| | I am lucky, in that my name begins with a C and Eben edited my paper a long time ago. Still, it took me some time to inure myself to the scary red ink and actually digest his comments. His notes, along with this class, raise some issues I find both interesting and very complicated and I welcome your thoughts and help in sorting them out. (You can read his edits here - CarolineFerrisWhiteFirstPaper)
If I understand correctly, Eben sees empathy and empathic responses as one way of distinguishing between criminal/antisocial and social behavior. The ready distinction seems to be between those who feel for and can imagine the experiences of others, leading them to treat others with respect, and those who for whatever reason can't imagine the experiences of others, and so think only of their own interests and desires. But it's not always so clear: Eben points to the case of the empathic individual who nonetheless behaves antisocially, and the complex system of internal justifications this creates. Probably most people who commit crimes fall into this category. |
|
<
< | This brings me to another concept from this class that has been gnawing at me: the idea that we all are a bundle of disparate selves, multiple personalities. Does this concept resonate with anyone else? Someone who is not suffering from some breakdown in empathy, but nonetheless hurts another person, must have something less than a fully integrated set of selves. Is that what is going on? Do we need to find better get our multiple personae to talk to each other? |
>
> | This brings me to another concept from this class that has been gnawing at me: the idea that we all are a bundle of disparate selves, multiple personalities. Does this concept resonate with anyone else? Someone who is not suffering from some breakdown in empathy, but nonetheless hurts another person, must have something less than a fully integrated set of selves. Is that what is going on? Do we need to find a way to get our multiple personae to talk to each other? |
| | Empathy also seems to be a way of thinking about the discussion at DoingWrongByNotDoing. Being open to the hurts of the world while simultaneously doing nothing about them is a toxic combination. I thought law school would toughen me up; instead I feel even more like a rod for every passing emotional lighting bolt. |
| | Speaking of John Brown: I always thought he was regarded as a major American hero. When I was in high school history class, I wondered why he didn't have a monument on the Mall or something like that. I assumed that most people also regard him as insane just because most people would be afraid do what he did. Since taking this class, some students and Eben have pointed out that mine is actually not the majority opinion, which has surprised me. |
|
<
< | -- KalliopeKefallinos - 01 Apr 2010 |
>
> | -- AmandaBell - 01 Apr 2010 |
| | You say a lot here, so I will only comment on the multiple personalities issue. I do not believe Eben was saying we should strive towards cohesion. I don't even think cohesion is possible. The goal is rather one of self-awareness. For example, since Eben mentioned this phenomenon, I did further reading on the topic and began to try to pay better attention to myself as I interacted with others, waiting to see if I could decipher different personalities emerging in different contexts with different people. I personally did notice changes-- but I won't go into them here. The next step would be to understand whyyy this or that personality was created or why it emerges in particular contexts. The result is learning how to better understand and then control oneself on a deeper level-- that is, to learn to exist with multiple personalities and use them to your advantage. |
|
>
> | -- KalliopeKefallinos - 01 Apr 2010 |
| |
To the writer above: I think self-awareness of the kind that you allude to eventually leads to cohesion or something like it. If I am aware of all my roles and personalities, and know which one to marshal in any given situation, then at the very least, I have a dominant personality that regulates those activities. The complex process of self-observation that you just described seems to involve a coherent "you" that watched, objectively, what went on, with all the other "yous". To me, that objective observer implies some over-arching personality whose goal is to integrate all the other personalities into a functional framework so that you get what you need (or don't go plumb mad). Can't that functional framework be seen as some attempt at cohesion? |
| | -- KrishnaSutaria - 02 Apr 2010 |
|
<
< | This is a test to see if the wiki identifies me as Kalliope. The post above that starts "Hi Caroline" is actually by Amanda. Kalliope, if this is happening because you and I have the same password, that is an amazing coincidence. They say great minds think alike!  |
| | |
|
<
< | -- AmandaBell - 02 Apr 2010 |
| | |
|
<
< | Not to be rude, but looking at the history button (top right), the wiki is not mistaking you two. It is probably some sort of (human) error in editing and misplacing (or omitting) time stamps. |
| | |
|
<
< | -- MatthewZorn - 02 Apr 2010 |
>
> | @Kalliope - I agree that self awareness is key. I think if one is like me and finds acknowledging the various personae within to be a deeply unsettling experience, it has to go beyond just awareness. I have often chastised myself for my inconsistencies; perhaps the better solution is to embrace them. Krishna's concept of an over-arching personality seems to jive with the idea of embracing your inner selves, or at least finding a way to let them keep house together without burning the whole place down.
-- CarolineFerrisWhite - 02 Apr 2010 |
| | |