Is compassion important? page 1
Floppit
13th January 2012, 11:23 AM
Beyond the emotive, is compassion rationally important?
I would argue 'yes' because we are by nature a group animal, often required to live in close proximity and develop within a matrix of connections to other people/animals and without compassion there would be little safety in doing so.
I would argue 'yes' because we are by nature a group animal, often required to live in close proximity and develop within a matrix of connections to other people/animals and without compassion there would be little safety in doing so.
nostrum
13th January 2012, 11:45 AM
I'd say it's critical for intelligent social animals like humans.
nostrum
13th January 2012, 11:47 AM
A society of sociopaths is an oxymoron. I have lots to say about sociopaths.
Magicziggy
13th January 2012, 11:55 AM
Ok, you got me thinking and delving for a dictionary definition.
This one will do for starters:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/compassion
compassion [kəmˈpæʃən]
n a feeling of distress and pity for the suffering or misfortune of another, often including the desire to alleviate it
The matrix of connections I operate in includes many people who I would consider not to be compassionate. Indeed those influencing the greatest power over my life seem to have the least compassion. Yet they survive and thrive.
This one will do for starters:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/compassion
compassion [kəmˈpæʃən]
n a feeling of distress and pity for the suffering or misfortune of another, often including the desire to alleviate it
The matrix of connections I operate in includes many people who I would consider not to be compassionate. Indeed those influencing the greatest power over my life seem to have the least compassion. Yet they survive and thrive.
Cunt
13th January 2012, 04:18 PM
I think compassion is stronger than un-compassion. I also think it is more exploitable by those who are in the 'un' group.
Trouble is, there just isn't a way to force one way on the other without being too compassionate for one group, or too un-compassionate for the other.
Do both groups deserve a voice?
Trouble is, there just isn't a way to force one way on the other without being too compassionate for one group, or too un-compassionate for the other.
Do both groups deserve a voice?
Mr. Mellow
13th January 2012, 08:15 PM
Ok, you got me thinking and delving for a dictionary definition.
This one will do for starters:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/compassion
compassion [kəmˈpæʃən]
n a feeling of distress and pity for the suffering or misfortune of another, often including the desire to alleviate it
The matrix of connections I operate in includes many people who I would consider not to be compassionate. Indeed those influencing the greatest power over my life seem to have the least compassion. Yet they survive and thrive.
After working in a government planning agency, I've been poisoned with cynicism to the point of seeing compassion and ambition as divergent, if not mutually exclusive, qualities. For example, one would think that land-use planning and development go hand-in-hand, but the reality is that it's often a clash of titans – a struggle between unfettered use of land for personal gain, and the power of elected officials to decide where and how (and not always for benevolent reasons). The planner, who's job is (among other things) to see that the legal rights of at least those who are in the path of the bulldozer are considered, is often caught in the middle. Sometimes, the only compassion available is the law, and from those who at least try to ensure that it's not manipulated for personal gain at the expense of its intent.
So is compassion rationally important? Yes, but my question is whether it has a fighting chance in a society controlled by political/economic interests that seem to place little value on it unless forced to do so.
This one will do for starters:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/compassion
compassion [kəmˈpæʃən]
n a feeling of distress and pity for the suffering or misfortune of another, often including the desire to alleviate it
The matrix of connections I operate in includes many people who I would consider not to be compassionate. Indeed those influencing the greatest power over my life seem to have the least compassion. Yet they survive and thrive.
After working in a government planning agency, I've been poisoned with cynicism to the point of seeing compassion and ambition as divergent, if not mutually exclusive, qualities. For example, one would think that land-use planning and development go hand-in-hand, but the reality is that it's often a clash of titans – a struggle between unfettered use of land for personal gain, and the power of elected officials to decide where and how (and not always for benevolent reasons). The planner, who's job is (among other things) to see that the legal rights of at least those who are in the path of the bulldozer are considered, is often caught in the middle. Sometimes, the only compassion available is the law, and from those who at least try to ensure that it's not manipulated for personal gain at the expense of its intent.
So is compassion rationally important? Yes, but my question is whether it has a fighting chance in a society controlled by political/economic interests that seem to place little value on it unless forced to do so.
nostrum
13th January 2012, 08:19 PM
I think compassion is stronger than un-compassion. I also think it is more exploitable by those who are in the 'un' group.
Trouble is, there just isn't a way to force one way on the other without being too compassionate for one group, or too un-compassionate for the other.
Do both groups deserve a voice?
Good question. Am I too compassionate (and thus exploitable) if I say 'yes?'
Trouble is, there just isn't a way to force one way on the other without being too compassionate for one group, or too un-compassionate for the other.
Do both groups deserve a voice?
Good question. Am I too compassionate (and thus exploitable) if I say 'yes?'
nostrum
13th January 2012, 08:22 PM
Ok, you got me thinking and delving for a dictionary definition.
This one will do for starters:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/compassion
compassion [k?m'pæ??n]
n a feeling of distress and pity for the suffering or misfortune of another, often including the desire to alleviate it
The matrix of connections I operate in includes many people who I would consider not to be compassionate. Indeed those influencing the greatest power over my life seem to have the least compassion. Yet they survive and thrive.
After working in a government planning agency, I've been poisoned with cynicism to the point of seeing compassion and ambition as divergent, if not mutually exclusive, qualities. For example, one would think that land-use planning and development go hand-in-hand, but the reality is that it's often a clash of titans – a struggle between unfettered use of land for personal gain, and the power of elected officials to decide where and how (and not always for benevolent reasons). The planner, who's job is (among other things) to see that the legal rights of at least those who are in the path of the bulldozer are considered, is often caught in the middle. Sometimes, the only compassion available is the law, and from those who at least try to ensure that it's not manipulated for personal gain at the expense of its intent.
So is compassion rationally important? Yes, but my question is whether it has a fighting chance in a society controlled by political/economic interests that seem to place little value on it unless forced to do so.
Erk, very true, and raises even bigger questions.
As an aside, I think the word cynicism is overused when people toss it about as an epithet aimed at others.
This one will do for starters:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/compassion
compassion [k?m'pæ??n]
n a feeling of distress and pity for the suffering or misfortune of another, often including the desire to alleviate it
The matrix of connections I operate in includes many people who I would consider not to be compassionate. Indeed those influencing the greatest power over my life seem to have the least compassion. Yet they survive and thrive.
After working in a government planning agency, I've been poisoned with cynicism to the point of seeing compassion and ambition as divergent, if not mutually exclusive, qualities. For example, one would think that land-use planning and development go hand-in-hand, but the reality is that it's often a clash of titans – a struggle between unfettered use of land for personal gain, and the power of elected officials to decide where and how (and not always for benevolent reasons). The planner, who's job is (among other things) to see that the legal rights of at least those who are in the path of the bulldozer are considered, is often caught in the middle. Sometimes, the only compassion available is the law, and from those who at least try to ensure that it's not manipulated for personal gain at the expense of its intent.
So is compassion rationally important? Yes, but my question is whether it has a fighting chance in a society controlled by political/economic interests that seem to place little value on it unless forced to do so.
Erk, very true, and raises even bigger questions.
As an aside, I think the word cynicism is overused when people toss it about as an epithet aimed at others.
Mr. Mellow
13th January 2012, 09:12 PM
My use of the word has as much to do with a weary distrust of "the system" as it does the individual, but maybe jaded would have also worked in this case. But I still hang to a thread of objectivity, so I'll let it stand as not purely emotive.
Hermit
14th January 2012, 02:18 AM
Ok, you got me thinking and delving for a dictionary definition.
This one will do for starters:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/compassion
compassion [kəmˈpæʃən]
n a feeling of distress and pity for the suffering or misfortune of another, often including the desire to alleviate it
The matrix of connections I operate in includes many people who I would consider not to be compassionate. Indeed those influencing the greatest power over my life seem to have the least compassion. Yet they survive and thrive.
That's because we have this seemingly unresolvable tension between our existence as individuals with asocial or even antisocial desires and our need to live within societies. That tension has been explored at length by the likes of Thomas Hobbes and Herbert Spenser, and all sorts of utopian thinkers, most notably Karl Marx, have thought they have overcome it.
I think of compassion and related concepts such as altruism and charity as more sophisticated and enlightened forms of individuals' selfishness, and there is a good argument being made that they are actually hard-wired into our brain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html) by evolution.
This one will do for starters:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/compassion
compassion [kəmˈpæʃən]
n a feeling of distress and pity for the suffering or misfortune of another, often including the desire to alleviate it
The matrix of connections I operate in includes many people who I would consider not to be compassionate. Indeed those influencing the greatest power over my life seem to have the least compassion. Yet they survive and thrive.
That's because we have this seemingly unresolvable tension between our existence as individuals with asocial or even antisocial desires and our need to live within societies. That tension has been explored at length by the likes of Thomas Hobbes and Herbert Spenser, and all sorts of utopian thinkers, most notably Karl Marx, have thought they have overcome it.
I think of compassion and related concepts such as altruism and charity as more sophisticated and enlightened forms of individuals' selfishness, and there is a good argument being made that they are actually hard-wired into our brain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html) by evolution.
nostrum
14th January 2012, 02:22 AM
Ok, you got me thinking and delving for a dictionary definition.
This one will do for starters:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/compassion
compassion [kəmˈpæʃən]
n a feeling of distress and pity for the suffering or misfortune of another, often including the desire to alleviate it
The matrix of connections I operate in includes many people who I would consider not to be compassionate. Indeed those influencing the greatest power over my life seem to have the least compassion. Yet they survive and thrive.
That's because we have this seemingly unresolvable tension between our existence as individuals with asocial or even antisocial desires and our need to live within societies. That tension has been explored at length by the likes of Thomas Hobbes and Herbert Spenser, and all sorts of utopian thinkers, most notably Karl Marx, have thought they have overcome it.
I think of compassion and related concepts such as altruism and charity as more sophisticated and enlightened forms of individuals' selfishness, and there is a good argument being made that they are actually hard-wired into our brain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html) by evolution.
How is sociopathy explained, though?
This one will do for starters:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/compassion
compassion [kəmˈpæʃən]
n a feeling of distress and pity for the suffering or misfortune of another, often including the desire to alleviate it
The matrix of connections I operate in includes many people who I would consider not to be compassionate. Indeed those influencing the greatest power over my life seem to have the least compassion. Yet they survive and thrive.
That's because we have this seemingly unresolvable tension between our existence as individuals with asocial or even antisocial desires and our need to live within societies. That tension has been explored at length by the likes of Thomas Hobbes and Herbert Spenser, and all sorts of utopian thinkers, most notably Karl Marx, have thought they have overcome it.
I think of compassion and related concepts such as altruism and charity as more sophisticated and enlightened forms of individuals' selfishness, and there is a good argument being made that they are actually hard-wired into our brain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html) by evolution.
How is sociopathy explained, though?
charlou
14th January 2012, 02:25 AM
selfishness ... had always had such a negative connotation for me .. a "deadly sin" ... but, objectively, it's a form of survival pragmatism based on neurochemical motivators
charlou
14th January 2012, 02:27 AM
Ok, you got me thinking and delving for a dictionary definition.
This one will do for starters:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/compassion
compassion [kəmˈpæʃən]
n a feeling of distress and pity for the suffering or misfortune of another, often including the desire to alleviate it
The matrix of connections I operate in includes many people who I would consider not to be compassionate. Indeed those influencing the greatest power over my life seem to have the least compassion. Yet they survive and thrive.
That's because we have this seemingly unresolvable tension between our existence as individuals with asocial or even antisocial desires and our need to live within societies. That tension has been explored at length by the likes of Thomas Hobbes and Herbert Spenser, and all sorts of utopian thinkers, most notably Karl Marx, have thought they have overcome it.
I think of compassion and related concepts such as altruism and charity as more sophisticated and enlightened forms of individuals' selfishness, and there is a good argument being made that they are actually hard-wired into our brain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html) by evolution.
How is sociopathy explained, though?
neurological deviance?
This one will do for starters:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/compassion
compassion [kəmˈpæʃən]
n a feeling of distress and pity for the suffering or misfortune of another, often including the desire to alleviate it
The matrix of connections I operate in includes many people who I would consider not to be compassionate. Indeed those influencing the greatest power over my life seem to have the least compassion. Yet they survive and thrive.
That's because we have this seemingly unresolvable tension between our existence as individuals with asocial or even antisocial desires and our need to live within societies. That tension has been explored at length by the likes of Thomas Hobbes and Herbert Spenser, and all sorts of utopian thinkers, most notably Karl Marx, have thought they have overcome it.
I think of compassion and related concepts such as altruism and charity as more sophisticated and enlightened forms of individuals' selfishness, and there is a good argument being made that they are actually hard-wired into our brain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html) by evolution.
How is sociopathy explained, though?
neurological deviance?
Hermit
14th January 2012, 02:39 AM
Ok, you got me thinking and delving for a dictionary definition.
This one will do for starters:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/compassion
compassion [kəmˈpæʃən]
n a feeling of distress and pity for the suffering or misfortune of another, often including the desire to alleviate it
The matrix of connections I operate in includes many people who I would consider not to be compassionate. Indeed those influencing the greatest power over my life seem to have the least compassion. Yet they survive and thrive.
That's because we have this seemingly unresolvable tension between our existence as individuals with asocial or even antisocial desires and our need to live within societies. That tension has been explored at length by the likes of Thomas Hobbes and Herbert Spenser, and all sorts of utopian thinkers, most notably Karl Marx, have thought they have overcome it.
I think of compassion and related concepts such as altruism and charity as more sophisticated and enlightened forms of individuals' selfishness, and there is a good argument being made that they are actually hard-wired into our brain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html) by evolution.
How is sociopathy explained, though?
Shortcircuitry? No, really, that seems to be the consensus among psychiatrists, although socially/culturally caused sociopathic behaviour is by no means excluded. I am too ignorant on the subject to weigh in on the nature versus nurture debate apart from merely opining the vast majority of us is born as naturally (evolutionarily) social creatures. To determine how many of the sociopaths among us are what they are because of faulty wiring and how many turn out that way due to their upbringing I leave to those who have actually studied the topic.
This one will do for starters:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/compassion
compassion [kəmˈpæʃən]
n a feeling of distress and pity for the suffering or misfortune of another, often including the desire to alleviate it
The matrix of connections I operate in includes many people who I would consider not to be compassionate. Indeed those influencing the greatest power over my life seem to have the least compassion. Yet they survive and thrive.
That's because we have this seemingly unresolvable tension between our existence as individuals with asocial or even antisocial desires and our need to live within societies. That tension has been explored at length by the likes of Thomas Hobbes and Herbert Spenser, and all sorts of utopian thinkers, most notably Karl Marx, have thought they have overcome it.
I think of compassion and related concepts such as altruism and charity as more sophisticated and enlightened forms of individuals' selfishness, and there is a good argument being made that they are actually hard-wired into our brain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html) by evolution.
How is sociopathy explained, though?
Shortcircuitry? No, really, that seems to be the consensus among psychiatrists, although socially/culturally caused sociopathic behaviour is by no means excluded. I am too ignorant on the subject to weigh in on the nature versus nurture debate apart from merely opining the vast majority of us is born as naturally (evolutionarily) social creatures. To determine how many of the sociopaths among us are what they are because of faulty wiring and how many turn out that way due to their upbringing I leave to those who have actually studied the topic.
devogue
14th January 2012, 11:26 AM
Apparently I am a cruel and insincere man, so if anyone would like to ask me about sociopathy go right ahead.
(My answers might be insincere though). :thumbsup:
(My answers might be insincere though). :thumbsup:
Polonius
14th January 2012, 01:40 PM
Apparently I am a cruel and insincere man, so if anyone would like to ask me about sociopathy go right ahead.
(My answers might be insincere though). :thumbsup:
Take a look at my forum, you might feel at home. The link is in my signature.
(My answers might be insincere though). :thumbsup:
Take a look at my forum, you might feel at home. The link is in my signature.
devogue
15th January 2012, 12:53 AM
Apparently I am a cruel and insincere man, so if anyone would like to ask me about sociopathy go right ahead.
(My answers might be insincere though). :thumbsup:
Take a look at my forum, you might feel at home. The link is in my signature.
Cool. I'm going to look at your brilliant forum!
Yours sincerely,
Dev :hug:
(My answers might be insincere though). :thumbsup:
Take a look at my forum, you might feel at home. The link is in my signature.
Cool. I'm going to look at your brilliant forum!
Yours sincerely,
Dev :hug:
ConvolutedLogic
15th January 2012, 05:06 AM
Do we really need to live in non-related groups? it is the status quo, and hard to avoid.
Grumps
16th January 2012, 01:07 AM
Beyond the emotive, is compassion rationally important?
I would argue 'yes' because we are by nature a group animal, often required to live in close proximity and develop within a matrix of connections to other people/animals and without compassion there would be little safety in doing so.
Compassion is necessary but dangerous. The important thing is knowing when compassion is necessary, and when pragmatism must take precedent.
I would argue 'yes' because we are by nature a group animal, often required to live in close proximity and develop within a matrix of connections to other people/animals and without compassion there would be little safety in doing so.
Compassion is necessary but dangerous. The important thing is knowing when compassion is necessary, and when pragmatism must take precedent.
divagreen
16th January 2012, 01:35 AM
Beyond the emotive, is compassion rationally important?
I would argue 'yes' because we are by nature a group animal, often required to live in close proximity and develop within a matrix of connections to other people/animals and without compassion there would be little safety in doing so.
Compassion is necessary but dangerous. The important thing is knowing when compassion is necessary, and when pragmatism must take precedent.
I am not understanding the dangerous part. Could you please elaborate?
I would argue 'yes' because we are by nature a group animal, often required to live in close proximity and develop within a matrix of connections to other people/animals and without compassion there would be little safety in doing so.
Compassion is necessary but dangerous. The important thing is knowing when compassion is necessary, and when pragmatism must take precedent.
I am not understanding the dangerous part. Could you please elaborate?
Grumps
16th January 2012, 02:14 AM
Beyond the emotive, is compassion rationally important?
I would argue 'yes' because we are by nature a group animal, often required to live in close proximity and develop within a matrix of connections to other people/animals and without compassion there would be little safety in doing so.
Compassion is necessary but dangerous. The important thing is knowing when compassion is necessary, and when pragmatism must take precedent.
I am not understanding the dangerous part. Could you please elaborate?
Okay - infectious patient asks for a hug. Compassion or pragmatism?
It's a fairly theatrical example, but I'm sure you can think of your own scenarios. A business can not operate on compassion, lay off one hundred workers to preserve 400 hundred jobs, or keep them on compassionately and lose 300 down the road.
I would argue 'yes' because we are by nature a group animal, often required to live in close proximity and develop within a matrix of connections to other people/animals and without compassion there would be little safety in doing so.
Compassion is necessary but dangerous. The important thing is knowing when compassion is necessary, and when pragmatism must take precedent.
I am not understanding the dangerous part. Could you please elaborate?
Okay - infectious patient asks for a hug. Compassion or pragmatism?
It's a fairly theatrical example, but I'm sure you can think of your own scenarios. A business can not operate on compassion, lay off one hundred workers to preserve 400 hundred jobs, or keep them on compassionately and lose 300 down the road.
divagreen
16th January 2012, 02:31 AM
Beyond the emotive, is compassion rationally important?
I would argue 'yes' because we are by nature a group animal, often required to live in close proximity and develop within a matrix of connections to other people/animals and without compassion there would be little safety in doing so.
Compassion is necessary but dangerous. The important thing is knowing when compassion is necessary, and when pragmatism must take precedent.
I am not understanding the dangerous part. Could you please elaborate?
Okay - infectious patient asks for a hug. Compassion or pragmatism?
It's a fairly theatrical example, but I'm sure you can think of your own scenarios. A business can not operate on compassion, lay off one hundred workers to preserve 400 hundred jobs, or keep them on compassionately and lose 300 down the road.
Maybe I am not understanding where compassion and pragmatism need be mutually exclusive?
In scenario 1, the person being asked for a hug could say something to the effect of, "I would like to give you a hug but right now you are contagious, so it is not the best time. When you get better we can go and make out in the custodial closet."
Business is an entirely different animal all together since the value system isn't placed on people but profit. Objectively this isn't necessarily wrong, but the distribution of the profits is where business ethics often come under some interesting scrutiny.
I would argue 'yes' because we are by nature a group animal, often required to live in close proximity and develop within a matrix of connections to other people/animals and without compassion there would be little safety in doing so.
Compassion is necessary but dangerous. The important thing is knowing when compassion is necessary, and when pragmatism must take precedent.
I am not understanding the dangerous part. Could you please elaborate?
Okay - infectious patient asks for a hug. Compassion or pragmatism?
It's a fairly theatrical example, but I'm sure you can think of your own scenarios. A business can not operate on compassion, lay off one hundred workers to preserve 400 hundred jobs, or keep them on compassionately and lose 300 down the road.
Maybe I am not understanding where compassion and pragmatism need be mutually exclusive?
In scenario 1, the person being asked for a hug could say something to the effect of, "I would like to give you a hug but right now you are contagious, so it is not the best time. When you get better we can go and make out in the custodial closet."
Business is an entirely different animal all together since the value system isn't placed on people but profit. Objectively this isn't necessarily wrong, but the distribution of the profits is where business ethics often come under some interesting scrutiny.
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét