One minute philosophy lessons

[Magical Realist]

Your claim was that Smith was the "father of American capitalism." You even made a point to reiterate that.

How can Smith be the Father of Capitalism but not the Father of American Capitalism? Is not American Capitalism "Capitalism"? Do we need fathers of all the nation's own capitalisms--German Capitalism? British Capitalism? Canadian Capitalism? No dumbass. Because they're all the same thing. To be the Father of Capitalism is to be the Father of all the capitalisms in every nation on earth. He conceived of it first. So he totally get's credit for it no matter which nation it is a part of.

No one said "The Wealth of Nations" has nothing to do with capitalism, nor that Smith wasn't the "father of capitalism." You're making up nonsense again. Sp any revisionism is all your own.

Yes you did liar. Right here:

Adam Smith never used the word "capitalism" in his writings, including his 1776 masterpiece, The Wealth of Nations. The term did not come into common usage until the late 19th century, well after his death. Instead, Smith referred to his economic system as the "system of natural liberty" or "commercial society".

Still can't cite your quotes, huh? @_@

I'll worry about that when you start citing the sources of the quotes your LLM comes up with.

Actually, "The Wealth of Nations" didn't argue for complete laissez-faire capitalism and did favor some amount of government constraint of the market. Quoting sources you don't cite, with your lack of comprehension, isn't helping you.

Lying again I see.

"Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (1776) is a foundational text for free-market capitalism, advocating for the "invisible hand" of competition over government intervention, or laissez-faire. While arguing against mercantilist regulation, Smith's work supports self-interest to drive public prosperity, yet allows for government roles in defense, justice, and infrastructure.

Core Laissez-Faire Principles in The Wealth of Nations:

Invisible Hand: Smith argued that individuals pursuing their own self-interest unintentionally promote the good of society.

Free Trade & Competition: He advocated removing government restrictions, arguing that competition improves quality and lowers prices.

Division of Labor: Smith identified specialization as the primary driver of productivity increases, as described in The Wealth of Nations - Wikipedia.

Critique of Mercantilism: The book is largely a critique of 18th-century government policies that heavily regulated trade to protect domestic industries."

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape

There is no "first and great commandment" in your empathy..

There is no "agape" either. It's a Greek word that wasn't applied to Christianity till later by theologians. As far as empathy goes, its right there in the command "Love thy neighbor as thyself". That's basic empathy, which is not restricted to any religion and applies to all humans universally. Nobody can love anybody AS they love themselves without empathy.

Charity (agápē, Greek: ἀγάπη) is the love that exists regardless of changing circumstances. Lewis recognizes this selfless love as the greatest of the four loves, and sees it as a specifically Christian virtue to achieve. The chapter on the subject focuses on the need to subordinate the other three natural loves – as Lewis puts it, "The natural loves are not self-sufficient" – to the love of God, who is full of charitable love, to prevent what he termed their "demonic" self-aggrandizement.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_L...od%22_love

Yep..agape as specific to later Christianity. Empathy on the other hand, what Jesus originally taught, applies to humans universally. Remember, there was no Christianity when Christ was alive.

As Jesus, Lewis, and others have taught, secular empathy is insufficient.

Jesus made no distinction between secular empathy and Christian empathy. There is only one universal ability to empathize, which the Golden Rule assumes and immediately applies to action not just sentiment:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

However, affection's strength is also what makes it vulnerable. Affection has the appearance of being "built-in" or "ready made", says Lewis, and as a result, people come to expect it irrespective of their behaviour and its natural consequences. Both in its Need and its Gift form, affection then is liable to "go bad", and to be corrupted by such forces as jealousy, ambivalence and smothering.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_L...pathy_bond

Affection isn't empathy. Affection assumes familiarity and a continuing relationship with someone. Empathy does not. I can empathize with everybody whether I know them or have affection for them or not. I can even empathize with animals. It isn't based on feeling at all but on a mental leap from what I'm going thru to what someone else is going thru. It's even hardwired into us thru our mirror neurons. And that is why empathy is the built-in universal basis for all morality, because it is never based on one's own feelings like affection or "agape" but simply on the mental ability to identify with others' feelings and experiences and life situations.

If you ignored me, it wasn't enough for me to notice. Maybe that's why you had to announce it... so someone might notice

I said I would ignore you and did dumbass. It's a matter of posting record here.

[Syne]

Your claim was that Smith was the "father of American capitalism." You even made a point to reiterate that.

How can Smith be the Father of Capitalism but not the Father of American Capitalism? Is not American Capitalism "Capitalism"? Do we need fathers of all the nation's own capitalisms--German Capitalism? British Capitalism? Canadian Capitalism? No dumbass. Because they're all the same thing. To be the Father of Capitalism is to be the Father of all the capitalisms in every nation on earth. He conceived of it first. So he totally get's credit for it no matter which nation it is a part of.

Ahem:

To be precise, Adam Smith is widely touted as the general "father of capitalism" or "father of modern economics" globally.
If a historical figure is explicitly called the "father of American capitalism," it is almost always Alexander Hamilton.
The distinction breaks down as follows:

    The Intellectual Father (Adam Smith): As a Scottish philosopher, he provided the foundational theories of the free market, self-interest, and the "invisible hand" in his 1776 book The Wealth of Nations. American capitalism relies heavily on his concepts.
    The American Father (Alexander Hamilton): As the first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton is credited as the architect of the actual American capitalist system. He established the young nation's national bank, public credit system, and industrial strategy.

While casual modern writers sometimes blend the titles and call Smith the "father of American capitalism" because his ideas shaped the country, historians reserve that specific American title for Hamilton.
- Gemini

9_9

Or are you claiming all capitalist systems are exactly the same, regardless of country? @_@

Capitalism is not the same in every country. While many nations follow capitalist principles—private ownership and market-based competition—they operate along a spectrum, blending free markets with varying levels of government regulation, taxation, and social welfare.
- Gemini

Considering Smith never used the term capitalism, actually criticized many traits of modern capitalists (large corporations, government lobbying, etc.), and capitalist systems existed previously, it's clear his economic theory did not suddenly manifest all of capitalism.

Elements of capitalism existed long before Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations in 1776. While Smith provided the first comprehensive theory of free-market capitalism, practical capitalist behaviors—such as private ownership, profit-seeking, banking, and market competition—emerged centuries earlier in medieval Italian city-states, and even in ancient Mesopotamia and China.
- Gemini

Codifying something doesn't mean you invented it, nor does it entail every permutation of the thing. Codifying free-market economies just identified the language, logic, and justification for the system and principles in general.

No one said "The Wealth of Nations" has nothing to do with capitalism, nor that Smith wasn't the "father of capitalism." You're making up nonsense again. Sp any revisionism is all your own.

Yes you did liar. Right here:

Adam Smith never used the word "capitalism" in his writings, including his 1776 masterpiece, The Wealth of Nations. The term did not come into common usage until the late 19th century, well after his death. Instead, Smith referred to his economic system as the "system of natural liberty" or "commercial society".

No, that's your functional illiteracy acting up again. 9_9
Otherwise you could manage to refute some... any?... of that. Which part is wrong? @_@
Seems that invective and proclamations are all you can muster, in lieu of any actual, rational arguments.

Still can't cite your quotes, huh? @_@

I'll worry about that when you start citing the sources of the quotes your LLM comes up with.

If you weren't so lazy, you could simply look them up, and see for yourself that they are true.
And that's exactly why I use LLMs so much. I know you're so lazy that you will simply ignore any argument you can't refute. I don't put in much effort to educate the willfully ignorant.

Actually, "The Wealth of Nations" didn't argue for complete laissez-faire capitalism and did favor some amount of government constraint of the market. Quoting sources you don't cite, with your lack of comprehension, isn't helping you.

Lying again I see.

"Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (1776) is a foundational text for free-market capitalism, advocating for the "invisible hand" of competition over government intervention, or laissez-faire. While arguing against mercantilist regulation, Smith's work supports self-interest to drive public prosperity, yet allows for government roles in defense, justice, and infrastructure.

Core Laissez-Faire Principles in The Wealth of Nations:

Invisible Hand: Smith argued that individuals pursuing their own self-interest unintentionally promote the good of society.

Free Trade & Competition: He advocated removing government restrictions, arguing that competition improves quality and lowers prices.

Division of Labor: Smith identified specialization as the primary driver of productivity increases, as described in The Wealth of Nations - Wikipedia.

Critique of Mercantilism: The book is largely a critique of 18th-century government policies that heavily regulated trade to protect domestic industries."

Many think that Adam Smith believed in giving markets free rein with no government intervention. Only half of that statement is true. Smith certainly believed in free trade, and frequently refers to the “system of natural liberty.” The impetus for Wealth of Nations, as Maria Pia Paganelli has recently pointed out, was to argue against the mercantilist system of commerce that relies on government intervention in the market.

Yet, Smith also supported certain government interventions. ...

I want to focus, however, on his comments on government in his economic text, Wealth of Nations, because this text seems to be the source of the myth. First, I mentioned that Smith writes the book to an audience of merchants who are swayed by the economic policy of the time, mercantilism. In that very chapter, Smith advises that in some instances, trade should be restricted by a legislator. He suggests the implementation of tariffs to combat another nation’s use of them and to inspire their repeal. He advocates restrictions on foreign trade for national defense, citing the British navigation acts as an example. Taxes on foreign trade might also be necessary if there is a comparable tax on domestic goods. Such a tax does not create a monopoly for the domestic industry, Smith tells us, it just makes the playing field fair, allowing resources to go where they “naturally” would.
- https://www.adamsmithworks.org/speakings...71c921be44

That is not complete laissez-faire capitalism with zero government intervention.
So again, you're ignorance leads you to call people liars. If you could ever manage to play devils advocate with your own beliefs, you should really think about using LLMs more, as they could correct your ignorance before you post it, for everyone to see.

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape

There is no "first and great commandment" in your empathy..

There is no "agape" either. It's a Greek word that wasn't applied to Christianity till later by theologians. As far as empathy goes, its right there in the command "Love thy neighbor as thyself". That's basic empathy, which is not restricted to any religion and applies to all humans universally. Nobody can love anybody AS they love themselves without empathy.

The Greek word is used in the Bible (I thought you claimed to be an expert of Christianity):

The Greek word agape (ἀγάπη) appears frequently in the New Testament (over 200 times) to describe a selfless, sacrificial, and unconditional love. It is the primary word used to define God’s love, focusing on action and the well-being of others rather than mere emotion.
- Gemini


In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said:

    You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love (agapēseis) your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love (agapāte) your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?

— Matthew 5:43–46, RSV
...
In the New Testament, the word agape is often used to describe God's love. However, other forms of the word are used in an accusatory context, such as the various forms of the verb agapaō. Examples include:

    2 Timothy 4:10— "for Demas hath forsaken me, having loved [agapēsas] this present world...".
    John 12:43— "For they loved [ēgapēsan] the praise of men more than the praise of God."
    John 3:19— "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved [ēgapēsan] darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape

And unless or until you can address this critique of Smith's moral philosophy, you're arguments about secular empathy are just pissing into the wind:

Smith's "sympathy" is completely unmoored from any standard or basis with which to judge one's own impartiality, which he claims is necessary to take the perspective of an "impartial spectator." To solve this dilemma, Smith claims we should rely on general rules of morality built from a lifetime of observing others. If it takes a lifetime of observing, it's obviously a flawed morality, as it would necessarily be ill-informed for much of that lifetime.

Charity (agápē, Greek: ἀγάπη) is the love that exists regardless of changing circumstances. Lewis recognizes this selfless love as the greatest of the four loves, and sees it as a specifically Christian virtue to achieve. The chapter on the subject focuses on the need to subordinate the other three natural loves – as Lewis puts it, "The natural loves are not self-sufficient" – to the love of God, who is full of charitable love, to prevent what he termed their "demonic" self-aggrandizement.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_L...od%22_love

Yep..agape as specific to later Christianity. Empathy on the other hand, what Jesus originally taught, applies to humans universally. Remember, there was no Christianity when Christ was alive.

See above, about the Greek word in the Bible over 200 times.

While Jesus is portrayed as the epitome of empathy and compassion, his teachings and actions also demonstrate that this empathy is not a form of unconditional approval or sentimentalism. Instead, the empathy Jesus taught is often "tethered to truth," setting limits where emotion would otherwise enable sin, compromise, or neglect spiritual well-being.
Examples of the limits of empathy in Jesus' teachings include:

    Prioritizing Truth Over Immediate Comfort: Jesus sometimes delivered hard, offensive truths, such as in [John 6:60-66], where many disciples left because his teaching was too difficult. This demonstrates that empathy does not excuse avoiding uncomfortable truths.
    The Rejection of "Enabling" Sin: True biblical empathy does not excuse or validate sinful behavior. For instance, Jesus’ command to the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more" (John 8:11) shows compassion for her humanity while setting a strict boundary against her actions.
    Prioritizing Kingdom Commitments over Human Relations: In some instances, Jesus demanded that loyalty to his mission take precedence over strong emotional ties to family, such as when he told a potential disciple to "let the dead bury their own dead" (Luke 9:59–60).
    Confronting Rather Than Indulging Emotions: When Peter rebuked Jesus for stating he would die, Jesus responded with, "Get behind me, Satan!" (Matthew 16:23). This shows a limit where emotional closeness (empathy) is rejected when it acts as an impediment to God's purpose.
    Distinguishing Between Compassion and Affirmation: Jesus never instructed his disciples to "feel what others feel." Instead, he taught them to "love your neighbor as yourself." This distinction is critical because empathy can sometimes align people with emotions that are rebellious or deceitful, rather than with godly truth.
    The Requirement of Repentance: While Jesus showed immense empathy for the lost, his message was not one of universal affirmation, but of calling for repentance.
- Gemini

As Jesus, Lewis, and others have taught, secular empathy is insufficient.

Jesus made no distinction between secular empathy and Christian empathy. There is only one universal ability to empathize, which the Golden Rule assumes and immediately applies to action not just sentiment:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

The word "empathy" didn't exist when the Bible was written. It was coined in the 20th century... another lexicalization.
The words that existed in the Bible were compassion, mercy, and love. So how do you imagine Jesus would have made such a distinction to a 20th century concept? @_@
Maybe see above, where I've shown the limits on the "empathy" Jesus taught (which you should already know... being such an expert on Christianity). 

However, affection's strength is also what makes it vulnerable. Affection has the appearance of being "built-in" or "ready made", says Lewis, and as a result, people come to expect it irrespective of their behaviour and its natural consequences. Both in its Need and its Gift form, affection then is liable to "go bad", and to be corrupted by such forces as jealousy, ambivalence and smothering.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_L...od%22_love

Affection isn't empathy. Affection assumes familiarity and a continuing relationship with someone. Empathy does not. I can empathize with everybody whether I know them or have affection for them or not. That is why empathy is the universal basis for all morality, because it is never based on one's own feelings like affection or "agape" but simply on the ability to identify with others' feelings and experiences and life situation.

If affection has nothing to do with empathy than, by necessity, neither would "love thy enemy."
So how do you get from Lewis' "fondness of familiarity" (empathy) to universal morality without Smith's "impartial spectator"? @_@
Your own subjective judgement is obviously not sufficient, even according to Smith.

If you ignored me, it wasn't enough for me to notice. Maybe that's why you had to announce it... so someone might notice

I said I would ignore you and did dumbass. It's a matter of posting record here.

Very short-lived. Shame it couldn't be longer. 9_9

But yes, please, as I've ask you many times before, ignore me. If you can. @_@

[Magical Realist]

Summing up the whole point of the OP before it got derailed by the local sociopath's/new Bible scholar's defensive bullshit..

"Adam Smith’s theory of sympathy, detailed in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), defines it as a "fellow-feeling" or the ability to share passions with others, forming the foundation of human morality. It acts as a mechanism for moral judgment and social connection, utilizing imagination to understand the experiences and emotions of others, rather than being mere self-interest.

Key Aspects of Adam Smith's Sympathy:

Definition & Mechanism: Smith defines sympathy as our shared passion with any emotion in another person, created by imagining oneself in their situation.

Role of Imagination: Sympathy arises not from a direct feeling, but from the imagination, where we "place ourselves in their situation" and "become in some measure the same person".

Beyond Pity: Sympathy is not limited to sorrow, pity, or compassion. It includes "fellow-feeling" with joy or any other passion.

The Mutual Need for Sympathy: Humans have an innate desire to receive sympathy for their own passions, and we feel deep distress when others cannot share in our feelings.

The Impartial Spectator: This inner voice acts as a neutral observer, allowing us to judge our own actions based on whether a hypothetical, well-informed, and impartial observer would sympathize with us, often leading to a "system of praise and blame" that organizes society.

Function in Society:

Social Order: Smith argues this capacity for sympathy creates natural social solidarity and moral order, rather than just economic self-interest.

Moral Judgments: It helps us determine what is "proper" or "despicable" behavior, as we naturally approve of emotions that are proportionate to the cause.

Limitations: While central, Smith notes it can lead to problems if we focus too much on sympathizing with the wealthy, causing inequality and social misery."

Note: For the original text, see Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, I.iii.1, at the Pennsylvania Electronic Edition.

[Syne]

The biggest problem with Smith's morality is his "impartial spectator." In religion, this is clearly God, where the standards of morality are codified, so there's no guesswork or subjectively biased imagination necessary. But Smith only relies on a lifetime of observing others. This means that no one can be expected to be impartial (short of a lifetime of experience), within a moral system that requires impartiality as it's primary guide.

This means that Smith's moral philosophy is critically flawed from the beginning.

The impartial spectator is the central, foundational concept in Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), acting as the psychological mechanism for conscience and objective moral judgment. It serves as an imagined "man within the breast" that allows individuals to bypass self-interest and evaluate their own actions from a neutral, principled perspective.

Adam Smith develops this argument, of the development of the "impartial spectator", primarily in Part III, Chapter 1 and Part III, Chapter 3 of The Theory of Moral Sentiments. He presents this lifelong social development through two famous concepts: The Mirror Metaphor and The Great School of Self-Command.
1. The Mirror Metaphor (Part III, Chapter 1) - https://www.marxists.org/reference/archi...part3a.htm
Smith argues that a human being raised completely outside of society could not conceive of morality or their own character. Society acts as the necessary mirror.

    The Solitary Man: Smith writes that a person solitary from infancy would have no concept of the propriety or demerit of his own sentiments.
    The Social Mirror: Bring him into society, and he is immediately provided with the mirror he lacked.
    Learning from Feedback: He learns by observing others' reactions to him, realizing his passions must be toned down to achieve mutual sympathy.

2. The Great School of Self-Command (Part III, Chapter 3) - https://www.marxists.org/reference/archi...part3b.htm
Smith explicitly outlines how the impartial spectator is cultivated from childhood through adulthood:

    Infancy (No Spectator): A very young child has no self-command and expects immediate satisfaction.
    Schoolboy Era (First Socialization): When the child enters school, he enters "the great school of self-command". He realizes his peers do not have the partial indulgence of his parents. He must adopt the perspective of a detached companion to be accepted.
    Adulthood (Lifelong Habit): Through a lifetime of this social interaction, the habit of self-scrutiny becomes so practiced that we form an independent internal judge—the impartial spectator—which guides us even when we are entirely alone.
- Gemini

So we see that it takes a lifetime of social interaction to achieve the fully developed view of an "impartial spectator."

This is even more telling of an admitted hermit, who lacks in real life social interactions.

[Magical Realist]

So we see that it takes a lifetime of social interaction to achieve the fully developed view of an "impartial spectator."

No it doesn't. Smith's impartial observer is simply the forerunner that later became commonly known as the moral conscience or Freud's superego, which is all in place by our late teens. It is the little angel on our shoulder that prompts us to do the right thing even if it seems impractical or disastrous at the time. But it isn't the basis of true morality, which as we grow more psychologically mature develops into an intuitive sense of empathy and wisdom based on the unique situation and person(s) involved. Good judgement cannot be codified or formulated into rules and laws. That's why morality based on religion or obeying God's will always fails. Right and wrong is always relative to the circumstances.

[Syne]

So we see that it takes a lifetime of social interaction to achieve the fully developed view of an "impartial spectator."

No it doesn't. Smith's impartial observer is simply the forerunner that later became commonly known as the moral conscience or Freud's superego, which is all in place by our late teens. It is the little angel on our shoulder that prompts us to do the right thing even if it seems impractical or disastrous at the time. But it isn't the basis of true morality, which as we grow more psychologically mature develops into an intuitive sense of empathy and wisdom based on the unique situation and person(s) involved. Good judgement cannot be codified or formulated into rules and laws. That's why morality based on religion or obeying God's will always fails. Right and wrong is always relative to the circumstances.

Yet Smith doesn't claim it to be fully developed in the late teens. And the "impartial spectator" is the basis of true morality, in Smith's philosophy. Where Smith's impartial spectator at least implies some attempt at objectivity, Freud's superego just adopts the environmental (parental/social) values, without any philosophical justification or principles, as an unconscious and uncritical psychological process based in brute survival and anxiety. That's a nihilistic morality, where your environment determines your morals and you really have no agency in the morality of your actions. IOW amoral. You essentially just believe what you're told to believe, and you can thus blame any moral failing of your own on your environment... exactly as if you had no moral agency.

[Magical Realist]

He doesn't say it takes a lifetime to develop the impartial observer either. So obviously it is developed by the time we leave the nest, when our brains reach full maturity. Freud's superego serves the same purpose as the introjection of the parent's own values. They are all what we call the human conscience, which serves to help us navigate the world by making decisions that conform to our cultural and societal values. It isn't however the true nature of morality, as we already know he posits empathy as the basis for that. Which is how we can travel to different cultures and societies all over the world and still understand and treat people as others just like us with the same feelings and experiences. Empathy is hardwired into us thru our mirror neurons and is thus more fundamental than any overlays of our enviromental conditioning. It is the instinctive imaginative leap that lets us see both from a second person's perspective and the third impartial observer's perspective.

[Magical Realist]

The Japanese concept of "Mono No Aware" (all beauty is fleeting)

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/mrMH1XIh2wM

I am opening myself more to this since going off of antidepressants recently. Escaping the famous "emotional blunting" of those meds on my feelings, life is becoming a richer and more subtler mix, with shifting extremes of melancholy and humor..of eros and pathos. As my brother wisely quoted from the movie Parenthood, I am, at least as of this moment, forgoing the even-keel numbness of the merry-go-round for the more adventurous highs and lows of the roller coaster.

[Syne]

He doesn't say it takes a lifetime to develop the impartial observer either.

It thus enters into the great school of self-command, it studies to be more and more master of itself, and begins to exercise over its own feelings a discipline which the practice of the longest life is very seldom sufficient to bring to complete perfection.
- https://www.marxists.org/reference/archi...part3b.htm

So obviously it is developed by the time we leave the nest, when our brains reach full maturity. Freud's superego serves the same purpose as the introjection of the parent's own values. They are all what we call the human conscience, which serves to help us navigate the world by making decisions that conform to our cultural and societal values. It isn't however the true nature of morality, as we already know he posits empathy as the basis for that. Which is how we can travel to different cultures and societies all over the world and still understand and treat people as others just like us with the same feelings and experiences.

Sigmund Freud viewed morality primarily as the internalization of social norms and authority figures (parents) through the development of the superego, often driven by guilt and fear of punishment. While Freud used empathy in clinical practice (as introspection), he did not emphasize it as a primary driver of morality, viewing it as a "mechanism" to understand another's inner life.
- Gemini

Empathy is hardwired into us thru our mirror neurons and is thus more fundamental than any overlays of our enviromental conditioning. It is the instinctive imaginative leap that lets us see both from a second person's perspective and the third impartial observer's perspective.

Instinct, as an unconscious process, can never be knowingly separated from self-interest and personal bias.

---

I am opening myself more to this since going off of antidepressants recently. Escaping the famous "emotional blunting" of those meds on my feelings, life is becoming a richer and more subtler mix, with shifting extremes of melancholy and humor..

Good for you.

At best, psych meds may reduce some symptoms. They can perhaps be useful, in the short-term, to facilitate lessening extreme symptoms to an extent that helps allow therapy. But used long-term, they are just a crutch to avoid dealing with the underlying causes. Without any therapy, they are just a life-long dependency.

That also explains the extra emotional dysregulation lately, as those are skills that have not been practiced.

[Magical Realist]

Meno's Paradox (or how can I look for and find what I don't currently understand or even know about?)

https://www.google.com/search?q=jonny+vi...elxXE,st:0

My answer comes from this idea of a sort "fuzziness" between exclusive opposites.That not knowing or questioning feathers together incrementally with knowing and finding the truth. Little by little, like the transformation of night into dawn, not fully knowing and yet partially knowing or suspecting dialectically feed back on each other resulting over time in a sort of organically growing if not sudden epiphanous "eureka!" moment.