Belindi wrote: ↑February 2nd, 2022, 9:18 am
Ecurb wrote regarding The Golden Rule: ↑January 30th, 2022, 1:41 pm
This version is subject to more objections than the original. Should a good-looking woman have sex with everyone who wants to bed her?
The basic freedom and creativity is aimed at oneself and one's survival. You can't help another when you are not also helping yourself. In your particular example the good -looking woman lacks an important survival skill which is a part of human freedom and creativity.
Illustration from The Bible:
New King James Version
So he said to them: “Out of the eater came something to eat, And out of the strong came something sweet.” Now for three days they could not explain the riddle.
It means that it's a condition of being able to help somebody else that you yourself are strong enough to do so. In your example the men who take advantage of the woman are not helping either themselves or the woman, and are unfree as they are subject,not to reason or empathy, but to emotional reaction which is a chemical process.
Obviously I meant my example to simply show that literal interpretation of Pattern's version of the Golden Rule leads to errors, just as literal interpretation of Jesus's does (as GE pointed out). Both need to tempered by common sense. If someone cooks a lobster dinner for you because you love lobster. you "should" cook his or her favorite food for him. If he's allergic to shell fish, lobster doesn't qualify. Some level of abstraction is necessary in both cases.
The answer to Samson's riddle (which Belindi quotes above) is that Samson killed a lion, and bees made a hive in its dead carcass, producing honey. Of course implied meanings can be intuited.
"Empathy" always seems condescending to me. Sympathy suggests, "We're in this together". "Sym" = "together"; "pathos" - "feelings, especially of sadness or pain." Empathy suggests, "I know how you feel. I understand " I can see why psychologists like the word -- it elevates them and their profession. They are professional empaths (supposedly, at least). But if I were in pain and someone said, "I know how you feel." I would be tempted to say, "No you don't. I don't even know how or what I feel myself. How can you know?" GE's quote from Paul Bloom ("We often think of our capacity to experience the suffering of others as the ultimate source of goodness.") is more about sympathy than empathy. Empaths (acc. most defintiions) don't "experience the suffering of others"; they understand it. Sympathetic people don't experience the feelings of others either (how could they?) but they share them. A "sympathy" card basically says, "You're sad, and I'm sad too.". An"empathy card" (thank goodness they don't exist) would say, "You're sad, and I, genius that I am, understand exactly how you feel." (OK, I'm exaggerating a little to make my point.)
I admit that I know little about how "empathy" is used as jargon in psychology or pop psychology. I'm referring to its standard English definition.
- I'm just objecting to this 'burden of proof' thing. If I'm discussing something with you, I make my case, as you do. If my case should lack proof, it weakens my case, and maybe your argument comes out the stronger. It's my choice how well I support my case, but there is no 'burden'.
- By Sy Borg
- By thrasymachus