Challenging Nihilism?

[EndogenousRebel]

More and more, the nihilism that makes up my core is being challenged.

Perhaps meaning, as we conceive and see it is a limitation of our own abilities, much like paradoxes. The fact that there are underlying themes that play out throughout the universe, and here on Earth, almost exclusively through math, gives me hope. Alone the meaning we have seems like a disparate abstraction that cannot stand, but maybe it can be shown to be true in some sense, almost like meaning is built on scaffolding, a structure of some sort that is invisible to us.

I've seen headlines like "scientist prove objectivity doesn't exist" and I've avoided them because I'm sick and tired of getting duped into wasting my time. But if it's true, then wouldn't that mean that subjectivity is objective?

 

[Rebis]

I don't think processes necessarily have meaning, at least in the sense a nihilist wouldn't necessarily deny that photons change a particle they would just deny that the process has a meaning. The universe is mathematical, processes are a way to percieve meaning if we have a pre-define expectation in mind:

-If I knew two hydrogen atoms combined to create a helium atom I would consider this meaningful as the purpose of the interacting particles was to create helium. This is a product of my understanding of cause and effect.
-if I viewed these particles as a product of interaction because the universe is unpredictable then I would not describe this as meaningful, there was no conscious intention.

I think meaning is conscious intention. We only consider something meaningful if it is the product of conscious intention. The universe without a god has no meaning, in a model understanding where an "architect" created the universe we ascribe meaning to their intention. Meaning could be a result of empathy and animism. We interpret the material world emphatically and we ascribe conscious intention through animism.

Subjective is objective to the subjective perception of the world. Your subjective experience is the true experience as all you have ever known is the world through your subjective experience. Subjectivity is the true objective if you are solipsistic, though if we see people as independent observers objectivity leans towards co-dependent truths. Objectivity is not a standard we can match for a variety of reasons but objectivity in this limited perceptible model we experience is that which individuals separate from us can confirm, that which me and another entity can observe and test collectively, and singular truths that can be inferred exclusively from one another. We can't live beyond our limits, these limitations being our ability to percieve, interact and manipulate the universe.

 

[Inexorable Username]

I like the topic. I agree with a lot of what Rebis said.
I drew some thoughts. It's better than writing them - I never write succinctly. I'm a wordy birdy, and I'm tired of wasting everyone's time with my excessive use of language.

I think objectivity is real, but I think we must use tools to achieve it. Math. Logic. Science. Things that are universally held as true across all cultures can safely be considered objective. That does not mean that our understanding of objective facts can't be influenced by new discovery - this happens...but this particularly happens in the case of categorization. Like...whether Pluto is a planet.

To understand subjective and objective reality better...we could consider and infant's mental development. During infancy, the infant is able to view the world but not understand it. I think you could consider this true objectivity. Objectively, the infant can see that a chair is a thing which is tangible. As the infant grows, it learns to categorize things subjectively and objectively. Subjective things have feelings attached to them - there are good faces that the infant knows are friendly, and smells that the infant knows are safe. Objectively, the infant knows that there are things that are soft, and things that are not. The infant knows that there are things that are warm, and things that are cold....and the infant knows the difference between what is noise, and what is silence.

I guess at the end of the day, you can say that what we can sense is objective, but our feelings about the sensation are not. It's objective to sense that something is hot. It's subjective to think that hot things are dangerous.

Truly objective humans do not exist. However, humans are capable of making objective statements and finding objective truisms. To find an actual being that is objective, you would have to find a much smaller being...maybe a fish, or a spider.

 

[Cognisant]

In a subjective universe life would revolve around bubbles of relative objectively.

Think of it like people playing Gary's Mod, a game where everyone has godlike power to create destroy and be anything they want. The real fun to be had is when you play with other people and define rules for that play, like having a limited time to build a sled and race those sleds down a hill.

When anyone can do anything play becomes meaningless.

 

[Rebis]

I like the topic. I agree with a lot of what Rebis said.
I drew some thoughts. It's better than writing them - I never write succinctly. I'm a wordy birdy, and I'm tired of wasting everyone's time with my excessive use of language.

View attachment 4845


I think objectivity is real, but I think we must use tools to achieve it. Math. Logic. Science. Things that are universally held as true across all cultures can safely be considered objective. That does not mean that our understanding of objective facts can't be influenced by new discovery - this happens...but this particularly happens in the case of categorization. Like...whether Pluto is a planet.

To understand subjective and objective reality better...we could consider and infant's mental development. During infancy, the infant is able to view the world but not understand it. I think you could consider this true objectivity. Objectively, the infant can see that a chair is a thing which is tangible. As the infant grows, it learns to categorize things subjectively and objectively. Subjective things have feelings attached to them - there are good faces that the infant knows are friendly, and smells that the infant knows are safe. Objectively, the infant knows that there are things that are soft, and things that are not. The infant knows that there are things that are warm, and things that are cold....and the infant knows the difference between what is noise, and what is silence.

I guess at the end of the day, you can say that what we can sense is objective, but our feelings about the sensation are not. It's objective to sense that something is hot. It's subjective to think that hot things are dangerous.

Truly objective humans do not exist. However, humans are capable of making objective statements and finding objective truisms. To find an actual being that is objective, you would have to find a much smaller being...maybe a fish, or a spider.

Cool drawing, do you take commission? Devianart here we go sonnn

 

[Inexorable Username]

I like the topic. I agree with a lot of what Rebis said.
I drew some thoughts. It's better than writing them - I never write succinctly. I'm a wordy birdy, and I'm tired of wasting everyone's time with my excessive use of language.

View attachment 4845


I think objectivity is real, but I think we must use tools to achieve it. Math. Logic. Science. Things that are universally held as true across all cultures can safely be considered objective. That does not mean that our understanding of objective facts can't be influenced by new discovery - this happens...but this particularly happens in the case of categorization. Like...whether Pluto is a planet.

To understand subjective and objective reality better...we could consider and infant's mental development. During infancy, the infant is able to view the world but not understand it. I think you could consider this true objectivity. Objectively, the infant can see that a chair is a thing which is tangible. As the infant grows, it learns to categorize things subjectively and objectively. Subjective things have feelings attached to them - there are good faces that the infant knows are friendly, and smells that the infant knows are safe. Objectively, the infant knows that there are things that are soft, and things that are not. The infant knows that there are things that are warm, and things that are cold....and the infant knows the difference between what is noise, and what is silence.

I guess at the end of the day, you can say that what we can sense is objective, but our feelings about the sensation are not. It's objective to sense that something is hot. It's subjective to think that hot things are dangerous.

Truly objective humans do not exist. However, humans are capable of making objective statements and finding objective truisms. To find an actual being that is objective, you would have to find a much smaller being...maybe a fish, or a spider.

Cool drawing, do you take commission? Devianart here we go sonnn

Lol. I’m not sure if that’s sarcasm?
No, I don’t do commission. I just get paid - sometimes, to conceptualize and document media strategies and make Infographics and such.

I find it’s often easier and more succinct for me just to do an illustration of a concept. People seem to misinterpret what I say more than what I draw.

 

[Rebis]

It's a good drawing

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I don't think processes necessarily have meaning, at least in the sense a nihilist wouldn't necessarily deny that photons change a particle they would just deny that the process has a meaning. The universe is mathematical, processes are a way to percieve meaning if we have a pre-define expectation in mind:

haha, I forget that the main nihilist argument is that there is no objective meaning, it's pretty redundant if you ask me. I suppose a lot does depend on how you define meaning. Not the direction I was headed, but interesting nonetheless.

Would you say that the coding in programming has no meaning? They are instructions, an abstraction of binary, if I'm thinking about it correctly. I'm not assuming that the nature of the universe is instructions based, this would imply agency (right?), some sort of manipulator (in the broadest sense) and would allude to creationism, which is the antithesis of nihilism I guess. (If you ask me even with a supreme creator I still wouldn't think there was objective meaning).

My head was more at, explaining the universe through expressions. What I'm saying, and am going to write in a self-defeating manner because I kinda see where it will lead to, was that there are mathematical(-like?) expressions that would give meaning to things like the truths of human emotions. Now I'm seeing that these expressions could explain how and why, but does not give credence to some sort of "objective" truth in meaning.

Subjective is objective to the subjective perception of the world. Your subjective experience is the true experience as all you have ever known is the world through your subjective experience. Subjectivity is the true objective if you are solipsistic, though if we see people as independent observers objectivity leans towards co-dependent truths. Objectivity is not a standard we can match for a variety of reasons but objectivity in this limited perceptible model we experience is that which individuals separate from us can confirm, that which me and another entity can observe and test collectively, and singular truths that can be inferred exclusively from one another. We can't live beyond our limits, these limitations being our ability to percieve, interact and manipulate the universe.

Solipsism simply isn't pragmatic and seems like the type of thing a lazy brain tries to apply to think less. In my book objectivity = truth. Yes subjectively the majority of people can think that there is a tooth fairy, but that doesn't mean there is one. Perhaps that means that there are subjective and objective truths/meanings, but I feel like that leads us to there being certain probabilistic truths. Something can be true in a certain context for example. Yes, that is probably exactly what it is.

People could look the theoretical expression I conceived and derive different meanings from it. Out of instinct. People that don't are tired or empty minded if you ask me, philosophical zombies, which I doubt exist. I'm now concluding that nihilist by virtue, but more by pragmatism or ideal, much like I want to be asexual but am a fucking dog.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Nihilist aren't actually nihilist.
Jordan Peterson intensifies

 

[Black Rose]

There is a barrier between what Kant called the Noumenon and Phenomena. Everything we experience is the phenomena, everything we will never experience directly is the Noumenon.
I am not saying there is no objectivity. But that we can only know a finite part of it.
Kicking a brick wall hurts but I can never kick all brick walls that exist.
Bubbles exist because humans are finite. Yet the world has constraints.

 

[Inexorable Username]

It's a good drawing

Thanks
I thought it was pretty pitiful this time around by I appreciate the praise nonetheless!

 

[Cognisant]

Think of meaning like a structure we live in, it defines us as much as it restricts us and existential nihilism is the recognition that those restrictions are self imposed. I consider myself an Australian but I don't have to, there's nothing inherently Australian about me, it only defines who I am insofar as I allow it to.

Of course you can't be a nihilist, it's not a matter of values like communism or capitalism, you can only know existential nihilism, it's a self evident truth regardless of you opinion of it.

Existential nihilism isn't an answer to anything, just because meaning is a contrivance doesn't mean I shouldn't engage in such contrivances, if Australia went to war and I was conscripted into the military I wouldn't consider whether or not I'm bound by duty but rather whether or not I think it's a nation worth fighting for.

Is anything worth fighting and potentially dying for? It doesn't seem like anything is worth dying for but then again you've got to draw the line somewhere

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Why does the person in that drawing have such a wide scull? It must be the result of thinking about right & wrong too much.

Jokes aside I think it’s brilliant to draw things that way. Always meant to start doing it myself, it must be a very effective way to understand complex subjects.

 

[Kormak]

Our consciousness delives us distorted presentations of reality, because our senses are biased. Humans are a higherarchy of organisms living simbioticaly. Their collective higherarchy under one mediating consciousness enbles them to gain more power, which is the primary subjective driving force of all matter & energy as defined by Nietzsche in his understaning. Rarely do people become aware of their true nature as this.

We seek knowlege, food, follow systems of thought, power structures, ideologies , beliefs, we are altruistic, defensive, vindictive, love and seek happyness for the porpose of gaining power and growing. It is not a conscious drive and it is numerically identical with, in the case of humans, the body. Living organisms not merely react and adapt to the environment, but they proactively seek to dominate it in order to thrive and grow more complex. This is again subconscious. How they do it are mere excuses for varied strategies, all of which have the same end.

This together with our limits of gaining understanding into reality as it truly is means we are subject to a kind of perspectivism. Through science & reason we may seek to escape this subjectivity and gain insight, but even here we have limits as @Animekitty said:

There is a barrier between what Kant called the Noumenon and Phenomena. Everything we experience is the phenomena, everything we will never experience directly is the Noumenon.
I am not saying there is no objectivity. But that we can only know a finite part of it.
Kicking a brick wall hurts but I can never kick all brick walls that exist.
Bubbles exist because humans are finite. Yet the world has constraints.

e_e this means no morality is absolute or objective for example. You simply have no solid ground to stand on. Whatever aides your power progress is "good", whatever is in the way of it is "bad". Even Kant had to make a leap of faith in his argument for the kingdom of heaven.

So what do you do, when your insight into true reality is limited, progress is slow and all systems & structures you may wish to find solid ground in are only means that serve your will to power, something you probably aren't even aware of?

The only meaning you can be sure of it one you yourself create with full understanding that your end is power. I for example am more honest than any priest, when I state that I do not merely wish to use others as meas to my ends. Reciprocity aids me, it is a strategy, but my end is still just power and being aware of it allows me to not willingly harm others in it's pursuit, which I do regardless of being aware of it or deluding myself hiding behind rationalizations.

I guess this is why I like the character of "Swain" in league. When they wrote him, thay had all this in mind already, as he says: “We are all of us born into a lie, that there are those who are good and those who are evil, but these words mean nothing. In truth the only measure of a soul is the strength of their will!” He is not a hypocrite, he does not hide behind excuses. Religion is not his shield.

 

[Inexorable Username]

Why does the person in that drawing have such a wide scull? It must be the result of thinking about right & wrong too much.

Jokes aside I think it’s brilliant to draw things that way. Always meant to start doing it myself, it must be a very effective way to understand complex subjects.

Thanks! They have a wide skull because that was a really...really lazy drawing of mine! Haha! I just drew it as a means to respond to a complex issue in a simplified way, because it was a lot faster and a more responsible use of both my time, and everyone else's who would read my opinions.

A lot can be misinterpreted when I use words to express opinions. One of the major things I've noticed is how much people assume when they read words. Emotion - for instance. Polarized identities. We seem to give the person whose text we're reading something of a "voice in our head", which we use to interpret intent, hidden objectives/agendas, logical fallacies, relative intelligence - quite a lot.

There's also a lot of room for misunderstanding, and there isn't always words concise enough to express your true interpretation of a subject. As a result, there's a lot of room for misinterpretation. For instance, if I say "The Patriarchy" - you probably think of something completely different than what I would think of, or you may think I'm thinking of something completely different than what you're thinking of. In either case, those two words probably poisoned our entire interaction...lol!

Contrarily, if I draw what I think the patriarchy is, you can visually assimilate my interpretation of the abstract concept, and the points I have to make about it...and it forces me to express those points in a way in which they make relative sense with one another, because I must organize them so that they can be expressed in a diagram or a picture.

It would seem that people looking at these drawings do not actually assume what my beliefs are, either. It doesn't seem necessary for me to write massively long disclaimers - people find drawings to be less offensive. I don't get readily labeled when I present people with drawings, and concepts that they might have immediately turned off to suddenly become available to them, because you can't help but look at a picture, and when you do, you often can't help but assimilate all of the information. You do this all at once, so before you even had a chance to interpret my intent or label me as a person, you've been exposed to my beliefs.

Honestly...it's what makes propaganda so dangerous, in my opinion. Imagery seems to bypass our natural defensive mechanisms when it comes to allowing or disallowing information to affect how we think and feel. When we don't have to actually read, we don't have as much time, or as much participation from that "internal voice". Marketing is powerfully subconscious in that way. You can't help being excited by the color red, for instance. It's simply...done to you.

I deeply appreciate marketing but I think marketing manipulation is borderline evil. I spot it in a lot of political campaigns and it really, really bothers me, because it sticks out like a sore thumb. Not many things bother me...I don't like people who take advantage of those who are ignorant or undereducated, often due to little fault on their part.

Uhm...I'm sorry. Now I'm rambling. Should have drawn it out! Haha.
Well, anyways...I don't like to use my concept sketches to manipulate and brainwash people, but I do like to use them to give myself more of a voice...to encourage people to try to understand my point of view, before reacting to it. (Rather, to me, as a person).
Also...I've become increasingly aware that I'm a terrible speaker. I easily offend people, misrepresent myself in that I pick up inaccurate labels easily, and men in particular get impatient with how much I expound on my ideas. Women, weirdly, seem to get impatient with my word usage....I think using uncommon words must reek of arrogance. I don't mean to to be like that. I'm just a hermit, so it's how I write and speak.

I'm sorry! What a tangent!
Moral of the story - you should definitely take up diagraming your thoughts! You can even keep hold of them in a folder so you can more easily organize your arguments in the future! It's a wonderful strategy and so very, very effective...uhmm...when people actually look at your pictures. And, like, respond. For some reason, most people look at my infographics are they say "Oh. Neat."
Then, conversationally, we die together. It's very Romeo and Juliet.
"I drew you my concept"
"No! You crippled the conversation! Here, I will stab it in the heart."
"Soo..."
"Neat pic."
"Thanks."
"Yup"
"Well, bye."
"Yeh..See ya."

 

[Inexorable Username]

My thoughts on objective/subjective:

I think this is the sort of argument that people hear, and spend a lot of time trying to process, but in it's bare bones, it's not as complicated as it is made out to be.

Objectivity and subjectivity are words defined by their opposite, much like how males and females are words defined by their opposite. Without females, males would not exist, and visa versa.

Ironically, I think that "objective" and "subjective" are actually words that are subjectively defined by the other. So in order to truly analyze them in a truly objective manner, you absolutely must define them in terms of their subjective opposite.

Okay...so here is why I think that.
Take a look at example of "male" and "female". I could easily run down a philosophy rabbit hole musing about "What is a female?", and I won't get anywhere.

What is a female? We could easily debate regarding whether the female was born a certain way, was altered after birth, what the genetics and chromosomes are - at the end of the day, we could spend hours on this, but it doesn't mean that females don't exist. Or that "real females" don't exist. Of course, we all agree that real females really exist, and our inability to precisely describe what a female is doesn't prove that they don't. In the end, if you run down this path, you end up with the conclusion that a female is not a male, and visa versa. Females are defined by their opposite.

The same is true for good and evil, right and wrong, safe and dangerous, and objective, and subjective.

So if you take a look at this argument in terms of it's opposite, you end up with something like this:

A thing which is objective is a thing which is universally understood, and not defined by an individual's subjective perspective of the world.

So, the fact that a chair is a thing - this is objective. Dogs don't run into it. People sit on it. Babies touch it. Clearly, objectively, the chair is a thing and the thing exists...(Unless, of course, all the dogs and babies and such don't exist, but now you're getting into the Descarte mind fuck and I think we can just leave that part out, since reasonable people appreciate the fact that, if the only thing you can actually believe in is your thought itself, there's really no point in being philosophical XD)

Math is a language, just like English is a language. Both languages use small blocks, to create larger blocks. Then use larger blocks, to express larger concepts. Numbers and words are the basic building blocks we use to abstract the world in which we live.

In math, we first created "2". The basic building block.
Then we used numerical relationships to develop a formula to calculate the trajectory of an arrow in flight. The slightly larger building block.
We can then go on to use this formula to express concepts like the curvature of the earth.

In English, we first created "happy". Then we used basic words like angry, sad, and sour to construct the larger word of "bittersweet".

When you get down to the very basic building blocks of math and language, you tend to find subjective definitions, I think. What is 2? Two is not one or three (it is in-between them)....You cannot define 2 without 1 and 3. Without these, 2 becomes "singular" or "not singular".

When you get down to the definition of happy - well, happy is not sad. It's the opposite.

So arguing whether "objectivity" exists, is like arguing whether the number 2 exists. We know 2 exists, because it's defined by what it is not.

To return to Descarte briefly...If he thinks, and his thought is "real", then differences must exist. If you cannot understand a difference, you cannot think. If differences exist, then degrees of differences must also exist. You cannot know a difference unless you know traits that make it different. Something is blue, large, and flat. Another thing is small, round, and red. These things are very different. The fact that they are different is an objective truth. It does not matter how red makes you feel, or whether or not you're just dreaming - you are seeing two things, one of which is different then the other. That is an objective observation. Whether or not "red" is a real color does not matter. One thing is one color, the other thing, another. Therefore, they are different.

So I think that true objectiveness does exist. Obviously, the devil is in the details regarding what is really objective and what is not, and once we graduate from discussing chairs and start to discuss living creatures and their perceptions, things get more complex....but that doesn't refute the existence of objectiveness. It's an umbrella term, and the word itself is merely a tool used to express two categories. Those which are in category "A" are opposite of category "B"...if we fail to appreciate which categories to put them in, that does not refute that the categories, themselves, exist.


By the way, this opinion of mine...it hasn't been popular in the past with at least two other people, so if you dislike it - you're not alone, and I'm not a god so I don't imagine myself some kind of person who flawlessly speaks the truth - and I would love to hear your feedback.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Think of meaning like a structure we live in, it defines us as much as it restricts us and existential nihilism is the recognition that those restrictions are self imposed. I consider myself an Australian but I don't have to, there's nothing inherently Australian about me, it only defines who I am insofar as I allow it to.

Of course you can't be a nihilist, it's not a matter of values like communism or capitalism, you can only know existential nihilism, it's a self evident truth regardless of you opinion of it.

Existential nihilism isn't an answer to anything, just because meaning is a contrivance doesn't mean I shouldn't engage in such contrivances, if Australia went to war and I was conscripted into the military I wouldn't consider whether or not I'm bound by duty but rather whether or not I think it's a nation worth fighting for.

Is anything worth fighting and potentially dying for? It doesn't seem like anything is worth dying for but then again you've got to draw the line somewhere

What an illuminating discussion. Meaning as a structure is sort of what I was getting at in my op, as I feel it doesn't get enough credit. Yes I suppose that certain thought patterns and specific neurosis do restrict us but perhaps, not so in the same vein they can also enhance our perceptions. You could say that those perceptions are limiting as well, but less so than others, and as @Rebis said, we can only function within our limits, which are likely based on biological restrictions, but when you consider plasticity and time, you likely get exponential growth is some aspects. This biological process however is within our mathematical universe, and this really interests me especially with things relating to aesthetics and beauty. Pure math, at it's depth can be extremely artistic and displays these things, likely because they are the closest thing to perfection we will ever see.

I think it would be impossible for you to rationally think of something worth dying for, rational agent models do not allow it. We however are not always rational. The things you love most in this world are probably attached to certain illogical thoughts, at best we could say "because (illogical conclusion that satisfies certain parameters) I don't give a fuck" and then there are varying things on which you would be willing to gamble/risk and so on. I really hope this doesn't trigger you m8.

Our consciousness delives us distorted presentations of reality, because our senses are biased. Humans are a higherarchy of organisms living simbioticaly. Their collective higherarchy under one mediating consciousness enbles them to gain more power, which is the primary subjective driving force of all matter & energy as defined by Nietzsche in his understaning. Rarely do people become aware of their true nature as this.

We seek knowlege, food, follow systems of thought, power structures, ideologies , beliefs, we are altruistic, defensive, vindictive, love and seek happyness for the porpose of gaining power and growing. It is not a conscious drive and it is numerically identical with, in the case of humans, the body. Living organisms not merely react and adapt to the environment, but they proactively seek to dominate it in order to thrive and grow more complex. This is again subconscious. How they do it are mere excuses for varied strategies, all of which have the same end.

This together with our limits of gaining understanding into reality as it truly is means we are subject to a kind of perspectivism. Through science & reason we may seek to escape this subjectivity and gain insight, but even here we have limits as @Animekitty said:

The only meaning you can be sure of it one you yourself create with full understanding that your end is power. I for example am more honest than any priest, when I state that I do not merely wish to use others as meas to my ends. Reciprocity aids me, it is a strategy, but my end is still just power and being aware of it allows me to not willingly harm others in it's pursuit, which I do regardless of being aware of it or deluding myself hiding behind rationalizations.

I guess this is why I like the character of "Swain" in league. When they wrote him, thay had all this in mind already, as he says: “We are all of us born into a lie, that there are those who are good and those who are evil, but these words mean nothing. In truth the only measure of a soul is the strength of their will!” He is not a hypocrite, he does not hide behind excuses. Religion is not his shield.

We all stem from microbes, I don't think it's a stretch to say our behavior is an abstraction of theirs. To not seek "power" is to be satisfied with current affairs, to be pray. A cell that doesn't expand to reproduce isn't a cell at all. This being said I (from my superfluous analysis of your "character") feel like you're committing too much to these thought processes (yeah I would say that as a power seeking cunt). Humans have created a world of (limited) abundance. Maslows hierarchy of needs while just a fucking chart, is rightly optimistic in showing simply security as one of humans biggest needs. But belonging is up there too. There are also different types of power, socially such as virtue (something that a lot of people care about, as it makes people judge them softly) or honor. God bless LOTR, is what I'm going to end this on before I type anymore. This does however make me want to look into beings that are "nice" to others despite not having to be. Coral reefs make abundance right?

There's also a lot of room for misunderstanding, and there isn't always words concise enough to express your true interpretation of a subject. As a result, there's a lot of room for misinterpretation. For instance, if I say "The Patriarchy" - you probably think of something completely different than what I would think of, or you may think I'm thinking of something completely different than what you're thinking of. In either case, those two words probably poisoned our entire interaction...lol!

It would seem that people looking at these drawings do not actually assume what my beliefs are, either. It doesn't seem necessary for me to write massively long disclaimers - people find drawings to be less offensive. I don't get readily labeled when I present people with drawings, and concepts that they might have immediately turned off to suddenly become available to them, because you can't help but look at a picture, and when you do, you often can't help but assimilate all of the information. You do this all at once, so before you even had a chance to interpret my intent or label me as a person, you've been exposed to my beliefs.

Honestly...it's what makes propaganda so dangerous, in my opinion. Imagery seems to bypass our natural defensive mechanisms when it comes to allowing or disallowing information to affect how we think and feel. When we don't have to actually read, we don't have as much time, or as much participation from that "internal voice". Marketing is powerfully subconscious in that way. You can't help being excited by the color red, for instance. It's simply...done to you.

I deeply appreciate marketing but I think marketing manipulation is borderline evil. I spot it in a lot of political campaigns and it really, really bothers me, because it sticks out like a sore thumb. Not many things bother me...I don't like people who take advantage of those who are ignorant or undereducated, often due to little fault on their part.

Uhm...I'm sorry. Now I'm rambling. Should have drawn it out! Haha.
Well, anyways...I don't like to use my concept sketches to manipulate and brainwash people, but I do like to use them to give myself more of a voice...to encourage people to try to understand my point of view, before reacting to it. (Rather, to me, as a person).
Also...I've become increasingly aware that I'm a terrible speaker. I easily offend people, misrepresent myself in that I pick up inaccurate labels easily, and men in particular get impatient with how much I expound on my ideas. Women, weirdly, seem to get impatient with my word usage....I think using uncommon words must reek of arrogance. I don't mean to to be like that. I'm just a hermit, so it's how I write and speak.

This is why things like poetry, copy-writing, really any good art, is very hard to do, and uses imagery a lot. They require a lot of empathy too. People see things all the time, and what they see doesn't directly challenge something about them, at least from the layman perspective. Critics, who spend their time analyzing and looking through these artforms can see the bigger picture of what is being said and thus are more critical of the media, while the widespread audience has lower standards or doesn't care much and will consume anything as long as they get a kick out of it, while these messages slowly slither into their subconscious.

If you think you're bad at talking you should try talking into a sound recorder (or yourself, it's just nice because you feel like something is actually listening). It definitely has sharpened my verbal abilities since I started. it's kinda like a diary, but maybe more than that. These days I find myself talking about things that I can't really think through without it, as it helps to just get things out of your mind and into the physical world.

 

[Inexorable Username]

This is why things like poetry, copy-writing, really any good art, is very hard to do, and uses imagery a lot. They require a lot of empathy too. People see things all the time, and what they see doesn't directly challenge something about them, at least from the layman perspective. Critics, who spend their time analyzing and looking through these artforms can see the bigger picture of what is being said and thus are more critical of the media, while the widespread audience has lower standards or doesn't care much and will consume anything as long as they get a kick out of it, while these messages slowly slither into their subconscious

Wow...you really appreciate art! You also appreciate empathy. How unusual. You must have some very unique philosophies. I actually never considered art critics in that sense, but then, I'm not a critic myself. That is a really interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing!
Imagery does seep into our subconscious. Pornography, for instance. Vincent Van Gogh appreciated that...I still remember when I went to an art museum in Spain. Do you know the kind of painting whereby you have to stand far away before you can tell what it is? I forgot what the term is. In any case, I went with a female friend, and we were standing too close to this massive Van Gogh when we walked in the door. It had a wall all to itself. We were just discussing color use, depth, and such, wondering what this could possibly be, and then we backed up five steps or so....and - well I won't describe it here. XD
Anyways! We were pretty horrified that we had been critically examining this...uh, ecstatic specimen....for pretty much 10 minutes while all of the other patrons walked by us. Despite the trauma, it was pretty fun to hang out by the exit of the museum and watch the newcomers get duped!
Van Gogh was so lewd. Not sure I want to know how those stars and starry night got their glow.

If you think you're bad at talking you should try talking into a sound recorder (or yourself, it's just nice because you feel like something is actually listening). It definitely has sharpened my verbal abilities since I started. it's kinda like a diary, but maybe more than that. These days I find myself talking about things that I can't really think through without it, as it helps to just get things out of your mind and into the physical world.

Thanks! I might do that. I think I'm making some progress, because I've been using dictation software for writing articles...even so...my issue, I've found, is not necessarily being repetitive. I think that's been criticized out of me. (Not in a bad way, I'm grateful!) But my problem is that I'm really committed to making sure that other people understand my point entirely, and I feel compelled to close all of the loopholes. I have a habit of shutting down arguments I think people might make, before they even make them. Perhaps I'm just an anxious conversationalist? I don't know. Sometimes, I struggle to understand myself ._.
I know I'm strange. That much, I've deduced.

 

[Black Rose]

Emotional pain can be turned into energy. To convert it all that need be done is to feel it. You must first admit your depression you keep locked away deep inside. You will not let it hold you back. To paralyze you any longer. I was sad I had no one to confide in. That no one understood me. I do not want to be alone. emotionally, intellectually, physically.

So energy needs to be created. and with energy clarity is necessary.
Anything clogging my system needs to be gone.
My empathy I have towards others should become less numb.
I should feel others' emotions without anxiety and pushing away what I feel.

nihilism messes up your emotions
because humans need meaning denying meaning makes you go numb.
You will never have the ultimate level of power you desire.
You lose motivation to connect back with the inner self.

emotions are the only thing we can rely upon for will to power.
for life to be purposeful we need relationships and understanding.
understanding the self is the starting place.
life satisfaction is being understood.
Happy relationships form this way.

 

[Kormak]

Emotional pain can be turned into energy. To convert it all that need be done is to feel it. You must first admit your depression you keep locked away deep inside. You will not let it hold you back. To paralyze you any longer. I was sad I had no one to confide in. That no one understood me. I do not want to be alone. emotionally, intellectually, physically.

So energy needs to be created. and with energy clarity is necessary.
Anything clogging my system needs to be gone.
My empathy I have towards others should become less numb.
I should feel others' emotions without anxiety and pushing away what I feel.

nihilism messes up your emotions
because humans need meaning denying meaning makes you go numb.
You will never have the ultimate level of power you desire.
You lose motivation to connect back with the inner self.

emotions are the only thing we can rely upon for will to power.
for life to be purposeful we need relationships and understanding.
understanding the self is the starting place.
life satisfaction is being understood.
Happy relationships form this way.

I agree. I'd like to add that suffering is necessary for contrast. If we wish to feel happyness, we will also suffer. If there is no meaning, we can create it ourselves, in fact we must.

Surprisingly very little is needed for happyness according to Epicurus:

We all stem from microbes, I don't think it's a stretch to say our behavior is an abstraction of theirs. To not seek "power" is to be satisfied with current affairs, to be pray. A cell that doesn't expand to reproduce isn't a cell at all. This being said I (from my superfluous analysis of your "character") feel like you're committing too much to these thought processes (yeah I would say that as a power seeking cunt). Humans have created a world of (limited) abundance. Maslows hierarchy of needs while just a fucking chart, is rightly optimistic in showing simply security as one of humans biggest needs. But belonging is up there too. There are also different types of power, socially such as virtue (something that a lot of people care about, as it makes people judge them softly) or honor. God bless LOTR, is what I'm going to end this on before I type anymore. This does however make me want to look into beings that are "nice" to others despite not having to be. Coral reefs make abundance right?

Corals are kinda cool in how they come to dominate their environment and band together in these large colonies that end up creating one of the most diverse habitats on the planet. Its a good example as to how life does not simply react & adapt to the environment. There are many strategies in pursuit of "power", it need not be destructive, in fact we can consider everything interconnected / interdependent in a way and often this ends in a delicate ballance such as this ecosystem.

People imo misunderstand what Nietzsche means by "power" as they think its political power, but its not merely something so simple.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Wow...you really appreciate art! You also appreciate empathy. How unusual. You must have some very unique philosophies. I actually never considered art critics in that sense, but then, I'm not a critic myself. That is a really interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing!

..Imagery does seep into our subconscious. Pornography, for instance. Vincent Van Gogh appreciated that...

..I went with a female friend, and we were standing too close to this massive Van Gogh when we walked in the door. It had a wall all to itself. We were just discussing color use, depth, and such, wondering what this could possibly be, and then we backed up five steps or so....and - well I won't describe it here. XD

Anyways! We were pretty horrified that we had been critically examining this...uh, ecstatic specimen....for pretty much 10 minutes while all of the other patrons walked by us. Despite the trauma, it was pretty fun to hang out by the exit of the museum and watch the newcomers get duped!
Van Gogh was so lewd. Not sure I want to know how those stars and starry night got their glow.

..But my problem is that I'm really committed to making sure that other people understand my point entirely, and I feel compelled to close all of the loopholes. I have a habit of shutting down arguments I think people might make, before they even make them. Perhaps I'm just an anxious conversationalist? I don't know. Sometimes, I struggle to understand myself ._.
I know I'm strange. That much, I've deduced.

lol I appreciate the attention and validation. Is it really that unusual? I know I'm a weird person, I believe that it's just because I live in a weird world, and thus act accordingly.

You made me laugh because you just randomly throw pornography into the mix, excellent.

Concerning you being a tyrannical conversationalist, I would say that is your problem. If people have a hard time understanding you let them be the ones to ask for clarification. I'm assume you care a lot about what people think about you/try to project a specific aura, I would just let go of this notion and people will either be wrong in their interpretation of your words, or become more curious into what youre actually thinking. I should also follow this advice, recently I've been more chill when socializing, it's not like I'm regularly and socially talking complex ideas, so it's kinda easy if your goal is just to build relationships and relax.

Emotional pain can be turned into energy. To convert it all that need be done is to feel it. You must first admit your depression you keep locked away deep inside. You will not let it hold you back. To paralyze you any longer. I was sad I had no one to confide in. That no one understood me. I do not want to be alone. emotionally, intellectually, physically.

So energy needs to be created. and with energy clarity is necessary.
Anything clogging my system needs to be gone.
My empathy I have towards others should become less numb.
I should feel others' emotions without anxiety and pushing away what I feel.

nihilism messes up your emotions
because humans need meaning denying meaning makes you go numb.
You will never have the ultimate level of power you desire.
You lose motivation to connect back with the inner self.

emotions are the only thing we can rely upon for will to power.
for life to be purposeful we need relationships and understanding.
understanding the self is the starting place.
life satisfaction is being understood.
Happy relationships form this way.

I agree. I'd like to add that suffering is necessary for contrast. If we wish to feel happyness, we will also suffer. If there is no meaning, we can create it ourselves, in fact we must.

Corals are kinda cool in how they come to dominate their environment and band together in these large colonies that end up creating one of the most diverse habitats on the planet. Its a good example as to how life does not simply react & adapt to the environment. There are many strategies in pursuit of "power", it need not be destructive, in fact we can consider everything interconnected / interdependent in a way and often this ends in a delicate ballance such as this ecosystem.

People imo misunderstand what Nietzsche means by "power" as they think its political power, but its not merely something so simple.

Yeah we live in relativist hell unfortunately, might as well face it all straight up and pay attention to everything so you can see how it affects your being.

Haven't really read Nietzsche, but I do agree that people have a narrow definition for power. I feel like if we really want to curb human greed and power seeking we should pacify it within our culture. Much like we now have movies about zombies where zombies aren't necessarily bad. Thats just my opinion though I don't know if the impact would be positive tbh. It would probably lessen the struggle for power. We should definitely teach philosophy in school and power should be apart of that course.

 

[Inexorable Username]

I'm assume you care a lot about what people think about you/try to project a specific aura

Not really - at least, not during a conversation. I have the unfortunate habit of speaking first and caring about it later. You're right though in that I don't think my goal is really to build a relationship with the person I'm talking to. Perhaps that's part of my issue. I don't really socialize for socialization's sake, so any time I'm talking to someone, it's usually because...well, tbh, because I want to achieve something. If I have to talk to someone in a casual context, ie: not work related, I usually try to figure out something that I can achieve from the conversation. I end up asking people a lot about their life experiences, their philosophies, who they are, because at least if I have to socialize - I can learn more about people, in general, by learning about this person. People often end up sharing relationships and emotional situations with me...it's all highly useful, because I feel like it expands my ability to exercise empathy with people from all walks of life, and it also enhances my understanding of different demographics, emotional experiences, etc. Two of my favorite topics to get out of people is information about certain jobs I know very little about, or information from the elderly about the way life used to be, and what their childhood experiences were like.

I also like to bounce ideas off of others to get feedback. Even if someone is uneducated and unable to pose a logical argument, they can be very valuable in the contexts of a conversation. The way people phrase things differently, or see things differently, seems to make new connections in my mind and give me a broader understanding...

But now that I'm laying all of this out there, it sounds semi-psychotic and highly egotistical, doesn't it? Also, it's sprinkled with conversations about Nietzche's philosophy of the will to power...that definitely puts a different spin on things. I value empathy a lot, and I experience it often, but it's not something I usually consciously exercise, and it isn't something I use to make the end-all-be-all decisions of my life. I find that empathy gives the answers, but in the end, the answers always make logical sense, so there's no sense in making emotionally-based choices.

Looking at how I view people in conversations though - it's pretty cold, isn't it? Is this part of the INTP shadow function? Maybe this is the "inner bitch" in me coming out in a covert manner. Personally, I would love to be talked to the way that I talk to others, because I think I would find it flattering....but maybe other people are anticipating the sensation of acceptance more than the sensation of productivity. Hmm...maybe my behavior, instead of coming across as a compliment, comes across as "prove to me that you have something of value to offer me for my time".
:/ Wow. I hope I'm not that much of a bitch. That would suck.

You've given me something to think about! Thanks! This might be a clue to identifying a less appealing aspect of the way I value and perceive others. I suppose, if I didn't care about the outcome of the conversation, I wouldn't feel so invested in making myself understood...and I wouldn't get lost in my own head and enthusiastically overshare information about topics of interest...Maybe I should be asking myself not what I can get from my conversations with other people, but how I want people to feel about speaking to me. I'd like people to feel open, excited, engaged, and comfortable.

Weirdly enough, though, people couldn't feel too intimidated by me...? I often end up in situations where I get cornered by someone who wants to dish out a long, super depressing story of their life to a compassionate ear....
So why do those people feel comfortable with me, and other people don't? Ugh. Humans are so confusing. Myself included.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

People love talking about themselves so it seems you're well off, especially since they may believe you are a good listener. They might be bothered by your intentions if they see them though, as you want to take utility from this interaction rather than just bonding or whatever they believe your intentions should be. Newtons third law is about equal and opposite forces and reactions. Unless your doing it harmoniously, there going to catch weird vibes I would think.

People are psychotic, every single one of them. There is sane and then insane, and the line between them is ever so blurry and zig-zagged. These are just my beliefs though. My boi Frederick I feel like had too much fucking time on his hands and rationalized belief systems made of fucking diamond designed to navigate the world we live in. There is no one way you should think, I'm sure he would agree with that. I'm sure you can justify your use of empathy in many different ways, as I think of it as a muscle you can/have to exercise. Would you say you feel alone? Sometimes or most of the time?

 

[Inexorable Username]

People love talking about themselves so it seems you're well off, especially since they may believe you are a good listener. They might be bothered by your intentions if they see them though, as you want to take utility from this interaction rather than just bonding or whatever they believe your intentions should be. Newtons third law is about equal and opposite forces and reactions. Unless your doing it harmoniously, there going to catch weird vibes I would think.

People are psychotic, every single one of them. There is sane and then insane, and the line between them is ever so blurry and zig-zagged. These are just my beliefs though. My boi Frederick I feel like had too much fucking time on his hands and rationalized belief systems made of fucking diamond designed to navigate the world we live in. There is no one way you should think, I'm sure he would agree with that. I'm sure you can justify your use of empathy in many different ways, as I think of it as a muscle you can/have to exercise. Would you say you feel alone? Sometimes or most of the time?

I never feel alone. I love my solitude. Actually, I find that people who have less empathy seem to feel more alone.

I don't think we are at all psychotic, but I think we aren't slaves to empathy either. Or at least, we don't have to be, if we choose not to be. It isn't easy to control empathy, because unlike sympathy, it is a subconscious experience. Very much part of the limbic system, and not so much a part of the pre-frontal cortex.

As with other limbic-based circuits, though, empathy can be effectively suppressed by activating the pre-frontal cortex. We can force ourselves to be cold and calculating, and by being calculating, we can surpress the experience of emotions. Including that of our reflective intuition of the emotions of others.

At the end of the day though, the mirror neurons are still there. The empathy circuit is still there. These things are just momentarily stifled...potentially, though, if you took enough drugs long term you could change the brain's neural pathways, and begin to develop legitimate psychopathy.

Empathy appears to be an incredibly powerful drive in humans. I've read that infants do not survive without affection, although, that could be inaccurate or only partially true.
Isolation is considered cruelty, and it would appear that, until recently, it was considered natural for humans to sleep alone. Rates of depression are higher at night, and loneliness is a factor that heavily contributes to suicide rates. Many men who battle with depression blame loneliness.

This need to belong and be accepted appears to be what motivates most people to succeed in life. We succeed because we want our parents to be proud, or we want to find someone who really loves us for who we are, etc. It's no surprise that humans are high in empathy, because if you look at the most successful creatures on our planet, they usually have high levels of empathy. Rats, for instance.

Despite all of this, I think we want to think people are secretly psychotic. We have this fascination for darkness and evil, and an almost awed respect for psychopaths. In my mind, we do that because we all wish we could be invulnerable. Emotions can suck and love hurts. People get sick of battling with depression and feelings of worthlessness. People get cold from feeling betrayed or taken advantage of. The easy scapegoat is empathy - being "too nice". It's easier to blame something virtuous, like kindness, because it paints you as a victim. It's much harder to say that...well, maybe it wasn't that I was "too nice", but simply too stupid. Maybe having kind instincts is powerful, motivational, and beneficial to me, and honing them and nurturing them makes me a better lover, parent, and member of the human race...but blindly taking risks without considering the consequences in the name of "love" or compassion is just plain unwise.

I find our obsession with psychopaths and murderers to be a fascinating demonstration of how insecure and "quietly desperate" most people feel deep down inside. With a few exceptions, psychopaths actually appear to be pretty unfortunate occurrences, greatly lacking in the traits we generally prize. Most of them appear to not be able to hold a job, or graduate. Most of them seem to not take good care of themselves. They're often very disorganized and untidy. They often indulge excessively, and have a childish sense of selfishness. They're usually depressed - although, exhibiting a selfish, apathetic, bitter state of depression rather than a lonely, hurt one. They seem to want to light stuff on fire and fuck anything that moves, and they're massively arrogant and contemptuous. This idea that they're more "intelligent" stems, I think, from the fact that they're able to speak without making emotional appeals. It isn't actually intelligence, at all. Although, those of average intelligence due appear to be more calculating, but that is because it takes them more effort to interpret the intentions of others.

What I think is the saddest part about people that suffer from this disorder, is that they often speak of feeling a sensation of having something missing inside them. A sort of deep "yearning" that they don't quite comprehend. For some, it seems to drive them to murder. For others, it seems to drive them to seek thrills like sex, speeding, or substance abuse. It really is an unfortunate disorder....

Also don't take any of this too verbatim - I'm summarizing from studies I've read over the years, so some of this information could be exaggerated or skewed - I'm not fact-checking as I go.

In any case, I get what you're saying. We all seem to have a bit of darkness in us...but I think, actually, that its because we are so empathetic that we are able to. It's because we are able to empathize with the sensation of a lack of empathy, itself, that we are able to identify how we, too, could be as psychopaths...and since any of us has the power to repress our emotions if we literally set our mind to it - we can imagine how we could, if we wanted to, act psychotic.

I don't think that represents some kind of dark, evil, inherent nature in man. I think it's actually a side-effect of the fact that we are so inherently empathetic.

--------

You're probably right about the give and take - but when I shut up...other people do too! Most people don't seem comfortable asking questions. Sometimes I just try to inject information about myself so we can skip the awkward part where I wait to see if they have anything to ask me. Maybe that's just me being impatient though!

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I never feel alone. I love my solitude. Actually, I find that people who have less empathy seem to feel more alone.

I think you should consider rephrasing, or maybe I am less empathetic (online test I have taken would support this). I feel alone at almost all times, I mentioned this to my best friend while we were getting high in a car one day, I said "I feel alone all the time- like right now, I feel alone" he chuckled, probably because he was taking me literally, but it is what it is. It's true that if you feel excluded you are likely to feel resentful but I think that is more than just being alone.

I don't think we are at all psychotic, but I think we aren't slaves to empathy either. Or at least, we don't have to be, if we choose not to be. It isn't easy to control empathy, because unlike sympathy, it is a subconscious experience. Very much part of the limbic system, and not so much a part of the pre-frontal cortex.

As with other limbic-based circuits, though, empathy can be effectively suppressed by activating the pre-frontal cortex. We can force ourselves to be cold and calculating, and by being calculating, we can surpress the experience of emotions. Including that of our reflective intuition of the emotions of others.

I did not mean psychotic specifically in a malevolent towards others way. I think you are writing anecdotally here. Some people struggle to separate themselves from their empathy especially if they're full of energy, being empathetic includes having the mental resources to be so, and as you say it's a big driver for some people, although I believe that people become disillusioned to this, at least with people outside of their family, and sometimes not even then. We try to be empathetic because individuals and society have said that you should be. Personally I can only become cold in certain situations, but in the end when I hear people struggling in life and unfortunate circumstances I feel remorse.

Despite all of this, I think we want to think people are secretly psychotic. We have this fascination for darkness and evil, and an almost awed respect for psychopaths. In my mind, we do that because we all wish we could be invulnerable. Emotions can suck and love hurts. People get sick of battling with depression and feelings of worthlessness. People get cold from feeling betrayed or taken advantage of. The easy scapegoat is empathy - being "too nice". It's easier to blame something virtuous, like kindness, because it paints you as a victim. It's much harder to say that...well, maybe it wasn't that I was "too nice", but simply too stupid. Maybe having kind instincts is powerful, motivational, and beneficial to me, and honing them and nurturing them makes me a better lover, parent, and member of the human race...but blindly taking risks without considering the consequences in the name of "love" or compassion is just plain unwise.

I find our obsession with psychopaths and murderers to be a fascinating demonstration of how insecure and "quietly desperate" most people feel deep down inside. With a few exceptions, psychopaths actually appear to be pretty unfortunate occurrences, greatly lacking in the traits we generally prize. Most of them appear to not be able to hold a job, or graduate. Most of them seem to not take good care of themselves. They're often very disorganized and untidy. They often indulge excessively, and have a childish sense of selfishness. They're usually depressed - although, exhibiting a selfish, apathetic, bitter state of depression rather than a lonely, hurt one. They seem to want to light stuff on fire and fuck anything that moves, and they're massively arrogant and contemptuous. This idea that they're more "intelligent" stems, I think, from the fact that they're able to speak without making emotional appeals. It isn't actually intelligence, at all. Although, those of average intelligence due appear to be more calculating, but that is because it takes them more effort to interpret the intentions of others.

What I think is the saddest part about people that suffer from this disorder, is that they often speak of feeling a sensation of having something missing inside them. A sort of deep "yearning" that they don't quite comprehend. For some, it seems to drive them to murder. For others, it seems to drive them to seek thrills like sex, speeding, or substance abuse. It really is an unfortunate disorder....

Also don't take any of this too verbatim - I'm summarizing from studies I've read over the years, so some of this information could be exaggerated or skewed - I'm not fact-checking as I go.

In any case, I get what you're saying. We all seem to have a bit of darkness in us...but I think, actually, that its because we are so empathetic that we are able to. It's because we are able to empathize with the sensation of a lack of empathy, itself, that we are able to identify how we, too, could be as psychopaths...and since any of us has the power to repress our emotions if we literally set our mind to it - we can imagine how we could, if we wanted to, act psychotic.


I don't think that represents some kind of dark, evil, inherent nature in man. I think it's actually a side-effect of the fact that we are so inherently empathetic.

I don't know the way I see it, we're all human. Medicine can use statistics to slice and dice the population in easy to understand chunks all it wants, describing and categorizing patterns that appear frequently, but it's going to miss a lot of nuance and unique situations. Much like ASD, ASPD is a spectrum that all people fall into no matter what. You may have situations and circumstances that agitate symptoms or behavior that is considered malevolent and moves you higher on the spectrum temporarily. Maybe you had a specific traumatic experience, and when you see a situation that reminds you of that, you get triggered and just switch to self preservation mode. I guess what really matters is your reactions to stuff as that is the most telling thing about someones character, but even those we're not (usually) determined by the individual. I'm the opposite of what you say. I want to believe that a narcissist or psychopath can see the light and change their ways, save situations where their brains are radically different (but maybe add some time and things could be different?) Idk it probably requires a psychopath to change a psychopath, something unethical that is. When you write about untidiness, childishness, and emptiness that psychopaths display, I see things that are common in society itself. Idk what that means, but maybe things are more complicated. Psychopaths are often created, though I have seen examples where children just seem evil from birth.

You're probably right about the give and take - but when I shut up...other people do too! Most people don't seem comfortable asking questions. Sometimes I just try to inject information about myself so we can skip the awkward part where I wait to see if they have anything to ask me. Maybe that's just me being impatient though!

Patience is an empathetic trait, practice it, I know I need to.

 

[Inexorable Username]

I did not mean psychotic specifically in a malevolent towards others way. I think you are writing anecdotally here. Some people struggle to separate themselves from their empathy especially if they're full of energy, being empathetic includes having the mental resources to be so, and as you say it's a big driver for some people, although I believe that people become disillusioned to this, at least with people outside of their family, and sometimes not even then. We try to be empathetic because individuals and society have said that you should be. Personally I can only become cold in certain situations, but in the end when I hear people struggling in life and unfortunate circumstances I feel remorse.

See, I feel like that goes to show though that we don't really become disillusioned. Our goals change, and our reasons for them change, but at the end of the day, most people are still motivated by the desire to have love/respect/acceptance, and feel worthy of it. Professional peers can be a strong motivating factor for people. However, in order to visualize and fantasize about the respect and admiration you will earn from your peers, you need to be able to empathize with the feeling of people outside of yourself having respect and admiration for you. In a sense, it requires a strong degree of self-awareness, which is another thing that many people lacking empathy seem to struggle with.

Since you gave me a sensation of acceptedness, I drew pictures to demonstrate my perspective of empathy. You need not provide further validation for my art. Your work here is done.

 

[Inexorable Username]

Sorry for the misspelled words and occasional artistic laziness. I'm trying to increase my speed as an illustrator. Also, I just misspelled misspelled. Oh the irony. It's making my inner English tutor facepalm.

 

[Inexorable Username]

Anyways...I tried to illustrate how feeling empathy, and exercising it, helps humans to feel less alone. Children instinctively feel this way for stuffed animals, which, to children, are real creatures that have feelings and can feel pain. You will often see with children that they are less upset if they're hit or called names, then they are if a stuffed friend of theirs is kidnapped, held for ransom, and threatened with bodily harm.

What I find most interesting about children is that they find empathy easier than self-reflection. Kids can't always tell you what they're thinking, feeling, or what has happened to them. However, their stuffed animals are suprisingly able to reflect the very emotions the child is feeling, and children are then able to empathize with the emotions they have projected onto said stuffed animal, and explain those emotions to adults.

It is the same thing we do when we are older. We reflect emotions onto people of the opposite gender, people of different races, different species of animals...and even, in the case of empaths, onto inanimate objects like spoons. It's like you said - people are crazy! However, the fact that empathy is so powerful, so universal, and so intrinsic to our nature must at least be some clue of its importance to our survival as a species. Is it so surprising that rats are highly empathetic as well? I don't find it surprising, as they are very prolific animals, much like humans.

Empathy...is definitely not always right. In fact, it's often wrong. However, science is not always right, either. Like science, empathy is a method that uses imagination, observation, and experimentation to expand our human limitations and explore the unknown reality of the world around us. Science helps us to understand the logical, objective world. Empathy helps us to understand the often illogical, subjective one. Both appreciations of reality are necessary to make valid, reasonable deductions. Without one or the other, people tend to become poor at things such as judgement/justice, logical reasoning, and self-improvement.

Anyways...these are just some of my perspectives. I know that you think that society glorifies empathy - but I honestly have not seen this to be the case. My opinions on empathy seem overblown, and even naive or childish, to most people. My experience is that people really do seem to feel averse to empathy - at least people that pride themselves on their intelligence.

It's a shame. It alienates us....and in my mind, it's one of the biggest tragedies of the way we treat our males. Culturally, we seem hard up on grooming males to be unempathetic. I wish it weren't so. There are so many lonely, depressed men out there, who really seem to have a hard time coming to grips with the world, and have an unrealistically negative perspective of modern culture, and women, in particular, who they seem to believe are cruel, cold, shallow, and manipulative. A lot of Incels appear to be like this, and it makes me sad. Maybe art could help broaden their perspectives?