Eventually Empathy will Trump Emnity

All studies reinforcing the command theory of morality and ethics circulating around power or control. (Top down authority.) No surprise there.

The future of civilization? A ruin wasteland of destruction where technological salvation is fleeting and where a rapturing God is mysteriously absent. Sorry to disappoint.

Reference?
Note I replied to your point earlier, Morality & Ethics is a core subject of Philosophy.
If you are associating it critically with ‘power’ and ‘control’ you are way off which demonstrate your corruption of Philosophy and your shallowness on the subject.

Every one is entitled to speculations and opinions, but truth is a different matter that require philosophical maturity.

I am just honest acknowledging the corruption of human nature where you’re dishonest minimizing its influences.

Philosophical maturity for me is staring into the eyes of destruction, annihilation, and oblivion understanding the course of human events. I would say we have a different grasp as to what maturity is.

Note I can easily observe the “destruction, annihilation, and oblivion understanding the course of human events” and I have identified this as evil of various degrees. As I had stated, humanity must recognize all existing evils.

Philosophical maturity is understanding the ultimate, proximate and other root causes that trigger such evils and finding solutions to reduce, prevent and eliminate such evils.

Philosophical maturity is understanding which is the worst of the potential and most likely to be executed to the extent of exterminating the human race. The secular threat of a nuclear war is restricted by the fact of Mutual Assured Destruction [MAD] but for Muslims MAD is not a deterent because regardless of what happened it is lose-win for them as they are assured of a place in Paradise regardless of what happens.

Philosophical maturity is also recognizing the fact of the potential that ‘Eventually Empathy will Trump Emnity’ as supported by empirical evidences.

If with your immature philosophical thoughts that there is no hope, humanity might as well commit mass suicide to get rid of the worries.

Question:

  1. Is empathy more associated with the “feminine” … eg mother as caretaker

  2. Is emnity more associated with the “masculine” … eg father as provider

Here’s a graphic created by a young Chinese woman:

At the time she was a visual graphics university student. The only inspiration she had for creating it … that I’m aware of … is she volunteered to come up with a logo for a new group she had just joined “Grail Quest Geeks”.

At the moment my thoughts are focused on the Yin Yang symbol in the centre of the graphic …

Gib … the image represents the geocentric model of the solar system. According to the article, … chinesefortunecalendar.com/YinYang.htm
the yin yang symbol is a product of charting the night skies from the point of view of Earth (hence, geocentrism). At least, that’s how it originated.

Gib … maybe it’s a picture of consciousness … grounded at least in part in science … the solar system in the centre

[b]

[/b]

[b]

[/b]

Reminds me of a topic Confucius wrestled with …

[b]

[/b]

There’s hope it just cannot be realized while this civilization still exists and can only be fulfilled when it is destroyed. I’m a firm believer that the civilization we live in cannot be reformed or improved in any kind of meaningful manner. For me it is immature thinking you can reform that which is unreformable.

For me that potential cannot be realized until the slate is wiped clean and can only come about with this civilization being wiped out across the globe.

Your comments reflect the attitude of some of the people with their hands on the levers of power. Like the child in the sand box who destroys the toy taken away from him … if I can’t have it … nobody can.

The odds of the scenario you describe coming to pass are increasing with every passing day.

I am an optimist and prefer to perceive the cup as half-full rather than half-empty.
But mine is not blind optimism rather I have presented my thesis with arguments and evidences.

The major difference is that they want to destroy the world to create a global government that manages a technological global civilization with the eradication of nation states. I don’t want any of that.

For me I just want a return to nature with human beings going back to their primitive roots in living. I choose a natural existence over an artificial one. I’m glad I can illustrate the difference here.

It surely comes off as blind optimism to me.

Communists have to be optimists. They have no other choice - except death, caused either by a bullet or by Gulag. Their “arguments” and “evidences” are not more than merely ideology (modern religion), in praxis: terror, thus death again. When their terror system crashes, they are so much depressed that it is not possible ot find them on the surface of this planet. So in reality, communists are those pessimists who are using optimism as a mask for power reasons.

Anymore I would describe myself as a moderate socialist stuck in between the extremity of capitalism and communism, of course both systems have effectively killed off moderate socialism movements where they don’t exist anymore. At any rate I despise both capitalism and communism. In both systems you end up a slave in one form or another if you’re not born into wealth. Both systems have wreaked havoc on the globe socially, politically, culturally, and economically. If your only choices are choosing between those two systems you in reality have no choice whatsoever. Interestingly enough under both of those systems the terms are dictated by the barrel of a gun.

Arminius … you’re a genius! :slight_smile: … notwithstanding your access to that yuge data bank. :slight_smile:

[b]

[/b]

Facts:

  1. Both C’s have had … and continue to have … “guns in their hands”.

  2. Observers have often conflated offense with defense and vice versa.

[b]

[/b]

Please remember details confuse me. :slight_smile:

I am apolitical, thus not bothered to be a communist or otherwise.

But as Schopenhauer has stated, the true blind optimists are theists especially those of the Abrahamic religions who so optimistic they will have eternal life in heaven/paradise as promised by an illusory God. And Schopenhauer sarcastically declared, if that is theistic optimism, then he [Schop] is a pessimist.

Believing in an illusory and impossible God is blind optimism which as a whole enable and is complicit to greater enmity in terms of terrible terrors, violence and all sorts of evils.

Prismatic … what a ‘drift’ from your first comment in this OP. :astonished:

[b]

[/b]

Just finished reading the article I referred to in my last post.

A smile came to my mind’s heart … here’s some words I posted yesterday …

[b]

[/b]

… and here are the words of someone who has a much better command of the English language … quite colorful indeed …

[b]

[/b]

Others like Aminius was drifting off course, I am bring it back to topic.

You will note, the Abrahamic religions claim their God is compassionat, loving, benevolent but that is only towards their own believers [note especially Islam]. Such religions undermine empathy on a universal levels and a religion like Islam inspires its followers [SOME] to commit terrible terrors, violence and all sorts of evils.

Theists are indirectly complicit to the terrible terrors, violence and all sorts of evils committed by their fellow theists. Theists who aggressively defend the existence of God as real when in fact God is illusory and an impossibility provide indirect moral support to evil prone theists to commit evils in God’s name.

Hope the wind changes direction soon. :slight_smile: … and carries this topic back to where it started :slight_smile:

If not … that’s OK too … undoubtedly all comments have some value to someone or something. :slight_smile: