quickstine

Sounds like she needs someone to listen to her. A good listener is hard to find. You could be that person.

I don't get the sense from your question that you got anything out of listening to the podcast. Do you, as Stefan describes in his answer, deliberately push peoples' pain buttons? Well, you could stop doing that. Or you could explore why you continue to cause pain in others. Perhaps you have not acknowledged what you are doing. Keep notes on actual things that happened. I think it is hard to feel alone if you have empathy. Follow the exercise he gives here. Make a list of all the people you know and write down their likes and dislikes and the whys for each like and dislike. We don't need to see these notes, but that is the only writing you should be doing -- not providing us your reflections on situations that we only see from your point of view. And if you don't have the information about the people you know, go and get it (as Stef says in the podcast you posted a little more than halfway through). Talk to them and listen. We would not mind reading about what you discover after doing this. We'd need to see you showing how you have made an attempt to understand others. Eventually you should be acknowledging how you have hurt others through your lack of empathy, or struggling to understand it. In your question, you are just circling around the problem. Accusing Stef of ulterior motives is trying to push a button. Your consideration of his work is based on utility, and this is exactly what he has said (in this podcast) hurts others and demonstrates a lack of empathy. Please know that the circling around the issue of empathy and not making a genuine attempt to do the work that was suggested is not going to get you anywhere. You could report here with examples of how much time and effort you invested in showing caring for the people you know--another exercise suggested in this podcast. There are very clear guidelines in this podcast on what to do and you would need to do those things. You are ascribing utility motives to others when you say they show interest in you. You have 77 down votes here at FDR, so I suspect that you are resisting doing the work required to build your empathic muscle. You must be struggling with cognitive dissonance though, as you are a donator. Get to work before it is too late to meet your goal. Mind you, if you really lack empathy, you wouldn't worry about dying with regrets, as you won't even know you have them. So a good place for you to put some effort might be to list some of your regrets and why you have them. Then try to work on rectifying those or at least not repeating the patterns. This is work you could do with a qualified therapist who can also help you work on your self esteem.

You don't have to take it on Matrix. There is a pit of bodies in all our histories ...

there seems to be a lot of information out there that is not exactly news ... doesn't there ... not from traditional media outlets. Very weird ... http://www.silverdoctors.com/alert-at-least-20-bankers-now-dead/ http://www.globalresearch.ca/suicides-of-bank-executives-fraud-financial-manipulation-jpmorgan-chases-advisor-tony-blair-is-not-involved/5368627

Not sure I would be able to comment on the question about the effect in general, sagi. Kev has offered some great insight. I would ask you if you have talked to the people/woman currently in your life ...

The New Yorker published the article this week: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/03/17/140317fa_fact_solomon?utm_source=tny&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weeklyemail&mbid=nl_Weekly%20(28) The 8 pp article (online at least, but quite long) does not cover the toddlerhood or the maternal and paternal bonding in infancy and very early years ...

Well, for a start, you can keep listening and keep asking good questions. Your questions are beginning to form, so the answers will take a bit longer ;-) It's not because Jesus lived 2,000 years ago that the advice he gives is not very helpful. Ask someone a question about what Jesus thought and you will likely get statements that reflect what they themselves think Jesus said, what the gospel writers thought he said (as reported in the Bible), a combination of these, or some contradictory statements that keep you guessing what the real message is. (I think you have figured that out, if I read you right.) We are told that Jesus died for our sins, for example; he is referred to as, symbolically, the Lamb of God. That is a notion based on a concept of sacrifice. Keeping the sacrificial system in place is very useful to those who benefit from it and not so useful to the rest of us who are encouraged to support sacrifice through continued sacrifice of our own well being. Ask yourself, am I willing to die for someone's sins? Oh, then you arrive at what a sin is. Is it a sin to hit or kill a defenceless child? Geez, even Abraham had second thoughts and realized he had to keep the fact that he had been asked to do it a secret. On some level there is an admission or a notion that it is not right since people hide the abuses they commit (I think Kierkegaard wrote an essay on Abraham -- I read it a long time ago, but it makes you think about what goes through someone's mind to engage in the sacrifice of one's son). With thinking like that, you can work through concepts and come to something clear and simple that gives you confidence to go further. Know that you are surely right to ask questions and to seek real answers. You realized that you like to defend underdogs. So you can ask yourself questions: Is that not perhaps engaging in a form of sacrifice, especially if when it can't be done with a clear sense of who you are defending and why? Is Jesus an underdog? What do you gain by defending him as an underdog? The same as what Jesus gained by "dying for our sins?" These would all be good questions that make you work back to answers that will help. It's important to keep the discourse going here, in your own thinking and in your own actions, etc. It's the people who accept a system and never question it, even if it hurts others, that one really has to wonder about ...

What a great discussion ... I've run out of positive votes today, or I'd put them all over here. @ Lians, thanks for digging into the archives sharing the poem with us. I enjoyed your notes about Socrates and Aristophanes.

Weird thought experiment. If you are living in a moral universe, yes, the decision between two people to have a child together creates a positive obligation to that child. Well, sort of anyway. And yes that obligation is to guide and provide for the child. I say "sort of" because If you live in a moral universe, it is not even felt as an obligation. It makes no sense to be otherwise. It is something you want to do, as you freely give love and everything needed to child, partner and self, expanding the moral universe ;-) Situations of rape etc are not indicative of a moral universe. These are in the realm of coercion. Coercion changes the game, by definition. The exploration of the victim's situation here is rather bizarre. It is never as clear as described ... Even asking the question about obligations and imperatives shows that one is not living in a moral universe. Best not to have children or partners until you can live in morality ... without coercion. Deciding not to be a victim, taking responsibility for actions and decisions, these are first steps along the way to a moral universe.

A lot depends on what you mean by "working" ... What's the end game? Is it just to get the phone back? Has other damage been done? Is ostracism the same as shaming someone?