MischievousMonkey
Gor bu dëgër
Would you agree that empathy is at its core a selfish sentiment?Because both people were in need and only one person seemed to recognize that...
Would you agree that empathy is at its core a selfish sentiment?Because both people were in need and only one person seemed to recognize that...
No, do you even know the definition of empathy?Would you agree that empathy is at its core a selfish sentiment?

.......but then i see her point
some dudes really are funny style
So are most acts of kindness really selfless or are they just caresses to our ego and reaffirmations that we're up to our standards?
I feel that. Would you say you held the door for her appreciation?If I hold a door open for a bytch and she don’t say thank you before she cross the door I slam the door in that hoe fukk HER
Empathy: the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of anotherNo, do you even know the definition of empathy?
it’s based on the ability to look outside of yourself and sense others. There’s nothing selfish about that...
You’re really just waffling on now, mateEmpathy: the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another
Definition of empathy | Dictionary.com
The point I'm arguing, which is not innovative, is that empathy is precisely seeing yourself in others. Which makes it selfish by nature and explain why we feel slighted when reciprocity is absent.
An empath feels as if he was feeling himself the ordeals of another person. That means when he helps that other person, he's really helping himself.
You disagree with this stance?

Unfortunately most of our acts of kindness are conditional. The closer the other person is in proximity to our family. (Gender, race, familiarity, religion) the less conditions we require from that other person before performing a truly selfless act with no-strings attached.
That's why most people truly don't mind doing selfless acts of kindness for our children>parents>siblings>cousins>childhood friends etc...
That and the eternal dilemma of resource scarcity is still baked into that lizard part of our brain.

European propagandaBecause that's how things had to be in order for our tribes and species to survive.
Picture the hunter-gatherer days where certain resources were very hard to come by.
If everyone in the tribe just ate whenever they got a lucky catch and no one shared, then the tribe would probably die off pretty quickly from people going long periods without catching anything and starving to death.
If instead people shared whatever lucky catch they got, then it's more likely that you have at least something to sustain you on a given day, since the odds of someone in the tribe getting a lucky catch is far greater than the odds of one individual (you) getting a lucky catch.
European propaganda
