Tell Me Why I Should Care

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   
I think it all relates to how we were brought up, right or wrong. If we had empathetic parent's that influenced us, then some of us may give a crap. Too many factors of influence to nail down why something like this would happen. Bad day or year, It ain't a perfect world.




posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
You think you don't care, but you do.


I don't think I don't care, I know I don't care.


Originally posted by John Matrix
It sounds like you have lost all hope in humanity's ability to find a way to heal itself of the multiplicity of problems it has brought on itself.


You're exactly right. And because of that, I hope the problems humanity has brought on itself get worse. These problems will never be fixed; the same problems that got us in the position we're in now will never be gone until we are gone. That is what I hope for.


Originally posted by John Matrix
I sense that you actually do have compassion and empathy in you.


For family and friends, yes. For everyone else, no. Too many people have done too many things in their lives worth my disrespect. As opposed to picking out who does and doesn't deserve my disrespect, I just show no compassion or empathy for human beings in general.

My line of thinking is: somewhere along the line, that person justified what happens to them. If they did nothing wrong in their life (which I highly doubt), then they certainly possessed the ability to do wrong. It's the ability that has got us where we are. I'm not going to mourn that loss.



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

For family and friends, yes. For everyone else, no. Too many people have done too many things in their lives worth my disrespect. As opposed to picking out who does and doesn't deserve my disrespect, I just show no compassion or empathy for human beings in general.

My line of thinking is: somewhere along the line, that person justified what happens to them. If they did nothing wrong in their life (which I highly doubt), then they certainly possessed the ability to do wrong. It's the ability that has got us where we are. I'm not going to mourn that loss.


That seems like a lot of thinking about what to feel for someone who says:


When it comes to emotions, I, personally, draw the line at thinking; I do not put thought in to how I feel, I do not factor in my expectations of political correctness, and I do not attempt to wonder how the family of the dead person is feeling.



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
I don't think there is anything wrong with not caring that someone you don't know has died or lost a loved one, but I'd think you were a freak of epic proportions if you had posted that you were happy that this had happened. See the difference?


I have a child a month older than Jett and I remember reading about his birth. I didn't know until a few years ago he had some sort of disablility. From what I have read it seems to me that John was an excellent father to his son and I do have great empathy for his loss. I don't, however, feel the need to express condolences to the family because I don't know them and it would seem silly to me to do that.



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
You're exactly right. And because of that, I hope the problems humanity has brought on itself get worse. These problems will never be fixed; the same problems that got us in the position we're in now will never be gone until we are gone. That is what I hope for.


Fortunately, there are two possible States of Life. One is Nature, and the other is God manifested in Nature, and as God and Nature are both within you, so you have it in your Power to live and work with either the one or the other. There is no standing still, because life goes on and it is always bringing forth its Realities, whatever way one chooses.

Man without God is in a state of restless Hunger, Disquiet, and blind Strife, till the Property of Light and Love has got Possession of that state. Now when you see this, you see the true State of every natural Man; blind Nature does all the Work, and must be the Doer of it, till the Christ of God is born in him. For the Life of Man can be nothing else but a Hunger of Covetousness, a Rising up of Pride, Envy, and Wrath, a medley of contrary Passions, doing and undoing because these Workings are the Properties of Nature left to itself. The properties of the natural man, without the supernatural birth of Christ in him, must be always hungering, and working one against another, striving to be above one another, and all this in Blindness, till the Light of God has helped such natural properties look to one common Good, in which they all willingly unite, rest, and rejoice.

Goodness to the unregenerate man is only a Sound and Virtue, a mere Strife of natural Passions, till the Spirit of Love is the Breath of every Thing that lives and moves in his Heart. For Love is the one only Blessing and Goodness, and the very God of Nature; and we have no true Religion, are no Worshiper of the one true God, but in and by that Spirit of Love, which is God himself living and working in us.

The Way to escape from the bestial life requires one to accept the disparity of all human effort and to humbly accept a union of the Divine Light of God made manifest in the Soul through the rebirth of the spirit that was lost at the fall of both men and angels. Nature can do nothing that is contrary to it's own internal workings, and the Spirit of Love can do nothing that is contrary to God; it is it's own goodness and rejoices only in itself, because it is in itself, an immutable eternal will to all goodness.

The rebirth is the Divine wisdom of the ages, but foolishness to man.



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


You know what I meant. There's no need to make minor statements out to be more than they were intended to be.

It doesn't take really any thought to realize that people are, in a word, corrupt. It is something that is just known. And it doesn't take any thought to not feel compassion or empathy towards no one. It is just a given.

I shouldn't have to explain exactly what I meant by "my line of thinking". You should know.

[edit on 1/4/09 by NovusOrdoMundi]



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
reply to post by americandingbat
 


You know what I meant. There's no need to make minor statements out to be more than they were intended to be.

It doesn't take really any thought to realize that people are, in a word, corrupt. It is something that is just known.

I shouldn't have to explain exactly what I meant by "my line of thinking". You should know.

[edit on 1/4/09 by NovusOrdoMundi]


It doesn't take really any thought to realize that people are, in a word, caring. It is something that is just known.

Not everyone cares to the same degree about the same things. A very few people are genuinely not caring, although I don't think I've ever met one personally. In my biased opinion, Dick Cheney might qualify, but I haven't had any interaction with him myself so I'm just going by news reports.

I'm not sure how I could know what you meant if you didn't mean what I thought you meant.

It seemed to me that you wrote this thread based on the premise that you should be free to either feel something or not feel something in reaction to an event, without having to think about what was expected or "right".

But then you tried to rationalize your feeling (or lack of feeling) by talking about the corruption of humanity and how it's okay not to feel anything when a stranger dies because they've probably done something wrong.

I was just pointing out that by your original premise (which I agree with to a point) it's okay not to feel anything when a stranger dies because you don't feel anything. It doesn't matter if they're a baby, a saint, a psychopath, or just someone's 95-year-old grandpa.

On the other hand, I also think it's okay to feel something when any of the above dies, and to want to express that feeling – just because you feel that. Without stopping to think about whether it affects you or whether you only feel it because you're empathically connected with the rest of humanity or whether you're just reminded of your own mortality.

I had started to get the impression that you thought it was not just okay, but rather superior to not be affected by the death of John Travolta's son.



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


It sounds to me like you are content with making assumptions of how I feel and what I believe without taking the time to make sure that is the case.

No where did I say I felt superior because I felt nothing. If you read between the lines of my opening post, you would see that I am merely speaking my mind against people who express fake sympathy to fit in with the crowd. You know, or should know, that there are people who do this.

I'm wondering what is wrong with not feeling any sympathy for people. Comment on someone's death, say you don't care, and you get ridiculed. Am I not as entitled to not feel a thing as the next person is to feel something?

If you honestly feel sympathy, great. I have no problem with that. But if your reactions are fueled by other people's beliefs or opinions, and not your own, thats where I begin to have a problem with it.

I don't care if people feel sympathy, and I don't care if people don't feel sympathy. I think it's within everyone's right to make that judgment. It is within everyone's right to manipulate their own natural emotions and thoughts to fit in with the crowd, but I personally find it pathetic and disgraceful.

The point of this thread was to express my opinion that it doesn't make someone a bad person to not feel sympathy towards someone they don't know.



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi


I may have been reading too much into your posts. Since you had said you thought many people don't actually feel what they say they feel, and also that faking a feeling to conform to expectations was disgraceful, I concluded that you felt superior to those people.

I agree absolutely that not feeling sympathy towards someone you don't know doesn't make you a bad person. I don't know where it was that someone ridiculed or attempted to shame you for saying you weren't emotionally affected by the death of Travolta's son – I don't think it's appropriate to judge others on their emotional reactions to events, but on their behavior.

But I also think it's a little hasty to judge people who try to fit in with what they perceive to be the expected reaction. And as a general rule I try to assume that people actually feel what they tell me they feel – I deeply resent it when people assume I feel something other than what I say I feel, so I try not to inflict that on others.

My point in my first post in this thread, where I said it's too bad we equate media coverage with caring, was that caring is a personal thing. The media can't care – it's an abstraction. I can care – I'm a human. I can also not care, and that's okay with me as long as I can keep myself from judging others for caring.

My point in my second post (where I commented that you were doing a lot of thinking about how you should feel and who you should feel it about) was that you don't have to justify your not caring by appealing to people's supposed sins. Just don't care because you don't care.

My point in my last post was to explore whether you had begun to judge those by whom you felt judged and to ask whether that was really what you wanted to do.

____________________________________________________

I do understand that you made this thread to address your indignation (righteous, in my opinion) at being told what you should feel.

But that's a pretty small topic, and it's opened up considerably into what I consider more interesting and complex matters. The idea that there is a "right" way to feel about things is so engrained in our culture that it's almost instinctive to need to rationalize feeling any other way, even if we're in the middle of trying to make the point that feelings aren't rational choices.

If I offended you by using your replies to explore that thought I apologize.

[edit on 1/4/09 by americandingbat]



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
I don't know where it was that someone ridiculed or attempted to shame you for saying you weren't emotionally affected by the death of Travolta's son


No where. I never commented on his death because I personally feel I'm on dangerous ground when it comes to "insensitive" comments like that with the staff because of previous comments I have made about other people.



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
IMO Its not cold to not feel sad for the death of a person you did not know. The only problem i had with this whole thing was people dragging his religion through the dirt after he lost his son.



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
You should care because you are "Human"....arent you?





top topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join