Does compassion make us weak?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Sometimes compassion requires tough love.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

My compassion is saved for my family and children....and veterans. Everyone else...if you die you die....cycle of life and all that jazz

I think compassion is a boot with many laces. I feel it's valued as a weakness when it is shown towards those whom others do not think worthy of it. But who gets to decide who you should be compassionate to, other than you? And why is it such a problem to be compassionate, how is it that it's now seen as a weak and spineless thing to be?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Compassion only makes you weak (or judged to be weak or gullible) if you are surrounded by people who lack compassion and their base need for greed and power is their main aspiration. Sadly most people are wired like the latter example and that willingness to take without giving or take by damaging someone else is lauded as "confident" and "driven" in our society. It really doesn't need to be that way. We let it be that way and encourage it. Perhaps in extreme famine or something it's survival of the fittest, but now that we've come far enough that if we really worked together we could make it a world where basic needs are met. Wars are started over the human desires for greed and power. It's almost as if there is a built in failsafe to ensure that we never actually get along and prosper as a whole, but manage to knock ourselves back a few pegs or to possible to the dark ages with our warring and bickering.

a reply to: Lulzaroonie

Please reread the opening post.

There is a difference between labelling compassion a weakness and asking if the compulsion to uphold compassion makes us weak.

Double

Empathy and compassion is a strength, only the weak exploit it and lose themselves in the process.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Maybe a better question would be "Can compassion be used as a weapon?"

I didn't misunderstand what you said, I just think it's a pretty obvious answer.

No it does not, foolish an naive, definitely though. Even cruel an bitter maybe...

"Men fall from the sky, the gods hurl thunderbolts, innocents die. That's how it starts, sir. The fever, the rage, the feeling of powerlessness that turns good men... cruel."
Alfred

But you guys are all knowing an spiritual, sure you guys can figure out the strengths of compassion.

Might is right. The biggest bully the room is the leader. Compassion is not valued as much as toughness and self-reliance.

Compassion is a sign of strength. It indicates the presence of ethics and/or moral fortitude as well as good reasoning. It also implies a confidence and certainty in your own situation/position when you are not threatened or diminished by weakness in others. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs supports this. An elevated state of mind like compassion can really only exist if the crucial fundamentals of survival are met and maintained first. The contentious issue of immigration is a good example of this dynamic. Leaders without compassion are inherently insecure in their positions or the position of their group.

The only real counter to compassion is pride or a hard heart.

I have allowed 2 people to live in my home, rent free; no financial obligation applied; no chores or rules. I was twice taken advantage of (as was my wonderful lady) but it just makes me want to help someone else even more.

Compassion isn't a zero sum game like some jilted and cold hearted people would have you believe. You have to be able to look past yourself and stand outside of any given situation - to strip yourself of your ego and express yourself as the purest form of consciousness. When you do this, being selfless comes easy.

I'm called a 'pushover' all the time but I was told to see all of you as brothers and sisters by my saviour, that is my calling and it's what I do. The world WILL chew you up and beat you down at all turns but, how you overcome this defines you as a soul. I'd rather perish penniless and beaten than surrounded by fake people who don't care about me.

Compassion is contagious and once it's shown to someone they want to reciprocate your compassion. This shows you it's a higher calling to be compassionate. Some people apply a dead science explanation to this (something about the continuation of the species through social norms) but I choose to see this as a divine calling, one we should all aspire to.

a reply to: Dark Ghost Hi, Ghost. You always put right questions on ATS. Thank you for another wise topic.

Now, I don't want to over-pride myself but I believe I am the person who can answer this question with real objectivity. It comes from the fact that I am an astrologist. Daily I have to give advice to people. And if I want to be helpful, I better be good. Back on the topic now. Compassion is generated by the same archetypes which oppose masculine type of pride. If we emphasize on compassion to much we deny this God -created factor(or pride) and we unbalance ourselves. This is not healthy at all. To be over-compassionate is the same mistake as to be self-centered bully. It is just holding the other side of the rope. We should aim to have 50% pride to 50% compassion, and the team of the two should be cohesive. This way we would be able to take the best action when is required understanding of sudden multi-personality situation/conflict. However there is the fact that man tend to be in general more proud, as women tend to be overly compassionate. Also in 21 st century US/EU dominated world, pride is the social basis while compassion is undermined. We should take all this in consideration.

originally posted by: Lulzaroonie
Maybe a better question would be "Can compassion be used as a weapon?"

At face value, that question is about as "obvious" at the question in the title of this thread. The difference is you didn't expand on why you asked the question, whereas I did.

I didn't misunderstand what you said, I just think it's a pretty obvious answer.

Like quite a few others in this thread, your reply reads as somebody who answered the title of the thread without fully reading the content of the opening post.

I'm not looking for an echo chamber filled with agreement; I'm looking to have an intelligent discussion of the topic that is broad in scope and doesn't succumb to narrow-minded programming.

You can brain wash yourself to be tolerant when you should not if you feel too much empathy for people who are inward narcissistic.

Karl Popper:
"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

Does compassion make us weak?

YES.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost


The thing about compassion is that it cannot exist without suffering of some sort. Think about that for a moment. You cannot feel compassion within yourself unless some other external entity is suffering.

I don't have that interpretation of compassion. For me, it is like empathy, feeling what others feel. The only difference I make between the two concepts is that compassion includes an element of distancing oneself from the emotion to be able to ALSO keep a distinction between self and other at the same time.

Example :
I see and feel what someone else feels (good or bad).
My mind also recognizes they are different person (despite our shared experiences and emotions) and recognizes that we all have a different "path" so they have the right to continue along in their emotional experience. I recognize that many of my experiences, (even negative ones) had a beneficial aspect to them at some point down the line.
I Have seen that in retrospect, I actually had more of a hand in creating my experiences than I was aware of at the time, and it seems I had certain subconscious goals. So... all my experiences had a personal reason for being.
So I don't need to interfere or stop what they are feeling (even if it is negative).

It means a certain ability to be okay with negative feelings and embrace them.

Empathy does not include that sense of allowance or acceptance. Too much empathy can be a problem, because one loses their sense of self, and ceases to respect the boundries (to their own or the others detriment).

originally posted by: Dark Ghost


The thing about compassion is that it cannot exist without suffering of some sort. Think about that for a moment. You cannot feel compassion within yourself unless some other external entity is suffering.

I don't have that interpretation of compassion. For me, it is like empathy, feeling what others feel. The only difference I make between the two concepts is that compassion includes an element of distancing oneself from the emotion to be able to ALSO keep a distinction between self and other at the same time.

Example :
I see and feel what someone else feels (good or bad).
My mind also recognizes they are different person (despite our shared experiences and emotions) and recognizes that we all have a different "path" so they have the right to continue along in their emotional experience. I recognize that many of my experiences, (even negative ones) had a beneficial aspect to them at some point down the line.
I Have seen that in retrospect, I actually had more of a hand in creating my experiences than I was aware of at the time, and it seems I had certain subconscious goals. So... all my experiences had a personal reason for being.
So I don't need to interfere or stop what they are feeling (even if it is negative).

It means a certain ability to be okay with negative feelings and embrace them.

Empathy does not include that sense of allowance or acceptance. Too much empathy can be a problem, because one loses their sense of self, and ceases to respect the boundries (to their own or the others detriment).

Do you see where you went wrong?

Why don't you ask yourself what motivates this statement:

I am not saying compassion is undesirable or that it should be suppressed. I am simply asking if compassion stifles our ability to utilise our true strength and achieve greatness.

What does that even mean? If you look at the logic underlying this feeling - it is individualism. Individualism assumes that there is such a thing as an 'individual' - apart from the social-group they emerge from.

Individualism assumes that "our true strength" lies in "achieving greatness". So the question is - psychodynamically speaking - why do you feel you aren't sufficient?

If you pay attention to the dynamics of this process, this sense of 'deficiency' is projected into you by others, so that, for instance, we can be made to feel deficient if another person - operating from the perspective of individualism, and sincerely believing that life is meaningless without the "strength" to "achieve greatness", speaks to you in this format; n the process you will unconsciously come to assimilate whats called their "object-relations". This means the feeling they ascribe to particular ideas (called objects) will be surreptitiously (inasmuch as it is a process that begins in the body) integrated into your affective state, in turn compelling the same object-relation - or feeling relationship - for you cognitive mind.

It is because people do not understand processes such as these that the whole "transmission" aspect of the dynamic is occluded - and the individual - believing he is some impermeable object - takes the question as a legitimate frame without considering the irrational dynamics that worked to make it relevant in the first place.

The thing about compassion is that it cannot exist without suffering of some sort.

Many people who live compassion would challenge that point. Indeed - its a subtle point - something emphasized by the Buddhist Monk Matthieu Ricard in his very interesting book "Altruism", that is seldom noticed, and indeed, unnoticeable for a person with unprocessed trauma.

There is something called "compassion fatigue" - which Ricard rightly understands to be related to empathic identification i.e. the intenalization of the feeling states of others. Ricard - a Buddhist monk - makes the somewhat (to people who have not experienced this) claim that compassion is "without limiit" i.e. it does not entail or require a suffering component i.e. some sense of deficiency. Rather, compassion is related to a feeling of 'togetherness' - which is a systems phenomena deeply related to the physical process of centripetal motion. If you understand how your mind works - no small feat, but something I hope will become a part of our educational system - compassion will not be experienced or known as its deficiently projected - or considered to be - from the perspective of someone with unresolved trauma.

Unresolved trauma literally means that there are 'forces' existing within you that do not want to die , so they necessarily compel and motivate reasoning processes to rationalize the 'necessity of evil'. The tragedy of this is that narcissism and pridefulness blocks a more global and scientific (accurate, coherent) relationship to the object of your inquiry, so that the 'demon' which compels the rationalization process keeps itself alive - suckling energy from the physical-matter of a real existent being (you) - in the same sort of way that a virus co-opts the dynamics of cells to reproduce themselves anew.

People who were raised in normal - spiritually healthy contexts - are far less rebellious and are far less persuaded by the needs of people who feel that 'individualistic' desires - such as the pursuit of "strength" to "achieve greateness"- even at the expense of other people - is relevant or important.

What does this tell you other than that feelings control us? And what makes you think asymmetrical feelings which compel asymmetrical attitudes towards living - wont come back, as it always must, to remove from you the conviction that such beliefs are true? History - your history - would bring tears to your eyes if you could know it truly. Which means, its only because of an epistemologial blinding - by demons - that you fail to recognize the troubles we will create for our future state of self by acting in egotistical and immoral ways.

Ethic-Epistemology-Ontology. These are not separate philosophical fields - but very much related to how matter - what we do - changes what we feel, and so how we come to know the world (and ourselves) and then come to believe what is or isn't real.

I'm trying to provide some light - and wisdom - for the person willing to listen. Egotism is probably wrong. Building a self-in-its-shadows will likely come back to hurt you. This seems to be a physical process - a function of the ecology of existence. If there is a God who is "punishing you" - it may in fact be a higher dimension of your being 'purging' itself of the confusions being generated within the actuated realm by a truly abominable global elite class - equally deranged by the realities of living - and being affected - by what you actually do.

a reply to: Argentbenign

lol @ astrology and "true objectivity".