An Empathic Lens and a Connected Universe

[Paul Mawdsley]

When we feel in the moment we are taking in our surroundings in terms of what they can offer us. I think empathy is indirectly a part of this. When we evaluate another person based on our emotional response, rather than descriptively, and decide there is value (to us) in the other person (because we feel it, and not because the other person has proved it somehow), we are able only then to empathize.

For me, empathy comes first, before judgement. It acts as a lens that brings in information and feeds understanding before judgments are made. In fact, I would say putting judgement before empathy is the cause of a lot of disconnection and problems in our culture, and is a major factor in what Barbara once called "Objectivist Rage."

In my life, when there is a sense of a safe space and connection, I experience an opening and deepening of mutual empathy, creating a shared space. When I experience a sense of danger and coldness, or when I experience perception manipulation, power games or attempts at codependent ploys, I experience a closing and withdrawing of empathy. This is a protective, though not defensive, mechanism that has taken shape over my lifetime at the level of conditioning rather than thinking. While it works at the level of conditioning rather than thinking, I do see it and understand it conceptually so I have the power to shape my own conditioning, to shape my own unconscious flow around empathy. It works for me.

.

What a fine insight. For some reason it makes me think of Aristotle's description of friendship as a high value.

Thanks for making the connection to Aristotle. I hadn't thought about it. It does seem to come from the same place.

A couple of weeks ago my girlfriend was texting me questions, one after another, about plans we were making. At the end of the questions, as a joke, she texted, "What is the meaning of life?" I guess she figured I had answers for everything else flying off my my cuff, why not try a biggie? My answer was simple: "connection."

This would not have been my answer a few years ago. I would have said something about integrity, self-actualization and productiveness. What I realize today, living in a world where people are so disconnected from self and others, is that connection to self and to others is what gives everything else value, meaning and direction. So "connection" is the meaning of life, to me.

I have found we cannot fully know self without a deep connection to others or know others without a deep connection to self. Insights into each feed our insights into the other in another dynamic of reciprocal causation. Healthy empathy plays a huge role in this process of ever growing insight into self and others. It is also a powerful motivator for integrity, self-actualization and productivity. This seems to fit very well with Aristotle's view.

[Dglgmut]

The only thing, Paul, is that it takes effort and energy to empathize. It takes brain power... I think it is habitual for many people to put the necessary energy toward taking in that other person's perspective, but I do think it is initiated consciously.

The valuing that I think comes before is a general value for other human beings. If we believe other people can be of value to our happiness, we would not waste any opportunities to connect with people. I think the lack of appreciation for empathy that people notice in Objectivists comes from the belief that people cannot add to your life because according to Rand's philosophy, they are never necessary.

But now I see empathy as a tool to benefit one's own life, individualistically, since it is ultimately one's own happiness one is contributing to by striving to form strong and healthy relationships.

And I see other people as absolutely necessary... What message do people send themselves when they avoid empathy, that they are different from everybody else? It may seem fine while they tell themselves that they are better than everyone else, but once they snap out of it they're just going to feel lonely.

[anthony]

"According to Rand's philosophy [people] are never necessary."

Where do you get this stuff from?

Objectivism = reality. Whatever is real, IS Objectivism.

All existents - which include human emotions btw - are 'knowable', which means undeniable,

which means embraceable..

Commonality of humanity does not contradict egoism, and vice-versa: indeed, they are compatible.

To reject the humanity of men, is to reject one's own, and vice-versa.

To 'elevate' one's own life, has the effect of 'elevating' all human life along with it.

Calvin, you're all over the place with your sweeping assertions. That you are thinking for

yourself, while learning, is fine, but your 'conclusiveness' on matters O'ist, while still in the process

of learning, amounts to a very meager straw man, an unjust and false misrepresentation.

[anthony]

When we feel in the moment we are taking in our surroundings in terms of what they can offer us. I think empathy is indirectly a part of this. When we evaluate another person based on our emotional response, rather than descriptively, and decide there is value (to us) in the other person (because we feel it, and not because the other person has proved it somehow), we are able only then to empathize.

For me, empathy comes first, before judgement. It acts as a lens that brings in information and feeds understanding before judgments are made. In fact, I would say putting judgement before empathy is the cause of a lot of disconnection and problems in our culture, and is a major factor in what Barbara once called "Objectivist Rage."

Paul,

I have opinions on judgment I've at times mentioned which I won't go into in depth, now.

Broadly, judgment is the mind assessing, then selecting a course of action.

Where would free will be without it?

Often, it might not directly be focused on other people.

'Judgmental' comes with its Christian baggage - meaning always to condemn. Imported into O'ism, this is

one terrible error *some* Objectivists can sometimes make. (Rand clarified that to judge, is to acknowledge

the good, equally with the bad.)

My only "rage" comes when truth - or that sincere proximity to it, honesty - is deliberately

and consciously undermined by anyone. (Which has to be judged in itself, crucially: innocent ignorance, or not?) For me, deliberate untruth and dishonesty is an attack on my mind, and on man's mind in general, which offended me way back then, pre-dating reading Rand. To defend the mind, the sanity, one has to judge.

Otherwise, mostly or often, 'judgment' can (should, I think) be kept to oneself, privately, for one's

own benefit - or until further certainty can be reached.

Finally, to judge as wrong the ideas a person holds, should be carefully separated from judging the person

himself.

To go back - you say "empathy comes first, before judgment". I think I know what you mean, ( something

I have experienced, in certain situations, with some people. May I put it to you that you are speaking from

your own strength and the solidity that comes with a total individuation, a confident awareness of other people as not posing any threat to you - but conversely, as adding worth to your life - in other words, a mature and well-evolved ego coupled with unusual insight. You must know that this is rare, and that other people, at other stages of maturation might not realise the origins of it.

I still believe that empathy alone, without a firm base of Self, is ineffectual and de-focused - not doing much good for the subject or the object of such empathy (perhaps, doing harm?) Together, they are a potent combination, as I think you've been indicating.

[Dglgmut]

I meant necessary for happiness, Tony. But I am starting to think they certainly are necessary to be really happy, and that comes down to our nature of being social creatures.

If you go through life with the Rand mentality, that there are very few people worthy of love, then you are only reducing the chances of yourself being happy.

[Xray]

All experts on Ayn Rand bring perception bias to the table contaminating and augmenting their observations. You have no observations. Those who do will take them with them. Their words will remain, but those will be second-handerism for those who follow them and read them.

Both Barbara and Nathaniel Branden who belonged to Rand's inner circle have shared their observations with the public, so there exists a corpus of written and oral statements to 'hang one's hat on' in discussing her ability to empathize.

I would say, perhaps, she had selective empathy for those she trusted and respected.

I think Rand reserved her empathy for those who deserved it.

The way Ayn Rand dealt with her husband Frank re the 'arrangement' (where Frank was asked to leave their common bedroom to her and NB once a week) makes me question her ability to empathize.

No doubt this kind of arrangement must have hurt Frank's feelings deeply (and we know from BB's book how desperate he was).

But could it be that Ayn really did not know it? Could it be be that she actually had no idea that the arrangement could hurt Frank's feelings and humiliate him? Maybe she naively interpreted Frank's consent to this 'rational' (seen from Rand's perspective) arrangement as a clear signal on his part that he had nothing against it?

I'm convinced that she really did not know he would be hurt.

[Brant Gaede]

Maybe she was juggling too many balls. Above all she didn't want to do anything that would jeopardize her reputation and the publication of her save-the-world novel, Atlas Shrugged. In that sense, she was fighting a war. Empathy doesn't work too well for warriors warrioring.

Maybe.

--Brant

Barbara Branden has much more first-hand data than I do--to say the least

[anthony]

I meant necessary for happiness, Tony. But I am starting to think they certainly are necessary to be really happy, and that comes down to our nature of being social creatures.

Yes.

If you go through life with the Rand mentality, that there are very few people worthy of love, then you are only reducing the chances of yourself being happy.

Then that is what I'm lacking. I don't know what the "Rand mentality" is, and apart from some speculative interest

- and empathy - in her life, it doesn't concern me.

"Very few people worthy of love" is a suspect idea, not borne out in her writings - or her life - as far as I can tell.

My happiness is in my hands, not Ayn Rand's. THIS I'm sure of - that she would herself fiercely reject the notion.

[Brant Gaede]

Maybe she was juggling too many balls. Above all she didn't want to do anything that would jeopardize her reputation and the publication of her save-the-world novel, Atlas Shrugged. In that sense, she was fighting a war. Empathy doesn't work too well for warriors warrioring.

Maybe.

--Brant

Barbara Branden has much more first-hand data than I do--to say the least

You know I have a huge ego going and quoting myself --

Maybe Rand saw things in terms of ego size with hers being the biggest, but closely followed by Nathaniel Branden--essentially an ego to be kowtowed to. She did pyramid her relationships, both by value to herself and her estimation of the objective value of the person. That leaves empathy with the non-possibly challenging left-overs whom she had interest and time for. NB said she could get right to the heart of you, seeing you by deep essentials.

--Brant

we can go on and on with this type of stuff which is not to be considered testimony--this is okay as long as we understand it's not Rand we are talking about, but our ideas of whom she was using those ideas to increase our intra and inter-human understandings just as we more credibly work off our ideas about her ideas: Rand is food

[Paul Mawdsley]

we can go on and on with this type of stuff which is not to be considered testimony--this is okay as long as we understand it's not Rand we are talking about, but our ideas of whom she was using those ideas to increase our intra and inter-human understandings just as we more credibly work off our ideas about her ideas: Rand is food

Aaah...working towards understanding and truth from the inside-out and from the outside-in. :-)

[caroljane]

Like Old Nokomis you make it with the outside skinside, make it with the skinside outside...

[Dglgmut]

That's where she said that most people don't deserve love, because they are not virtuous enough. Maybe it's not a fair quote because it wasn't written, but she said it.

I think the thing is to love people despite their weaknesses, not for their weaknesses. Roark couldn't have been as happy as he was all the time if he had such a negative view of people... How can you love your life when you're surrounded by people you have to co-exist with, and be disgusted by almost all of them? Maybe Roark wasn't an Objectivist.

[caroljane]

It is pretty easy to be happy when you never think about other people at all.

Roark thought he was a great architect, but he wasnt.. It made him happy to think so, which was the point of the novel.

[Brant Gaede]

It is pretty easy to be happy when you never think about other people at all.

Roark thought he was a great architect, but he wasnt.. It made him happy to think so, which was the point of the novel.

Roark didn't think.

Roark was not an architect--in fact he never even existed.

--Brant

if you mix up your fiction and non-fiction categories you pretty much crash and burn

[anthony]

That's where she said that most people don't deserve love, because they are not virtuous enough. Maybe it's not a fair quote because it wasn't written, but she said it.

I think the thing is to love people despite their weaknesses, not for their weaknesses. Roark couldn't have been as happy as he was all the time if he had such a negative view of people... How can you love your life when you're surrounded by people you have to co-exist with, and be disgusted by almost all of them? Maybe Roark wasn't an Objectivist.

That's where she said that most people don't deserve love, because they are not virtuous enough. Maybe it's not a fair quote because it wasn't written, but she said it.

I think the thing is to love people despite their weaknesses, not for their weaknesses. Roark couldn't have been as happy as he was all the time if he had such a negative view of people... How can you love your life when you're surrounded by people you have to co-exist with, and be disgusted by almost all of them? Maybe Roark wasn't an Objectivist.

Oh. Well that proves it. Rand said so.

Well, yeah, you certainly love the whole package, and since we're fallible humans there is always weakness - but to love-or be loved- primarily and only for weakness, is either a self-sacrificial act, or one denoting low self-esteem. I haven't seen the vid yet, but isn't that her point? Anyway, I don't swallow all her 'applications' of O'ism - specially in the love, gender and sex arena.

The basic principle contains obvious truth, though.

"Rand mentality" ...Roark mentality ...Galt mentality - so much literalist, concrete-mindedness.

At least Rand was real: but she doesn't control your minds. Get real, people.

I think Rand-sanctifying and Rand-demonizing, are only different sides of the one coin - and inherently they accurately fit the Intrinsicist/Skepticist flip-flop she described so well.

(After all, if she can't inject all the Wisdom of Life straight into my brain - automatically - she's no good, right?!)

For a philosophy that is always and only about reality and independent minds, it does attract a lot of Messiah seekers/ Messiah haters, and Messiah or Mother Complexes.

(Still working on how Carol got a look at Roark's buildings.There were photos in TF...?)

[Dglgmut]

Well, actually Carol sort of proved by last post wrong... Roark wasn't disgusted with people because he never thought of them.

Don't be so annoyed, Tony, I'm just stress testing my premises.

Roark was a fictional character, but he was designed by Rand for the purpose of concretizing her philosophy. Why not study him as we study her literal writing?

The fact is, Roark did not empathize, not until Wynand cracked him near the end. He didn't empathize because he was always completely self-aware, which I now think is at the core of Objectivist ethics.

Without self-awareness, there is no self-esteem. Without conscious self-awareness we cannot effectively maintain any level of self-esteem. Rand illustrated a subconscious level of self-awareness that is bottled up until the person is forced to look at themselves honestly.

Roark didn't need empathy to be just and moral, he was just self-aware, and unable to do anything that conflicted with what he wanted to be.

[anthony]

I'm not annoyed Calvin. Just blow my top sometimes about things I care a lot

about. Remember, Roark did have that scene with Peter Keating and his paintings,

which displayed some genuine empathy, I thought.

("It's too late, Peter") That was painfully honest, and also compassionate.

Would it be more compassionate to lie? I used to wonder at one time.

Generally, I agree: Rand demonstrated a self-sufficient man, with Roark.

[Dglgmut]

His self-awareness did not make him blind to everything going on around him, it's just that he was his own focus. He knew he was hurting Peter, but it wasn't about Peter, it was about doing what he could watch himself do in the moment.

This self-awareness in the moment prevents any build up of guilt or self-loathing. Roark never went into auto-pilot.

[Brant Gaede]

Well, actually Carol sort of proved by last post wrong... Roark wasn't disgusted with people because he never thought of them.

Don't be so annoyed, Tony, I'm just stress testing my premises.

Roark was a fictional character, but he was designed by Rand for the purpose of concretizing her philosophy. Why not study him as we study her literal writing?

The fact is, Roark did not empathize, not until Wynand cracked him near the end. He didn't empathize because he was always completely self-aware, which I now think is at the core of Objectivist ethics.

Without self-awareness, there is no self-esteem. Without conscious self-awareness we cannot effectively maintain any level of self-esteem. Rand illustrated a subconscious level of self-awareness that is bottled up until the person is forced to look at themselves honestly.

Roark didn't need empathy to be just and moral, he was just self-aware, and unable to do anything that conflicted with what he wanted to be.

Roark did think of people--whenever the author wanted him to. To say he didn't think of people is to say Rand didn't think of people. In fact, Rand thought about a lot of people, including the Toohey-type. The same with empathy. Roark had a lot of empathy for Steven Mallory. I think Rand was on the premise of deserved empathy. That's much more interesting a subject than Roark's ad hoc empathy.

Let's try a mind game--the game of empathy for Ayn Rand--the heroic genius author of two great novels. What's really interesting to me is how Rand kept trying to invent resting places for her heroes--places they didn't have to be heroic in. She achieved this with the collapse of civilization and Galt's Gulch. Psychologically Roark, unlike Rand, was unaffected by the world around him; it was water off a duck's back. The heroes in Atlas Shrugged essentially stopped being heroic when they went on strike, except for somewhat exceptions as Francisco and the jejune heroism of Ragnar, the all-but-the-kitchen-sink hero of the novel.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

What I mean about Roark not being empathetic is that he never let someone else's perspective become his focus. It was always on the periphery.

Toohey, on the other hand, observed himself only through the perspectives of others'. He asked Roark what he thought of him, because he wanted Roark to hate him. Roark couldn't hate Toohey, because Roark never looked at himself through Toohey's perspective. When we hate people we hate their perspective, I believe it's when their perspective insults us.

Roark valued Steve Mallory, but did he attempt to view the world through his perspective? I don't know that there was any sign of that. He took him out to lunch because he knew that Mallory needed support, but did that take empathy to understand? I think Roark was kind to Mallory because it was the best way to create the circumstances he wanted.

I don't think Roark let anyone else's perspective take over, and act out of empathy, until Wynand's collapse. That was the first time he let someone else get him down...

[anthony]

Roark did think of people--whenever the author wanted him to. To say he didn't think of people is to say Rand didn't think of people. In fact, Rand thought about a lot of people, including the Toohey-type. The same with empathy. Roark had a lot of empathy for Steven Mallory. I think Rand was on the premise of deserved empathy. That's much more interesting a subject than Roark's ad hoc empathy.

--Brant

A better-balanced view of Roark and his creator, at last.

"'Deserved' empathy" is interesting. It implies that empathy - as compassion - is fully conscious and comtrollable, which is debatable. This is more like benevolence, which is conscious, I'd think. But not denying the underlying premise of being aware of one's emotional response of compassion - just not always choosing to act upon it, automatically.

In a sense, all compassion is 'deserved'(if you feel it, it's real) but what do you choose to DO about it? (Or CAN do about it?)

Overall with Rand, she's positing a world in which people require pity and compassion

from others, to a far, far lesser degree. In her mind I think, to magnify and extoll pity as virtuous, is also to magnify suffering and man's puniness in the face of existence.

NOT that misfortune, etc. can never happen, or that a charitable response to it is perfectly human and right - but that suffering 'should' not be man's primary condition. It's in this gap that we see her vehement critics (who pretend to not understand the distinction) have a field day. Did she comprehend and empathise with

mankind? More than her critics ever can, in my opinion.

[Brant Gaede]

What I mean about Roark not being empathetic is that he never let someone else's perspective become his focus. It was always on the periphery.

Toohey, on the other hand, observed himself only through the perspectives of others'. He asked Roark what he thought of him, because he wanted Roark to hate him. Roark couldn't hate Toohey, because Roark never looked at himself through Toohey's perspective. When we hate people we hate their perspective, I believe it's when their perspective insults us.

Roark valued Steve Mallory, but did he attempt to view the world through his perspective? I don't know that there was any sign of that. He took him out to lunch because he knew that Mallory needed support, but did that take empathy to understand? I think Roark was kind to Mallory because it was the best way to create the circumstances he wanted.

I don't think Roark let anyone else's perspective take over, and act out of empathy, until Wynand's collapse. That was the first time he let someone else get him down...

I think you have over-analyzed this by a too-narrowing of your understanding of empathy. And there is the trap of having too much empathy, something no one would ever say Rand was guilty of. Your thesis is better supported by AS rather than TF.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

Do you have to empathize with someone to value them?

You could argue that collectivists lack empathy for producers... or for anyone who feels they deserve happiness. Rand empathized with people who didn't get much empathy.

As far as deserved empathy, I recall a scene where Mallory expresses his circumstances of stifled creativity as worse than people starving all over the world... or something along those lines.

[anthony]

What I mean about Roark not being empathetic is that he never let someone else's perspective become his focus. It was always on the periphery.

Toohey, on the other hand, observed himself only through the perspectives of others'. He asked Roark what he thought of him, because he wanted Roark to hate him. Roark couldn't hate Toohey, because Roark never looked at himself through Toohey's perspective. When we hate people we hate their perspective, I believe it's when their perspective insults us.

Roark valued Steve Mallory, but did he attempt to view the world through his perspective? I don't know that there was any sign of that. He took him out to lunch because he knew that Mallory needed support, but did that take empathy to understand? I think Roark was kind to Mallory because it was the best way to create the circumstances he wanted.

I don't think Roark let anyone else's perspective take over, and act out of empathy, until Wynand's collapse. That was the first time he let someone else get him down...

Calvin, I like some of those insights. I want to ask you, don't you think that sometimes the best kindness is no kindness?

We keep going on about handing out compassion and empathy, but never about being

the recipient of them.

To put it this way: Here on OL - as a primary, would you prefer that you were answered

exclusively because of pity (for whatever perceived shortcomings); or, that you received the JUSTICE due to your original thoughts, and purposeful striving - i.e. your mistakes criticised, and conversely, good thoughts given full credit.

(Not suggesting to expect instant justice, (in the long term, yes) but you know what I mean.)

Take that to Roark and Mallory - virtuous men who understood that pity, one for the other, would be a slap in the face. For them, justice from reality was their only due. Pity and compassion for difficult circumstances - although doubtless felt by Roark - would be superflous and patronizing because those temporary circumstances do not define character, and do not define existence.

We naturally grant compassion to weakness, not strength.

As a strong person, giving it would be easier than getting it.

[Dglgmut]

Pity and compassion for difficult circumstances - although doubtless felt by Roark

I think Rand wrote in TF that Roark didn't feel pity until he felt pity for Gail.

And although it may be kind to be cold, kindness is never a motive for Rand's heroes. Kindness, like Roark's to Mallory, was about making happen what he (Roark) wanted to happen. Roark wanted Mallory to continue creating because Roark valued those creations and specifically wanted one for the Temple of Whatchamacallit. Justice is a motive, but can coincidentally be the "best kindness" that you were talking about.

I agree that I would prefer justice, especially in the long run. Mallory only accepted Roark's kindness because he trusted Roark's explication that it was out of self-interest that he was paying for Steve's lunches. That's justice because we should naturally expect others to act out self-interest to the extent we would like to (no double standards).