Give me rational reasons why I should care about anything that

the latter

but once you start thinking like the latter, they will get to you soon enough

>>18404079
>Give me rational reasons why I should care about anything that doesn't affect me.
>Give me rational reasons
>for why I should care
>demanding logical reasons for having feelings

Wew lad. I'm not saying it can't be done, feelings are logical in that they exist for a rational purpose, but this is absurd on its face.

We live in a society, robot. It's not really any more complicated than that. If you're confused as to why this is relevant to your interests, look up the tragedy of the commons to get a logical grasp on the concept of shared resources as a contingency for group and therefore individual survival. Report back.

damn, i've read hannibal as a kid but i guess i wasn't ready to grasp that. very well worded.

you're not missing anything. people "care" about stuff that doesn't really affect them to appear like "oh such empathic people" or to feel good about themselves. the real motivation behind it is always egoistical, but they would NEVER admit that, most don't even know it themselfes.
ofc there are exceptions, but let's take the dalai lama as an example, the epithomy of "caring about stuff that doesn't affect me directly out of principle". he himself reported that he spends 3-4h a day in "spiritual practice", which means he spends that much time doing nothing of value, maybe chant and meditate. he doesn't help anybody with that, he's selfish like everybody else. and besides, he might not be the best example since his drive to change something came from something that directly affected him (racism against indians...).

another example might be that lady who saved hundreds of jewish kids during ww2, risking her own life with it.
she might have actually acted selfless, but i don't know if almost everybody in her situation would have done the same. i think selflessnes is born in the moment.

other than that, i assume you are talking about shit like caring about refugees, african kids and animals. which i can safely tell you is just people trying to appear "holier than thou".

>>18404079
Well, it's not rational. The mechanism had a place when we were a smaller species, but it doesn't really matter now.
In my experience however, the ones saying things like your post are usually the ones shooting up schools.
Perhaps empathy is required to become a well rounded human being.

>>18404133
You're confusing selfish with self-interested. People do that all the time, but smart people don't. Selfish is the negative form of self-interested, where you elevate your own concerns and wants over those of others to their detriment. Self-interested can mean something as simple as just caring about your own survival or happiness, which is literally programmed into us as a species and without which we wouldn't have survived.

This level of cynicism is almost always a cover for guilt or fear of some kind. Seems to me you want to think everyone is selfish so you can justify not giving a shit about anything beyond your immediate self. Trust me, if everyone thought like you we'd still be living in caves and killing each other with rocks to take each other's best animal hides. A lot of us wanted the world to be better than that so life would be better for all of us. You're just one of the few that isn't on board with the rest.

If it makes you feel better, that's programmed in too. Public goods games show 13% to 26% of people are basically hardwired to be selfish even when it actually costs them money. Nature has to keep a certain percentage of the population in reserve just in case the group makes the wrong call. You might just one of that save-us-from-extinction tribe.

>>18404145
lack of sentimental and useless empathy IS a psychopathic tendency, that's true. but did you know that most succesfull people have psychopathic traits? the ones that end up doing killing sprees are just the ones where the different traits mixed unfavorably. the others are often doing exceptionally well.

>>18404156
This

Psychopathy has its purposes.
The one who shot up a school or became a serial killer becomes world famous.

The one who started a sales business then eventually grew it enough to provide jobs to thousands or 10s of thousands is not famous.

Psychopathy is an evolved personality like any other. It has roles and uses and not all are bad.

>>18404079
You're not just an individual, you're part of a family, community, city, country, world, universe. Everything you do to fuck other people over has consequences you can't even imagine. Your welfare depends on the welfare of everyone else.

>>18404145
>Well, it's not rational. The mechanism had a place when we were a smaller species, but it doesn't really matter now.

If anything, between overpopulation, a third of the world being obese while a third is literally starving, and poverty being 100% preventable with only current resources, it matters more than ever.

Empathy is required for the species itself not to wipe itself out through WWIII or failing to address a plague or some other such stupid stoppable thing. There's just as many things that can kill us now, the difference now being most of them are human-inflicted. The stakes are higher than ever.

>>18404145
>however, the ones saying things like your post are usually the ones shooting up schools.

In my experience they are merely the other side of the sentimentalism coin. They do those things out of anger, frustration, hate, they care more than enough to bother with that. Still predominantly guided by how something makes them feel, I don't understand why they want to be so emotionally inclined, it seems to make them vulnerable and dependent.

Empathy, it means you feel like people around you. Not understanding, yeah, it is a feeling.
Empathetic people don't question "why". If somebody else suffers, they suffer too.

>>18404163
>you're part of a family

I didn't get a tricycle tough, weh weh.

>you're part of a family, community, city, country, world, universe

The west pushes for individualism and away from collectivism, every social cohesive institution is removed or demonized, this attitude is to be expected then isn't it?

>>18404175
>The west pushes for individualism and away from collectivism, every social cohesive institution is removed or demonized, this attitude is to be expected then isn't it?
And as an individual, you can have a different attitude. Or are you not an individual who can have opinions different from that of your society?

>>18404166
You have psychopaths completely wrong man...

They are characterised by extreme lack of empathy, narcissism, charm, deception, are normally wildly successful in business or politics.


Are you going by what an actual psychopath is? Or what your friends pointed at in highschool and said "that guys a psychopath".
Or the psycho girlfriend. Those are all instances of psychopath being taken wrong.

>>18404177
The point is there is zero incentive to care if one can be fully independent and live comfortably doing so.

>>18404178
OP here, I was not the one who made this explicitly about 'psychopaths', there are many flavors of not being emotionally invested in other people at all, not caring or trusting etc.

>>18404180
>if one can be fully independent and live comfortably doing so.
The point is this is an illusion at best unless you want to be Ted Kaczyinski and spend your days shitting in a bucket in the woods in a cabin with no electricity.

Even Teddy ended up sending out letters eventually.

>>18404177
>the individual might not be an individualist
>can the individual not disagree with individualism?

Sorry man, differentfag.. I know what youre getting at and i dont necessarily fully disagree but lets take a moment and have a good look at that irony.

>>18404178
this.

psychopaths are not irrational and immature people who play games out of spite. there's a huge difference.

>>18404186
I was being half-sardonic. Really just pointing out the irony of talking about Western individualism as an excuse for being a societally-trained sheep convinced he's a wolf because "We're all wolves here."

>>18404184
I know im addressing that thought alone.

I dont even know if I replied to the OP but there is logically literally no reason to care about shit that doesnt affect you.

It might show lack of empathy on your part and it might not at all.

And honestly when you say that i think of rights activists and shit and a lot of that is for identity and self image more than the issue itself. Its more "look how much i care guise!" than it is "this is a serious issue i want to solve".

Thats my opinion anyway. I am in agreement with you.

>>18404185
One doesn't have to be quite so dramatic or idealistic to move to a cabin in the woods.
You can take advantage of society and the sentimentally inclined, be that benign or malignant.

>>18404196
> Its more "look how much i care guise!" than it is "this is a serious issue i want to solve".

Completely agree.
They pretend to be sympathetic but are not willing to make any meaningful sacrifice, the main distinction between real sympathy and 'look at me being a sympathetic/caring person'.

>>18404197
>You can take advantage of society and the sentimentally inclined, be that benign or malignant.
In which case you're still relying on society. So why don't you explain to me again what part of the "anything that doesn't affect you" referenced in your OP it is that you're not caring about? Because it's sounding more and more like you acknowledge full well that you live in society, want to do well in it, and that therefore the actions of others DO affect you, but you somehow think that acknowledging that means you care about even sentimental people makes you less edgy than you want to seem on 4chan.

>>18404196
not o9, but i honestly don't really get where the line is between "understanding someone's situation" and empathy. for example, i can easily understand that it's not funny for a family to live in syria and that the prospect of a life in europe is tempting. i understand their suffering, their motivation and so on. but that doesn't mean i want them in my country with their backwards mindset and medieval worldviews, sapping our taxes for nothing in return than a feeling of "we're so openminded". i don't get how a person makes the leap from understanding their situation but also having the rationality to not sacrifice the security and future of their own family to "ooooh, those pooor people, let's help them ALL". that's just irrational and selfdestructive in my opinion. or is this empathy and i simply don't understand it?

>>18404180
Well comfort is always subjective. Raise a child in a secluded cave and that's where they'll feel comfort. To say that *if* one can live independently of others, then there is no incentive to live altruistically, I can't accept that.
By showing interest in things which don't directly effect you promote the idea of common good, make friends, gain favour from others and satisfy your own desire for purpose (maybe doesn't apply to everybody).

>>18404201
that reminds me of the petition for j.k.rowling housing refugees in her big ass mansion because she kept tweeting about how "one should help those poor people". kek

>>18404201
>They pretend to be sympathetic but are not willing to make any meaningful sacrifice, the main distinction between real sympathy and 'look at me being a sympathetic/caring person'.
I know a guy who gave his bed to charity and started an organization to help poor people because he went to an apartment where the family of four living there didn't have a bed. 14 years later and he still sleeps on a sofa. Says he won't have a bed until everyone in America has one.

The problem with people like you is that you'll flip the script and say "He's only doing that to look/feel like a moral person. He doesn't really care." Because it isn't about whether HE cares.

It's about the fact that YOU don't.

>>18404207
>society

You are using this as a spook term, it exists and it affects everyone in it but that doesn't mean one has view it as a benign construct one has a mutually beneficial vested interest in, one could simply milk it for all its worth and adapt to its whims that are beyond ones influence.

Anyway, this is far too much to the side of the issue I wanted to ask about, which is: Without being emotionally vested in something there is no reason to care and the many that emphasize their sentimental experience of things are primary are putting themselves at a deliberate disadvantage of weakness, dependence and vulnerability by being far easier to manipulate, control and influence.

>>18404223
well, contrary to most people, he actually did something. now it would be stupid if he would sleep on the sofa and just wait for everybody to have a bed. but if he is actively working on solving the issue that bothers him, it's not pretentious. on the other side, how would he know when he has reached his goal? does he want to end up with backpain in 10 years? what will that achieve? that he is a cripple who won't have the energy anymore to help the people who could benefit from his activism? i don't see how chastising oneself helps anybody. it's not like he's protesting for something by not eating untill the govt does xyz. nobody even sees his sacrifice than him, every night.

>>18404175
I don't really get what you're trying to say. Anyway, what I meant is that you're part of a whole. Doing what's best for everyone is what's best for you, in the end.

>>18404211

A very simple demonstration of empathy is watch a fail video. If you wince or cringe at a big hit, then thats it. You see something happening to someone else and you almost 'feel' it. Why does it stress you? Why are making any movement noise or reaction? It shouldnt.


The syria thing is politicised. Thats the issue here. You feel for them but you perceive them coming here is an issue or even danger to you. Whether it is or not isnt something you really know but you perceive it so theres a bit of an override here.

Ill point out one thing since we're on politics and human emotion. I dont care about your actual opinion or whats right here. You can easily apply what i say to the other side on the same issue.


Once politics are involved all logic is out the window. Your biases and your cognitive dissonance comes full force. People on either side if the spectrum who are normally critically thinking smart science loving people for example, will then reject any and all science their politician says is false.


This is relevant to your syria comment because im guessing youre right winged. Your politicians and friend circles say no syrians allowed. So your brain goes "fuck empathy and how much i care im part of this group so we gonna think like them on this particular issue." whether youre actually right about the issue or not.

Youre dealing with a bit of a cognitive disparity is what Im getting at.

>>18404229
>Without being emotionally vested in something there is no reason to care

But that's a tautology. You might as well say that you don't care because you don't care. Likewise, they care because they care. Feelings are responses to logical situations including upbringing and genetics. So you're wired differently. Big whoop, doesn't mean you're better than the "sentimental normies." Imagine a world without them. Bunch of animals fighting and killing and raping and eating each other all the time. Yeah, sounds great.

>the many that emphasize their sentimental experience of things are primary are putting themselves at a deliberate disadvantage of weakness, dependence and vulnerability by being far easier to manipulate, control and influence.

There's all kinds of weaknesses. Theirs is they have large and invested social networks that will come to their aid in times of crisis. Also, slightly dumb people have a demonstrated advantage in grades, jobs, and relationships. Why? Because they're happier and they don't overthink shit, so people like them more.

Your weakness is that you'll never have deep or meaningful relationships with more than your immediate family without empathy, so everything will feel bloodless and rather dark until you die.

The good news is that because it's the way you're programmed and you've never experienced the other way of seeing things, neither of you will ever know the difference.

>>18404242
i don't watch fail vids because i think it's moronic to film people who experience pain and laugh at their suffering.

so, can you tell me about empathy that's not politically infiltrated? and i'm not talking about the normal human reaction to someone needing help. i don't think someone would actually walk past an old lady who fell to the ground and broke her hip. but that's not the same as bigger scaled empathy like "donate for starving kids in africa"...

>>18404248
>There's all kinds of weaknesses. Theirs is they have large and invested social networks
Their strength is, rather. Damn proofreading. But I'm assuming you got what I meant.

>>18404253
I dont know man. Its hard.

Empathy is on a spectrum. You may not have it. And thats not necessarily good or bad. But i mean really feeling something that someone else felt.

Its up to you to find it. But if you can honestly say youve never seen something bad happen to someone else and youve actually *felt* it. Like been legitimately sad, or hurt, then you just dont have it. It comes naturally.

Thats one symptom of a thousand others before you can be clinically diagnosed with anything mind you so if you dont and your lifes fine otherwise, i wouldnt really worry about it.

>>18404253
>empathy that's not politically infiltrated? and i'm not talking about the normal human reaction to someone needing help. i don't think someone would actually walk past an old lady who fell to the ground and broke her hip. but that's not the same as bigger scaled empathy like "donate for starving kids in africa"

...

WHOA WHOA WHOA. You don't get to randomly flip the tables like that.

>the normal human reaction to someone needing help
is exactly what empathy IS.

>bigger scaled empathy like "donate for starving kids in africa"
is called ALTRUISM

Have we seriously been having a debate this whole time over you not knowing a dictionary definition?

>>18404079
This is rather philosophical. You sure it wouldn't do better on /lit/?

>>18404211
Because they are likely to be members of a ferocious cult from the desert (islam) that wouldn't help you at all if both of you switched positions. So fuck them.

Your gut-feeling is correct.