Why is being empathetic a trait of a "great mind"? Wouldn't it also be possible that "great minds" don't consider things like empathy as useful? Looking back at human history, its usually people that aren't empathetic who end up being successful. At least in a way that people consider "successful". Humanity has long outlived the usefulness of empathy.
Because empathy isn't useful to society. One only lives once so you better make sure you'll be successful. Having empathy will actively hurt your own life
> empathy isn't useful to society ... Having empathy will actively hurt your own life
Even if I accepted the second statement (which to be clear, I absolutely do not), it doesn't follow that empathy isn't useful to society. Society is not benefited by everyone running about chasing their own personal success to the exclusion of all others: that kind of world isn't even called a society. We have other names for that and they're less positive.
I am aware people have trouble building this mental model of an unempathetic society. I am old enough to have witnessed that in 99% of situations people are directly responsible for their own situation. There is no reason to have empathy.
> building this mental model of an unempathetic society
No, it's not about mental models, it's that what you're describing is, at the limit, no longer a society at all. You need a different word for the kind of Randian endgame you're advocating for. Using "society" for it is just confusing things for everyone involved.
You think that's what you've witnessed, but perhaps you're confirming a distorted prejudice and not a reality - because that's exactly what someone who lacks empathy would see.
People who can't see green are evidence of a genetic defect, not evidence that green doesn't exist.
>I am old enough to have witnessed that in 99% of situations people are directly responsible for their own situation
Old people can be wrong, and in this case, they are.
>There is no reason to have empathy.
This is a category mistake. You reason that empathy is superfluous if people are the cause of their misfortune. However, whether people are the cause of their misfortunes is utterly irrelevant to whether there is a reason to have empathy.
So far, none of your arguments have had any discernible logic behind them. If you are so convinced that empathy is needless, why can you not articulate a coherent argument for your position?
Do you think this response will convince anyone that you are correct? You still fail to provide an argument; you're just being unpleasant. To what end?
Is that what not having empathy in a society feels like? People just talking at each other without any particular goal in mind other than being unpleasant to each other?
This is false. I quoted you and made counterpoints. You repeatedly ignored what I said and instead chose to say peculiar things like, "you arent (sic) the judge on this."
Anyone can read this thread and see this for themselves.
What do I gain from convincing people on the internet about something? Its entertainment for me. Simply showing people how I think is fun. People always act so shocked.
I'm not shocked, but it's not surprising that you don't understand other people's emotions—or your own. You don't just lack empathy; you also lack introspection. I feel strongly that it would be beneficial for you to work on that.
>99% of situations people are directly responsible for their own situation.
This seems to be a flawed mental model in itself.
At the very least, you should elaborate on your definition of empathy. Do you think cognitive empathy is bad? If so, you’re ignoring that social interactions impact outcomes.
On the contrary, the "respect" towards others is a condition to societies. Otherwise, all you'd had would be "accomplices". And also since Edward Bunker told us that actually, "dog eat dog",
> will actively hurt your own life
in a pool of free rogues you'll be at severe disadvantage as opposed to a society.
> One only lives once so you better make sure
you will achieve what you should. That includes¹ being something good, not just having some fleeting goods.
--
¹Edit: I wrote 'includes', but that's rhetoric - I meant "mostly is".
Society already is full of rogues and guess who is winning in this game?
The super rich already buying themselves out of society, punishment usually only hurts the ones who already barely own anything. Whats the benefit of a "society"?
Again that is your perspective on "winning", which remains subjective (and normally faulty). Others call psychopathic achievers simply "contemptible".
> Whats the benefit of a "society"?
That would be the whole work of Thomas Hobbes, for example: avoiding the nightmare of perpetual conflict. It is very linear to see the benefit of being able to trust your neighbour.
>Well people like me benefit from society as I can benefit from people being naive
Then, you acknowledge that you benefit from empathy. But only so long as people do not detect that you are not participating in mutual understanding and reciprocation. Once they notice your lack of genuine engagement, your previously gained benefits will disappear.
On the other hand, people who exhibit empathy towards others will continue to benefit.
Do you see that, by your own logic, empathy is beneficial to society?
No. Very clearly I meant "to be able to trust your neighbour is an asset; not being able to trust your neighbour is a liability", which is a plain analytic basic reply to your question. The statement you replied with has nothing to do with what I have written. If there was a misunderstanding, instead of just bad communication, it may reveal why you see things in a twisted way - but then know it is really a faulty perspective, not the state of things.
Of course you can be """benefiting""" from the lack of society, the "frontier anarchy" in which you implicitly declare are in: were it a society, you would have received since a very early age a credible absolute threat of violence, or shunning, which would have destroyed an advantage of profiting inappropriately.
Because you want to or because you are too much of a coward not to?
Something tells me you’d be face down in a ditch somewhere if the world actually reflected your ideal instead of the comfy one we live in where you get to take advantage of the “naive”.
> …I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.
– Captain G. M. Gilbert, Psychologist at Nuremberg Trials
Then, you should acknowledge that your experience is not representative of most other people and that basing general arguments like "empathy is useless" on your personal feelings is deeply flawed.
(But also, you come across as unhappy and angry, so maybe you're wrong about whether you need personal relationships to be happy. Many people are bad at understanding what makes them happy and end up unhappy because they mistakenly pursue things like wealth.)
That you see trampling as a value does not mean it is; if you have to move the point to the value you attribute to your own life the issue is with your perspective over your life.
It is correct to see that you have that one life, so you have to use it wisely. The issue will remain about what is "wisely".
> how do I benefit from having
Did anybody tell you you should? You should develop adequate understanding instead - and that will also put the rest into the right perspective.
There will not be any greater benefit from understanding - it is the general condition to achievement. So: you do benefit from it, and you may want to put effort in it. It will have side effects, such as moral behaviour.
No: you are showing difficulties in understanding that your lack of valuing those things has nothing to do with the reply.
Just re-read the statement: you were not told that you would benefit from moral behaviour, you were told that you will benefit from understanding. You then were informed that understanding also has side effects.
Because we are inherently social creatures. It’s arguably what allowed us to move to the top of the animal hierarchy.
Consider this: if you were to ask a parent “would you rather your child grow up to be wildly intelligent but have sociopathy to the point of being utterly alone, or frankly average (or even dull) intellectually but have a rich social life with meaningful relationships, which would you choose?” I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone willing to take the former.
Do you have children? That was a prerequisite for the question. If you do, it implies you don’t consider the relationship with your children either meaningful or beneficial, which says…a lot.
Transformational experience colors the way we see the world because it literally changes our psychology. If you haven’t gone through a particular transformational experience, you are just speculating.
It’s like asking, “could you be happy if you were a double amputee?” I trust the answer of an actual amputee than someone just guessing.
The tiger thing is just a weird digression, considering this conversation started with the premise that humans are an innately social species. Let’s keep the discussion on point with humans.
