What does the moral code of idealism look like?

[AshvinP]

I think assuming it is meaningless would be the greatest mistake. But what is important in my mind is where does the meaning come from. As an example if someone wrongs me I must register that wrong for a whole host of reasons. Now if I am a super developed intellect (which obviously I am not) I might could actually forget that wrong, fair enough. If however I fail to right that wrong because I am afraid of the consequences then I absolutely must confront the wrong because the greatest sin would be giving in to fear. At the very least I have an obligation to call my cowardice what it is and not lie to myself. So the wrong that I perceived started a sequence of events that forces me to deal with and learn from. There is nothing in here about extracting justice from the wrong doer. The confronting and taking action against the wrong doer only has meaning in the lesson I learn from it about myself and life. What lessons or consequences the wrong doer experiences is his problem.

Yes I agree with that way of putting it. As Nietzsche said, "most morality is cowardice". We only become resentful when we refuse to confront that which is making us feel oppressed or wronged, and that starts a positive feedback cycle of negative emotion and thoughts which can only end in self-destruction and harm to others in the process. We must think of every experience as a tool for learning and maturing, not a chance to be judgmental of others and gain points for our own "righteousness".

[Soul_of_Shu]

Not familiar with the terminology so I'm at a disadvantage. When you say "relate with compassion" does that mean empathy or sympathy. I allow myself to feel empathy for many but almost never allow myself to feel sympathy. While sympathy may feel good it is a general rule completely ineffective. In my philosophy suffering many times is the greatest teacher. When I look back on my life my greatest lessons were from the times I suffered. In fact one philosophy teaches a true man of wisdom will search out suffering because of the lessons learned I'm not that wise. I have known people that managed to get through life with little or no suffering and I haven't been that impressed with the product.

The Latin root for the word compassion is pati, which means to suffer, and the prefix com- means with. Compassion, originating from compati, literally means to suffer with. In this case, I mean that while it is not possible to escape suffering (I've known no-one who has not suffered), and since it is not going to be eradicated in this domain, such that we are all inextricably entangled with it, it is still possible to not add to it ~ i.e. 'right' action, whereas adding to it is 'wrong' action ~ and to feel/know the difference.

[Ed Konderla]

I'm sorry, my reply wasn't very clear. i understand compassion. What I didn't understand were a couple of the other words.
I am a very compassionate person by nature. My question is what is the root of my compassion? Does it come from an effective place or an ineffective place? I assume you have read Bernardo's work which by and large I enjoy and agree with his observations about the facts but I do not always agree with his interpretation of the meaning of the facts. In one of his books, I believe it was. there was a story about how he killed an animal. In my memory it seems he went on and on about 10 chapters (exaggeration) on the horrifying implications about what he had done and the take away that all humanity should have based on how he reacted to that action. It left me feeling like "Dude, you need to get over yourself". So in that case some might see his analysis as compassionate. I saw it as pointing to a lack of understanding about reality and his place in it.

[Soul_of_Shu]

In one of his books, I believe it was. there was a story about how he killed an animal. In my memory it seems he went on and on about 10 chapters (exaggeration) on the horrifying implications about what he had done and the take away that all humanity should have based on how he reacted to that action. It left me feeling like "Dude, you need to get over yourself". So in that case some might see his analysis as compassionate. I saw it as pointing to a lack of understanding about reality and his place in it.

Yeah, I recall that story, about how as a child he clubbed to death some creature, considered in western culture to be vermin, supposedly partially out of curiosity, but also cultural conditioning, and suffered quite profound remorse over it ~ been there, done that, in my own youth. So it could be said that he 'suffered with' the creature in the extreme, as such is our human suffering that while the non-metacognitive creature no doubt suffered some pain and shock before surrendering its corporeal form, which is the case for prey of all sorts of predators in nature, BK's metacognitive suffering over the moral ramifications is on-going still, and so surely seems a case of adding to it. Probably now he can't bring himself to swat a fly

[Ed Konderla]

In my mind Bernardo's reaction is a sympathetic one. We have all had such experiences. When I look back at my 67 years I have had at least 100 cringe worthy experiences that generate everything from embarrassment to deep shame so I empathize with Bernardo but do not have sympathy for him or the animal. That is part of the process of learning and there is not a power on this earth that can guarantee any of us will be alive 5 minutes from now. If one allows events like this to freeze their thinking then it will dull their reaction when action is necessary.

[Soul_of_Shu]

In my mind Bernardo's reaction is a sympathetic one.

Well, you'd have to talk to Bernardo about that. But surely there's a difference between 'suffering with' the creature, given that we can empathize with feeling its pain, as opposed to imagining some existential suffering of the creature out of all proportion to the pain and shock it actually suffered before surrendering its corporeal form, when we project upon such non-metacognitive creatures our own metacognitive egoic fear and loathing of death. My point remains, in that it is an example of having created suffering when it wasn't present, the lesson learned, as I see it, one can actually not do that.

[AshvinP]

Not familiar with the terminology so I'm at a disadvantage. When you say "relate with compassion" does that mean empathy or sympathy. I allow myself to feel empathy for many but almost never allow myself to feel sympathy. While sympathy may feel good it is a general rule completely ineffective. In my philosophy suffering many times is the greatest teacher. When I look back on my life my greatest lessons were from the times I suffered. In fact one philosophy teaches a true man of wisdom will search out suffering because of the lessons learned I'm not that wise. I have known people that managed to get through life with little or no suffering and I haven't been that impressed with the product.

The Latin root for the word compassion is pati, which means to suffer, and the prefix com- means with. Compassion, originating from compati, literally means to suffer with. In this case, I mean that while it is not possible to escape suffering (I've known no-one who has not suffered), and since it is not going to be eradicated in this domain, such that we are all inextricably entangled with it, it is still possible to not add to it ~ i.e. 'right' action, whereas adding to it is 'wrong' action ~ and to feel/know the difference.

We should probably distinguish between "compassion" and "empathy". I view the former as being a more naïve version of the latter, associated with trait agreeableness. It is definitely a mode of being which can lead to resentment when employed excessively in every situation. Many times it is used as an excuse to avoid uncomfortable situations and confrontations. Empathy is more like understanding why a person feels the way they do because you temporarily experience the same perspective as them. That is always a positive mode of being as far as I can tell.

[Eugene I]

We should probably distinguish between "compassion" and "empathy". I view the former as being a more naïve version of the latter, associated with trait agreeableness. It is definitely a mode of being which can lead to resentment when employed excessively in every situation. Many times it is used as an excuse to avoid uncomfortable situations and confrontations. Empathy is more like understanding why a person feels the way they do because you temporarily experience the same perspective as them. That is always a positive mode of being as far as I can tell.

From the Buddhism perspective compassion is exactly empathy in the way you described, but in Hindustan languages they did not have two words for that so traditionally it was translated as "compassion".

[Soul_of_Shu]

We should probably distinguish between "compassion" and "empathy". I view the former as being a more naïve version of the latter, associated with trait agreeableness. It is definitely a mode of being which can lead to resentment when employed excessively in every situation. Many times it is used as an excuse to avoid uncomfortable situations and confrontations. Empathy is more like understanding why a person feels the way they do because you temporarily experience the same perspective as them. That is always a positive mode of being as far as I can tell.

If going by the root derivation of 'compassion', meaning to 'suffer with' someone, that surely implies having suffered similarly, to be able to relate to it and empathize at all. After all, before being a parent one might imagine what the pain was like for a parent to lose a child, and even sympathize to some extent, and feel very uncomfortable in the presence of such suffering, but it surely doesn't compare to the 'suffering with' such a parent, when you've also gone through the profound suffering of having lost a child, and you realize you didn't really imagine it closely at all. But I suppose like many words, 'compassion' has come to mean something far removed from what it was originally intended to mean.

[AshvinP]

We should probably distinguish between "compassion" and "empathy". I view the former as being a more naïve version of the latter, associated with trait agreeableness. It is definitely a mode of being which can lead to resentment when employed excessively in every situation. Many times it is used as an excuse to avoid uncomfortable situations and confrontations. Empathy is more like understanding why a person feels the way they do because you temporarily experience the same perspective as them. That is always a positive mode of being as far as I can tell.

If going by the root derivation of 'compassion', meaning to 'suffer with' someone, that surely implies having suffered similarly, to be able to relate to it and empathize at all. After all, before being a parent I might imagine what the pain was like for a parent to lose a child, and even sympathize to some extent, and feel very uncomfortable in the presence of such suffering, but it surely doesn't compare to the 'suffering with' such a parent, when you've also gone through the profound suffering of having lost a child, and you realize you didn't really imagine it closely at all. But I suppose like many words, 'compassion' has come to mean something far removed from what it was originally intended to mean.

Right, I am only going by modern usage of the word. Parent-child is a good example, because women definitely seem to be more compassionate than men since it is a necessary emotion for being responsive to the needs of infants. They must suffer with the child no matter what because no other strategy would work. But if that strategy lasts too long into the child's development, then the latter become way too dependent and less resilient when confronted with inevitable challenges. I think "empathy", in contrast, is something that only involves adults and some sort of thinking through of what the other person feels.