• STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

TheFoo

THE FOO
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
24,347
Reaction score
5,768
@9thsymph

Empathy, which means ascribing equal or greater value to another’s experiences or feelings compared to one’s own, requires surrendering subjectivity.
 

9thsymph

Distinguished Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
1,469
Empathy, which means ascribing equal or greater value to another’s experiences or feelings compared to one’s own, requires surrendering subjectivity.
Says who? It means suspending, not surrendering. You don’t succumb to those with whom you empathize. You suspend one perspective for another, in an effort to understand, not [necessarily] change.
 

TheFoo

THE FOO
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
24,347
Reaction score
5,768
I wojuld disagree that it's not interesting or helpful. Finding teh right paradugm by which to view things is, at leat to mr, the mist interesting part of fashon.

The best designers challenge us to look at the world a little differently, to think about our ideas of what is beautiful. Even looking at suits,a lot of the terms thrown around come from brining an Italian cultural perspective to a garment that in English in origin,m and the Italian interpretation of which differes dramatically from the English.
To me, that least, that type of discussions if far more interesting than arguing overwhether a button should be 1" higher, or whatever. I mean, there is a place for that as well, but the water for interesting conversations there dries up quickly. I'll hasten to say that "It's all subjective" is equally, if not more, boring, as a starting point for any discussion.
Then what are disagreeing with me about? I have been arguing and have always argued that it is more fruitful to discuss style as if their are paradigms, perspectives, ideas, etc., that can improve our own point of view.
 

TheFoo

THE FOO
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
24,347
Reaction score
5,768
Says who? It means suspending, not surrendering. You don’t succumb to those with whom you empathize. You suspend one perspective for another, in an effort to understand, if not change.
To gain understanding without changing is empathy without consequence (“I understand why you don’t want me to eat your baby, but I’m going to eat him anyway”). To the extent you define empathy in such a milquetoast way, it is a useless concept.
 

9thsymph

Distinguished Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
1,469
To gain understanding without changing is empathy without consequence (“I understand why you don’t want me to eat your baby, but I’m going to eat him anyway”). To the extent you define empathy in such a milquetoast way, it is a useless concept.
A change with consequence can occur without altering one’s previously held practices, insofar as the change through understanding can curtail a desire to fashion novel punitive acts (or any sort) that may have transpired in the absence of the understanding (empathy).

Also, your baby quote is only empathetic from one perspective. The opposing perspective might be transformative in understanding that scenario
 
Last edited:

LA Guy

Opposite Santa
Admin
Moderator
Joined
Mar 8, 2002
Messages
49,852
Reaction score
26,116

Loathing

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2011
Messages
1,316
Reaction score
553
Subjectivity of a value, by definition, requires that such value be solely determinable by each individual relative to his unique preferences and needs. There is no way to fruitful way for two different individuals to discuss differing subjective values since neither has a rationale for their values that can compel anyone but themselces.
You are conflating subjectivity with solipsism here. You can have multiple people with subjective preferences that overlap, and you can discuss those overlaps and try to understand each other’s internal logic — what is usually referred to as intersubjectivity. Humans can still interact and relate to each on topics without an objective answer, like the discussion we are having right now.
 

TheFoo

THE FOO
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
24,347
Reaction score
5,768
You are conflating subjectivity with solipsism here. You can have multiple people with subjective preferences that overlap, and you can discuss those overlaps and try to understand each other’s internal logic — what is usually referred to as intersubjectivity. Humans can still interact and relate to each on topics without an objective answer, like the discussion we are having right now.
On what grounds can one relate to another without admitting some degree of objectivity, even if that objectivity is limited to only the privilege of consensus or mutuality?
 

TheFoo

THE FOO
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
24,347
Reaction score
5,768
Um, I didn’t disagree with you. I simply said that there was a false dichotomy in your discussion with @UnFacconable . Somehow you managed to find fault with that. I dunno bro.
That’s why I asked—still not clear to me what you’re referring to as a false dichotomy.
 
Last edited:

9thsymph

Distinguished Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
1,469
On what grounds can one relate to another without admitting some degree of objectivity, even if that objectivity is limited to only the privilege of consensus or mutuality?
Husserl and Merleau-Ponty have entered the chat...
 

am55

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
3,578
Reaction score
2,842
Um, I didn’t disagree with you. I simply said that there was a false dichotomy in your discussion with @UnFacconable . Somehow you managed to find fault with that. I dunno bro.
That is the fault of aforementioned solipsistic nature of the internet. It can make sense to imagine Foo as imagining the people he interacts with as thinking like him. He is, in effect, arguing with people within himself, projecting himself onto them - as we all are to some extent.
 

TheFoo

THE FOO
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
24,347
Reaction score
5,768
A change with consequence can occur without altering one’s previously held practices, insofar as the change through understanding can curtail a desire to fashion novel punitive acts (or any sort) that may have transpired in the absence of the understanding (empathy).
Discontinuing activity of some sort is a form of change. I don’t see the importance of the distinction you’re trying to make.

Also, your baby quote is only empathetic from one perspective. The opposing perspective might be transformative in understanding that scenario
Yes, and to the universe outside of the baby eater, his empathy is inconsequential insofar as he continues eating babies.
 

TheFoo

THE FOO
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
24,347
Reaction score
5,768
That is the fault of aforementioned solipsistic nature of the internet. It can make sense to imagine Foo as imagining the people he interacts with as thinking like him. He is, in effect, arguing with people within himself, projecting himself onto them - as we all are to some extent.
Uhh ... possible, but more likely that someone was misunderstood and/or that I am now arguing with four or five people simultaneously.
 

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by

Featured Sponsor

Summer Loafers: With or Without Socks?

  • With socks

  • No socks


Results are only viewable after voting.

Related Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
459,664
Messages
9,972,617
Members
207,693
Latest member
balancedbuy
Top