Suella Braverman - sacked as Home Secretary (p394)

hilts said:
With or without the UK all of what you say would still be present. I came to the conclusion many years back that the one and only problem we face is our own existence. Human beings are basically selfish self interested cunts. Some bigger than others.

Unfortunately being emotional creatures means we can't help but have attachments to those close to us.

If we were going to evolve emotionally to any great extent it would have happened by now.
Click to expand...

Although, like yourself, I am pessimistically inclined and would tend to agree with your assessment of our emotional development when that is set in an evolutionary context, the assumption that we are an inherently self-interested species is not borne out empirically.

That a viable morality can be founded on empathy and altruism is an argument that can be found in an 850 page study of altruism authored by Matthieu Ricard. Ricard is a rather unique character. His father was Jean Francois Revel, a former philosophy professor, journalist and enthusiastic proponent of free-market economics. At one point Ricard seemed destined for a career in cellular genetics but instead, in 1972, ordained as a Tibetan Buddhist monk, and since then has spent much of his time in the Himalayas. But this has not turned him into a benign but unworldly out-of-touch recluse. Ricard’s background in both Eastern and Western Philosophy positions him more than adequately to survey what is essentially ethical territory, and his reading has been interdisciplinary and thorough, taking in the most relevant up-to-date scholarship across a broad spectrum of academia. So what does he have to say?

First of all, Ricard takes issue with an assumption found in a lot of Western philosophical writing (his examples include Hobbes, Adam Smith and Ayn Rand) that human beings are selfishly and unalterably egocentric. His concern here is to draw attention to the abundant, carefully calibrated and mutually reinforcing studies in the field of psychology that demonstrate our ability to empathise and act (from a surprisingly young age) in what seems to be a purely altruistic and compassionate manner, uncontaminated by mercenary motivations. Research on the animal kingdom further indicates that such behaviour is widespread there too, which in turn suggests, perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively, that these dispositions are integral to our evolutionary heritage.

Ricard goes on to insist that our capacity to act in a benevolent manner (where the motive is simply to promote the well-being of others) can be built on and further cultivated both inwardly and outwardly. Specifically, he refers to surveys of neuronal plasticity affirming that the brain can be structurally modified through meditation practices specifically designed to spontaneously arouse and reinforce our potential for compassion. Interestingly, Ricard has been called ‘the happiest man alive’. This is because, as an advanced meditator, scans of his own brain have shown increased activity in the regions associated with what the Greeks called eudaimonia, a state of sublime contentment.

His argument is an interesting one, though I would argue that our tribalism restricts our capacity for the expression of altruism and empathy to those who we identify most closely with. And God help those who fall outside of the parameters of that 'in-group'.

But anyway, I have written this reply for another, rather more ironic reason: one of those meditation practices that Ricard has in mind is that of metta-bhavana, extending loving-kindness to all sentient beings whoever they are, including people that we don't like. Somewhat ironically, metta-bhavana is a foundational practice within the Triratna Buddhist movement that Braverman is a committed member of. As a 'Mitra' or 'friend' of the movement, it is almost certain that she will have practised it, perhaps even intensively.

So given that it seems to have had fuck-all effect on her, that in itself counts against Ricard's thesis.
 
ZenHalfTimeCrock said:
Although, like yourself, I am pessimistically inclined and would tend to agree with your assessment of our emotional development when that is set in an evolutionary context, the assumption that we are an inherently self-interested species is not borne out empirically.

That a viable morality can be founded on empathy and altruism is an argument that can be found in an 850 page study of altruism authored by Matthieu Ricard. Ricard is a rather unique character. His father was Jean Francois Revel, a former philosophy professor, journalist and enthusiastic proponent of free-market economics. At one point Ricard seemed destined for a career in cellular genetics but instead, in 1972, ordained as a Tibetan Buddhist monk, and since then has spent much of his time in the Himalayas. But this has not turned him into a benign but unworldly out-of-touch recluse. Ricard’s background in both Eastern and Western Philosophy positions him more than adequately to survey what is essentially ethical territory, and his reading has been interdisciplinary and thorough, taking in the most relevant up-to-date scholarship across a broad spectrum of academia. So what does he have to say?

First of all, Ricard takes issue with an assumption found in a lot of Western philosophical writing (his examples include Hobbes, Adam Smith and Ayn Rand) that human beings are selfishly and unalterably egocentric. His concern here is to draw attention to the abundant, carefully calibrated and mutually reinforcing studies in the field of psychology that demonstrate our ability to empathise and act (from a surprisingly young age) in what seems to be a purely altruistic and compassionate manner, uncontaminated by mercenary motivations. Research on the animal kingdom further indicates that such behaviour is widespread there too, which in turn suggests, perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively, that these dispositions are integral to our evolutionary heritage.

Ricard goes on to insist that our capacity to act in a benevolent manner (where the motive is simply to promote the well-being of others) can be built on and further cultivated both inwardly and outwardly. Specifically, he refers to surveys of neuronal plasticity affirming that the brain can be structurally modified through meditation practices specifically designed to spontaneously arouse and reinforce our potential for compassion. Interestingly, Ricard has been called ‘the happiest man alive’. This is because, as an advanced meditator, scans of his own brain have shown increased activity in the regions associated with what the Greeks called eudaimonia, a state of sublime contentment.

His argument is an interesting one, though I would argue that our tribalism restricts our capacity for the expression of altruism and empathy to those who we identify most closely with. And God help those who fall outside of the parameters of that 'in-group'.

But anyway, I have written this reply for another, rather more ironic reason: one of those meditation practices that Ricard has in mind is that of metta-bhavana, extending loving-kindness to all sentient beings whoever they are, including people that we don't like. Somewhat ironically, metta-bhavana is a foundational practice within the Triratna Buddhist movement that Braverman is a committed member of. As a 'Mitra' or 'friend' of the movement, it is almost certain that she will have practised it, perhaps even intensively.

So given that it seems to have had fuck-all effect on her, that in itself counts against Ricard's thesis.
Click to expand...

You want some pal? :-)

Joking aside interesting read mate especially the Braverman part.

Personally I see empathy outside of a group or tribe to be fleeting. I'm not saying it's fake and totally apathetic but more easily moved on from. Almost a reaction to what we have been taught we should feel.
 
hilts said:
You want some pal? :-)

Joking aside interesting read mate especially the Braverman part.

Personally I see empathy outside of a group or tribe to be fleeting. I'm not saying it's fake and totally apathetic but more easily moved on from. Almost a reaction to what we have been taught we should feel.
Click to expand...

Haven't yet read Bloom's book (or Balzagette's) but think that his thesis may dovetail with the line that you have taken.

www.theguardian.com

Against Empathy by Paul Bloom; The Empathy Instinct by Peter Bazalgette – review

Is empathy the bedrock of morality? Two new studies suggest there is confusion around its meaning – and its usefulness in creating a more caring society
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Stelea said:
No surprise it’s come to this with Gaz.
Based upon the woke nature of the BBC I’m surprised they didn’t react quicker.
Anyway, time for a Jermane Jesus or Alex Scott to take over MOTD to run it into the ground like Football Focus.
I’m sure Lineker will be busier on BT or even appearing on SKY or Amazon where he will be a great asset
Click to expand...
Your post makes no sense. If you're going to bandy lazy, right-wing terms of abuse around at least try and understand what they mean. If the nature of the BBC was as "woke" as you claim it is, then surely Gary Lineker would have been feted rather than admonished?
And what is it about Jermaine Jesus {sic} and Alex Scott that you object to?
Click to expand...
 
ZenHalfTimeCrock said:
Although, like yourself, I am pessimistically inclined and would tend to agree with your assessment of our emotional development when that is set in an evolutionary context, the assumption that we are an inherently self-interested species is not borne out empirically.

That a viable morality can be founded on empathy and altruism is an argument that can be found in an 850 page study of altruism authored by Matthieu Ricard. Ricard is a rather unique character. His father was Jean Francois Revel, a former philosophy professor, journalist and enthusiastic proponent of free-market economics. At one point Ricard seemed destined for a career in cellular genetics but instead, in 1972, ordained as a Tibetan Buddhist monk, and since then has spent much of his time in the Himalayas. But this has not turned him into a benign but unworldly out-of-touch recluse. Ricard’s background in both Eastern and Western Philosophy positions him more than adequately to survey what is essentially ethical territory, and his reading has been interdisciplinary and thorough, taking in the most relevant up-to-date scholarship across a broad spectrum of academia. So what does he have to say?

First of all, Ricard takes issue with an assumption found in a lot of Western philosophical writing (his examples include Hobbes, Adam Smith and Ayn Rand) that human beings are selfishly and unalterably egocentric. His concern here is to draw attention to the abundant, carefully calibrated and mutually reinforcing studies in the field of psychology that demonstrate our ability to empathise and act (from a surprisingly young age) in what seems to be a purely altruistic and compassionate manner, uncontaminated by mercenary motivations. Research on the animal kingdom further indicates that such behaviour is widespread there too, which in turn suggests, perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively, that these dispositions are integral to our evolutionary heritage.

Ricard goes on to insist that our capacity to act in a benevolent manner (where the motive is simply to promote the well-being of others) can be built on and further cultivated both inwardly and outwardly. Specifically, he refers to surveys of neuronal plasticity affirming that the brain can be structurally modified through meditation practices specifically designed to spontaneously arouse and reinforce our potential for compassion. Interestingly, Ricard has been called ‘the happiest man alive’. This is because, as an advanced meditator, scans of his own brain have shown increased activity in the regions associated with what the Greeks called eudaimonia, a state of sublime contentment.

His argument is an interesting one, though I would argue that our tribalism restricts our capacity for the expression of altruism and empathy to those who we identify most closely with. And God help those who fall outside of the parameters of that 'in-group'.

But anyway, I have written this reply for another, rather more ironic reason: one of those meditation practices that Ricard has in mind is that of metta-bhavana, extending loving-kindness to all sentient beings whoever they are, including people that we don't like. Somewhat ironically, metta-bhavana is a foundational practice within the Triratna Buddhist movement that Braverman is a committed member of. As a 'Mitra' or 'friend' of the movement, it is almost certain that she will have practised it, perhaps even intensively.

So given that it seems to have had fuck-all effect on her, that in itself counts against Ricard's thesis.
Click to expand...
Good read. I think most people are pretty decent face to face not so much on the Internet!
My social theory, I think it's mine but I might have read it somewhere, is that political views have literally become the new religion. Many political zealots do not believe in God and that space in their brains needs to be filled by something, their political beliefs become sacred and any challenge is akin to questioning their God hence their overreaction and seeming hate for alternate beliefs. My experience is that if you can get rid of the 10% of lunatics on the left and the 10% of lunatics on the right then you can have a reasoned fact based debate and even agree an acceptable compromise. What we end up with though is both sets of lunatics claiming their God is the best and only God and must be obeyed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.