From 04c9258cc7d55ba494099b803f13e699020f499bc809a2cae8edb7f7a297dce7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicholas Johnson Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0000 Subject: Convert refs: on-compassion --- content/entry/on-compassion.md | 18 ++++-------------- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) (limited to 'content/entry') diff --git a/content/entry/on-compassion.md b/content/entry/on-compassion.md index 630ca42..bc25340 100644 --- a/content/entry/on-compassion.md +++ b/content/entry/on-compassion.md @@ -2,17 +2,16 @@ title: "On Compassion" date: 2021-10-19T00:00:00 draft: false -makerefs: false --- # The Traditional View of Compassion Compassion for me simply means a concern for other conscious beings, whether those beings are other people, toads, whales, bats, or even slugs. Compassion doesn't exclude any conscious being. This is usually obvious to everybody for non-human animals. Specifically because we never ascribe them moral agency. If a bear mauls someone to death, then it isn't personal. Even the family of the mauled person probably wouldn't hate the bear because they would know it's just a bear doing what bears do. Bears have no concept of right or wrong. So we don't hold them responsible for their actions the same way we do people. We might still kill that bear, but we wouldn't do it out of hatred. It would be killed out of necessity and hopefully as humanely as possible. Now people on the other hand are ascribed moral agency. People know right from wrong and it's thought that they have the free will to choose between the two. So someone that chooses to do wrong is considered undeserving of compassion and possibly deserving of suffering. -Now in normal conversation I don't feel the need to clarify words like "choice" with a lengthy explanation of how free will doesn't actually exist, because 99% of the time it doesn't matter. But "choice" is a leaky abstraction which causes problems in rare cases. I've written about this before in the context of Newcomb's Paradox.[1] As it turns out, compassion is another one of those rare cases where it's important to be extremely clear about language like "choice". So I'm forced to talk about the subject of free will again. +Now in normal conversation I don't feel the need to clarify words like "choice" with a lengthy explanation of how free will doesn't actually exist, because 99% of the time it doesn't matter. But "choice" is a leaky abstraction which causes problems in rare cases. I've written about this before in the context of [Newcomb's Paradox](/2020/11/28/newcombs-paradox-resolved). As it turns out, compassion is another one of those rare cases where it's important to be extremely clear about language like "choice". So I'm forced to talk about the subject of free will again. # The Sensible View of Compassion -I've already debunked free will in two separate journal entries.[2][3] You can go read those if you like. If not, I'm about to give a crash course anyways. If anything you're about to read in the next section confuses you or you find it hard to follow, I suggest going back to my two previous posts dedicated to free will for some background. With that, I'll continue. +I've already debunked free will in [two](/2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1/) [separate](/2020/08/22/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2/) journal entries. You can go read those if you like. If not, I'm about to give a crash course anyways. If anything you're about to read in the next section confuses you or you find it hard to follow, I suggest going back to my two previous posts dedicated to free will for some background. With that, I'll continue. ## Hate is Unjustifiable Ask yourself, are you responsible for the fact that you weren't born baby Hitler? If you think the answer is yes, then who exactly is the self that can take credit for not being born baby Hitler? It can't be your present self with all your mental faculties and memories and moral principles because your present self didn't exist when Hitler was born. How is it that you can claim responsibility for who you are now when scientifically we know that who you are now is a mere product of past events of which you had no control? You didn't wire your own brain. And even if you somehow think you did, who wired the self that wired your brain? You see, pretending people have absolute responsibility is absurd. @@ -46,7 +45,7 @@ And don't forget there's practically no way to atone for your wrongdoing after y ## The True Motives of Cancel Culture The people who cancel others already understand all of this though. They understand it's very hard to get uncanceled. And they don't care. Their motives aren't really to expose injustice or solve anything. They have no interest in apologies or giving you a chance to atone. Their only motive is vengeance on the person they perceive to have wronged them. That's it. They just want random internet strangers to take their side and hurl insults. If that's not hate, then I don't know what is. -In conclusion, social justice warrior style cancel culture is the antithesis of compassion. And the worst thing about it is it pretends to have compassionate motives, namely "fighting for justice". Of course I'm not saying conservatives don't also participate in cancel culture. They definitely do.[4] I've just chosen not to focus on that for this entry. +In conclusion, social justice warrior style cancel culture is the antithesis of compassion. And the worst thing about it is it pretends to have compassionate motives, namely "fighting for justice". Of course I'm not saying conservatives don't also participate in cancel culture. [They definitely do.](https://yewtu.be/embed/8XUhtIQ7rng?local=true) I've just chosen not to focus on that for this entry. # Recognizing Compassion and Hate Since people confuse something as hateful as cancel culture for compassion and fighting for justice, it's worth talking about how to recognize real compassion and real justice. So here's a litmus test for whether an act is hateful: Is the intent to cause avoidable suffering? If yes, then it's a hateful act. Compassionate acts may still cause suffering. But that suffering is unavoidable. It would've happened whether or not the action was taken. @@ -87,7 +86,7 @@ I know it sounds cliché, but real change comes from within. Trying to "force" y I should also note that awareness is a prerequisite of the letting go I'm talking about. It's not as simple as just letting go. Most people live life too dimly aware to even realize when they're trying to control things by force that can't be controlled. I don't count myself as exempt from this. Awareness can come from a practice like mindfulness meditation. Mindfulness can make you a more aware, more compassionate, less reactive person. ### The Social Expectation of Suffering -Then there's also the social aspect. So many people are suffering and dissatisfied with life that it has become a social expectation. When the average person comes across someone like Eckhart Tolle who isn't waiting for a reason to be happy, who is content doing nothing but sitting on a park bench for years on end[5], they deny that level of inner peace is even possible and attribute it to mental illness[6]. +Then there's also the social aspect. So many people are suffering and dissatisfied with life that it has become a social expectation. When the average person comes across someone like Eckhart Tolle who isn't waiting for a reason to be happy, who is content doing nothing but [sitting on a park bench for years on end](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle), they [deny that level of inner peace is even possible and attribute it to mental illness](https://web.archive.org/web/20211017211346id_/https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle). I'm not saying that Tolle isn't mentally ill or is "fully enlightened". But to me it seems whoever wrote that article about him went out of their way to mischaracterize everything he said, or at least, not give him the benefit of the doubt. @@ -101,12 +100,3 @@ In conclusion, there's no reason not to be compassionate to yourself and to othe Being more compassionate is not just a matter of knowing that hate is irrational on an intellectual level. It takes practice. That practice can take the shape of many forms. It could be setting aside your ego and apologizing to people you've wronged in the past. It could look like treating people you're surrounded better, even in small ways. It could be practicing mindfulness to become more aware of your internal states and thus more accepting of them and compassionate to yourself. Fortunately things seem to be slowly moving in the right direction. At least, in civilized societies, it's already unfashionable to hate others based on their race, nationality, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc. But we have to go much further than that. We have to make all hate unfashionable. We must also remember replacing one form of hate with another doesn't solve anything. It has to be replaced with compassion. - - -Link(s): -[1: Newcomb's Paradox Resolved](/2020/11/28/newcombs-paradox-resolved) -[2: Free Will is Incoherent Part 1](/2020/06/19/free-will-is-incoherent-part-1/) -[3: Free Will is Incoherent Part 2](/2020/08/22/free-will-is-incoherent-part-2/) -[4: How Conservatives Created Cancel Culture #shorts](https://yewtu.be/embed/8XUhtIQ7rng?local=true) -[5: Eckhart Tolle](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle) -[6: So Called Rationalists "Debunking" Eckhart Tolle](https://web.archive.org/web/20211017211346id_/https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle) -- cgit v1.2.3