A world filled with empathy is a world filled with lies

 (This is a part from the new draft of the ‘guide for the young patriarch.’ I deleted the older version of the guide and will publish here parts of the new version of the guide as I progress. The new version of the guide is written in a form based on informal logic.)

Premise 1: The validity of an argument or an opinion is determined by how accurately this opinion or argument correlates with reality.

Corollary 1 to premise 1: The validity of an argument is not related to the argument being offensive, sexist, racist or otherwise immoral.

Corollary 2 to premise 1: The validity of an argument is not related to emotional pain it causes to others or yourself.

Premise 2: Humans tend to avoid pain.

Contention 1, based on premise 1 and premise 2: Humans will tend avoid arguments creating pain to themselves or others people they feel empathy to.

Corollary 1 to Contention 1: A world filled with empathy is a world filled with lies.

Corollary 2 to Contention 1: The bad sees the world more clearly than the good.

Corollary 3 to Contention 1: In order to think clearly you must, at least temporarily, be able to eliminate your empathy to yourself and others.

Discussion: Understanding the analysis and ideas in this text will force you to let go completely of political correctness, the desire to not offend others, and to adhering to mainstream ideologues. In this text, truth is more important than feelings. It is better to be outside the box, where everything is open, every statement can be made, and deal with the other “bad” (or not) people here who are immoral. It is better to be free to think the even most horrible thoughts than to go back to the mental prison of politically correct insanity.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to A world filled with empathy is a world filled with lies

  1. Brough Paul says:

    Well done. This is how the feedback sandwich works. Show some empathy, dish out the hard truth, show some more empathy. Or put it another way, something nice, then the truth, then something nice.

    For example:

    I think it it wonderful how you show empathy for people who have believed a scam. These people are lazy minded, greedy or just plain foolish, and whatever they lost or failed to gain, is good and right. I think it is good how life throws at us some lessons for us to learn from, and make us more humble.

    See! We can be nice about it!

  2. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/02/13 « Free Northerner

  3. Silas Reinagel says:

    Contention 1 and/or one or more of its Corollaries does not seem accurate.

    First of all, empathy has nothing particular to do with the avoidance or addressing of painful topics. It is just a willingness to identify with or understand the feeling of another: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empathy

    Furthermore, a world that is filled with empathy and also with spiritual love (desiring the best for another person), means that where applicable, people will be willing to cause short-term pain in order to prevent long-term pain. There are numerous examples wherein a lessor pain must be embraced in order that a greater pain is avoided–this can be termed “biting the bullet.”

    Corollary 2 is invalid since there is no direct connection between a person’s morality and their clarity of perspective.

    Corollary 3 is invalid since what one feels does not have a necessary impact on what one thinks. Thinking and feeling, while connected in some sense, also remain distinct. A holistic approach to thinking means that one chooses to think clearly and remove any personal bias, while also remaining emotional grounded and surrendered to the emotional impact of the one’s thoughts.

    • dicipres says:

      A Bias emanates from your emotions, morality, empathy, etc.. If you are can “chooses to think clearly and remove any personal bias” you can eliminate your emotions, morality, and empathy, at least temporarily, in order to think clearly.

      Regarding your comments on the Corollaries and other, I might have chosen simplicity over more accurate, but longer and more cumbersome, definitions and I will consider your comments for final version in the book. However, you seem to be an example of the claim I make here. It is a simple claim, emotions cloud our logic, compassion to others cloud our judgment.

      You are obsessed with being ‘good’ and refuse to accept that being ‘good’ all the time has disadvantages for a thinking man. Your short-term vs. long-term analysis is just an excuse, completely irrelevant to the argument made here.

  4. Silas Reinagel says:

    As a philosopher, you probably already know how important it is to clearly use terms when communicating with others. I would find the statement that “people tend to let emotions to cloud their judgment” seems to be accurate. That may be a better approach to communicate what you seem to be trying to express.

    However, in my analysis it seems that compassion and empathy are modes of relating and not modes of thinking.

    I do not know where you got the idea that I have any particular preoccupation with being “good.” How a man acts is not directly connected with what he thinks about. I would postulate that the genuine thinker considers both the long-term and short-term consequences of his actions and ideas. However, I would also postulate that an exceedingly small group of people could be considered to be genuine thinkers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s