Well, that’s mostly fair!

I’ll say, though, that I’m a bit confused with that whole newborn-brain-vs-philosphy thing. Why would the way a newborn reacts be the key to sympathy, empathy, or morality? Is there no point to reason, in moral questions? Newborns have no context outside of their instincts, and there’s no reason to believe that they think about any situation presented to them. Is that the best way to define “good” morality? As an instinctual response? That seems… Wrong. A newborn might see what seems like an unfair situation at first, but had they the capacity to think, they might realize that it’s actually not unfair, and react differently. Of course, they don’t have that capacity, and even if they did there’s no guarantee it would change, but I just don’t think it’s fair to say that whatever a newborn reacts to - whatever way our basest instincts react - is somehow the correct, superior, or maybe the “clean” way to react and to feel and to judge. I’m also not saying it isn’t, just that that conclusion doesn’t seem obvious to me at all - it feels like it’s discounting a pretty big part of what makes us human: reason. I don’t see why evolution should be a better judge than a human, I suppose. Are the goals of evolution the only moral goals? Are the means of evolution the only moral means?

Is peak morality to be a crab?

Maybe I’m just misunderstanding what you’re saying… Sure, we have an innate sense of morality, a certain understanding of what it is, but I don’t see how anything follows from that.

I don’t mean to say anything about the field of philosophy as a whole, whether it’s stagnant or not, or whatever else.

Looking more structurally: A public debate between adamant pundits has never actually helped anyone, so why would doing it again do anything different?

This is another thing that surprised me. Has a public debate between adamant pundits never helped anyone?! Frankly, I couldn’t say. I feel like that must not be true, but at the same time I don’t really have an easy counter-example. Certainly, modern debates you see on TV are often just shit-flinging matches between some know-it-all know-nothings. Those aren’t particularly helpful, I find, but shouldn’t a proper, well-structured debate be helpful to a ready audience? I guess if you mean to imply a pundit is someone that engages necessarily in bad faith, or that such well-structured debates have never happened. I actually watched a video about that very topic, recently.

Regarding the inconsistencies in one’s moral compass: yes. I think there was something that I took for granted in my previous reply that really wasn’t implied anywhere, and it’s that I think that taking offense to having your moral compass called into question is actually bad. Or, not bad necessarily, but moreso that it’s not a bad thing to have it called into question.

All you said is fair. People are inconsistent - for a myriad of reasons and in multiple situations - and it is certainly better to be malleable, adaptable, and to see the err in one’s ways and correct course.

However, I wonder if that’s a moral compass, then? Say, someone’s angry and feels a certain way about a situation. Then, they calm down and feel differently. Is that an inconsistency in the moral compass, or is it a biological, emotional override of the compass? Or something else: say someone feels a certain way about something; then, they think it through intensely, maybe removing the human element entirely through cold logic, and they end up feeling different. Is that an inconsistency, or did morality get overwritten by heartless reasoning? Maybe the answer is something else entirely. That being said, what I don’t think is clear is whether it is an inconsistency at all.

Certainly, the moral compass can change and be adjusted. Two situations that are equal in all ways can be judged differently by the same person, even if in a calm state of mind, because they simply changed their mind about the issue and reconsidered their morality. Is that an inconsistency, or is that just saying that this individual thinks that their previous moral compass was wrong? I find that the latter makes more sense.

There is no inconsistency! There certainly are things that make communicating one’s moral compass - especially through a Lemmy comment… - rather difficult, sure, and there is much to be said about someone simply changing their mind. However, if you change your mind, you’re admitting you used to be wrong! It’s OK to be wrong and change, of course, but it is bad to be wrong. You’d always rather be right. Otherwise, you’d be choosing delusion.

Additionally, I wouldn’t say that actions and the moral compass are decoupled, but they don’t need to be aligned. As you mentioned, people go against what they think is right all the time! Just because someone says they believe something or other, doesn’t mean that they do; just because someone does something or other, doesn’t mean they think it’s right.

So, allow me to take a look at the points you brought up about other’s moral compasses not being necessarily “wrong” (not in order):

1. “because I understand that their life contained different events, making them understand the world differently.”

I understand that someone might be raised in an extremely conservative environment and therefore see women as subservient to men, but I do think that they’re morally wrong. Perhaps in smaller things - like whether dogs should be on leashes outside, for example, the feeling these differences elicit aren’t so strong as in the previous example, but I think they’re fundamentally the same. I guess I could say that there’s different levels of being wrong. You could be horribly wrong, to the point where I doubt your whole character and deem you wholly untrustworthy, or you could be a little wrong, to the point where I doubt your judgement in certain specific, perhaps niche situations. There are also matters of taste, which isn’t morality - whether you prefer ice cream or cake, or maybe ice cream cake - and there might be moral situations so minor and inconsequential to the point of being irrelevant.

It’s not that I’m discounting the possibility that I might be wrong, and I’m certainly not saying that the way I have lived has led me to see the world in the correct way; what I am saying is that I believe that I’m right, while open to disagreement and correction. There are many points that I’m uncertain about, and situations in which I’m not sure of what is morally correct and have ambiguous feelings, but I do believe, fundamentally, that I’m well-aligned, if for no other reason, then at least so as to not be burdened by unceasing doubt.

2. “because I understand that recent events, such as being really tired, hungry, sad, whatever makes them bad judges, temporarily.”

I already talked about this, but to reiterate: I do think this is another question altogether. It’s not so much a matter of their sense of morality, but of interference - or perhaps of action (what they say they believe, what they do) being decoupled from the compass.

3. “Just because they chose immoraly once, does not make them immoral forever. What if they had a bad day, or what if they have had a new understanding since? What if they had incomplete understanding/information of the situation?”

Certainly! With this I have no qualms… At face value!

I didn’t mean to imply that a sense of morality was immutable, just that it is assumed to be correct. I do, however, think that they were incorrect (wrong) at that moment. Not forever, necessarily, and not since they were born or something, necessarily, but at that moment, yes. That being said, I also think that it is fair to say that one’s moral compass doesn’t change that much, after a certain point, or not very fast, at least. How often does one come across something that changes what they think about what is right or wrong? How often is the change immediate? How often is the change significant enough to change one’s course of action? If you are wrong now, about this, you have probably been wrong about other, similar things before, and are likely to be wrong again. Maybe not, but probably yes.

4. “because I understand that differences in people does not make the “others” evil.”

Well, I wonder about this. Frankly, I’m not sure I believe in evil. There are evil actions, maybe, but evil people? Sick, maybe. Ill. Insane. Misguided. But evil? I think you’re a bad person if my moral compass deems the agglomerate of your actions to be net-negative, I guess. Is that “evil?” Still, it would depend on the differences, I suppose.

My issue with pointing out empathy, initially - and therefore, calling into question someone’s moral compass and their character - is that I think people would take offense. That was the problem. I think that calling into question their empathic reaction would be interpreted as calling into question their morality as a whole, and therefore their “goodness” as a person. They would take offense. I didn’t want them to take offense. I don’t think that interpretation is “wrong” (I do think it would call into question their goodness), but I do disagree with the reaction (taking offense).

How do I say this…

As you mentioned, I think it’s best to be open to changing. If you’re wrong - and you must be open to the possibility - then you change. It’s really not a bad thing, and I don’t think it should be taken as an insult to tell someone that their moral compass is misaligned, even if that calls into question their character as a whole. However, I think it does get taken as an insult, which is why I didn’t bring up “empathy” in the original post.

One thinks of themselves to be the norm yes?

It can be hard to remember others are different. Sometimes, however, it’s painfully hard to forget.

The thing thats the most important with puff pastry is to not let it get warm (the butter must be unmelted in fine layers between fine layers of flour/dough), until you bake it, where you want it to get hot, but not until it’s burnt.

They say cooking is an art, but baking is a science… As a scientist myself, I must say baking feels a little arcane and a little more than just a little daunting.

Good to hear that you’ve got good cheeses where you come from, I’ve come to hear, that they have no interesting cheeses in many places across the globe, which is just sad.

I’m lucky to be from a country with lots of great cheeses and where people, in general, love cheese; even more specifically considering the island I’m from has some great regional cheeses, too.

My favourite cheeses are usually sheep’s milk cheeses, though, which we don’t actually have that much of. When I went to Hungary I had Lángos with Feta (and other stuff) and… Holy freaking crap. It’s so simple, barely noteworthy in construction or composition, and yet it just hit the spot in a completely unforgettable way. It’s been like 2 years and I still think about it, on occasion. If you get the chance, definitely try it out.

My dad helped me shave my face, it’s really not very different. It’s just personal grooming.

Ah ha!

Holy shit that sucks… Something?

We live together, with other people. We interact with them, help them, get helped by them - whether we know it or not - and go about our lives constantly surrounded by others and their work.

I was raised by my parents and their parents, by my aunts and my uncles. I can never give back everything they’ve given me - it’s simply impossible. Then, how can I show that what they have given me has not gone to waste? How can I tell them that their effort didn’t go unanswered?

I succeed. I thrive. I live a good life, perhaps even an enviable life! Then, they can look at me and say that their efforts were not in vain, and though I can’t ever give everything back, all that they’ve done has been worth it.

I think the same applies to society. You are surrounded by so much, that you naturally feel pressure to succeed, to thrive, to live a good life - perhaps even an enviable life! - to show that everything that has gone toward giving you that life has not been in vain.

I’m sure there’s many people that just post because they get money, people that post just because they want to brag, posers… Sure. However, I think most people post because they want to show that they’re doing good. That society, that thing we all implicitly rely on - meaning: each other - has not failed. A post on Instagram is a statement of “I have thrived,” that the whole world can see, and like proud parents, rejoice that the combined efforts of everyone - and all that came before - have not been in vain.

Or maybe not, I don’t know. I certainly don’t think this is a conscious thing, if at all.

I want to post because I want to be understood, frankly. I think that’s my deepest desire. I’ve thought about this for a long time, actually, many teary nights and such. I post in hopes that someone might read what I write and glean a little bit of me. Maybe we can even talk about it and discover more of ourselves.

Maybe it’s the same for everyone else. We all just want to be understood, and by sharing our lives online we hope that others will understand. Relate. We’re human, after all, and it’s only natural to want to feel part of other people, to feel like others are like you, in some way.

“If someone understands me, then they must be like me, in some way.”

I don’t know…

But you also dont post pictures or video.

Ah-ha! I actually do post pictures, very occasionally! I once posted a picture of the trees outside my apartment, and once I posted a picture of an orange tree outside my room. I think that was when I was posting on Lemm.ee, though, so those may be lost to time. Oddly, I think I may have only ever posted pictures of trees… Oh, and of sunsets! I once posted a picture of a sunset. Two of them, actually, but in the same post.

You say most people are nice and good, I think so too, what about those that arent? Do you not care about privacy?

Yeah, I think about this sometimes. I do care about privacy, but I don’t really think privacy can be achieved. I take some measures and such, but if a bad actor wanted to get to me, I really doubt that this blog would be the best way to go about it. I’m ruining my digital footprint, though, that’s for sure… Then again, how else am I supposed to go about it? How else can I share my thoughts? I could stand on a soapbox every day in the middle of town and recite my day. Maybe someone would pay attention and have something to say. Would that be better? I could just talk to random people that look like the kind of people I want to talk to and tell them things and hope that they reciprocate, I guess. I don’t know, I really don’t feel like there’s a much better alternative to my goals. I’ve had friends before, but they don’t quite do the trick for me. Maybe the consequences of this online-posting are more dire than I foresee, but I’m willing to risk it.

This might be a fundamental difference between us. I don’t really want this big data all over me, but if I could just beam my entire existence at someone else so that they could know me fully, I definitely would. Privacy of mind… Feels more like a prison! I guess, at the end of the day, being known by a computer is worth it, if I get to be glimpsed by a human.

I think my thought and my expression of it are still incomplete, and yesterday I came to a revelation which made it more clear, but still left it incomplete, and today I forgot it again.

Gee, I know right? The number of times I’ve had some revelation when I’m about to fall asleep and then can’t remember it in the morning… I’m telling you, I must’ve upset some witch, at some point. Clearly, you did too, sorry to inform you.

Oh, are those palmiers? They look like palmiers. I need to search “Prussien” with the word “rezept” to actually find anything that isn’t talking about Prussia. Wikipedia says that Prussien is a chiefly Swiss way to refer to palmiers, I had no idea.

I might actually give it a try! I do love those things. Thanks for the recipe :D

This looks massive!

Well, depends, I assume you can just adjust the recipe? I’ve never actually made this, we usually just get tons of them for free during the Holy Spirit festivities.

They’re so freaking good… Though a little dry, to be fair. Personally, I love them, but my parents actually don’t like them very much. I love eating it with local cheese… My mouth is watering just thinking about it.

Good luck on your cooking! :D

reminds me of the Monty Pythons

LOL

I’ve only ever watched one, but I think I get what you mean.

And if you truly are over empathic, then implying people to be less empathetic than yourself just means, that they are less, not not. And I do not see how they would be upset about that?

TL;DR: Well, I don’t think I’m actually over empathic. I was told that I was being so, but I don’t believe that I am or that I was overreacting. That’s just for starters. So, really, I kind of would think that a “no” answer to the original hypothetical would be a non-empathetic reaction, frankly, not just “less”.

However, the bigger point, really, is that - at least personally - any implication that I am less-feeling, less empathetic than someone else, is a dig at my character, because I believe myself to be a good moral judge.

I mean, let’s think about this. If I don’t trust myself implicitly to accurately judge situations I should empathize with, then what do I do? I must rely on something external. Then, maybe I would have the choice to either internalize the external moral codex - for example, I read the Bible and internalize the message, taking its moral compass as my own - or I’m forced to constantly consult the external arbiter. Of course, constantly consulting the external arbiter is exhausting and infeasible for daily life.

As such, we must trust our own compass to make judgements of morality - either one derived entirely of our own nature, or one partially or entirely derived from external sources, such as religion, our parents’ teachings, social punishment, etc. We could argue that deriving morality from external sources is inevitable, to some extent, of course, but that’s besides the point - the point is that, at the end of the day, morality is internalized. We create a model of the world that we judge actions against, and we judge them based on our own internalized sense, regardless of its origin. This sense must be considered to be implicitly and always correct, otherwise we’d be living in a state of constant doubt and uncertainty, leading to an inability to act.

You could say that you don’t think that anything you do is “right,” or that you think that what others feel is “wrong,” but you certainly believe that what you do think is probably the truth, otherwise you wouldn’t think it. If you believe something that you believe is false - or likely false - then that’s a self-contradiction, cognitive dissonance, and basically insanity.

Well, that’s my analysis of morality and empathy, at least.

Based on that, to imply that someone is feeling what others feel, in a way less than you feel it, is akin to saying something like “the metric which I believe to be correct is different from yours,” which naturally implies that “I believe your metric is wrong.”

So, it’s not really a matter of saying they’re “less empathetic” or “not empathetic,” it’s moreso a question of implying their whole moral machine is flawed, and that every decision they’ll ever make - and likely that they’ve ever made - is tainted by a bad system.

I suppose you could leave room for doubt. You could say that there are several equally moral options, several possibly accurate evaluations of the right amount of empathy to feel in any given situation, but then you’d be flipping coins for a living - choosing a random, equally moral action for every situation. Because, even if you think there might be several actions that are “fine,” at the end of the day you end up choosing one that you think is better than the others, so we’re back to the initial situation where you’re saying the other person’s moral compass is misaligned. There are several options that are fine, but they chose one of the less fine ones, hence they chose wrong, therefore their moral compass is misaligned, therefore all their moral decisions are possibly tainted, so you can’t trust them to be a good, moral person.

I believe that what I believe is right - or likely right. If you don’t believe what I believe, I think you’re wrong - or likely wrong. If you’re wrong, the system you used to get to your conclusion must be faulty. When that system is what handles morality, then I’m saying you’re morally faulty, which is bad, so they would take offense.

Implied, of course, is the idea that empathy is subconsciously calibrated by someone’s morality, and not something entirely separate that is triggered regardless of moral judgement.

I can think of criticism of this whole shebang, but I’ve written so much that I don’t feel like deleting it all.

Basically, what I mean to say is that I don’t think there’s really much of a difference between saying that someone else is being “less empathetic” or “not empathetic,” if you think that you yourself are being just normal empathetic.

What a coinkydink! That I was thinking the same thoughts, you were thinking over, while reading your thoughtstream. truly how does that even work.

Which can be dangerous, because at some point you end up agreeing with those on “the other side”. And no-one wants to agree with those, right?

LMFAO!!

Yeah, I mean, imagine engaging in a productive discussion and finding out you were actually wrong? The opponent - your blood-sworn enemy - was actually correct?! Truly, I can think of nothing more terrible.

True failure to communicate is only when a discussion with someone willing to listen ends in misunderstanding.

That’s fair, and of course I know that… It just feels so bad. Why would someone not be willing to listen?! Specifically someone that decided to engage in a discussion to begin with. Is that not utterly absurd?! IDK.

I dont understand the last sentences, what has irony to do with that?

Well, it’s ironic that I was trying to make myself understood - probably asking a question about empathy - but actually chose not to use the word “empathy” - because, previously, I had been told that maybe I was being overempathetic - in an effort not to upset people by implying their own lack of empathy - which could be said to be another case of overempathy, on my part. So overempathy prevented me from clarifying a case of possible overempathy, which resulted in me complaining about lack of empathy in others? Something like that.

Sorry, I feel like that’s a little hard to parse. Also, it might not be ironic at all, but that’s what I was talking about.

… (this is my opinion)

I suppose there’s something to that… That’s so painful to read, though.

Well, at least, now that you have an account, you’ll get to experience this very same thing on a whole different platform! Such joy!!

I am getting so tired of people who constantly feel the need to provide input and do so with pure ignorance. They want to comment on the topic and prove you wrong but they never even take the time to verify if it’s the same topic.

Sigh… I don’t even have the words.

Also I think Dresdens personality is partly based on the hard-boiled detectives of the pulp genre

I imagined that was the case. He definitely fits my idea of a hard-boiled old-school detective, though I can’t name a single one lol

Yeah, sure… My understanding of philo-semitism really isn’t that it implies blind support for genocidal efforts, though.

That being said, I was really just commenting on the word itself, not the news article.

Not to tell you how to live your life - and do take note that I don’t know you or your dad personally - but this sounds like a piece of generational trauma that you have the opportunity to get rid of. Best of luck!

I’d assume the term would be semitiphilism.

Looking it up, Judeophilia would be a word for philo-semitism as well.

Told you so.

Yes, you did!

The third book has felt quite a bit better, so far, but I’m not even halfway through. I’ll post a review when I’m done, but I’m excited to keep reading.

Personally I think it’s not over the top and he is a decent fella with just some flaws like everybody else.

I don’t know… I feel like it’s a bit crazy. Maybe I’m just abnormal, but the way he thinks and acts is just so odd to me. I get his shtick, but I just think that it’s so cringe that it’s a bit hard to stomach. I don’t know… I’ll keep reading as far as I feel like reading. If I can’t stand the Dresden at some point, that’s that.

my example would maybe have been those fucking massive SUVs

Ugh, yeah, that’s a good one… I hate those things…

This is a thing that may get more common in the future, sadly.

I actually got someone saying the same thing; they asked if what I was thinking about was just empathy. Frankly, I thought so too, but when I first brought this up to my little brother, he didn’t seem to agree. I think he basically said that it was misplaced empathy - something like that, like I was feeling too much - so I decided not to bring up that word in particular. I also think that implying others don’t have empathy is really rude and, frankly, offensive, so I really just didn’t want to upset people. Irony? Sorry, never heard of her.

What I always need to put in front of my eyes is, that there are people that just don’t think. they don’t. It’s not that they have nonbrain or something, but their thinking processees have been underutilized and automatic processes have taken over most of their life.

Funny you say that, because that was exactly what I was talking to my little brother about, last night. I just find that prospect so bleak that I try to keep it out of my mind, you know? Maybe I’d rather live in a pretend-world where people think than a real world where they don’t…

maybe some people just had a bad day?

This is what I try to tell myself, sometimes. It’s just… I feel this sense of self-preservation, you know? I feel like, if I allow myself to accept that people really just don’t think - or worse, can’t think for some reason that I don’t even want to consider - then I’ve lost something truly important to me, something that I’ll never get back and that I can’t live without.

Maybe it’s denial, but I’m determined to make myself understood and to argue my thoughts into meaning for others.

The LLM thing might be good, actually. I didn’t think of it, frankly.

I must argue contrary to your position

It is only natural, dear interlocutor. Iron sharpens iron.

I’ve definitely heard of stasis theory, though I had never heard it called stasis theory.

I think your explanation was fine, but I’ll check the video out anyway. I’ve watched some of ZoeBee’s stuff before, though never this particular video, though I have gotten it on my recommended before. I think I didn’t click it because I the idea of “winning” arguments doesn’t quite sit well with me.

I don’t want to win, as much as try my ideas against someone else’s and see what’s left. What’s left, naturally, should be whatever is closest to the truth of the matter out of the things discussed - hopefully even closer, by the combination of different ideas that none of the parties had considered fully. Where’s the “win?” I feel like you win an argument if your ideas are challenged and your view of the world changes, somehow. Well, I’ll hear what ZoeBee has to say.

Food is weird

I can vaguely understand why some people prefer to eat food separated.

For example, I don’t like to mix lettuce and rice, but I’m fine mixing cabbage and rice. Why is it? No idea, in that particular case, but I would imagine it has something to do with checking for contamination or something? If everything’s mixed, it becomes harder to spot small problems. Or it could be that seeing something that isn’t a natural part of an ingredient interspersed within it triggers that very same “there’s something here that shouldn’t be” instinct. That would probably be an evolutionary adaptation, I’d imagine. I’m just spitballing.

For eating the same thing over and over again: novelty is a powerful motivator. It might not be that eating the same thing is rejected, but more so that eating different things is desirable. The why, here, should be somewhat self-evident: we need different foods to sustain ourselves. Protein, fiber, vitamins, minerals… There are many things that give us several of them, but nothing that gives us everything every time; we’re omnivores. Wanting to eat different things is important, so rejecting the same thing every time is probably a logical choice to make.

Well, those are my guesses, anyway.

Today I have written text for over an hour. Cool.

Nice :D I hope you had fun doing it.

I find it weird how nuch of yourself you are posting onto the internet, but perhaps that and the format you are doing it in is what makes you so interesting to me?

What do you mean by this? Do I share a lot or not very much? I just write what I feel like writing… I think putting my feelings and experiences into words helps me process my day - and I just like writing a little bit every day. Plus, sometimes I might just say something cool and someone might read it and we might have a nice discussion about it. That’s my hope, anyway.

I’m interested in what types of fun foods you’ll be consuming, maybe you’ll be able to share a recipe?

It’s mostly sweets, really. Here’s a recipe from one of the islands. I’m also really looking forward to eating some local cheese and this kind of bread:

I can’t find a recipe for this particular variety, but it should be kind of similar to this one, I believe.

Do you know what the sparrows are up to these days?

No clue whatsoever… I doubt it’s a walking stick, since it’s very high up and hasn’t been knocked or moved by the wind. I thought it might be from a lightning strike, but I don’t think that’s likely either. It could be that thing with the bird spit, though.

What do you mean by verified? I’m not sure there’s such a thing as “verification” on Lemmy, at least.

Some nice recs :D

Hasbro had to base their designs on something, I guess…