality is crucial for understanding and making sense of the world around us, it's equally important to maintain our empathy and compassion for others. This is especially true when considering the needs of the less fortunate, such as the poor, the oppressed, widows, and orphans.

Many philosophical and religious traditions emphasize the importance of cultivating both rationality and empathy. These teachings encourage us to use our critical thinking skills to analyze and address complex issues, while also nurturing our capacity for compassion and understanding.

In essence, the key lies in harmonizing these two aspects of human nature. By integrating rationality and empathy, we can develop a more balanced and holistic approach to life, enabling us to address the challenges and injustices we encounter more effectively.

[Good_Egg]

These are important questions to consider as we strive to build a world in which everyone's rights are respected and valued.

I tend to the view that one's mental functions include both thinking and feeling. And that these are distinct modes, that can get in the way of each other.

A world in which everyone's rights are respected needs clear thinking - dispassionate and disinterested - about what rights everyone possesses. As well as the willingness to concede those rights to everyone whether one feels for that individual or not.

Those whose notion of rights varies with how much they empathize with (feel for) the individual in question are no help at all in philosophy.

[Sushan]

These are important questions to consider as we strive to build a world in which everyone's rights are respected and valued.

I tend to the view that one's mental functions include both thinking and feeling. And that these are distinct modes, that can get in the way of each other.

A world in which everyone's rights are respected needs clear thinking - dispassionate and disinterested - about what rights everyone possesses. As well as the willingness to concede those rights to everyone whether one feels for that individual or not.

Those whose notion of rights varies with how much they empathize with (feel for) the individual in question are no help at all in philosophy.

I appreciate your perspective on the importance of clear, dispassionate thinking when it comes to establishing and respecting everyone's rights. It is indeed crucial to approach these issues with a sense of objectivity and fairness, as our feelings and personal biases can sometimes cloud our judgment.

However, I would also argue that empathy and compassion play a significant role in shaping our understanding of rights and justice. While it is essential to have a rational, objective foundation for determining rights, our emotional connection to others can help us better appreciate the importance of these rights and the impact they have on individuals' lives.

Empathy can serve as a catalyst for positive change, inspiring us to take action and advocate for the rights of those who may be marginalized or oppressed. By acknowledging and valuing both our rational and emotional capacities, we can work towards creating a more just and equitable society.

In philosophy, the integration of clear thinking and empathy can lead to more comprehensive and nuanced discussions about rights, ethics, and morality. Striking a balance between these two modes of thought allows us to develop a deeper understanding of the complexities of human rights and social justice, ultimately contributing to the development of a world where everyone's rights are respected and valued.

[Good_Egg]

While rationality is crucial for understanding and making sense of the world around us, it's equally important to maintain our empathy and compassion for others. This is especially true when considering the needs of the less fortunate, such as the poor, the oppressed, widows, and orphans.

Many philosophical and religious traditions emphasize the importance of cultivating both rationality and empathy.

Absolutely. We need a balance of both. In my tradition, this is expressed in terms of justice and mercy.

The rational thinking mind works out what is due to each person in justice. The empathetic feeling mind chooses to go beyond that in order to act mercifully to those who are suffering.

The proper "going beyond" is an exceptional waiving of one's own rights in favour of others, in the name of mercy.

Unbridled by rationality, the over-empathetic seek to help the suffering by waiving other people's rights. Or institutionallizing mercy into a customary right they mistake for justice.

Which is why I have reservations about your suggestion that greater empathy is the cure for the world's ills.

[Parsifal]

Thank you for your response to my thoughts which must have been narrated by poor skilled Japanese-English literal translation of mine and not well-explained reasonably. As you mentioned, I agree to look for a good solution to understand others' hardship via a collaboration between the east and the west philosophy and religions.

Since I did not have an opportunity to learn western philosophy enough in my young days, I began to learn it especially existentialism around late last year. As a result, of course, even still insufficient, I gradually noticed rough precondition in both Buddhism and existentialism to think about what we shall or can do in our life. The former especially Mahayana stresses we must always live as we are even at every minute moment. Whereas the latter argues life itself does not have any meaning at all, and we must do our utmost in creating our own life meaningful.
This difference is very contrastive, and some of the western people seem to think Buddhist something like a nihilist for their not making enough efforts as a human to create one’s own life not enough. However, accepting one’s own fate as it is, is another basic principle for Buddhists, but this matter does not mean we are nihil or lazy. We are ready to try our best against things we can solve ourselves but we learned we cannot always do so. In such case, we will follow our own fate based on our own wisdom taught by Buddha.
There are much more I would like to mean, but it is difficult for me to express these with my poor English skill and logic. If you feel further interest in my thought, I would be pleased to try showing you bit by bit. Today I resulted in not in touch with the core theme about how to solve other's hardship and instead I wanted to suggest the precondition of our thought prior to entering it, sorry.

[Parsifal]

I am sorry for first having mentioned things not placed as the theme you liked to discuss. The reason for that was I liked to introduce an attitude of Japanese famous Zen monk named Ryohkan having lived about 200 years ago. He was known to a lot of Japanese people as a gentle and approachable person having taught Buddhism lesson with easy words to local children and farmers. He is also known by having left a lot of Japanese short poems and calligraphies. He left superficially a cynical phrase at a glance when he encountered a big earthquake which killed a number of local residents. He said “it is quite natural and good to accept death and/or unfortune when such a time is to come, and doing so is exactly an essential way to live satisfactory”.
Perhaps most people including you cannot understand why he said seemingly such a cruel and a nihilistic phrase till an exact underlying motive turns out. However, it is hard for me to explain it properly here with a limited number of words and my English skill. If you like to know it, you should recall what I said previous time. This implicative motive symbolized in a phrase of “let it be as it is” underlies in both Buddhism and Laozi/ Zhuangzi doctrine, I think.

To turn my narration to the original theme, I had better bring Buddhistic spiritualism here. This view was initially come up with by Indian people including Nagarjuna and Vasvando and then enriched by Chinese Avatamsaka sect. According to the view, there is supposed to be no definitive existence existing and lasting by itself. All existences are destined to arise by chance and to vary with something surrounding them in turn. Very due to such features, existences without selfness can match anything even though this logic is ironically a contradictory representation. In addition, selfless existences can get harmonized with even all other existences including non-organic materials. If all existences could be selfless universally, there could not be any distinction at all among themselves. I think this way of thinking acceptable and rational in view of logic but I feel like something akin to sophistries in view of actual life. Even if true, it seems very hard for an ordinary people to practice making own-self selfless in order to build a harmonized relationship with others, one of aspects of Bodhisattva’s path. To solve this problem, I think it necessary to have a firm motivation to pursue selfless as one of originators of Japanese Zen named Dohgen mentioned in his Shobo-genzoh. According to him, it is said learning Buddhism is learning own-self, and learning own-self is abandoning own-self, hereinafter is skipped. I also think this kind of context supposed to be beyond human logic, especially for western people’s. I am sorry again for being unable to provide you with more logical presentation.

[JDBowden]

If we do not experience what another is experiencing, we do not and will not fully ever understand.

[Pattern-chaser]

This implicative motive symbolized in a phrase of “let it be as it is” underlies in both Buddhism and Laozi/ Zhuangzi doctrine, I think.

This is a central part of Stoic thinking, too, I think.




Well done for writing philosophy in a foreign language! English is, I think, very different from Japanese, so I congratulate you! I could not have done what you have done. I think (very) few westerners could do what you have done.

[Sushan]

While rationality is crucial for understanding and making sense of the world around us, it's equally important to maintain our empathy and compassion for others. This is especially true when considering the needs of the less fortunate, such as the poor, the oppressed, widows, and orphans.

Many philosophical and religious traditions emphasize the importance of cultivating both rationality and empathy.

Absolutely. We need a balance of both. In my tradition, this is expressed in terms of justice and mercy.

The rational thinking mind works out what is due to each person in justice. The empathetic feeling mind chooses to go beyond that in order to act mercifully to those who are suffering.

The proper "going beyond" is an exceptional waiving of one's own rights in favour of others, in the name of mercy.

Unbridled by rationality, the over-empathetic seek to help the suffering by waiving other people's rights. Or institutionallizing mercy into a customary right they mistake for justice.

Which is why I have reservations about your suggestion that greater empathy is the cure for the world's ills.

Your perspective on the balance of justice and mercy is illuminating. Both concepts, justice (grounded in rationality) and mercy (often stemming from empathy), have their roots in ancient philosophical and religious thought. I understand the reservations you've expressed regarding the potential pitfalls of excessive empathy.

However, it’s worth noting that a well-informed empathy takes into consideration the broader implications of our actions and decisions. An empathetic person might feel deeply for the suffering of others, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'd act impulsively or without consideration for the broader implications. True empathy is about understanding others' perspectives and feelings, but it should ideally be accompanied by a deeper understanding of the broader context.

It’s not about waiving rights or instituting mercy without critical thinking. Instead, it’s about harmonizing our intuitive feelings with our logical reasoning, so that we can make decisions that are both compassionate and rational.

Wouldn't you agree that it's more about the application and depth of one's empathy rather than empathy itself that might be the issue? After all, empathy can be a force for good when applied judiciously.

[Sushan]

Thank you for your response to my thoughts which must have been narrated by poor skilled Japanese-English literal translation of mine and not well-explained reasonably. As you mentioned, I agree to look for a good solution to understand others' hardship via a collaboration between the east and the west philosophy and religions.

Since I did not have an opportunity to learn western philosophy enough in my young days, I began to learn it especially existentialism around late last year. As a result, of course, even still insufficient, I gradually noticed rough precondition in both Buddhism and existentialism to think about what we shall or can do in our life. The former especially Mahayana stresses we must always live as we are even at every minute moment. Whereas the latter argues life itself does not have any meaning at all, and we must do our utmost in creating our own life meaningful.
This difference is very contrastive, and some of the western people seem to think Buddhist something like a nihilist for their not making enough efforts as a human to create one’s own life not enough. However, accepting one’s own fate as it is, is another basic principle for Buddhists, but this matter does not mean we are nihil or lazy. We are ready to try our best against things we can solve ourselves but we learned we cannot always do so. In such case, we will follow our own fate based on our own wisdom taught by Buddha.
There are much more I would like to mean, but it is difficult for me to express these with my poor English skill and logic. If you feel further interest in my thought, I would be pleased to try showing you bit by bit. Today I resulted in not in touch with the core theme about how to solve other's hardship and instead I wanted to suggest the precondition of our thought prior to entering it, sorry.

No need to apologize at all. Your perspective, even through the lens of your own self-declared "poor English", is deeply enriching and sheds light on the nuanced intricacies of Eastern and Western philosophical traditions. I'm sincerely appreciative of the insight you’ve offered into the fundamental principles of Buddhism and its contrast with existentialism.

Your mention of Mahayana Buddhism’s emphasis on living "as we are" in every moment and existentialism’s quest to create meaning in a seemingly meaningless life is a profound observation. While they might seem at odds on the surface, both philosophies seek to address the same existential questions of purpose, meaning, and the nature of existence. In many ways, they both grapple with accepting the impermanence and unpredictability of life, albeit from different vantage points.

In the context of understanding others' hardships, both Eastern and Western philosophies offer frameworks to cultivate compassion and empathy. Buddhism, with its teachings on interconnectedness and the impermanence of suffering, emphasizes a universal compassion. Existentialism, in its quest for individual meaning, can also be interpreted as a call for profound empathy, as understanding one's own struggles to find meaning can foster a deep connection with others facing similar struggles.

Your contributions deepen our understanding of the topic at hand, and I'm eager to learn more from you. The cross-pollination of ideas across different cultures and traditions is invaluable in broadening our horizons. Please, continue sharing your thoughts and insights; they are immensely valued.

[Sushan]

I am sorry for first having mentioned things not placed as the theme you liked to discuss. The reason for that was I liked to introduce an attitude of Japanese famous Zen monk named Ryohkan having lived about 200 years ago. He was known to a lot of Japanese people as a gentle and approachable person having taught Buddhism lesson with easy words to local children and farmers. He is also known by having left a lot of Japanese short poems and calligraphies. He left superficially a cynical phrase at a glance when he encountered a big earthquake which killed a number of local residents. He said “it is quite natural and good to accept death and/or unfortune when such a time is to come, and doing so is exactly an essential way to live satisfactory”.
Perhaps most people including you cannot understand why he said seemingly such a cruel and a nihilistic phrase till an exact underlying motive turns out. However, it is hard for me to explain it properly here with a limited number of words and my English skill. If you like to know it, you should recall what I said previous time. This implicative motive symbolized in a phrase of “let it be as it is” underlies in both Buddhism and Laozi/ Zhuangzi doctrine, I think.

To turn my narration to the original theme, I had better bring Buddhistic spiritualism here. This view was initially come up with by Indian people including Nagarjuna and Vasvando and then enriched by Chinese Avatamsaka sect. According to the view, there is supposed to be no definitive existence existing and lasting by itself. All existences are destined to arise by chance and to vary with something surrounding them in turn. Very due to such features, existences without selfness can match anything even though this logic is ironically a contradictory representation. In addition, selfless existences can get harmonized with even all other existences including non-organic materials. If all existences could be selfless universally, there could not be any distinction at all among themselves. I think this way of thinking acceptable and rational in view of logic but I feel like something akin to sophistries in view of actual life. Even if true, it seems very hard for an ordinary people to practice making own-self selfless in order to build a harmonized relationship with others, one of aspects of Bodhisattva’s path. To solve this problem, I think it necessary to have a firm motivation to pursue selfless as one of originators of Japanese Zen named Dohgen mentioned in his Shobo-genzoh. According to him, it is said learning Buddhism is learning own-self, and learning own-self is abandoning own-self, hereinafter is skipped. I also think this kind of context supposed to be beyond human logic, especially for western people’s. I am sorry again for being unable to provide you with more logical presentation.

Your insights into the philosophies and teachings of renowned figures like Ryohkan and Dohgen are truly enlightening. It is evident that much of Eastern thought, especially within Zen Buddhism, grapples with the very nature of existence, the self, and our relationship with the external world. The ideas you've introduced add depth to our understanding of how one might approach the hardships of others from a Buddhist perspective.

Ryohkan's seemingly contradictory or nihilistic response to the earthquake and the consequent suffering is rooted in the deep acceptance of the impermanent nature of life. Such acceptance, while initially appearing bleak, can in fact be liberating, as it frees individuals from the often tumultuous ebb and flow of life's unpredictable happenings. The notion of “letting it be as it is” resonates with the broader teachings of Buddhism about acceptance, impermanence, and detachment from desires and aversions.

Your mention of the concept of selflessness and its relation to interconnectedness is indeed profound. The idea that all things arise interdependently and that nothing has an inherent self is central to Buddhist thought. While this perspective might be hard for many to grasp, especially in cultures centered around individualism, it offers a transformative view of our relationships with others. By realizing the interdependent nature of all things and the illusion of the self, we can cultivate deep compassion and empathy.

Your acknowledgment of the difficulties in truly realizing and embodying this selflessness, even in the pursuit of Bodhisattva’s path, underscores the profound challenge inherent in these teachings. However, it is precisely this challenge that makes the journey towards enlightenment both intricate and rewarding.

Lastly, I'd like to say that while the nuances and subtleties of such profound teachings might be challenging to convey, especially across languages and cultures, your explanations have been enlightening and deeply insightful. The exploration of these ideas only underscores the importance of cross-cultural dialogue in our pursuit of understanding. Thank you for adding depth and richness to this discussion.

[Sushan]

This implicative motive symbolized in a phrase of “let it be as it is” underlies in both Buddhism and Laozi/ Zhuangzi doctrine, I think.

This is a central part of Stoic thinking, too, I think.

Well done for writing philosophy in a foreign language! English is, I think, very different from Japanese, so I congratulate you! I could not have done what you have done. I think (very) few westerners could do what you have done.

Thank you for your kind words and appreciation. The effort to communicate and share philosophical insights across linguistic and cultural barriers is truly commendable. As you rightly pointed out, Stoic philosophy too emphasizes on understanding and accepting the natural order of things and recognizing the limitations of our control. This common ground, despite the varied origins of Stoicism and Eastern philosophies, underscores the universality of human experience and our quest for understanding. Your acknowledgment not only celebrates the effort of Parsifal, but also underscores the spirit of this discussion – to bridge understanding and appreciate the richness of diverse thoughts.

[Vicky raj]

Empathy can be challenging because people often approach situations from their own perspective, which can make it difficult to understand the experiences of others. Additionally, people may not have experienced similar hardships themselves, making it harder to relate to others who have. Cultural and societal differences can also play a role in understanding others' hardships. However, practicing active listening and trying to see situations from another person's point of view can help increase empathy and understanding.

[Sushan]

If we do not experience what another is experiencing, we do not and will not fully ever understand.

I appreciate your concise perspective, and there's certainly merit to the idea that direct experience yields deeper understanding. Yet, I would argue that while direct experience does provide a unique depth, it's not the sole avenue to empathy and comprehension. Literature, storytelling, and even open conversations like this one can bridge that gap. Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall’s life and her speeches, for instance, offer us a window into her experiences and challenges. Through such mediums, one can gain a broader perspective without having to endure the exact same hardships. It becomes our responsibility, then, to actively seek and understand these narratives, to expand our own horizons and cultivate empathy.