Quote of the Day

[kat_lair]

***

For reasons that don't need expanding at this juncture (read: work) I'm currently revising some political philosophers (have I done anything with those fellows since upper secondary school philosophy? the answer is 'lol no') and came across this in an article. It's in reference to Rousseau's Emile, specifically the concept of moral education and development of compassion, and I just thought it was a lovely paragraph that really spoke to me. And also, because disciplinary boundaries are for the weak, fits incredibly well into my psych sessions on theory of mind and empathy development. Anyway, sharing.

 

"Love for oneself is at first a mere instinct of self-preservation. Then it extends to everything that matters: parents, friends, and so on. Human existence is not confined to the limits of a physical body. It extends to every place in the world to which an individual can transport himself in imagination, any place to which he can be attached. I have a feeling of my own existence in any place, in any moment of the past, or of the future, to which I can transport myself and feel concerned. So, when I put myself in the place of another human being, when I experience the consciousness he has of his own situation, the sympathy I feel for the other is an extension of love for myself. It means that I include him in the sphere of my own existence." (Canivez, 2004: 397)

Full ref: Canivez, P. (2004). Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Concept of People. Philosophy & Social Criticism: An International, Interdisciplinary Journal, 30(4):  393–412.

***

Comments

[lunabee34]

That is a lovely quote. Thank you for sharing.

[kat_lair]

It made me pause in my skim-read of the article.

[wpadmirer]

I like that.

I've been mulling over all kinds of things about compassion. When I was phone banking people would ask me why I was voting for Biden and my honest answer was because he was a man of great compassion, and I believed it was what we needed.

I once homeschooled two different sons of the same family. First one, then the other. The first had such an innate sense of compassion I was blown away. The second was a sociopath. (Seriously, the psychologist who did his annual testing for progress in school told me he was.) I had to quit because I honestly believed the second son was dangerous and I did not want to be around him.

It really made me wonder about how do we teach that? Can we? Or must there be an innate sense of caring for others within the person.

I don't know the answer.

[kat_lair]

Empathy is a topic that comes up a lot in my teaching, and it's such a fascinating subject. Like most traits, there's both an innate and environmental component and it's the interaction of both that matters. Your story of the two brothers is therefore really interesting, because both their genetics and immediate environment would've been similar so clearly even small differences matter. If you're interested in that idea of whether we have innate wiring for empathy, I recommend this TED Talk (I make my students watch it): https://www.ted.com/talks/vilayanur_ramachandran_the_neurons_that_shaped_civilization?language=en

[wpadmirer]

Cool! Thanks. Yes, I am. I'm fascinated by how two siblings can be SO different. And having taught them, so I had close contact for multiple years, it's hard to pin down where the difference might have come from.

[wpadmirer]

Holy Shit! That's SO cool!

So maybe people who lack empathy literally lack mirror neurons that would allow them to develop empathy.

That's cooler than shit.

[kat_lair]

I'm pretty sure the mirror neurons are there BUT there is good evidence that suggests neurological differences in psychopaths in comparison with non-psychopaths. Found this open article that reviews some of the research https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00695/full

[wpadmirer]

I started reading this. I want to finish it, but don't have time tonight. DAMN! DAMN! being a responsible adult! (grin)

[kat_lair]

Being a responsible adult is the WORST

[wenchpixie]

oh that is kind of wonderful - thank you for sharing it.

[kat_lair]

Most welcome. It made me stop in the middle of my reading so it was worth sharing.

[apiphile]

That presumably also works in the inverse: the less love we have for ourselves, the less sympathy we can have for others?

[kat_lair]

Good point. I would say yes. Psych research on empathy development suggests that it's intimately linked with early attachment experiences. Secure attachments in turn are said to be how we internalise the positive representation of the caregiver and learn to self-soothe, as well as being key to healthy individuation. So yeah, checks out for me.

[apiphile]

I'm intrigued as to how this works, because anecdotally I know a lot of people with absolutely TERRIBLE self-esteem/self-loathing who almost obsessively worry about other peoples wellbeing. Are they outliers?

[kat_lair]

Interesting, my question would be: is there a gender slant among them? But generally speculating (and this is not my area of expertise beyond the level needed for some very specific lectures) I would speculate that this could be another form of externalising/poor individuation where sense of self-worth is tied to others so the worry stems from that in part.

I'm now thinking you could look at in on a kind of sliding scale from narcissism to self-loathing, where how that colours both understanding other people's emotions and empathy and how that could be expressed in ways that look similar but stem from different reasons ('look at me and how caring and good i am' to 'my only worth is making sure others are happy'). Honestly just thinking out loud though!

[apiphile]

I think they're mostly AFAB, although I do also know a double of cis men who have an anxious need to not so much worry about people's emotional wellbeing but very much to nurture/provide for basically anyone who comes within their orbit.

'look at me and how caring and good i am' to 'my only worth is making sure others are happy'

that's a division i've thought about before actually! i've had friends who've straight up stated the latter position, basically "if I am not caring for someone else's needs i might as well be dead".

[kat_lair]

Gender socialisation may have something to do with that then on both counts.

At both extremes you're not really caring for the other person because of them but because what the caring does for you whether that's admiration or validation, though of course there's often an element of one/both that in caring...

[apiphile]

Option three: obligation?

[moth2fic]

Yes! Thank you for sharing that! Like you, my last brush with philosophy in any formal fashion was in the last years of secondary school... (unless you count jurisprudence which I don't really). And I love your throwaway comment that disciplinary boundaries are for the weak!!

[kat_lair]

It was just so well put :) But ugh yeah, I'm taking over a module on topics I don't know much about and it's requiring some serious revision and learning, hence the overtime creeping up. And honestly, I've made a whole academic career out of traipsing over disciplinary boundaries and bringing people together across departments etc. I think more I learn, more connections I see.

[dreamersdare]

Interdisciplinary boundaries are those things you climb over so you can go and rifle the pockets of other disciplines for any good research...

[kat_lair]

Lol yeah, I always explain criminology to my students as the discipline that skulks in dark alley, mugs other disciplines and rifles their pockets for loose theories and concepts... :D

[dreamersdare]

*laughs* I have used that exact descriptor in my teaching sessions as well. I love subverting that quote

[corvidology]

Everything is connected!


It's a great quote, thanks.

[kat_lair]

It really is! Glad to have shared.

[turps]

That is a lovely, and also interesting to think about, quote.

Thank you for sharing it.

[kat_lair]

You are most welcome! I'm glad other people have found it thought-provoking too :)

[adafrog]

Interesting thought.

[kat_lair]

Isn't it just? Had to be shared :)