A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it would not take convincing 7 billion people. It would take convincing the world's leaders to give Project Golden Age a try. It wouldn't be that hard to implement, but they would have to destroy or convert all weapons, including the weapons of mass destruction. The leaders of each nation would then become our first citizens.

How ingenious. All the worlds leaders hang around here. (In your delusions.)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The leaders of each nation would then become our first citizens.

Why should they get preferential treatment, They're no better than anyone else. It would be very hurtful if Joe the plumber didn't have equal opportunity to be first in line. You're just as bigoted as your father was.

[rigorist]

I am world leader pretend

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by rigorist

I am world leader pretend

Go to the back of the line, - damned elitest.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[I]Because nothing causes anything. Hard determinism states that there is a first cause that determines everything down the line. This is where the confusion lies because nothing causes anything.

It is not enough that you and Lessans reject physics and biology, you are now tossing causality out the window. If it is true that nothing causes anything what does that do to your claims that the first blow is responsible for subsequent harm and that blame is responsible for hurt? You claim that Lessans' discovery will eliminate the causes of all hurt, but if nothing causes anything then there is no cause to eliminate.

[Angakuk]

Cute 8-Year-Old Starting To Realize How Much Better She Is Than Ugly Girls

WINNEMUCCA, NV—Eight-year-old Ella Neumark said Saturday that in recent weeks she has become increasingly aware of how her adorable physical characteristics make her superior to unattractive girls.

Ella told reporters she has only lately begun to appreciate how her wide, expressive eyes, shiny blond hair, and flawlessly straight teeth cause her to be a far more worthy human being than her less appealing peers.

"I never really noticed it before, but my prettiness makes me better than every girl who isn't as pretty as me," Ella said. "The face I have means I deserve more attention than anyone whose face isn't as good."

That's your empirical evidence right there, that is. Take that you scoffers!

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're the one being arrogant Vivisectus.

We cannot know what the average personal preference is, or even if there is an "average" preference, until we stop being conditioned by these words.

You claim this conditioning is the main factor in determining this, and refer back to it now as proof of the same. That is circular.

Average out? The beautiful people are sought after. The "ugly" people are chosen only as a last resort. There is no average.

more oversimplification.

I think it's the other way around.

you saying "no!!! u!!!"

That's true. We buy into all the hype.

So no-one else set the standard: it is an amalgation of our preferences, with a feedback effect thrown in that means that we are taught to some degree to like what is already popular. Which was my point, and goes against the overly simple conditioning argument you were making.[/quote]

Beauty is a standard that is set by others; it is definitely a feedback effect because we are not only taught, but conditioned, to liking certain features and disliking others.

You're missing the point. We all are educated in certain things. The term "educated" is not going to be reserved for the few who have degrees in certain respected fields.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But the term "educated" in the sense that you take it simply means "academically capable to a certain degree". You wish to do away with that distinction, so that means that from now on we should expect a busdriver and a nuclear scientist to both be able to design a nuclear reactor with equal skill?

No, that's not what Lessans is saying. We are all different. We have different abilities and capabilities, but that does not mean that certain people are deserving of more respect just because they are superior in certain things.[/QUOTE]

Thus making a huge bugbear out of his own personal peeve: the fact he was not educated.

No, that's not what I'm saying. The word itself is inaccurate because of how it's used, which is why we are doing away with it. If everyone is educated, why do we need the word unless we are using it to discriminate?

This is a nonsense. Everyone is not educated: I myself am not educated in accounting. The word describes a perfectly useful reality.

The only reason it is targeted is not because it is hugely hurtful to loads of people. It is because your father felt looked down on because he was uneducated.

Of course they need to go through the necessary steps to become proficient in a particular field. Who is arguing this?

strawman.

You are being ignorant right now. Don't tell me what my father should have learned or not learned when he has made the most important discovery of all time.

The truth remains that a simple philosophy 101 and maybe high-school physics would have saved you personally a lot of grief. His ignorance of these things led him to make some grievous errors.

There is nothing wrong with admiring someone's achievements, but what is wrong is giving them more respect than the average person.

I see - we should not respect someone's academic achievement because that harms anyone who did not have the brains and/or discipline to achieve it.

Would it not be better to say it is foolish to disrespect someone on the basis of their academic level, as you don't know what else that person is capable of?

See? No need to redefine our lexicon or to blaggart academia.

This is an injustice that needs to be rectified. This has nothing to do with blame, and there's no failures, so I don't know where you're coming from.

it is merely a pet peeve of your dads. There is no huge injustice. In fact, academic achievement is hardly respected at all anymore, I find.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

By the same token, someone with a doctorate in history can be expected to have a certain competence in that field. One of the things you need to do to get that doctorate is to display that competence. You are then awarded it, not on the basis that what you argued for in your doctorate is correct, but on the basis that you used a proper method to construct it.

If it was used that way, then that's fine. But you know as well as I that we don't call construction workers "educated", even though they have completed their academic requirements. We don't call janitors "educated" even though they have to take certain classes and pass the required test. We only reserve the word "educated" for certain people which automatically places them above others and gives them preferential treatment.

You seriously overestimate the amount of privilege that comes with an education.

But it's society that creates them.

Sure it is. But to eradicate it by redefining the vocabulary and singling it out for scorn the way the book does is the hysterical reaction of a man suffering from an inferiority complex. Nor would it solve the problem: making value judgements based on small clues is a human survival trait.

Some people find it easy to think analytically and they are the types that make great lawyers, but ask them to build a house and they would fail miserably. You can admire someone's talent, but when you give this person more respect you are implying that this person has more value than someone else, which is inaccurate.

You miss the point: builders are not as rare as lawyers.

What??? Lawyers are rare? This is the funniest thing I've ever heard.

In the United States there will always be more lawyers than there are employment positions for lawyers until there is a radical change in the law school industry. The American Bar Association has not regulated law schools to ensure that the number of law schools and the number of law school graduates they churn out each year are reasonably proportionate to the number of employment positions that are available for new lawyers (without ABA accreditation, a law school degree is essentially worthless). As a result there are far too many law schools handing out far too many law degrees each year for the job market to support. The end result is that hundreds, if not thousands of lawyers are unable to find gainful employment as a lawyer after graduation.

Is there a pretty large demand for lawyers still? - Yahoo! Answers

Basic respect, yes. Respect based on achievement obviously not.

There you go: you can value someone based on achievement, and this will stay the same. So while basic respect remains the same, you would not expect them to have the same ability and would not respect their achievement the same way you would someone who has achieved something.

An achievement such as, say, an academic one?

So really what we are dealing with here is this: no-one is allowed to call your dad uneducated anymore because it irked him.

But we have just established that that only covers basic human dignity, not the utmost respect. You said so yourself. If we respected everyone to the utmost, this differentiation would disappear, something you agreed would not happen.

the word did not create the snobs. The word is a perfectly normal one. It is just one that upset your dad because he was uneducated.

His writings were far, far from humble. They were arrogant and self-congratulatory.

I was hypothesising it was one of his many pet peeves. So when was your mom a beauty queen, and where?

besides the point.

I am glad you see and admit that you believe this work to be infallible, and that you reject all criticism a priori! This is a momentous occasion: You have made your first step to becoming a recovering fundamentalist. I am glad that you have made this first small step towards ceasing to be a mere follower and rejoining the ranks of individuals in stead. If you need anything to help with this process, please ask. I will be more than glad to help.

The fact that he did all the things I mentioned above is something that is evidenced in his own writing, to which your only response seems to be "he wasn't like that!"

I am sure he was different in day to day life. His writing, however, certainly was all that I said, as can be easily seen.

I couldn't read this whole post. It's filled with innuendos and misunderstanding. I have no desire to talk to you any further about this discovery. You showed your true colors, and there is nothing more I can say to convince you that Lessans was not uneducated. Aidios amigo. [/QUOTE]

That's ok - you ended up admitting that you do not examine any criticism for merit as it is your firm belief that it must automatically be wrong, which is an important step and I am very proud of you for taking it. Go ahead and take some time to really let that realization sink in: I know it must be painful and difficult, so take all the time you need.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is not enough that you and Lessans reject physics and biology, you are now tossing causality out the window. If it is true that nothing causes anything what does that do to your claims that the first blow is responsible for subsequent harm and that blame is responsible for hurt? You claim that Lessans' discovery will eliminate the causes of all hurt, but if nothing causes anything then there is no cause to eliminate.

If you hit me with your fist, you caused me to be hurt. This kind of hurt will be prevented because your strike was a first blow which cannot be justified in the new world. Lessans was differentiating between hard determinism which states that we are caused to do what we do by previous determinants and the determinants that came before that all the way back to a first cause, and his more accurate definition of what is really going on. Remember, definitions mean nothing as far as reality is concerned. He states: We can't say that previous circumstances caused us to do what we did because nothing, not heredity, environment, God, or anything else we care to throw in can cause us to do what we make up our minds not to do. This is the part that philosophers missed altogether.

[LadyShea]

From a neuro-psychological POV, how would conscience or empathy or compassion even develop in people that live in a society where nobody is hurt, blamed, sick, poor, etc.?

I am once again reminded of The Giver

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You claim this conditioning is the main factor in determining this, and refer back to it now as proof of the same. That is circular.

more oversimplification.

you saying "no!!! u!!!"

So no-one else set the standard: it is an amalgation of our preferences, with a feedback effect thrown in that means that we are taught to some degree to like what is already popular. Which was my point, and goes against the overly simple conditioning argument you were making.

Beauty is a standard that is set by others; it is definitely a feedback effect because we are not only taught, but conditioned, to liking certain features and disliking others.

You're missing the point. We all are educated in certain things. The term "educated" is not going to be reserved for the few who have degrees in certain respected fields.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But the term "educated" in the sense that you take it simply means "academically capable to a certain degree". You wish to do away with that distinction, so that means that from now on we should expect a busdriver and a nuclear scientist to both be able to design a nuclear reactor with equal skill?

No, that's not what Lessans is saying. We are all different. We have different abilities and capabilities, but that does not mean that certain people are deserving of more respect just because they are superior in certain things.[/QUOTE]

Thus making a huge bugbear out of his own personal peeve: the fact he was not educated.

No, that's not what I'm saying. The word itself is inaccurate because of how it's used, which is why we are doing away with it. If everyone is educated, why do we need the word unless we are using it to discriminate?

This is a nonsense. Everyone is not educated: I myself am not educated in accounting. The word describes a perfectly useful reality.

The only reason it is targeted is not because it is hugely hurtful to loads of people. It is because your father felt looked down on because he was uneducated.

Of course they need to go through the necessary steps to become proficient in a particular field. Who is arguing this?

strawman.

You are being ignorant right now. Don't tell me what my father should have learned or not learned when he has made the most important discovery of all time.

The truth remains that a simple philosophy 101 and maybe high-school physics would have saved you personally a lot of grief. His ignorance of these things led him to make some grievous errors.

There is nothing wrong with admiring someone's achievements, but what is wrong is giving them more respect than the average person.

I see - we should not respect someone's academic achievement because that harms anyone who did not have the brains and/or discipline to achieve it.

Would it not be better to say it is foolish to disrespect someone on the basis of their academic level, as you don't know what else that person is capable of?

See? No need to redefine our lexicon or to blaggart academia.

This is an injustice that needs to be rectified. This has nothing to do with blame, and there's no failures, so I don't know where you're coming from.

it is merely a pet peeve of your dads. There is no huge injustice. In fact, academic achievement is hardly respected at all anymore, I find.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

By the same token, someone with a doctorate in history can be expected to have a certain competence in that field. One of the things you need to do to get that doctorate is to display that competence. You are then awarded it, not on the basis that what you argued for in your doctorate is correct, but on the basis that you used a proper method to construct it.

If it was used that way, then that's fine. But you know as well as I that we don't call construction workers "educated", even though they have completed their academic requirements. We don't call janitors "educated" even though they have to take certain classes and pass the required test. We only reserve the word "educated" for certain people which automatically places them above others and gives them preferential treatment.

You seriously overestimate the amount of privilege that comes with an education.

But it's society that creates them.

Sure it is. But to eradicate it by redefining the vocabulary and singling it out for scorn the way the book does is the hysterical reaction of a man suffering from an inferiority complex. Nor would it solve the problem: making value judgements based on small clues is a human survival trait.

Some people find it easy to think analytically and they are the types that make great lawyers, but ask them to build a house and they would fail miserably. You can admire someone's talent, but when you give this person more respect you are implying that this person has more value than someone else, which is inaccurate.

You miss the point: builders are not as rare as lawyers.

What??? Lawyers are rare? This is the funniest thing I've ever heard.

In the United States there will always be more lawyers than there are employment positions for lawyers until there is a radical change in the law school industry. The American Bar Association has not regulated law schools to ensure that the number of law schools and the number of law school graduates they churn out each year are reasonably proportionate to the number of employment positions that are available for new lawyers (without ABA accreditation, a law school degree is essentially worthless). As a result there are far too many law schools handing out far too many law degrees each year for the job market to support. The end result is that hundreds, if not thousands of lawyers are unable to find gainful employment as a lawyer after graduation.

Is there a pretty large demand for lawyers still? - Yahoo! Answers

Basic respect, yes. Respect based on achievement obviously not.

There you go: you can value someone based on achievement, and this will stay the same. So while basic respect remains the same, you would not expect them to have the same ability and would not respect their achievement the same way you would someone who has achieved something.

An achievement such as, say, an academic one?

So really what we are dealing with here is this: no-one is allowed to call your dad uneducated anymore because it irked him.

But we have just established that that only covers basic human dignity, not the utmost respect. You said so yourself. If we respected everyone to the utmost, this differentiation would disappear, something you agreed would not happen.

the word did not create the snobs. The word is a perfectly normal one. It is just one that upset your dad because he was uneducated.

His writings were far, far from humble. They were arrogant and self-congratulatory.

I was hypothesising it was one of his many pet peeves. So when was your mom a beauty queen, and where?

besides the point.

I am glad you see and admit that you believe this work to be infallible, and that you reject all criticism a priori! This is a momentous occasion: You have made your first step to becoming a recovering fundamentalist. I am glad that you have made this first small step towards ceasing to be a mere follower and rejoining the ranks of individuals in stead. If you need anything to help with this process, please ask. I will be more than glad to help.

The fact that he did all the things I mentioned above is something that is evidenced in his own writing, to which your only response seems to be "he wasn't like that!"

I am sure he was different in day to day life. His writing, however, certainly was all that I said, as can be easily seen.

I couldn't read this whole post. It's filled with innuendos and misunderstanding. I have no desire to talk to you any further about this discovery. You showed your true colors, and there is nothing more I can say to convince you that Lessans was not uneducated. Aidios amigo.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That's ok - you ended up admitting that you do not examine any criticism for merit as it is your firm belief that it must automatically be wrong, which is an important step and I am very proud of you for taking it. Go ahead and take some time to really let that realization sink in: I know it must be painful and difficult, so take all the time you need.

These were not criticisms that had merit. Your intention here is not to analyze carefully what Lessans was saying. Your intention is to make Lessans into something he was not. I will not accept your made up version of who you believed Lessans was. These are lies and I will not waste my time for one more second defending that which does not need to be defended.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

From a neuro-psychological POV, how would conscience or empathy or compassion even develop in people that live in a society where nobody is hurt, blamed, sick, poor, etc.?

I am once again reminded of The Giver

We don't have to continue to experience pain to appreciate not having any. We can learn from history but we don't have to keep making the same mistakes over and over again. We see this everyday when technology helps someone who would have died years ago, survive. Or when we see airplanes stay up in the air instead of crash because we now have safeguards in place that prevent these catastrophes. In fact, children who have been brought up in peaceful and loving homes tend to be more compassionate than children who have been brought up in dysfunctional and loveless homes.

[Vivisectus]

These were not criticisms that had merit. Your intention here is not to analyze carefully what Lessans was saying. Your intention is to make Lessans into something he was not. I will not accept your made up version of who you believed Lessans was. These are lies and I will not waste my time for one more second defending that which does not need to be defended.

If the criticism was baseless, then you would have been able to refute it, which so far you have not done. But you have already admitted that you do not care if the criticism has merit or not: you automaticallyequate disagreement with lack of understanding or malice, no matter how valid the criticism is.

Now that you have finally admitted that, is there a sense of relief? Or is it scary to know that you have engaged in dogmatism without realizing it?

[LadyShea]

How can one appreciate the lack of something they've never experienced or even viewed in others?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can learn from history but we don't have to keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

Let's say Lessans "Golden Age" has existed for 200 years...do you think those people would learn anything meaningful from reading about their ancestor's pain and strife? Something they have no frame of reference to empathize with?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We see this everyday when technology helps someone who would have died years ago, survive.

Yes, but much later in the Golden Age there won't be such remembered history

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In fact, children who have been brought up in peaceful and loving homes tend to be more compassionate than children who have been brought up in dysfunctional and loveless homes.

Yes in the current world, because compassion is developed when you can compare your own life with the lives of those less fortunate and can experience pain and strife through empathy (even if not directly) and then wish to do something to help others.

If nobody needs compassion, why would it exist?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If the criticism was baseless, then you would have been able to refute it, which so far you have not done.

I don't have to refute what I know is false because I was there. You either trust me or you don't, but I am not going to bend over backwards to convince you that your opinions about him are baseless.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But you have already admitted that you do not care if the criticism has merit or not: you automaticallyequate disagreement with lack of understanding or malice, no matter how valid the criticism is.

First of all you're talking about two different things. One has to do with character defamation, and the other has to do with plain old ignorance on your part.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Now that you have finally admitted that, is there a sense of relief? Or is it scary to know that you have engaged in dogmatism without realizing it?

Disagreement can be valid or invalid. So far the disagreement is invalid. Where in the world is this dogmatism? Seriously Vivisectus, you have no idea what you're talking about and it's getting boring.

[davidm]

For peacegirl:

Originally Posted by rigorist

. . . in my pants

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How can one appreciate the lack of something they've never experienced or even viewed in others?

They don't have to. I appreciate that I feel better because I have experienced illness. Therefore I am in the position to compare. That does not mean that someone has to experience illness to appreciate being well. They can read accounts where people got sick and know that they are lucky not to be in this position.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can learn from history but we don't have to keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Let's say Lessans "Golden Age" has existed for 200 years...do you think those people would learn anything meaningful from reading about their ancestor's pain and strife? Something they have no frame of reference to empathize with?

Empathy doesn't necessarily come from personal experience. People can learn from reading about their ancestor's pain and strife without having to experience that pain directly. We learn from history all the time in order to prevent history from repeating itself. Why is history taught at all if not to learn from it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We see this everyday when technology helps someone who would have died years ago, survive.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, but much later in the Golden Age there won't be such remembered history

Why not? History teaches us a lot. My father would not have made this discovery if it hadn't been for reading history, especially The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In fact, children who have been brought up in peaceful and loving homes tend to be more compassionate than children who have been brought up in dysfunctional and loveless homes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes in the current world, because compassion is developed when you can compare your own life with the lives of those less fortunate and can experience pain and strife through empathy (even if not directly) and then wish to do something to help others.

People develop compassion because they were given compassion. They could also develop compassion due to the pain of not being treated with compassion.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If nobody needs compassion, why would it exist?

Who said nobody needs compassion LadyShea? It exists because we need it. But in order to be capable of giving compassion, we first need to receive it. It's also true that not having been given compassion may help us to recognize the importance of being compassionate. Therefore, it is absolutely true that pain can lead to compassion, but it is not the only way.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not how compassion is developed.

Yes it is. Compassion develops from empathy and sympathy and a desire to ease or alleviate suffering.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have compassion because you were given compassion.

Who said nobody needs compassion LadyShea? It exists because we need it. But in order to be capable of giving compassion, we first need to receive it or we have no compassion to give.

What do you think compassion is? How are you defining it? You can't be given compassion unless you need compassion. In Lessans Golden Age nobody would need compassion because nobody would experience pain or strife or struggle.

You don't seem to understand emotional or values development, at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not how compassion is developed.

Yes it is. Compassion develops from empathy and sympathy and a desire to ease or alleviate suffering.

And empathy comes from being able to put oneself in another person's shoes. Most people who are not given any compassion don't even know what compassion is. How could they when they have never experienced it themselves?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have compassion because you were given compassion.

Who said nobody needs compassion LadyShea? It exists because we need it. But in order to be capable of giving compassion, we first need to receive it or we have no compassion to give.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you think compassion is? How are you defining it? You can't be given compassion unless you need compassion. In Lessans Golden Age nobody would need compassion because nobody would experience pain or strife or struggle.

Compassion the way I'm defining it is to be understood. If I'm ill it's nice to know that someone understands and is sensitive to my needs. How can a person give this kind of compassion if they don't have it to give? Where did they get this compassion? It could have come from personal pain, but most the time it comes from experiencing compassion in one's own life.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You don't seem to understand emotional or values development, at all.

According to whom?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And empathy comes from being able to put oneself in another person's shoes.

Yes, and that ability is developed from having varying human experiences and then being able to imagine other humans sharing similar feelings about similar experiences. It is not possible to truly empathize with someone regarding an experience that is completely alien to you. You can sympathize, but not empathize.

The capacity to develop empathy is innate, empathy itself is not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Most people who were not given any compassion don't even know what compassion is.How could they when they have never experienced it themselves?

Again, please define compassion as you are using it. I don't think we have the same understanding of what it means

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Compassion the way I'm defining it is to be understood.

To be understood? What does that mean? That's not compassion.

Compassion is a response to suffering.

Utopians almost always fail to realize that when you get rid of the worst humanity has to offer, the best will go with it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to whom?

According to anything I've ever read or heard about or experienced.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to refute what I know is false because I was there. You either trust me or you don't, but I am not going to bend over backwards to convince you that your opinions about him are baseless.

First of all you're talking about two different things. One has to do with character defamation, and the other has to do with plain old ignorance on your part.

Disagreement can be valid or invalid. So far the disagreement is invalid. Where in the world is this dogmatism? Seriously Vivisectus, you have no idea what you're talking about and it's getting boring.

But this is not what you said, and it is not what you actually do either: you consider all criticism of your fathers work as invalid a priori. This is the very limit of dogmatism. You admitted this when you said that you consider that all disagreement reflects a lack of understanding: in your mind it is impossible to not agree with these ideas and still be right.

Thus you are not here to discuss or debate the validity of these ideas: that would necessarily have to allow for the possibility of these ideas not to be valid. You are merely here to proselytise and preach the gospel of Lessans. This is born out by your actions as well as by your words: even if what your father says flies in the face of clear empirical evidence, you simply reject the evidence and move on.

That is a dogmatic position, one suitable for religious faith and incidentally the very thing you accuse the rest of the world of, or at least that small part of it that has ever heard of this book.

As far as making your father seem as something he was not, that is not my doing but your fathers, or your own, depending on who actually wrote the more transparently ridiculous bits. The part where his imaginary interlocutor compares him to Socrates is particularly cringeworthy, and it is certainly not the only instance of the Lessans as he is portrayed in the book telling himself what a clever fellow he is. If we include the more oblique references, we are given to understand that the other people that Lessans would not be offended by being compared to are Jesus of Nazareth, Albert Einstein and Spinoza, and that he has surpassed them all!

He feels that calling someone "educated" is such a wrong that it deserves special attention while we know he never made it through highschool. Worse: he does not even live up to his own standards, as he has no problem explaining that his own informal education is by far superior to that of a university professor he is talking to, a person that he knows next to nothing about! I guess we are to conclude it is only bad to call people who are not Lessans better educated? If this is humility, I would hate to see what you think arrogance looks like.

All this is right there in black and white in the very book you claim I never read.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, and that ability is developed from having varying human experiences and then being able to imagine other humans sharing similar feelings about similar experiences. It is not possible to truly empathize with someone regarding an experience that is completely alien to you. You can sympathize, but not empathize.

I haven't been through war, but I certainly can empathize with people who have.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The capacity to develop empathy is innate, empathy itself is not.

I totally agree, just like the capacity to develop a strong conscience is innate but it depends on the environment to bring it out.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Most people who were not given any compassion don't even know what compassion is.How could they when they have never experienced it themselves?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again, please define compassion as you are using it. I don't think we have the same understanding of what it means

If you want to distinguish compassion from empathy, compassion would be the less emotive reaction. It's feeling sympathy or sorry for someone's circumstances without having to actually feel the pain they are going through.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Compassion the way I'm defining it is to be understood.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

To be understood? What does that mean? That's not compassion.

I was thinking in terms of the person receiving compassion, not the one who is giving it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Compassion is a response to suffering.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Utopians almost always fail to realize that when you get rid of the worst humanity has to offer, the best will go with it.

That is absolutely not true. What you are saying in so many words is that we have to have war, crime, poverty, and suffering because we need this in order to bring out the best in others. I'm sure that anyone who has lost someone in war would not agree with you.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You don't seem to understand emotional or values development, at all.

According to whom?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

According to anything I've ever read or heard about or experienced.

Just because you read, heard, or personally experienced something doesn't make it true for everyone. You of all people should know that.

[peacegirl]

These were not criticisms that had any merit. Your intention here is not to analyze carefully what Lessans was saying. Your intention is to make Lessans into something he was not. I will not accept your made up version of who you believed Lessans was. These are lies and I will not waste my time for one more second defending that which does not need to be defended.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If the criticism was baseless, then you would have been able to refute it, which so far you have not done.

I don't have to defend my truth. You either trust me or you don't, but I am not going to bend over backwards to convince you that your opinions about him are baseless.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But you have already admitted that you do not care if the criticism has merit or not: you automaticallyequate disagreement with lack of understanding or malice, no matter how valid the criticism is.

First of all you're talking about two different things. One has to do with character defamation, and the other has to do with plain old ignorance on your part.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Now that you have finally admitted that, is there a sense of relief? Or is it scary to know that you have engaged in dogmatism without realizing it?

Disagreement can be valid or invalid. So far your disagreement has no validity. Where in the world is this dogmatism? Seriously Vivisectus, you have no idea what you're talking about and it's getting boring.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But this is not what you said, and it is not what you actually do either: you consider all criticism of your fathers work as invalid a priori.

If Lessans is right, then all criticism is wrong. It's as simple as that.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is the very limit of dogmatism. You admitted this when you said that you consider that all disagreement reflects a lack of understanding: in your mind it is impossible to not agree with these ideas and still be right.

You got that right.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Thus you are not here to discuss or debate the validity of these ideas: that would necessarily have to allow for the possibility of these ideas not to be valid. You are merely here to proselytise and preach the gospel of Lessans. This is born out by your actions as well as by your words: even if what your father says flies in the face of clear empirical evidence, you simply reject the evidence and move on.

I'm here to share a discovery. Just because I'm not here for your opinion doesn't mean I'm proselytizing.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is a dogmatic position, one suitable for religious faith and incidentally the very thing you accuse the rest of the world of, or at least that small part of it that has ever heard of this book.

As far as making your father seem as something he was not, that is not my doing but your fathers, or your own, depending on who actually wrote the more transparently ridiculous bits. The part where his imaginary interlocutor compares him to Socrates is particularly cringeworthy, and it is certainly not the only instance of the Lessans as he is portrayed in the book telling himself what a clever fellow he is. If we include the more oblique references, we are given to understand that the other people that Lessans would not be offended by being compared to are Jesus of Nazareth, Albert Einstein and Spinoza, and that he has surpassed them all!

Where did he say he surpassed them all? That's in your head Vivisectus.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He feels that calling someone "educated" is such a wrong that it deserves special attention while we know he never made it through highschool.

You are showing your resentment once again, and it's not becoming. You obviously understood nothing that he wrote on education.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Worse: he does not even live up to his own standards, as he has no problem explaining that his own informal education is by far superior to that of a university professor he is talking to, a person that he knows next to nothing about! I guess we are to conclude it is only bad to call people who are not Lessans better educated? If this is humility, I would hate to see what you think arrogance looks like.

That was not arrogance. His knowledge was superior to that of the professor, but that didn't make him more educated.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

All this is right there in black and white in the very book you claim I never read.

Lessans never claimed to be better than anyone; in fact, it's is the opposite of what this book stands for. You resent him because you think he was boasting but he wasn't. If he turns out to be right, I hope you have the courage to admit you were wrong.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I haven't been through war, but I certainly can empathize with people who have.

No, you cannot. You can sympathize, but not empathize.

Sympathy, empathy, and compassion are not synonyms.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I totally agree, just like the capacity to develop a strong conscience is innate but it depends on the environment to bring it out.

Somewhat agreed, though the terminology "bring it out" doesn't sit right with me.

Conscience is the product of an internal values system, and that values system develops from one's experiences and cognition and temperament. Environment certainly has a large role, but is only one aspect.

No, that's not the commonly understood meaning of compassion at all. Where did you come up with your definition?

Compassion is an extension of strong feelings of empathy and sympathy into a deep desire to act on them to alleviate suffering.

It is commonly understood to be the most intense of these related emotions, not the least.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was thinking in terms of the person receiving compassion, not the one who is giving it.

Recipients of compassion are having their suffering alleviated (to whatever degree possible) through the actions of another. It is way beyond "being understood"

That is absolutely not true. What you are saying in so many words is that we have to have war, crime, poverty, and suffering because we need this in order to bring out the best in others. I'm sure that anyone who has lost someone in war would not agree with you.

I am saying that without suffering, compassion would be obsolete.

Whether I think that's a good or bad thing is beside the point.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because you read, heard, or personally experienced something doesn't make it true for everyone. You of all people should know that.

Nope, but it does make your understandings and definitions very idiosyncratic

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans never claimed to be better than anyone

Except all the academics he routinely disparages for their "closed minds" and "dogmatic beliefs." The attitude of hurt, yet still smug, superiority is palpable throughout the book.

You resent him because you think he was boasting but he wasn't.

You're projecting again.

If he turns out to be right, I hope you have the courage to admit you were wrong about him in every way.

And if he turns out to be wrong (ignoring for a moment all the points we've already shown to be wrong)? Will you have the same courage? I doubt it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Kael

And if he turns out to be wrong (ignoring for a moment all the points we've already shown to be wrong)? Will you have the same courage? I doubt it.

More to the point, does she have the capability to understand that Lessans is wrong, I doubt it.