Tonix777

I have probably read on Objectivism much more than you, but this is not the point You are missing the whole meaning of my post just for this detail and these are not my definitions but were taken from some online dictionary. And please learn to read more carefully: The definition #1 says "...but not necessarily substantiated by positive knowledge or proof" which is true: some people don't support their opinions with facts which is wrong. But some people do

Read my post again, I didn't say that life expectancy was just due to diet I was only answering to DoubleIPA who focused in food and using him as an example of a broader modern concept that I think is wrong: Natural = Good / Artificial = Bad So my point is more general against all manifestations of Environmentalism, New Age, Naturalism and all dozens similar movements/philosophies anti-progress, anti-man. Either focusing in food, alleged extinction of animal or vegetal species, global warming, pesticides, medicine, etc. etc. The list of attacks to man and to reason is really long...

In my opinion the cause-effect chain is the following Philosophy-->Opinions-->Actions I agree with you about opinions without actions, I was assuming that your actions are a direct consequence of your real opinions. Opinions for me is not just what you say to others but specially what you say to yourself in order to make some decision/action Perhaps you are referring to people who "say" the have some opinion but act differently: They are lying ether just to you or also to themselves which happens frequently. Your actions are the reflection of your real internal opinions, no matter what you say to others. I closely associate opinions to Ran'd concept of "sense of life" that in the end strongly marks the course of our lives o·pin·ion (-pnyn) n. 1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not necessarily substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: "The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion" (Elizabeth Drew). 2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion. 3. A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts. 4. The prevailing view: public opinion.

Well... Medicine is another field subtly attacked by most Greens & Naturalists and some branches of Environmentalists, all of them very closely associated with the dozens of New Age movements also so fashioned these days. All the "alternative therapies" that opposite scientific medicine are based on the same basic axiom: Equaling natural to good and artificial to bad. Wrong Other example: Good pesticides like the old beloved DDT that could be saving millions of lives in India are banned by modern Environmentalist lobby/tendencies. The mistake that people normally make about food, medicine, pesticides, etc. is not judging benefits against dangers. Every solution carry its own problems but it doesn't mean that we have to renounce to the solutions. Let's don't abandon cars because they kill thousands of people every year, let's improve cars.

I disagree: The practical implementation of your philosophy (your values, your logic, your knowledge, your skills, your powers of observation etc) are your opinions which allows you to make the millions of big and small daily decisions that marks the course of your life: Good or bad, red or green, left or right, black or white or grey, etc. Otherwise philosophy is just a theory without practical effects in your life So perhaps it is just semantics but for me opinions are the practical implementation of your ethics and the driving force behind your decision making processes. And when I say "ethics" it is practical ethics as in the Objectivist point of view, meaning there is ethics not only in choosing not to steal funds from your company but also in choosing the school for your kids, the person to share your life with or the brand of tires for your car

Your words demonstrate is exactly my point: thanks to the modernly fashioned Environmentalist tendency almost everyone is convinced that we eat and drink shit and we live in a dangerous and polluted environment. Why then the global life expectancy is now double than a couple centuries ago when almost everything was "natural"? Truth is that "natural" is not necessarily synonym of "healthier" and industrialized is most of the times better than raw. I am not a nutrition expert and perhaps milk can be just one of the few exceptions to the rule... My wife is not Objectivist and he buys all our food in "Whole Foods" that is supposed to be organic bla, bla, bla. But of course much more expensive. It has come to be a very good business being "organic" these days but I would love to see the results of some comparative blind test about taste and some real impartial scientific study about nutrition properties, potential damage to health etc. Other thing that surprises me is that suddenly in the last decades all industrialized products apparently are "carcinogenic" but no one tells the truth: that everything natural or industrialized is carcinogenic in some degree and that quantities are essential. It is like if suddenly everyone wants to live forever and in a perfect world. I have bad news for them: it only happens in heaven, in the real world there are viruses and substances and dangers natural and/or artificial that your body has to defend from every minute of your existence. Life is not perfect and everyone is going to age and die some day no matter how much organic food you eat

Whether you "hold a rational standard of value" or not facts are facts and opinions are opinions, this is a basic distinction between metaphysics (facts) and epistemology/ethics (opinions). Some Objectivists tends perhaps to somewhat diminish the value of opinions probably because of the popular tendency to say "it is just a matter of opinion" that usually justify that anything goes which means basically not having strong opinions or no opinions at all. When it is the opposite: Facts are facts no matter what and that some people don't recognize even facts is another problem. But probably the most important thing that defines you as an individual are your opinions: What do you think about the world and yourself and why? Your values, your logic, your knowledge, your skills, your powers of observation, etc: (your reason) are the makers of your opinions And the frog case is not a "lifeboat situation", it is just an example about what is happening everyday all around us thanks to the modernly fashioned Environmentalist tendency that evidently is getting so deep into the society that is influencing also the Objectivists, according to some other posts in this thread

Introduction: What is more important: Some frog's species or a single man? And since "important" is an opinion not a fact, master Ayn would immediately ask: Important according to what standard? or even better in this case to "whose" standard? If the frog would have a standard (she doesn't think) she probably would answer: "me of course!" not even the species but the single frog, and if the single man is asked he probably would say: "me of course!" That is the ancient fight for survival... But what would a Radical Environmentalist say? That we must sacrifice the single man in favor of the frog's species. As long of course as the single man is not him... Plus the yellow-spotted bell frog (Litoria castanea), last observed in 1970s, has long been thought to be extinct in the wild but recently reappeared to say "Hey don't believe all what environmentalists say" Or being less naif we can indeed believe what they say but interpreting it in the right light, for what I recommend this excellent post of ewv in this same Objectivist Online Forum Here go my main question: What is or should be the stand Objectivism in this matter? Is there a current "official" position? (ARI's perhaps) I also have read some time ago Rand's excellent book "The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution" that had a quite clear position about this IIRC, or at least the basis to form your own opinion... And what is your opinion about what range should we Objectivists move in (assuming we are not all identical) between the extremes of Soft ecology to Radical Environmentalism? Should we be concerned at all about Ecology anyway? Lately to be honest I feel just some kind of indifference or plain hatred for the green color so fashioned these days... I regret they spend a whole day at the Middle School of my step daughter teaching her the value of being concerned about the frogs instead of giving her more powerful intellectual weapons to face the real challenges of life in the future... Time is always a limited and precious resource and I feel they are wasting it at school sometimes Sometimes also it seems to me that we as Society can afford this "luxury" just because we are all more or less under the overprotective umbrella of the progress achieved in western societies, but in this course of action we will lose in some not-so-far future the very origin of this progress: Capitalism... I am even more concerned about my little two years old son: What will they teach to him at school in five years if the current trend continues? Should I send him to school at all or better I teach him at home myself? What values will they instill in his jung and malleable mind? About what really Ecology and Environmentalism mean my first impulse would be try to look for some definitions, but the words "Ecology" "Environmentalism" "Green" "Organic" has ben so extensively misused that anything goes these days. There are definitions but nobody cares and most people, mass media, movements, etc. use them in their own way and for their own purposes which ranges from a quite innocent "just go with the mainstream to avoid problems" to the much more dangerous "lets smuggle out our secret agenda into this or that issue" There are people drinking unpasteurized milk because it is green and "organic" (!) Luis Pasteur would jump from his tomb screaming: idiots, I invested my skills, time and hard-work in this life-improving technology more than one Century ago, why in the hell are you trying to come back to the past? Some time ago kids began to get sick form smallpox in a little town on the mountains, mothers were not vaccinating them because it was not "natural" (!!) An the list goes on...

Interesting reflexions... You seem to be a smart guy I think you are right about that Objectivism should be integrated to you and not otherwise If you try to do the opposite you will probably lose/debilitate your identity In my case it was sad to suddenly discover in my 40s that I was somewhat stupid most of my previous life. Almos all my existence I was close to Objectivism in some basic vital attitudes and thoughts, specially those concerning to Metaphysics (Objective Reality) and Epistemology (Reason), but when it came to Ethics and Politics my mind was a strange mixture that I now regret and even when it could be quite worthless I have to confess my sin: I was more close to the "left wing" in most political and ethical points of view when I was young and even later. I have to say however in my defense that they were inherited ideas and concepts from my family and not from my own intellectual harvest, which doesn't necessarily redeem me from my responsibility anyway. Over the time I questioned those ideas more and more and my points of view were gradually moving to a more realistic perspective, as long as I confronted myself with questions like: Why being rich "has" to be bad? Why socialist countries were falling one after other? Why the masses "have" to be always right? Where come the wealth from? How I would like to live? Who am I in reality and what I want as values? So for all that I did and said wrong before, for al the ideas I repeated without deeper researching or getting more first-hand information, for all the people I despised and blamed, for all the things I "thought" without really thinking: I apologize But then some day, some years ago, it came to my hands a book from Ayn Rand (Thanks to my friend Daniel for this) and since then I finally found myself reflected in a coherent philosophy, my soul found a home. But still as you said you can't just forget who you are overnight, so it has been a long learning process to integrate Objectivism into "my" mind & life which even included moving from my country to NY (It was at first kinda disappointing that USA is far less Objectivist than I imagined, but this is another topic). When I first saw the golden statue pointing the skyscrapers in front of the Central Park I quietly cried thinking that Aynd Rand lived there... But in the end we are humans, we have moods, and "stages" in our lives. We have also some cycles of good an bad times, etc. so John Galt is just a ideal to follow, sometimes it amuses me when some people get disappointed when realize that they can no be "The perfect Objectivist" they can not be John Galt. But for me the secret is to try hard everyday to be better than yourself whoever you are, having in any case John Galt a beacon in the horizon, but trying also to be the hero in the movie of your life in your own way

Good point, probably you are right and the natural state of the human being is not "so rational" and full rationality as we know it is some sort of modern thing in man's history? Specially related to western way-of-life and something we have to fight everyday for? On the other hand you can see rational people in ancient times like Aristotle by example... hum...

Yeah... I saw them everywhere in Google Image Search under "Genocide"... Sad, repulsive. Hard to believe what man can do to man under the rule of irrationality I didn't put one of those because the sources I found were probably not accurate? I saw by example the same picture illustrating different genocides, which in the end proves that once the barrier of rationality has been broken the mountains of corpses are similar no mater what time or country we are talking about

I agree! This is an image that somehow symbolizes the idea Modern Ayn Personally I also found very interesting and useful ideas in the recent work of Nathaniel Branden and David Kelley and even Matthew Alper. (I will take a look to Tara Smith's) The key concept about ideas was given (and stressed) by Ayn Rand herself: INTEGRATION Whatever new ideas you want to add to your mental structure have to be integrated rationally in the structure without contradiction or logical flaws. The content of your mind is YOUR responsibility and no one else's. No one else can modify its content anyway and no one else's survival or happiness depends on it, just yours. In the case of Objectivism it is more than just an idea to be integrated into the structure, it is its foundations Changing the foundations of your mental structure however is a HUGE personal work only suited for brave men, since it involves and put on risk even the more profound psychologic pillars of your life like your identity, purpose, values, etc.

Ok let's start pointing some images like this one about the similarities in numbers between some recent collectivist experiments in history

Good point, but still if someone's work is strongly based on Objectivism then the label should reflect this: Neo-objectivism perhaps?

This nasty image reflects the cruel concept that a large majority of humanity has about Capitalism as the culprit of poverty and inequality in the world. Nothing more unfair: Poverty does not exist, it is only the absence of wealth. As poverty is actually the natural state of man if he is stripped of goods and services he produces. Without these goods and services produced (by men) and shared (traded) in modern societies, we are at the mercy of the strong and inimical forces of Nature and reality, which we know well all we that ever found ourselves suddenly isolated from these goods and services either lost in a forest at night in the Winter or with the car accidentally broken in the middle of some solitary nowhere. This wealth that we share and that protects us from poverty/nature (medicine, technology, food, shelter, transport, leisure, culture. etc.) is not generated spontaneously nor by "The Society" neither by God nor grows on trees, it is produced by men like us. This wealth which we value so much explicitly or implicitly has grown extremely slowly in all the millennia who preceded us in the history of mankind and has multiplied exponentially only in the last 200 years specially starting from the Industrial Revolution and Capitalism. Before it and just 300 or 400 years ago Man as species still struggled in disadvantage against hunger, pestilence, distances and all the powerful forces of Mother Nature, because the growth of wealth goods and services was so small that it was much easier to get them by force: stealing. For hundreds of thousands of years the formula to get better in life was very simple: Take an ax and crack the head your neighbor, the tribe next door or whoever had what you wanted, all which was called "conquer." Slavery, permanent warfare, rape, torture, exploitation and death were massive and general commonplace for us as a species until only 200 years ago. Even today there are large segments of the global population fighting in disadvantage against those same forces of Nature, experiencing firsthand the living conditions of that ancient past, these are all parts of the World where the Industrial Revolution and Capitalism have not arrived yet, or where for a variety causes they have arrived only partially. Why then Capitalism is blamed for the historical ills it is actually healing? Here are my guesses: 1- Philosophical and historical inertia: Philosophers, intellectuals and leaders of the mankind (and along with them most of the population) have not yet grasped this relatively new historical phenomenon and continue analyzing the reality with parameters of the previous historical period, the feudal era where wealth was obtained by means of force and man was still the master of man. The "bad guy" was the rich because he had quite sure stolen his wealth somehow from others. He or his predecessors had to exploit, kill or torture many men weaker than them to acquire or preserve prosperity. So many people still apply the same obsolete logic to the capitalist entrepreneur who not only do not steal by force the wealth form others but is the real hero of society because he produces the wealth, goods and services other men eventually enjoy. Capitalism is the only political-economic system that allows the free action of these modern heroes, who in turn do not produce that wealth guided by altruistic purposes, but do so for their own sake and here comes another reason why Capitalism is blamed: 2-Christianity and its inverted model of values: 2000 years ago a man named Jesus of Nazareth came up with a philosophy that says that it is wrong to do things for the benefit of your own but it is good to do things for the benefit of others. Why? There is no logical explanation for this idea and it would take too long analyze the causes in this brief post, but the truth is that this position have become widespread ever since affecting the thinking capacity of a large majority of humanity promoting altruism as the ultimate ideal of nobility. 3- There is in all of us some primitive desire to return to be "Children" So someone take care of us, so we don't have to pay for our mistakes, so we make decisions that have no significant impact on our lives because someone or something will forgive us and finally save us. The Catholic Church and many other religions exploit this feeling through a "pastoral paternalism" and divine figures appealing to our lost childhood: "God Father" and "Mother Mary" for example. The atheist collectivists instead favor a "paternalistic society" to whom we owe who we are and always ensure that our needs are satisfied not matter how good or bad children we are: We are all "Equals" The explosive combination of these 3 concepts are mixed in the following reasoning: If someone has more than others is bad because surely he took it from other people in some obscure way, plus it is also wrong to have when others do not have. Someone has to be guilty of the plight of the less fortunate, a good Father does not make difference between his children The nasty picture shown at the beginning is a living reflection of this thought, the chubby child with a McDonald's cup in hand and a western cap on his head signaling a hungry child probably from Africa, both under the words "enjoy Capitalism" written in letters of the logo of Coca-Cola represents more or less the following message: The "fat" Western society is guilty of the African hunger together with multinational business usually identified as a bulwark of "Heartless and stateless capitalism" that has plunged humanity into a nightmare of inequality and cold, materialistic injustice. When it is quite the opposite, no one has done more for the poor (and every) men in the history of the human race that capitalism and "heartless" entrepreneurs who have progressed under its protective umbrella of individual rights. Bill Gates, one of the wealthiest men of the world has indeed and unwittingly done (while generating his own wealth) much more for the men of planet Earth than the already holy Mother Teresa of Calcutta and all missionaries in history together. But why "the art of love"? I was reading last week a brilliant essay of Nathaniel Branden in the book "Capitalism: The unknown ideal' Branden critically analyzes there in depth the ideas of the German philosopher Erich Fromm who wrote "The Art of Love" book that I read many years ago and thankfully forgot. Fromm belongs to the obsolete large group of twentieth century philosophers who longed for Feudalism and the Middle Ages and the alleged and glamorized harmony between their fellow man and Nature that was "lost" in the industrial era, probably because his aristocratic ancestors did not die young working the land of the master or in one of the frequent famines or in an epidemic of cholera. He and all the modern stupid (and ecologists) that despise so much the advances of modernity and technology should be given a dose of their own medicine and left to live alone in the middle of the Brazilian jungle where they will quickly reach before 30 that "lost" harmony they long for... in heaven.

Skipyrite honestly I didn't understand what the hell are you talking about... Anyway to put it more clear?

Agreed of course that Ms Rand certainly laid all of the necessary foundations for us, but the key word of my statement is "extensive" or should I have used "exhaustive" which probably express better my point I have to add that I have read very interesting essays from David Kelley, Nathaniel Branden, etc. which I mostly agree with or from which I have learn important ideas, in despite that both men are "excommunicated" from the orthodox line of Objectivism. In the end each one of us has to take responsibility for our own ideas and opinions, integrating them into our unique mental structure and defending them with reason and logic. I love by example the book "The God part of the brain" from Matthew Alper which I consider scientific enough and explaining a lot of things about religions, even when much Objectivists despise it (some without having really read the book) As I said Ms Rand laid the foundations but the rest is responsibility of each one and certainly there will disagreement and conflict: GOOD! I love discussions

Yes but a want a dollar for every extra click you get... Just joking!! Of course you can (And thanks for the praising)

First than nothing please let me define myself: I am a frontier man What the hell does that mean? Well... basically that I am rarely settled down on the "center" of an idea, concept, lifestyle, etc. because I am convinced that in the "frontiers" is where the conflict and action happen. And I regard conflict as source and maintenance-energy of life. As the poet said: "...This way we travel in the frontier between the past an the future between what we are and what we can be between what we have and what we lack surfing life over the waves of time sometimes turbulent, sometimes calm. Always in the frontiers..." The concept of the frontier I am trying to explain here is different from the grayness of "the middle of the road" which usually means trying to compromise two positions, ideas or concepts trying to democratically mixing parts of both and usually leading to nothing but confusion and ineffectiveness. The concept of frontier instead means that you are still on one side of the road but close enough to the other side in order to understand more deeply what the other position really means and where it comes from What bout the frontiers of Objectivism? I would say that people on "the center" of this philosophy could be called Orthodox Objectivists and are in Leonard Peikof's thought line and similar, on the other hand different other people are trying at the same time to go closer to the frontiers, sometimes unexplored frontiers waiting to be expanded, because Ayn Rand never really put together an extensive account of all her new philosophy covering every aspect of reality, present and future. probably an impossible task for just one person no matter how brilliant because in the end any philosophy or intellectual movement is something "alive" that should adapt and grow according to the progress of the civilization On the other hand being "orthodox" in Objectivism is some kind of contradiction because it is a philosophy that encourages independence in though and critical individualist analysis even when Ayn Rand herself would probably had not approved most of Neo Objectivist approaches whatever this loose term means So my the question is: Should we take further Objectivism into new frontiers? Or should Objectivism remain frozen around only the concepts and essays already given by Ayn Rand? Since I already said that I am a "Frontier Man" for me the answer is clear...

Ok, how would you reformulate "Gluttony" then, our church is open to suggestions

Thanks man Please tell me later what your friends say! If some of them are religious probably will not be very happy...

The traditional Christian Seven Deadly Sins have nothing to do with Reason but with Altruism and God. So we Objectivists reject them. Instead here they go "our" version of the Seven Deadly Sins against Reason: 1- Lust The real truth about sex is that it is not an end in itself, it is (or ought to be) a consequence of your triumph in life and not the supposed source of it. Highly overrated in our modern culture by both its fans and detractors, it has not the power by itself to make you more successful or happier beyond the ephemeral range of the moment after which you will feel even more miserable than before if you are lying to yourself about yourself. So the real sin is to revert the relationship between cause and consequence. Sex is GREAT but is not the cause of success, it is the consequence of it. 2- Gluttony It is a sin eating too much, but it is not a sin against those less fortunate or against the limited resources of Mother Nature, it is a sin against yourself, your health, your body that is the hardware were your more precious software has to run: Your Mind. Indulging yourself with some pleasure is GOOD as long as you earned it, as long as you remain in control of yourself. The real sin is to take your decisions about your own pleasure (or your life in general) based in the opinions of others or the alleged false assumption about limited resources on Earth or the guild induced by some ancient priests in order to keep you unhappy, fearful and consequently under their control. 3- Greed It is definitely not a sin at all. It is a VIRTUE only publicized as a vice by those ignorant or haters of what life is, or worse by those with the most evil intention: to take your wealth away, to rob you from the reward earned by your effort, this noble resource that is a expression of your values and achievements and also a tool for getting your dreams done: Your money. The real sin is not having greed, or having greed for the unearned. It is the worst sin of all not having the greed to be better, to be more, to earn a place on Earth by your effort and intelligence, the greed to be richer in soul and body, in spirit and in practice in wisdom and gold, the greed to fight against laziness and the grey background of the emptiness before and after that marvelous spark burning against the cold nothing of eternity: Your Life. 4- Sloth It is definitely a sin, but not against God, it is a sin against yourself and against life. Your success in life or even more your simple daily survival can be only achieved by effort and work and intelligence. If you are not doing it, other people are doing it for you and worse: if you are not paying them, they become your slaves, whether they know it or not, whether they do it because they have not choice or impulsed by the vice of altruism. 5- Wrath Here things get more complicated. Where come your wrath from? It is rational or irrational? Against what? Just or unjust? What "Justice" means for you anyway? Your wrath is a consequence of your values, so it is hard to say if the wrath is good or bad in itself. You have to look for the causes, you have to check your premises, you have to revise your values and for this you have to know them, explicitly. You have to know yourself. Wrath can even be a virtue when generated by the right values because it moves you, it can be also a powerful tool to defend yourself and the ones you love against aggression and injustice. So the real sin is not wrath but only wrath generated by the wrong values. The real sin are wrong (irrational) values. 6- Envy Envy is good or bad according to your later intentions. There are three different kinds of envy according to these intentions: a- The good envy which impulses you to make the effort to win or build the material and/or spiritual resources that will allow you to achieve your desired neighbor's status or at least to get as close to it as possible according to your own real possibilities. b- The bad envy which impulse you to try to unjustly deprive your neighbor from his own achievements ir order to get them, to steal his wealth, to rob his achievements, to enslave his soul or his mind when and if you can. c- The worst envy which impulse you to try to destroy your neighbor's achievements or life, just because they remind you about your own worthlessness or your hate of your own miserable existence. 7- Pride Considered by Christianity the origin of all Deadly Sins, it is in reality the best of all virtues and the origin of the single most important feeling toward happiness: Self-steem. Of course they don't want you to be proud, of course they don't want you to be happy. A proud and happy person can not be as easily controlled as a poor bastard that thinks about himself as worthless and unfit to existence, as unable to think by himself and to use his intelligence to survive and advance in life. The real sin is not to be proud if you have something to be proud of. The ultimate sin then is to have nothing to be proud of and do nothing about it...

Well... It is a little more complicated than this in my opinion: (talking about opinions...) "72º" is a fact, "warm" or "cold" are opinions but unfortunately facts alone are not enough, the really important things in the end are opinions because they are our value-judgements in play. Do you know what I sell to the company I work for? Facts? rarely, I mostly sell my opinions, that in turn drive my decision-making system into a good success/failure rate in some practical results or facts. Being "success" and "failure" also opinions! (I also sell the opinion about myself that I am capable of generate in others when marketing my image and my work, but this is another different subject...) Same in life: we are all the product of our opinions that influenced all the millions of big and small decisions that carried everyone of us to the exact place where we are now

You are right: I do. The terrible mistake I say many people make is expressed in the title: "Confusing facts with opinions" Well... Professional intellectuals are supposed to do that as their job: Thinking Unfortunately most of them are too influenced by the mainstream, not being able to think out of the box or too afraid to lose their "customers" who buy their books, ideas, college classes, etc. I am living in USA since two years ago and I am amazed about the tiny number of Objectivists that you can find anywhere In fact I came to USA somehow following Ayn Rand's ideals but haven't yet met any Objectivist in the flesh, not even a single person that have read more than one book or Ms Rand long time ago, and most of them don't like her ideas... Isn't it strange? Is there perhaps some secret meeting place I don't know about?

So we were screwed up by a ghost? Getting more serious I am convinced that the religious phenomena is worth of more study than just the classical "God doesn't exist" For more info please refer to Mathew Alper's research in the book "The God part of the brain" Aligned with this line of thought I am convinced that there is something hardwired in our brain about having a good attitude towards other people, it is related to what David Kelley calls "the selfish basis of benevolence" which means having a careful positive approach to the unknown. I believe this is hardwired in our brain as a consequence of our evolution as species because living in groups (tribe, society) ensures more chances of survival for the human animal. But at some point religions got mistaken Compassion with Pity (the difference between the etymology of these two word is no longer very clear but the two different concepts I propose are clearly different for me) Pity is more close to misery, it is a feeling born from the supposed superiority of the non-suffering over the (supposed) suffering who is seen as permanently helpless and unable to recover by himself. Pity is normally a feeling without respect for the others. And there is a lot of people that like to feel pity just to feel somehow superior to others and then having a reason in their mediocre lives to increase a little their low self-steem by sacrificing themselves to "help" those others while in reality they are only helping their own poor and guilty souls to survive one more day trough their boring lives. Compassion on the other hand is a feeling more born from sympathy, from identification with other's temporary misfortune, from identification with his merits and his struggle for improving. Born from the though "it could be me", born from realizing that finally we all are on the same game: The Life. All struggling for survive, for happiness, for our particular values. Each one with his own good or bad fortune, abilities, willpower, energy, intelligence, but finally all under the same rules: Reality.