Moral relativists who love Edahn

[SillySapienne]

The mirror has two faces

Victoire you do know how to reel me in.

Social/emotional intelligence are important tools in finding/understanding/feeling the existence of others besides yourself.

The more you understand yourself, the more you are then capable of understanding others.

 

[substitute]

Actually 'Chick, some people I know who are highly empathic are still very often wrong about other people's motives...

my sister for example, feels every bit of emotion anyone around her feels, but sometimes what she's feeling is just her emotions, though she attributes it to others anyway or assumes they share them when they don't...

When you say "you do know how to reel me in", though maybe you were right in that case, I've often heard my sister say similar things to me when in fact reeling her in was nowhere in my motives; in fact often I'm completely unaware of her presence or at least, unaware that anything I'm saying might reel her in or trigger her interest in any way, and am in fact talking to someone else entirely, but because what I said did, just coincidentally, trigger her interest and reel her in, she refuses to believe that this was mere coincidence...

What I mean to say is that many empathic people, whilst aware of the feelings of others, tend to not be so aware of the unawareness others have about their feelings or anyone else's, and moreover, to simply refuse to believe them even when they say so.

 

[Mole]

Reciprocal Mirroring

But what is fascinating is that empathy can be taught by a process of reciprocal mirroring.

And it can be taught on the internet.

For instance, two or more log onto Chatzy - Create your own private chat rooms and so we start off at a very basic level, just to start to get the feel of empathising through reciprocal mirroring.

After all, it is a skill we are learning, so it is a bit like learning to ride a bicycle - we don't need to think about it - we need to learn what it feels like.

So the first person makes an "I" statement, for instance, "I am happy to be here". And then the second person mirrors the statement and substitutes "you" for "I" and so says, "You are happy to be here".

And so the first person continues to make "I" statements and the second continues to mirror with "you" replies. And they do this for five minutes.

Then, most important, they swap - they reciprocate. And so the second is making "I" statements and the first is now mirroring "you" replies. And they do this for five minutes.

And then naturally they swap again - swapping is very important because not only are we learning mirroring but we are learning reciprocity and equality.

And guess what! They do this five times - they practice mirroring five times, turn and turn about - it takes fifty minutes.

Most baulk at the beginning because it seems too simple for their sophisticated tastes. But once you have learnt to basics of mirroring turn and turn about, you can elaborate reciprocal mirroring at will.

You can not only reciprocally mirror simple statement but you can mirror tone of voice, or body language, even attitudes. And at the higher end of reciprocal mirroring you can mirror humour.

So reciprocal mirroring can be practised on the internet.

And reciprocal mirroring is a unique and essential part of our humanity.

Victor.

 

[substitute]

I don't think I'm not capable of empathy - in fact I know that I am.

But I do know that I don't feel it's necessary or constructive to have it always switched on. And I also know that I can't have it switched on all the time if I'm to perform well in the other areas in which I already am naturally talented. And I also know that simply understanding a person's emotions does in no way guaruntee that I will actually sympathize with them, or consider them reasonable or be more likely to agree with them or accommodate them on account of that.

 

[Mole]

Victoire you do know how to reel me in.

And what a catch you are!

Victoire.

 

[Tigerlily]

Now that this thread has 145 replies and counting, does this mean that Edahn is a poop head?

Nice thread CC2.

 

[Mole]

Sympathy and Empathy

I don't think I'm not capable of empathy - in fact I know that I am.

But I do know that I don't feel it's necessary or constructive to have it always switched on. And I also know that I can't have it switched on all the time if I'm to perform well in the other areas in which I already am naturally talented. And I also know that simply understanding a person's emotions does in no way guaruntee that I will actually sympathize with them, or consider them reasonable or be more likely to agree with them or accommodate them on account of that.

Sympathy and empathy are quite distinct.

Sympathy means to feel the same as.

While empathy means to feel with.

So when you are empathising with someone, it does not mean you are feeling the same as them.

This means you are not caught up in their present emotions and thoughts but you know what they are - this is uniquely helpful.

So while it is nice to have you to be sympathetic towards me, it is deeply helpful for you to empathise with me.

Victor.

 

[SillySapienne]

Actually 'Chick, some people I know who are highly empathic are still very often wrong about other people's motives...

my sister for example, feels every bit of emotion anyone around her feels, but sometimes what she's feeling is just her emotions, though she attributes it to others anyway or assumes they share them when they don't...

When you say "you do know how to reel me in", though maybe you were right in that case, I've often heard my sister say similar things to me when in fact reeling her in was nowhere in my motives; in fact often I'm completely unaware of her presence or at least, unaware that anything I'm saying might reel her in or trigger her interest in any way, and am in fact talking to someone else entirely, but because what I said did, just coincidentally, trigger her interest and reel her in, she refuses to believe that this was mere coincidence..
What I mean to say is that many empathic people, whilst aware of the feelings of others, tend to not be so aware of the unawareness others have about their feelings or anyone else's, and moreover, to simply refuse to believe them even when they say so.

oyoyouyooyo

what a T response sub!!

I like to play with Victor, I was being *bats lashes* flirtatious, not *empathetic*

And perhaps your sister was/is not....empathetic.

Simulation theory of empathy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SillySapienne]

Now that this thread has 145 replies and counting, does this mean that Edahn is a poop head?

Nice thread CC2.

HAHAHAHAHA

hey there gorgeous!

 

[SillySapienne]

Impressed

Sympathy and empathy are quite distinct.

Sympathy means to feel the same as.

While empathy means to feel with.

So when you are empathising with someone, it does not mean you are feeling the same as them.

This means you are not caught up in their present emotions and thoughts but you know what they are - this is uniquely helpful.

So while it is nice to have you to be sympathetic towards me, it is deeply helpful for you to empathise with me.

Victor.

Insightful post Vic, well said.

 

[SillySapienne]

Are you empathizing with me?

Demonstrate your gift.

No. I am not.

Okay, first, let me hear you laugh.

 

[Wandering]

My moral capacities are ultimately founded/guided by my ability to empathize.

That's not exactly what I see in you.

I see you *projecting* on others. Instead of asking them how they feel and then mirrorring that, you imagine how *you* would feel and then assume that they must feel the same. That's not true empathy IMO.

If you were truly empathising with people from other societies, you would necessarily consider *their* morality as valid *for them*, since that morality is most often an integral part of why and how they suffer.

Instead, what I see you doing is judging what their pain must be according to *your* morality, what would hurt *you*.

In your *own* society, such a gift must indeed make you extremely empathetic. But it won't work anymore outside of it. Hence why you are so opposed to relative morality.

By the way, as an ENFP with AuxFi, it's perfectly normal that you would see yourself as having an inner moral compass, and that you would associate this compass to caring for others. It's precisely what typology would predict. That doesn't mean all ENFPs have to be that way, but it's perfectly normal for any given ENFP to be that way.

But there are 15 other types, you have to take that into consideration too. The way things are for you is not necessarily the way things are for others.

 

[SillySapienne]

By the way, as an ENFP with AuxFi, it's perfectly normal that you would see yourself as having an inner moral compass, and that you would associate this compass to caring for others. It's precisely what typology would predict. That doesn't mean all ENFPs have to be that way, but it's perfectly normal for any given ENFP to be that way.

But there are 15 other types, you have to take that into consideration too. The way things are for you is not necessarily the way things are for others.

True, we can agree on this.

 

[substitute]

Sympathy and empathy are quite distinct

yes, I know that. if you re-read my post you'll see that I was in fact making and indexing that distinction. I was saying that the simple fact of my empathizing with you does not guaruntee that I will also sympathize. Just because I can feel myself as though I were in your place does not mean that I will therefore agree with you and feel the same as you intellectually, and intellectually is where the majority of my decisions come from. So you can cry and make me cry with you as much as you like, but I'll ignore your emotions in my decision if I feel it's warranted just the same as I would ignore my own emotions. Just because your emotions become my emotions in the empathizing process, does not mean I will value them any the more or consider them any more valid than if they had been my own to begin with.

 

[Wandering]

True, we can agree on this.

You've just agreed with the concept of relative morality (or moral relativity? Sorry I'm getting my nouns and ajectives a bit mixed-up sometimes) then

 

[Mole]

Relativism - Benign and Malign

Hence why you are so opposed to relative morality.

Relativism is benign in a democratic, multi-cultural society.

But when this society is under attack by a totalitarian, political religion, relativism then becomes malign.

Victor.

 

[Mole]

yes, I know that. if you re-read my post you'll see that I was in fact making and indexing that distinction. I was saying that the simple fact of my empathizing with you does not guaruntee that I will also sympathize. Just because I can feel myself as though I were in your place does not mean that I will therefore agree with you and feel the same as you intellectually, and intellectually is where the majority of my decisions come from. So you can cry and make me cry with you as much as you like, but I'll ignore your emotions in my decision if I feel it's warranted just the same as I would ignore my own emotions. Just because your emotions become my emotions in the empathizing process, does not mean I will value them any the more or consider them any more valid than if they had been my own to begin with.

And I agree with you too.

Victor.

 

[Journey]

Now that this thread is dying down a bit and it seem that all the moral relativists have had their say, I'd like to bring up some things that may be a little off topic.

First of all I think this thread basically is an attempt to answer one of the four basic sets of questions the Postmodern world is asking. That set (2) is How should I live? Are there absolutes today? Should I expect someone else to accept my rules of conduct? What is right and wrong?

I believe that there are absolutes. Aristotle believed it. Augustine believed it. Thomas Aquinas believed it. John Calvin believed it. Jonathan Edwards believed it. Everyone has their own mentors. Mine are different than yours, but no less brilliant.

Secondly, and just for informational value and of interest there are several different theories of ethics discussed here. I'll list all 6 I know about and you can sort yourselves out.

1. God decides the ethical facts.
2. Society decides the ethical facts (cultural relativism or in its wider definition to mean the theory that basic judgements can be equally valid (meta-ethical relativism)
3. The individual judging decides the ethical facts (appraiser relativism)
4. The individual being judged decides the ethical facts (agent relativism)
5. The ethical facts are objective and independent of authortiy (realism)
6. There are no ethical facts (subjectivism) Though I find that cultural relativism or MR sometimes takes the form of sujectivist theory.

 

[SillySapienne]

You've just agreed with the concept of relative morality (or moral relativity? Sorry I'm getting my nouns and ajectives a bit mixed-up sometimes) then

Nope I didn't, reread what I quoted you on.

 

[Geoff]

Nope I didn't, reread what I quoted you on.

You quoted this :

The way things are for you is not necessarily the way things are for others

If that isnt (moral) relativism I don't know what is