<<WRONG. She saw pity as a sad and not very desirable emotion that it
would be better not to have cause to feel. But she did not see it as
weakness or dysfunction or character flaw. It is not desirable to
experience pity. It is more desriable to be able to do something
positive to improve that which has illicited pity. Pity by itself, or
any particular emotion, is not a good guide to decision and action in
objectivist thought.>>
The funny thing I see about this view of Pity is that it appears
non-scientific. That is, are the any double-blind, psychological studies to
support this notion that pity is better not experiened? I am being a hard-ass
on this one, but no less then I feel this discussion merits, because of its
social outcome.
<<Someone once said something like "Pain is the whip of God" - meaning
that pain is the impetus to find something better, to movement. >> Probably
Torquemada ;-)
<<For it is a Work in the
most time-honored sense, a work of rebuilding self and world and of
transcending all limitation possible of being transcended. Science by
itself will not give you and sustain the sense of mission that is needed
or the sacred dream meme that will join enough people together to make a
difference.
- samantha>>
No disagreement here. But people who are pitiless, frequently contribute
nothing to the commanality of the human experience. That state is also
non-scientific, but it sure is experiential. My experiences anyway.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:30 MDT