The Empathic Civilisation
- Thread starter Miss*Bijou
- Start date
Awesome video, I really like the animation!
One problem I have with his argument (empathy will save the world) though: He is citing the fact that human empathy has evolved from family/tribes to religion to the nation state (okay so far) However, his theory that we could extend that empathy to THE ENTIRE GLOBE ignores the fact that historically, to have empathy for one's group usually means to wish failure on another. Could we really be empathetic to all of mankind - meaning not having any losers ever? Any group, be it tribe, family or nation state needs models of what NOT to do, in order to solidify their own ideas what is right, moral and good, who belongs and who does not belong. In the very beginning of the video he says that we are not wired for self-interest, but that our first drive is actually to the drive to BELONG. The very notion of belonging though, assumes that there are non-belongers. Non-belongers help the belongers strengthen the bonds within the group as well as to define the group itself.
One problem I have with his argument (empathy will save the world) though: He is citing the fact that human empathy has evolved from family/tribes to religion to the nation state (okay so far) However, his theory that we could extend that empathy to THE ENTIRE GLOBE ignores the fact that historically, to have empathy for one's group usually means to wish failure on another. Could we really be empathetic to all of mankind - meaning not having any losers ever? Any group, be it tribe, family or nation state needs models of what NOT to do, in order to solidify their own ideas what is right, moral and good, who belongs and who does not belong. In the very beginning of the video he says that we are not wired for self-interest, but that our first drive is actually to the drive to BELONG. The very notion of belonging though, assumes that there are non-belongers. Non-belongers help the belongers strengthen the bonds within the group as well as to define the group itself.
I really liked that video, very inspiring!
Very thought provoking post; but I would have to question whether feeling empathy for a person/group really necessitates wishing failure on another person/group. If I empathize with a friend that's suffering from some disease, I don't think that I'm wishing ill on someone else. At least, I hope not.
That's a good point. For myself, I took his message as being a call to a more inclusive sense of belonging. Or put another way, to push the boundaries of non-belonging to outside of earth.
I agree with you.
First, with your comment that Emmy's post was thought provoking and also with your interpretation of empathy.
That was my initial thought but the post definitely gave more to think about. However in the end I have to say that, to me, an empathic civilisation, no longer even includes a non belonging other. Can we not all belong without there not being an other non-belonging? I think that is the only way we can achieve it.
Are these (imaginary) barriers that we have created and that divide us into groups so as to give us a sense of belonging unavoidable? Is it our only way of ensuring and satisfying this need to belong? I think that is the very thing keeping us from being truly empathic.
At its core, empathy is not about one over another. Those imaginary barriers we've created and believe are real, are actually what makes it impossible. The problem is that we believe these barriers are real and that to belong, there has to be the other non belonging. But that's where we have it all wrong to begin with.
If we just realize the barriers aren't real, then we also admit there is no other, no non-belonging. There is no one more or less deserving of empathy. Empathy in its true form and its fullest potential, rules out any kind of need to exclude, or divide. There is no conflict between where our empathy is expressed or towards whom it is directed.
When we realize theses imaginary barriers, groups we belong or don't belong (race, nation, religion, etc) to are not real, nor are their existence necessary.... When we realize this, we realize that we are all one. Next we can finally see that the other non belonging does not exist (and never did!). And then at last we cannot feel anything else but belonging.
The idea that in order to belong there needs to be an opposite, an other non belonging is just something else we've made up. We've just got it all wrong.
K.......... Did that even make sense?! lol
(It makes sense to me but I've been struggling to put it into words that would make sense to someone else!
I won't be surprised if I failed and I apologize in advance if that is the case!
I'm also tired and having a hard time verbalizing the thoughts that are bouncing around in my head right now. lol )
It makes sense to me, and I 100% agree.
I agree with you.
First, with your comment that Emmy's post was thought provoking and also with your interpretation of empathy.
That was my initial thought but the post definitely gave more to think about. However in the end I have to say that, to me, an empathic civilisation, no longer even includes a non belonging other. Can we not all belong without there not being an other non-belonging? I think that is the only way we can achieve it.
Are these (imaginary) barriers that we have created and that divide us into groups so as to give us a sense of belonging unavoidable? Is it our only way of ensuring and satisfying this need to belong? I think that is the very thing keeping us from being truly empathic.
At its core, empathy is not about one over another. Those imaginary barriers we've created and believe are real, are actually what makes it impossible. The problem is that we believe these barriers are real and that to belong, there has to be the other non belonging. But that's where we have it all wrong to begin with.
If we just realize the barriers aren't real, then we also admit there is no other, no non-belonging. There is no one more or less deserving of empathy. Empathy in its true form and its fullest potential, rules out any kind of need to exclude, or divide. There is no conflict between where our empathy is expressed or towards whom it is directed.
When we realize theses imaginary barriers, groups we belong or don't belong (race, nation, religion, etc) to are not real, nor are their existence necessary.... When we realize this, we realize that we are all one. Next we can finally see that the other non belonging does not exist (and never did!). And then at last we cannot feel anything else but belonging.
The idea that in order to belong there needs to be an opposite, an other non belonging is just something else we've made up. We've just got it all wrong.
K.......... Did that even make sense?! lol
(It makes sense to me but I've been struggling to put it into words that would make sense to someone else!
I won't be surprised if I failed and I apologize in advance if that is the case!
I'm also tired and having a hard time verbalizing the thoughts that are bouncing around in my head right now. lol )
This could be achieved if we lived in a world where greed, corruption and propoganda were not the essence of our society. All of these things are a part of our every day life that influence the natural human condition and seek to de-sensitize us from feeling empathy for one another.
I think you guys would find the book "The Myth of Authenticity" a very interesting read.
The author makes a very good case that people that strive for "authenticity" are just finding another way to "distinct" themselves or hold themselves as better than others.
Fascinating read.
As far as empathy goes - it is fine in "principle" - but in practice - it is something to be given to only the truly "deserving".
And of course "we" determine who is truly deserving of empathy and who is not.
Having empathy and compassion also seems like a "badge of honor" for some, something that we can point to and say "see, this means I'm a good person".
The author makes a very good case that people that strive for "authenticity" are just finding another way to "distinct" themselves or hold themselves as better than others.
Fascinating read.
As far as empathy goes - it is fine in "principle" - but in practice - it is something to be given to only the truly "deserving".
And of course "we" determine who is truly deserving of empathy and who is not.
Having empathy and compassion also seems like a "badge of honor" for some, something that we can point to and say "see, this means I'm a good person".
The point I am making is that empathy is part of the human condition. We have unbelievable resolve as human beings to help each other when things get to there absolute worst. Look at what happens when people are faced with natural disasters and catastrophic events in their communities, everyone pulls together in a common goal to be there for each other. It's there, but we do not live it every day.
Thought I would add this video here instead of starting a new thread. Even though it's not about exactly about empathy only, it's still relevant to and can fit into the discussion started on this thread IMHO.
