28 views
Votarian Philosophy (Part 1)
What is Votarian philosophy? Votarian philosophy gets its name from the old latin word Votary in which roughly translates to sacred oath. Sacred taken from the latin root sacrare can simply mean to immortalize or to set apart, from the latin root of sacer (genitive sacri) and from the old french sacrer it can be related to dedication therefore it can indeed make sense for Votarianism to be a secular philosophy so long as it does indeed require the making and dedicated keeping of oaths. A Votarian must make and keep 13 oaths and understand the logical basis behind each of them.
1-Strive for equality and fairness
2-Regard arrogance, emotional instability/immaturity, toxic superficiality, and defects in empathy/consideration for others as to being your only true enemies both internally and externally.
3-Keep your strength up so that you will have what it takes to help when others are in need and strive to improve the intensity and range of your strengths as an individual.
Try to be relatively conservative with both your physical and emotional energy so that you may expend such in sufficient bursts in times of necessity.
4-Be very careful who you grant heightened levels of respect to as respect also glorifies and stabilizes the power of tyrants and the corrupt when given in portions greater than is given as a base level of respect due to all human beings.
5-Follow the Votarian system for moral reasoning.
6-Aim for self actualization and strive to view yourself through realism rather than through arrogance.
7-Stand up for yourself, but do it with a value of diplomacy, an open mind, avoidence of violence, and an understanding that you are not special and what all that means.
8-Resist being used or manipulated, instead make an example of users and manipulators by exposing them and reacting in a way that discourages their behavior without you needing to rely on violence.
9-Follow the Votarian principles of equivelent exchange.
10-Do not strive to be charismatic, view intentional charisma as a red flag and view society's value of charisma as a societal vice and try extra hard to abstain from being gullible in the presence of those with charisma.
11-Regard empathy and consideration for others as a trait of the fittest in the scheme of survival of the fittest when such is guided and filtered through critical thinking.
12-Embrace logically compatible eccentricity
13-Regard the glory of humanity as to being positive potential and the viewing of others as capable of improvement as to being essential towards showing a base level of respect that all human beings are worthy of.
There are in fact just four core problems with humanity, through these four core problems all actions and inactions by humanity that ultimately cause harm to humanity are enabled and even encouraged. The unfortunate reality is that these four core problems have their places in social and cultural norms that only encouragees people to embrace them. Though people may lash out and make a stand against the inevitable consequences of these four core problems, they are far less likely to stand against the four core problems themselves and history has shown many figures have been put to death or persecuted for pushing for anything that would have landed a critical blow against the socially and culturally rooted aspects of these four core problems.
When this thing we know as humanity came to be, it had no parent figure to ensure it would mature, how could it? Instead humanity progressed slowly just barely progressing in some areas, regressing in others and chaotically shifting between progression and regression though thankfully making some significant headway. The hope that arised as a challenger for this chaotic pattern came in the form of philosophy, the love of wisdom but since then many important philsophers were put to death or pursecuted and even when they were allowed to live full lives, often their progress did not impact society in such a way that would be beneficial for humanity. Despite this, humanity has had the gull to define maturity even as it wasn't mature itself. The point being, we need philosophy as a tool for defining maturity. Silencing philosophy, discouraging it, or patronizing it is ultimately the act of those who would wish to continue pretending to have achieved maturity or those who simply have no concern for such.
The four core problems with humanity are as follows;
1-Arrogance
2-Toxic Superficiality
3-Emotional Instability/immaturity
4-Defects in empathy/consideration for others
Through these four all problems caused by humanity and inflicted upon humanity are enabled to occur. Now, I am certain that there is much to explain and elaborate on and so I will vaugely describe and address each of these four problems on their own.
ARROGANCE
Arrogance is having an overconfidence in one's abilities or estimation of self. Someone who is significantly arrogant will view their estimation of self as a justification for disregarding the welfare of others, or in the case that the estimation of self that they are overconfident about is one where they view themselves poorly they will instead disregard their own welfare and thus deplete any strength they have to pull their share of responsibilities or help those they would claim to care about thus often creating the appearence of insincerity in their claims that they care about someone. If you trace the root cause for matters of wrongful marginalization you will find at the very core of it much arrogance.
When a group of people is wrongfully marginalized, that marginalization occurs first through habitually made assumptions that people tend to take as fact in which is undeniably done in arrogance. From here that habitually made assumption is spread first through gullibility, then through mob mentality where hatred and percieved justifications for pursecuting that group is able to form and fester. We have cultural and social norms that discourage inquiry, Socrates is said to have died trying to lay the foundations that would ultimately change this as arrogance can not thrive in a culture of inquiry.
Faith is often used as an excuse to justify instances of wrongful marginalisation, but what exactly is faith?
Faith is a complete confidence in a person or an ideology without the need for evidence. The problem here is that a complete confidence in anything without the need for evidence is an overconfidence related to one's cognative abilities in the process of ascertaining matters of truth, reliability, and sometimes even fairness, hence faith is just a culturally encouraged form of intellectual arrogance.
What precisely is gullibility?
Gullibility is when someone has an overconfidence in their ability to assess the validity in the words spoken or written by another. While it can not necessarily be claimed that social and cultural norms encourage gullibility outside of that in which relates to how cultural and social norms often encourage heightened levels of respect for authority figures (Even without their position of authority having had been truly earned through merit and quality of character) and thus helps condition them towards being gullible to the words of such authority figures often manefesting through the commiting of the appeal to authority fallacy. The way that social and cultural norms generally treat gullibility is in such a way as to suggest that such relates to innocence like that of a child while the reality is that such is indeed a matter of arrogance and that arrogance itself is a remnant of humanitys infancy that we best start to overcome as individuals as we get older so that social and cultural norms can gradually reflect a more mature humanity. Like how you expect a child to eventually stop pooping and peeing themselves as they mature, so too should you expect humanity as a whole to eventually be able to mature enough to recognize that striving to toss aside the tendency for arrogance should also be a matter of maturing as a person just as is the process of potty training is.
For the arrogant, a debate is not about evolving one's views as to eventually become more in line with reality through said evolution of views, but it is simply to validate their current views through either playing pigeon chess or through convincing others of their argument. For the sake of this goal an arrogant person will make many assumptions and commit many logical fallacies and because of this a culture against arrogance would need to embrace debate as if it were a most popular sport along side teaching people to be able to spot and identify such arrogance as a means to determine a matter worthy of making someone a social Pariah unless they are to change themselves away from such arrogance.
TOXIC SUPERFICIALITY
Toxic superficiality is many things, sometimes it manefests as a harmful lie, other times it manefests as a supression on inherently harmless means of self-expression and enjoyment of life, other times it manefests through a law or social/cultural norm in which makes no logical sense and yet still is able to harm or inconvience others despite lacking any merit for its existance. Sometimes there is a better way to do something but "tradition" or "discomfort towards change" stand in the way of such and though these cases often either have insufficint justification or no justification at all, they are still far too often placed on a pedestal above better reasoned and less harmful ways of thinking and doing things.
When is a lie a matter of Toxic Superficiality? Simple, a lie is always superficial, it is when it is both unnecessary and harmful without any merit outweighing the harm and without there being a better way to achieve that merit that it becomes a matter of Toxic Superficiality.
An example of Toxic Superficiality in Social and Cultural Norms can be observed through the matter of how social and cultural environments treat what is referred to as "Cursewords". For designating a word as to being classified as to being a curseword, there really is no logical basis for doing so, in fact having intellegence in the fields of etymology, languages around the world, semantics, and sociology it is easy for one to understand that no word is inherently or (globally) harmful or offensive thus offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder. Something being classified by one culture as a curseword does not mean it will also be classified as another as to being a curseword, hence the apparent superficiality to it. The toxicity comes in when it is understood that it neither requires cursewords to namecall or verbally abuse another nor is such a reason why cursewords are considered bad. If we trace the existance of cursewords to its source, depending on the cultures involved there are some differences but such can often be traced to a matter of classism where such began as a tool to superficially justify further mistreatment of the lower class by the upper class. If something is rooted in a matter of toxic superficiality, then it is at the very least most often if not always toxic in nature.
To avoid embracing toxic superficiality, one must often embrace eccentricity and all it takes for an instance of eccentricity to be worth embracing at least in terms of acceptance is for there to be no inherent harm to the eccentricity but instead a logical basis while that logical basis could be as simple as a means to achieve emotional satisfaction. Despite what it may seem, expressing one's self through fashion or body art is not a matter of toxic superficiality as it is not inherently harmful and vanity is healthy in moderation as when in moderation it does in fact relate to a tier in Maslow's Extended Hierarchy Of Human Needs.
Embrace your eccentricities so long as it brings no harm to others, and acknowledge the judging of a book by its cover as a mark of social immaturity we as a species need to overcome with the help of a culture of inquiry and a self-actualization based economy/society.
EMOTIONAL IMMATURITY/INSTABILITY
When it comes to the emotions of hatred, anger, and jealousy, the stoic philosophers of old were onto something of great importance as much unnecessary harm has been caused by and yet still will be caused by in the future the emotional instability/immaturity that plagues humanity. Hatred, Anger, And Jealousy serve no purposes that can not be better achieved without them.
For anger, intimidation and motivation can be achieved without it while intimidation and motivation achieved through anger are far from without flaws or potential harms as anger is a chaotic state of mind that works like a game of Russian Roulette when it comes to its tendency to snuff out sound reasoning and logical thoughts. If you can not be adequately motivated by your sorrows and as a result feel you need anger for that motivation then your sorrows are insincere and your desire to feel as if you have power to impose onto others may be a problem as may your desire to feel sorry for yourself or desire to feel self rightious also be a possible problem to consider. When one gets angry, this emotional state only occurs when reality conflicts with how one believes and percieves the world to revolve around how they believe and percieve themselves and others to deserve and as such it is really no different than the temper tantrum of a toddler aside for the fact that adults are more likkely to internalize this state of emotional immaturity/instability and instead of wrecking physically tangible objects or creatures they instead wreck the organizational prowess and capabilities of their own minds. Unfortunately because of how entitled arrogant people often are, a culture of inquiry can not safely form unless stoic standards of anger are first genuinely adopted by a society as someone who justifies their entitlement through their arrogance will lash out if a culture of inquiry challenges their arrogance.
Jealousy in this context refers to the hatred of another for what they have that you desire for yourself. In this sense, jealousy is also caused by a similar matter of someone believing and percieving as hatred is. When you believe yourself to be deserving of something and just as strongly believe that someone else is not deserving of that same thing, then feeling jealousy is a possible outcome. Jealousy toxifies relationships and as such a jealous person should not be considered fit for a relationship and as an acknowledgement for this matter I would indeed support polyamory over monogamy especially when science proves that humans and monogamy are not a good match. With a healthy polyamorous relationship, it is a necessity to rid one's self of jealousy as you are forced to acknowledge that the relationship itself does not revolve around you, hence there is no room for jealosuy in a truly healthy polyamorous relationship and as such a culture that is wired to snuff out this particular example of emotional immaturity should therefore be accepting of polyamory.
Hatred blinds you, it achieves nothing and you often feel no such emotion when swatting a fly and yet people are often driven to believe that hatred is essential for doing something that is right or necessary while ignoring utilitarian or pragmatic reasons to do a right thing or a thing of necessity. Denial of such only serves the part of one's ego that wishes to view themselves in a more positive or mature light. Hatred is consuming, it forces you to be drained of emotional energy while giving nothing in return. Whenit manefests, it often manefests through anger or jealousy and thus just as anger and jealousy are matters of emotional immaturity/instability so too is hatred. Instead of hating try a using a mixture of indifference, caution, and observation.
DEFECTS IN EMPATHY/CONSIDERATION FOR OTHERS
Empathy is much like a muscle, if it is not used, it will atrophy and cease to adequately function. Much of what all has become socially and culturally known as to being considered an acceptable means of determining what is right and wrong (Morality) far too often includes a means of determing such through set in stone standards that require neither empathy, critical thinking, nor sincere consideration for others. Like empathy, critical thinking skills are also much like a muscle and sincere consideration for others requires one to use some level of critical thinking in the process of determining what is and is not fair, right, or wrong in which are all important components in the process of being considerate towards others especially if you do not wish anyone to be used or manipulated.
Many ideaologies claiming to be moral ideaologies are in fact psuedo-moral idealogies that rather than instilling people with morals often have a rather convulated system that ultimately only pervert or atrophy one's moral capacities.
To acknowledge that some people lack the cognitive capacity for empathy is necessary and though through such a reality one may be able to begin to justify ideas of morality coming from that of cults and religions, for the justification to be sound the outcomes of the substitution must also be sound enough to match the moral outcomes those who are capable of empathy are by extension capable of ending up with.
In the end the most reliable way of determining the difference between right and wrong (Thus morality) is through empathy/consideration of others guided and filtered through critical thinking where the end goal is to minimize harm and maximise merit. By increasing the inclusion of critical thinking in this process of moral reasoning, you effectively end up with an increased consideration for others able to best compensate for a lack of empathy.
People who lack empathy or are significantly arrogant will often claim that the concept of survival of the fittest is immoral, this is often because many of such people are either parroting such a statement without thinking or they are actually indirectly stating that they do not regard empathy and consideration for others as a trait belonging to the fittest in the scheme of survival of the fittest and as such, this is a red flag either for arrogance, a lack of empathy/consideration of others or a mixture of both.
The bright side of the reality on the matter is that empathy/consideration of others is indeed a trait of the fittest is the scheme of survival of the fittest as it adequately works towards building bridges that can effectively help your survival in the long run while such also lacks arrogance in the sense that such shows an acknowledgement of ones inadequacies in knowledge, skills, and capabilities through exhibiting behavior that shows value towards the selfhood and agencies of others. The dark side of the reality of this matter is that such is not without an opposing/competing force as a trait of the fittest in the scheme of survival of the fittest as manipulation is the opposing alternative candidate for trait of the fittest and charisma is more often than not necessary for manipulation and yet charisma is deemed a virtue by societies and cultures world wide.
A society's value of charisma is indeed a cultural vice as not only is charisma an essential tool for the most effective and impactful manipulators such as Adolf Hitler, but such is also covertly valued as a tool relied on to commit to social laziness in the process of getting to know someone, those who lack charisma are often thrown under the social bus over this. Society's value of charisma is justified through arrogance and toxic superficiality while its function is mainly an essential tool to replace empathy as a trait of the fittest in this hidden conflict. Though charisma can be used for good, it would neither be reliably used for good nor bad if a culture of inquiry was truly dominent as apposed to our current cultures of arrogance and assumption making.
© Lokeal Votaro
1-Strive for equality and fairness
2-Regard arrogance, emotional instability/immaturity, toxic superficiality, and defects in empathy/consideration for others as to being your only true enemies both internally and externally.
3-Keep your strength up so that you will have what it takes to help when others are in need and strive to improve the intensity and range of your strengths as an individual.
Try to be relatively conservative with both your physical and emotional energy so that you may expend such in sufficient bursts in times of necessity.
4-Be very careful who you grant heightened levels of respect to as respect also glorifies and stabilizes the power of tyrants and the corrupt when given in portions greater than is given as a base level of respect due to all human beings.
5-Follow the Votarian system for moral reasoning.
6-Aim for self actualization and strive to view yourself through realism rather than through arrogance.
7-Stand up for yourself, but do it with a value of diplomacy, an open mind, avoidence of violence, and an understanding that you are not special and what all that means.
8-Resist being used or manipulated, instead make an example of users and manipulators by exposing them and reacting in a way that discourages their behavior without you needing to rely on violence.
9-Follow the Votarian principles of equivelent exchange.
10-Do not strive to be charismatic, view intentional charisma as a red flag and view society's value of charisma as a societal vice and try extra hard to abstain from being gullible in the presence of those with charisma.
11-Regard empathy and consideration for others as a trait of the fittest in the scheme of survival of the fittest when such is guided and filtered through critical thinking.
12-Embrace logically compatible eccentricity
13-Regard the glory of humanity as to being positive potential and the viewing of others as capable of improvement as to being essential towards showing a base level of respect that all human beings are worthy of.
There are in fact just four core problems with humanity, through these four core problems all actions and inactions by humanity that ultimately cause harm to humanity are enabled and even encouraged. The unfortunate reality is that these four core problems have their places in social and cultural norms that only encouragees people to embrace them. Though people may lash out and make a stand against the inevitable consequences of these four core problems, they are far less likely to stand against the four core problems themselves and history has shown many figures have been put to death or persecuted for pushing for anything that would have landed a critical blow against the socially and culturally rooted aspects of these four core problems.
When this thing we know as humanity came to be, it had no parent figure to ensure it would mature, how could it? Instead humanity progressed slowly just barely progressing in some areas, regressing in others and chaotically shifting between progression and regression though thankfully making some significant headway. The hope that arised as a challenger for this chaotic pattern came in the form of philosophy, the love of wisdom but since then many important philsophers were put to death or pursecuted and even when they were allowed to live full lives, often their progress did not impact society in such a way that would be beneficial for humanity. Despite this, humanity has had the gull to define maturity even as it wasn't mature itself. The point being, we need philosophy as a tool for defining maturity. Silencing philosophy, discouraging it, or patronizing it is ultimately the act of those who would wish to continue pretending to have achieved maturity or those who simply have no concern for such.
The four core problems with humanity are as follows;
1-Arrogance
2-Toxic Superficiality
3-Emotional Instability/immaturity
4-Defects in empathy/consideration for others
Through these four all problems caused by humanity and inflicted upon humanity are enabled to occur. Now, I am certain that there is much to explain and elaborate on and so I will vaugely describe and address each of these four problems on their own.
ARROGANCE
Arrogance is having an overconfidence in one's abilities or estimation of self. Someone who is significantly arrogant will view their estimation of self as a justification for disregarding the welfare of others, or in the case that the estimation of self that they are overconfident about is one where they view themselves poorly they will instead disregard their own welfare and thus deplete any strength they have to pull their share of responsibilities or help those they would claim to care about thus often creating the appearence of insincerity in their claims that they care about someone. If you trace the root cause for matters of wrongful marginalization you will find at the very core of it much arrogance.
When a group of people is wrongfully marginalized, that marginalization occurs first through habitually made assumptions that people tend to take as fact in which is undeniably done in arrogance. From here that habitually made assumption is spread first through gullibility, then through mob mentality where hatred and percieved justifications for pursecuting that group is able to form and fester. We have cultural and social norms that discourage inquiry, Socrates is said to have died trying to lay the foundations that would ultimately change this as arrogance can not thrive in a culture of inquiry.
Faith is often used as an excuse to justify instances of wrongful marginalisation, but what exactly is faith?
Faith is a complete confidence in a person or an ideology without the need for evidence. The problem here is that a complete confidence in anything without the need for evidence is an overconfidence related to one's cognative abilities in the process of ascertaining matters of truth, reliability, and sometimes even fairness, hence faith is just a culturally encouraged form of intellectual arrogance.
What precisely is gullibility?
Gullibility is when someone has an overconfidence in their ability to assess the validity in the words spoken or written by another. While it can not necessarily be claimed that social and cultural norms encourage gullibility outside of that in which relates to how cultural and social norms often encourage heightened levels of respect for authority figures (Even without their position of authority having had been truly earned through merit and quality of character) and thus helps condition them towards being gullible to the words of such authority figures often manefesting through the commiting of the appeal to authority fallacy. The way that social and cultural norms generally treat gullibility is in such a way as to suggest that such relates to innocence like that of a child while the reality is that such is indeed a matter of arrogance and that arrogance itself is a remnant of humanitys infancy that we best start to overcome as individuals as we get older so that social and cultural norms can gradually reflect a more mature humanity. Like how you expect a child to eventually stop pooping and peeing themselves as they mature, so too should you expect humanity as a whole to eventually be able to mature enough to recognize that striving to toss aside the tendency for arrogance should also be a matter of maturing as a person just as is the process of potty training is.
For the arrogant, a debate is not about evolving one's views as to eventually become more in line with reality through said evolution of views, but it is simply to validate their current views through either playing pigeon chess or through convincing others of their argument. For the sake of this goal an arrogant person will make many assumptions and commit many logical fallacies and because of this a culture against arrogance would need to embrace debate as if it were a most popular sport along side teaching people to be able to spot and identify such arrogance as a means to determine a matter worthy of making someone a social Pariah unless they are to change themselves away from such arrogance.
TOXIC SUPERFICIALITY
Toxic superficiality is many things, sometimes it manefests as a harmful lie, other times it manefests as a supression on inherently harmless means of self-expression and enjoyment of life, other times it manefests through a law or social/cultural norm in which makes no logical sense and yet still is able to harm or inconvience others despite lacking any merit for its existance. Sometimes there is a better way to do something but "tradition" or "discomfort towards change" stand in the way of such and though these cases often either have insufficint justification or no justification at all, they are still far too often placed on a pedestal above better reasoned and less harmful ways of thinking and doing things.
When is a lie a matter of Toxic Superficiality? Simple, a lie is always superficial, it is when it is both unnecessary and harmful without any merit outweighing the harm and without there being a better way to achieve that merit that it becomes a matter of Toxic Superficiality.
An example of Toxic Superficiality in Social and Cultural Norms can be observed through the matter of how social and cultural environments treat what is referred to as "Cursewords". For designating a word as to being classified as to being a curseword, there really is no logical basis for doing so, in fact having intellegence in the fields of etymology, languages around the world, semantics, and sociology it is easy for one to understand that no word is inherently or (globally) harmful or offensive thus offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder. Something being classified by one culture as a curseword does not mean it will also be classified as another as to being a curseword, hence the apparent superficiality to it. The toxicity comes in when it is understood that it neither requires cursewords to namecall or verbally abuse another nor is such a reason why cursewords are considered bad. If we trace the existance of cursewords to its source, depending on the cultures involved there are some differences but such can often be traced to a matter of classism where such began as a tool to superficially justify further mistreatment of the lower class by the upper class. If something is rooted in a matter of toxic superficiality, then it is at the very least most often if not always toxic in nature.
To avoid embracing toxic superficiality, one must often embrace eccentricity and all it takes for an instance of eccentricity to be worth embracing at least in terms of acceptance is for there to be no inherent harm to the eccentricity but instead a logical basis while that logical basis could be as simple as a means to achieve emotional satisfaction. Despite what it may seem, expressing one's self through fashion or body art is not a matter of toxic superficiality as it is not inherently harmful and vanity is healthy in moderation as when in moderation it does in fact relate to a tier in Maslow's Extended Hierarchy Of Human Needs.
Embrace your eccentricities so long as it brings no harm to others, and acknowledge the judging of a book by its cover as a mark of social immaturity we as a species need to overcome with the help of a culture of inquiry and a self-actualization based economy/society.
EMOTIONAL IMMATURITY/INSTABILITY
When it comes to the emotions of hatred, anger, and jealousy, the stoic philosophers of old were onto something of great importance as much unnecessary harm has been caused by and yet still will be caused by in the future the emotional instability/immaturity that plagues humanity. Hatred, Anger, And Jealousy serve no purposes that can not be better achieved without them.
For anger, intimidation and motivation can be achieved without it while intimidation and motivation achieved through anger are far from without flaws or potential harms as anger is a chaotic state of mind that works like a game of Russian Roulette when it comes to its tendency to snuff out sound reasoning and logical thoughts. If you can not be adequately motivated by your sorrows and as a result feel you need anger for that motivation then your sorrows are insincere and your desire to feel as if you have power to impose onto others may be a problem as may your desire to feel sorry for yourself or desire to feel self rightious also be a possible problem to consider. When one gets angry, this emotional state only occurs when reality conflicts with how one believes and percieves the world to revolve around how they believe and percieve themselves and others to deserve and as such it is really no different than the temper tantrum of a toddler aside for the fact that adults are more likkely to internalize this state of emotional immaturity/instability and instead of wrecking physically tangible objects or creatures they instead wreck the organizational prowess and capabilities of their own minds. Unfortunately because of how entitled arrogant people often are, a culture of inquiry can not safely form unless stoic standards of anger are first genuinely adopted by a society as someone who justifies their entitlement through their arrogance will lash out if a culture of inquiry challenges their arrogance.
Jealousy in this context refers to the hatred of another for what they have that you desire for yourself. In this sense, jealousy is also caused by a similar matter of someone believing and percieving as hatred is. When you believe yourself to be deserving of something and just as strongly believe that someone else is not deserving of that same thing, then feeling jealousy is a possible outcome. Jealousy toxifies relationships and as such a jealous person should not be considered fit for a relationship and as an acknowledgement for this matter I would indeed support polyamory over monogamy especially when science proves that humans and monogamy are not a good match. With a healthy polyamorous relationship, it is a necessity to rid one's self of jealousy as you are forced to acknowledge that the relationship itself does not revolve around you, hence there is no room for jealosuy in a truly healthy polyamorous relationship and as such a culture that is wired to snuff out this particular example of emotional immaturity should therefore be accepting of polyamory.
Hatred blinds you, it achieves nothing and you often feel no such emotion when swatting a fly and yet people are often driven to believe that hatred is essential for doing something that is right or necessary while ignoring utilitarian or pragmatic reasons to do a right thing or a thing of necessity. Denial of such only serves the part of one's ego that wishes to view themselves in a more positive or mature light. Hatred is consuming, it forces you to be drained of emotional energy while giving nothing in return. Whenit manefests, it often manefests through anger or jealousy and thus just as anger and jealousy are matters of emotional immaturity/instability so too is hatred. Instead of hating try a using a mixture of indifference, caution, and observation.
DEFECTS IN EMPATHY/CONSIDERATION FOR OTHERS
Empathy is much like a muscle, if it is not used, it will atrophy and cease to adequately function. Much of what all has become socially and culturally known as to being considered an acceptable means of determining what is right and wrong (Morality) far too often includes a means of determing such through set in stone standards that require neither empathy, critical thinking, nor sincere consideration for others. Like empathy, critical thinking skills are also much like a muscle and sincere consideration for others requires one to use some level of critical thinking in the process of determining what is and is not fair, right, or wrong in which are all important components in the process of being considerate towards others especially if you do not wish anyone to be used or manipulated.
Many ideaologies claiming to be moral ideaologies are in fact psuedo-moral idealogies that rather than instilling people with morals often have a rather convulated system that ultimately only pervert or atrophy one's moral capacities.
To acknowledge that some people lack the cognitive capacity for empathy is necessary and though through such a reality one may be able to begin to justify ideas of morality coming from that of cults and religions, for the justification to be sound the outcomes of the substitution must also be sound enough to match the moral outcomes those who are capable of empathy are by extension capable of ending up with.
In the end the most reliable way of determining the difference between right and wrong (Thus morality) is through empathy/consideration of others guided and filtered through critical thinking where the end goal is to minimize harm and maximise merit. By increasing the inclusion of critical thinking in this process of moral reasoning, you effectively end up with an increased consideration for others able to best compensate for a lack of empathy.
People who lack empathy or are significantly arrogant will often claim that the concept of survival of the fittest is immoral, this is often because many of such people are either parroting such a statement without thinking or they are actually indirectly stating that they do not regard empathy and consideration for others as a trait belonging to the fittest in the scheme of survival of the fittest and as such, this is a red flag either for arrogance, a lack of empathy/consideration of others or a mixture of both.
The bright side of the reality on the matter is that empathy/consideration of others is indeed a trait of the fittest is the scheme of survival of the fittest as it adequately works towards building bridges that can effectively help your survival in the long run while such also lacks arrogance in the sense that such shows an acknowledgement of ones inadequacies in knowledge, skills, and capabilities through exhibiting behavior that shows value towards the selfhood and agencies of others. The dark side of the reality of this matter is that such is not without an opposing/competing force as a trait of the fittest in the scheme of survival of the fittest as manipulation is the opposing alternative candidate for trait of the fittest and charisma is more often than not necessary for manipulation and yet charisma is deemed a virtue by societies and cultures world wide.
A society's value of charisma is indeed a cultural vice as not only is charisma an essential tool for the most effective and impactful manipulators such as Adolf Hitler, but such is also covertly valued as a tool relied on to commit to social laziness in the process of getting to know someone, those who lack charisma are often thrown under the social bus over this. Society's value of charisma is justified through arrogance and toxic superficiality while its function is mainly an essential tool to replace empathy as a trait of the fittest in this hidden conflict. Though charisma can be used for good, it would neither be reliably used for good nor bad if a culture of inquiry was truly dominent as apposed to our current cultures of arrogance and assumption making.
© Lokeal Votaro
