Empathy: What does ever dog owner know?

[coberst]

Empathy: What does ever dog owner know?

Letting your dog out side when necessary demonstrates our ability to empathesize with other creatures.

There are various definitions of empathy given by various individuals but almost all of them point to the same meaning. Empathy is defined as the ability to understand the feelings, thoughts, and beliefs of another person. Empathy is often characterized as the ability to “walk in the shoes of another”, i.e. to acquire an emotional resonance with another.

In his classic work about modern art, “Abstraction and Empathy”, Wilhelm Worringer provides us with a theory of empathy derived from Theodor Lipps that can be usefully applied to objects of art as well as all objects including persons.

“The presupposition of the act of empathy is the general apperceptive activity. Every sensuous object, in so far as it exists for me, is always the product of two components, that which is sensuously given and of my apperceptive activity.”

Apperception—the process of understanding something perceived in terms of previous experience.

What does in so far as it exists for me mean. I would say that something exists for me when I comprehend that something. Comprehension is a hierarchical concept and can be usefully considered as in the shape of a pyramid. At the base of the comprehension pyramid is awareness that is followed by consciousness. We are aware of many things but we are conscious of much less. Consciousness is awareness plus our focused attention.

Continuing with the pyramid analogy, knowing follows consciousness and understanding is at the pinnacle of the pyramid. We know less than we are conscious of and we understand less than we know. Understanding is about meaning whereas knowing is about knowledge. To move from knowing something to a point when that something is meaningful to me, i.e. understood by me, is a big step for man and a giant step for mankind.

My very best friend is meaningful to me and my very worst enemy must, for security reasons, also be meaningful to me. The American failures in Vietnam and Iraq are greatly the result of the fact that our government and our citizens never understood these ‘foreigners’. We failed at the very important relationship—we did not empathesize with the people and thus failed to understand our enemy. It is quite possible that if we had understood them we would never have gone to war with them.

If we had empathy with Germany in the 1930s would we have stopped Hitler before he forced us into war?

If we had empathy with Germany before August 1914 would we have prevented WWI?

Do you agree that we understand our best friend and that we must also understand our worst enemy?

[scholle-kid]

Great thread .

[Oscar Namechange]

coberst;1152260 wrote:

If we had empathy with Germany in the 1930s would we have stopped Hitler before he forced us into war?

If we had empathy with Germany before August 1914 would we have prevented WWI?

Do you agree that we understand our best friend and that we must also understand our worst enemy?


Your thread started out great and i agree with SK...... great thread. Then i got to the above at the bottom of your opening post.

Are you having a laugh? Or are you trying to insult millions of allied troops and their familie's? You have just insulted me.

[coberst]

oscar;1152583 wrote: Your thread started out great and i agree with SK...... great thread. Then i got to the above at the bottom of your opening post.

Are you having a laugh? Or are you trying to insult millions of allied troops and their familie's? You have just insulted me.


Can you elaborate?

I cannot comprehend your statement. I suspect the problem rests upon the meaning of the word "empathy" as we two understand that meaning.

[coberst]

The instinctive force that provides us with the momentum to survive has driven us to seek out a niche for humanity that rests between the gods and the animals. We need a supreme being to provide a means for immortality and we cannot but recognize our animal nature. Our problem has been to create a place for the human species that rests between heaven and earth, between the gods and the animals.

In the process of creating this in-between resting place we have overemphasized our “cool reason” and underestimated our “imagination and heated passions”. We have placed cool reason; devoid of imagination and animal passion, on a pedestal and in so doing we have tried to disassociate our imagination from our reason. We have failed to recognize the essential role that imagination plays in all aspects of thinking and “reasoning”.

In this process we have forced our self to deny that reason has a central role in morality. We deny reason as being a gestalt with feeling, imagination, and passion, i.e. our embodied rationality, a fundamental role in learning how to “get-along and reason together”.

Empathy is at the core of morality and imaginative rationality is at the core of empathy.

“Robert Unger describes as passionate “the whole range of interpersonal encounters in which people do not treat one another as means to one another’s ends.” Passion is the basis of our noninstrumental relations to others, and it takes us beyond fixed character, social roles, and institutional arrangements.”

Quotes from Moral Imagination by Mark Johnson

[Oscar Namechange]

coberst;1152856 wrote: Can you elaborate?

I cannot comprehend your statement. I suspect the problem rests upon the meaning of the word "empathy" as we two understand that meaning. What part of 'You are insulting millions of allied troops and their families do you not understand?

You are trying to suggest that if we showed a little 'empathy' to Hitler and the Nazi regime and you can add Japan to that if your America, we might not have had a world war?

You obviously have no idea of the history that led us into a war against Germany and Japan.

Pure and simple .....If a nation is invaded by another.... you defend your homeland.

Now later tomorrow, I will be down the Royal British Legion with the surviving war vets from my area but i will pass on your ideology. I'm sure they will agree with you that they should have just shown the Nazi's a 'little empathy' and they could have avoided the whole nasty affair.

Yeah right :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

[coberst]

I suspect that the concept of empathy is foundational for comprehending the concept of morality. If we ever do develop a science of morality I suspect that empathy will be a good place to begin.

I think that it is important to be able to distinguish among the words empathy, sympathy, and compassion.

Webster says empathy—the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it—the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experiencing of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner

Webster says sympathy—an affinity, association, or relationship between persons or things wherein whatever affects one similarly the other.

Webster says compassion--sympathetic consciousness of other's distress together with a desire to alleviate it.

[Oscar Namechange]

coberst;1153023 wrote: I suspect that the concept of empathy is foundational for comprehending the concept of morality. If we ever do develop a science of morality I suspect that empathy will be a good place to begin.

I think that it is important to be able to distinguish among the words empathy, sympathy, and compassion.

Webster says empathy—the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it—the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experiencing of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner

Webster says sympathy—an affinity, association, or relationship between persons or things wherein whatever affects one similarly the other.

Webster says compassion--sympathetic consciousness of other's distress together with a desire to alleviate it. It appears obvious now that you are using this forum to preach and not discuss. Why don't you answer my post to you?

[scholle-kid]

Now that I have seen what the OP seems to have in mind and why this thread was started , I retract my first post . This could have been a great thread if only the OP knew how to do more than copy and paste . IMHO

[Kathy Ellen]

If you google "Coberst" you'll see that he belongs to many, many, many forums. He does not really answer anyone except for the odd one.

[Oscar Namechange]

Kathy Ellen;1153328 wrote: If you google "Coberst" you'll see that he belongs to many, many, many forums. He does not really answer anyone except for the odd one. I've seen many threads on here by Coberst and never had any interest in them but his comments on the wars got me on this. He hasn't come back about those comments and my question and i can see now that he is not interested in debate.

Shame as my next question to him was going to be if he was in Holocaust Denial. If we had shown empathy to the Nazi's, maybe they wouldn't have ethnically cleansed Eastern Europe and The jews.

[Oscar Namechange]

scholle-kid;1153316 wrote: Now that I have seen what the OP seems to have in mind and why this thread was started , I retract my first post . This could have been a great thread if only the OP knew how to do more than copy and paste . IMHO I agree SK, infact, the opening post was very good until i got to the part about showing empathy to germany in two world wars. If Coberst won't debate, it does not stop us from doing so as we know what empathy is don't we?

In MHO.... there is a big difference between empathy and sympathy.

Sympathy comes when we pity anothers plight.

Empathy comes when we have suffered anothers plight.

[scholle-kid]

oscar;1153373 wrote: I agree SK, infact, the opening post was very good until i got to the part about showing empathy to germany in two world wars. If Coberst won't debate, it does not stop us from doing so as we know what empathy is don't we?



In MHO.... there is a big difference between empathy and sympathy.

Sympathy comes when we pity anothers plight.

Empathy comes when we have suffered anothers plight.




I have been thinking about what the OP could have been trying to say with that statement about Hitler and WW2. I can't figure how showing understanding towards anything Hitler done could have changed any of what happened. Any one showing empathy for him or his actions would have had to feel and think like he did and so would have been one of his followers or partners. Understanding what Hitler had in mind when he started out would have scared h*ll out of any one with the ability to feel empathy.



When I show sympathy for anothers pain or heartbreak , I want them to know I know they are hurting.

When I empathize with someone in pain or experencing heartbreak I want them to know I know what they are feeling.

An example of what I mean ,

I have never lost my home to a fire or a flood so I can only sympathize with a person dealing with the pain and heartbreak of that kind of loss.

I have buried a child ,so I can empathize with a parent dealing with the pain and heartbreak of that kind of loss.

[Kathy Ellen]

oscar;1153370 wrote: I've seen many threads on here by Coberst and never had any interest in them but his comments on the wars got me on this. He hasn't come back about those comments and my question and i can see now that he is not interested in debate.



Shame as my next question to him was going to be if he was in Holocaust Denial. If we had shown empathy to the Nazi's, maybe they wouldn't have ethnically cleansed Eastern Europe and The jews.


Oscar,



Google his name and you'll see that he will not answer you or anyone. There's something odd there

[Kathy Ellen]

scholle-kid;1153395 wrote: I have been thinking about what the OP could have been trying to say with that statement about Hitler and WW2. I can't figure how showing understanding towards anything Hitler done could have changed any of what happened. Any one showing empathy for him or his actions would have had to feel and think like he did and so would have been one of his followers or partners. Understanding what Hitler had in mind when he started out would have scared h*ll out of any one with the ability to feel empathy.



When I show sympathy for anothers pain or heartbreak , I want them to know I know they are hurting.

When I empathize with someone in pain or experencing heartbreak I want them to know I know what they are feeling.



An example of what I mean ,



I have never lost my home to a fire or a flood so I can only sympathize with a person dealing with the pain and heartbreak of that kind of loss.

I have buried a child ,so I can empathize with a parent dealing with the pain and heartbreak of that kind of loss.


It's so hard for me to even think about Hitler Scholle. I've watched and read so much about Hitler's thinking and only have nightmares about what the pain and agony he's caused for so many people.

[Oscar Namechange]

Kathy Ellen;1153401 wrote: Oscar,



Google his name and you'll see that he will not answer you or anyone. There's something odd there Many on here mock Daniyal for similar threads but i have a lot of time for him. I haven't got time for anyone who won't reply because that is not debate that's converting or trying to.

Kathy.... it was not just Hitler that was a sick murdering ******.... Remember Pearl Harbour? My Uncle was a Japanese prisoner of war for three years.

[scholle-kid]

Kathy Ellen;1153401 wrote: Oscar,



Google his name and you'll see that he will not answer you or anyone. There's something odd there


I googled his name and came up with a long list of forums and message boards he/she is a member on but with my dail up connection it would take 'forever' to check into them.

[Oscar Namechange]

scholle-kid;1153395 wrote: I have been thinking about what the OP could have been trying to say with that statement about Hitler and WW2. I can't figure how showing understanding towards anything Hitler done could have changed any of what happened. Any one showing empathy for him or his actions would have had to feel and think like he did and so would have been one of his followers or partners. Understanding what Hitler had in mind when he started out would have scared h*ll out of any one with the ability to feel empathy.



When I show sympathy for anothers pain or heartbreak , I want them to know I know they are hurting.

When I empathize with someone in pain or experencing heartbreak I want them to know I know what they are feeling.

An example of what I mean ,

I have never lost my home to a fire or a flood so I can only sympathize with a person dealing with the pain and heartbreak of that kind of loss.

I have buried a child ,so I can empathize with a parent dealing with the pain and heartbreak of that kind of loss. Very well said as well. My husband has buried his little boy but I'm afraid he shy's away from forums except the fishing one's.

As i said on another thread, his brother crashed many yrs ago on ice killing his fiance aged 21 yrs old. He can still remember the crash scene. Then, there are the one's I have buried...... where do i begin and end? I can't. I do know, it is wonderful to come here when i'm down and talk to people who do care :-4

[Oscar Namechange]

scholle-kid;1153419 wrote: I googled his name and came up with a long list of forums and message boards he/she is a member on but with my dail up connection it would take 'forever' to check into them.
I'm in for a sleepless night..... I'll do it and post what i find SK.

[Oscar Namechange]

Jester;1153417 wrote: Where did the dog stuff go? :-2:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl I quite liked his theory that we know when our dogs need a wee wee due to empathy. Not so in my case. 3 dogs who all want to wee wee at different times. They get put in the garden every 2 to 3 hours just to be sure.

[scholle-kid]

Kathy Ellen;1153407 wrote: It's so hard for me to even think about Hitler Scholle. I've watched and read so much about Hitler's thinking and only have nightmares about what the pain and agony he's caused for so many people.


Like I said ,Hitler " would have scared h*ll out of any one with the ability to feel empathy."

[Oscar Namechange]

Jester;1153426 wrote: Hello?

I'd like to talk about my dog, becasue she does have empathy for me-

When Im sick she hangs out near me an dif i try to get up she barks me back into bed.

Empathy does drive us as humans to exercise compassion. Im not sure what Coberst said about the war, frankly what he said made no sense in the conversation.

But Dogs! we can send a whole thread talkin dog compassion and fix this right now! Jester, you would love this story i just read in my women's magazine complete with gory pics. A guy's dog showed his affection by always licking his owners ears. This guy had a massive epileptic fit in his home. When he came round, both ears had been torn off by the dog completely. The dog was trying to raise him and just became desperate to rivive him but became frantic. The guy refused to have her destroyed :-4

[scholle-kid]

oscar;1153425 wrote: :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl I quite liked his theory that we know when our dogs need a wee wee due to empathy. Not so in my case. 3 dogs who all want to wee wee at different times. They get put in the garden every 2 to 3 hours just to be sure.




Does this mean that people with doggie doors have no empathy for there pets ?? Well, OFF with their heads I say !!!:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

[Oscar Namechange]

JAB;1153428 wrote: Here's the only reference. Things went down hill after this.
It was this in his opening post that i reacted to Jab:



If we had empathy with Germany in the 1930s would we have stopped Hitler before he forced us into war?

If we had empathy with Germany before August 1914 would we have prevented WWI?

Do you agree that we understand our best friend and that we must also understand our worst enemy?

[Oscar Namechange]

scholle-kid;1153435 wrote: Does this mean that people with doggie doors have no empathy for there pets ?? Well, OFF with their heads I say !!!:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl And people with Kitty flaps in the doors..... no empathy there :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

[Oscar Namechange]

Jester;1153447 wrote: :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

What kind of a womans magazine prints gore? 'PMS Daily'?

Oh Oscar, I spit my water on the monitor that was so funny, I just wasnt expectign that story after you said womens magazine! You have obviousley not looked at a women's magazine lately? :yh_rotfl They're not full of cake recipee's and knitting patterns any more you know. I get one called 'Real Life' and other titles in this mag have included:

My man boobs exploded

My stomach rotted away

Man with fence post up his butt

I was electrocuted but survived

My wife hacked my penis off while i was asleep

etc etc.....They are the OK one's. Then you get murder stories in them that are so gruesome they can't show the pics.

When i showed Pete the pic of the poor guy with no ears after his dog chewed them off, he said.......... 'How's he gonna keep his specs on now?'

Don't laugh Oscar... musn't laugh

[Oscar Namechange]

Jester;1153481 wrote: :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl I like Pete.

Those stories sound more like the national enquirier cept its not abotu a ceebrity!:-5:yh_rotfl You'd love my man Jester...... he's a gentleman but soooooo dry and witty. After major surgery to remove his cancer last time, the surgeon had to explain to him what he'd had to remove and why. He had to tell him the cancer had spread and he's had no choice but to remove two inches from the base of his penis. Pete just said..... 'I'll just have to make do with the other 12 inches then' :wah:

[scholle-kid]

One of the great thing about Philosophy ,, is all the different paths a Philosophical discussion can go





'I'll just have to make do with the other 12 inches then'





My man boobs exploded

My stomach rotted away

Man with fence post up his butt

I was electrocuted but survived

My wife hacked my penis off while i was asleep



Hitler



our dogs need a wee wee



doggie doors





Kitty flaps in the doors



:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

[Oscar Namechange]

scholle-kid;1153516 wrote: One of the great thing about Philosophy ,, is all the different paths a Philosophical discussion can go





'I'll just have to make do with the other 12 inches then'





My man boobs exploded

My stomach rotted away

Man with fence post up his butt

I was electrocuted but survived

My wife hacked my penis off while i was asleep



Hitler

our dogs need a wee wee



doggie doors





Kitty flaps in the doors



:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl


:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl Yep.... Only on forum garden folks and don't forget 'My dog chewed my ears off'. Musn't laugh

[Oscar Namechange]

Jester;1153481 wrote: :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl I like Pete.

Those stories sound more like the national enquirier cept its not abotu a ceebrity!:-5:yh_rotfl I get the National Enquirer here........ it's hilarious and especially when it's happening to over-paid egotistical Celeb's.

[scholle-kid]

I just love when one of those over-paid egotistical Celeb's cry "I need my privacy while giving interviews on every Hollywood show and in every magazine that will run their picture!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Oscar Namechange]

Kathy Ellen;1153401 wrote: Oscar,



Google his name and you'll see that he will not answer you or anyone. There's something odd there Ok... I have googled Coberst and as you say found many sites and many forums. After a look, i've found that all the threads he posts here are posted identically on other forums as you can see in this link i copied. You will recognise the same threads on this site:

SciForums.com - Search Results

I also note that on one thread, a member accussed him of spamming.

Coberst..... If your viewing this thread, try telling us what is the point of this?

[coberst]

oscar;1153528 wrote:

Coberst..... If your viewing this thread, try telling us what is the point of this?


Think about it a little bit and try to guess why anyone might do such a thing.

[scholle-kid]

[Oscar Namechange]

coberst;1153551 wrote: Think about it a little bit and try to guess why anyone might do such a thing. Because you have no ability to debate or discuss. You need a platform in life to express your views yet have the deficiency to follow up any alternative view,

[Accountable]

coberst;1152260 wrote: *snip*

My very best friend is meaningful to me and my very worst enemy must, for security reasons, also be meaningful to me. The American failures in Vietnam and Iraq are greatly the result of the fact that our government and our citizens never understood these ‘foreigners’. We failed at the very important relationship—we did not empathesize with the people and thus failed to understand our enemy. It is quite possible that if we had understood them we would never have gone to war with them.



If we had empathy with Germany in the 1930s would we have stopped Hitler before he forced us into war?



If we had empathy with Germany before August 1914 would we have prevented WWI?



Do you agree that we understand our best friend and that we must also understand our worst enemy?


oscar;1152976 wrote: What part of 'You are insulting millions of allied troops and their families do you not understand?



You are trying to suggest that if we showed a little 'empathy' to Hitler and the Nazi regime and you can add Japan to that if your America, we might not have had a world war?


scholle-kid;1153395 wrote: I have been thinking about what the OP could have been trying to say with that statement about Hitler and WW2. I can't figure how showing understanding towards anything Hitler done could have changed any of what happened. Any one showing empathy for him or his actions would have had to feel and think like he did and so would have been one of his followers or partners. Understanding what Hitler had in mind when he started out would have scared h*ll out of any one with the ability to feel empathy.
The OP didn't refer to empathizing with Hitler, but with Germany. I take that as meaning the German people. I'm no historian, but Hitler clearly found a way to Hook the people in. If the governments of the Allies had a better empathetic understanding of the German people, could they have somehow prevented Hitler coming into power?



I haven't a clue, but I doubt it.

[Oscar Namechange]

Hitler rose to power through equally minded murderous bastards. He conquered his own people through fear and intimidation.

Should you have shown any 'empathy' to Japan for their terrorist attack on Pearl Harbour?

The Rise of Hitler - 1920 Nazi Party is Formed

[Accountable]

oscar;1154048 wrote: Hitler rose to power through equally minded murderous bastards. He conquered his own people through fear and intimidation.

Should you have shown any 'empathy' to Japan for their terrorist attack on Pearl Harbour?



The Rise of Hitler - 1920 Nazi Party is Formed
I tried.

Go froth on someone else.

[Oscar Namechange]

Accountable;1154054 wrote: I tried.

Go froth on someone else. So because i don't agree with a poster that you agree with you result to that remark?

Shame, I always thought you of all memebers were above that.

You didn't try at all. Nor has your 'pal' come back and explained his reasons for writing the shyte about the wars in the first place. You tried for him. I take as much exception to inane comments from him as you did when i asked if you had empathy for Japan when they attacked Pearl Harbour.

[Accountable]

oscar;1154069 wrote: So because i don't agree with a poster that you agree with you result to that remark?The poster didn't offer an opinion, only asked a question, so there wasn't anyone to agree or disagree with. I offered my opinion, that I don't think it would have made a difference. Unless I'm mistaken, that would be your answer as well.



I don't deserve your crap.

[coberst]

Is Hitler’s Germany a result of subhuman behavior?

I have recently watched “The Nazis: A Warning from History”. This series of DVDs makes it perfectly clear that the Germany population were handmaidens of Hitler. Hitler and the civilian population had a symbiotic relationship that provides the embodiment of the Freudian theory of transference on both the individual and on the group level.

Freud was the first to focus upon the phenomenon of a patient’s inclination to transfer the feelings s/he had toward her parents as a child to the physician. The patient distorts the perception of the physician; s/he enlarges the figure up far out of reason and becomes dependent upon him. In this transference of feeling, which the patient had for his parents, to the physician the grown person displays all the characteristics of the child at heart, a child who distorts reality in order to relieve his helplessness and fears.

Freud saw these transference phenomena as the form of human suggestibility that makes the control over another, as displayed by hypnosis, as being possible. Hypnosis seems mysterious and mystifying to us only because we hide our slavish need for authority from our self. We live the big lie, which lay within this need to submit our self slavishly to another, because we want to think of our self as self-determined and independent in judgment and choice.

The predisposition to hypnosis is identical to that which gives rise to transference and it is characteristic of all sapiens. We could not function as adults if we retained this submissive attitude to our parents, however, this attitude of submissiveness, as noted by Ferenczi, is “The need to be subject to someone remains; only the part of the father is transferred to teachers, superiors, impressive personalities; the submissive loyalty to rulers that is so widespread is also a transference of this sort.”

Freud saw immediately that when caught up in groups wo/man became dependent children once again. They abandoned their individual egos for that of the leader; they identified with their leader and proceeded to function with him as their ideal. Freud identified man, not as a herd animal but as a horde (teeming crowd) animal that is led by a chief. Wo/man has an insatiable need for authority.

People have an insatiable need to be hypnotized by authority; they seek a magical protection as when they were infants protected by their mother. This is the force that acts to hold groups together, intertwined within a mutually constructed but often mindless interdependence. This mindless group think also builds a feeling of potency. The members feel a sense of unity within the grasp of their leadership.

What do the following entities have in common: fascism, capitalism, communism, political parties, and religions? They all have a common characteristic that can be called “group mind”.

What is striking is that members of these entities often undergo a major change in behavior just by being members of such entities. Under certain conditions individuals who become members of these groups behave differently than they would as individuals. These individuals acquire the characteristics of a ‘psychological group’.

What is the nature of the ‘group mind’, i.e. the mental changes such individuals undergo as a result of becoming a group?

A bond develops much like cells which constitute a living body—group mind is more of an unconscious than a conscious force—there are motives for action that elude conscious attention—distinctiveness and individuality become group behavior based upon unconscious motives—there develops a sentiment of invincible power, anonymous and irresponsible attitudes--repressions of unconscious forces under normal situations are ignored—conscience which results from social anxiety disappear.

Contagion sets in—hypnotic order becomes prevalent—individuals sacrifice personal interest for the group interest.

Suggestibility, of which contagion is a symptom, leads to the lose of conscious personality—the individual follows suggestions for actions totally contradictory to person conscience—hypnotic like fascination sets in—will and discernment vanishes—direction is taken from the leader in an hypnotic like manner—the conscious personality disappears.

“Moreover, by the mere fact that he forms part of an organized group, a man descends several rungs in the ladder of civilization.” Isolated, he may be a cultivated individual; in a crowd, he is a barbarian—a creature acting by instinct. “He possesses the spontaneity, the violence, the ferocity, and also the enthusiasm and heroism of primitive beings.”

There is a lowering of intellectual ability “pointing to its similarity with the mental life of primitive people and of children…A group is credulous and easily influenced”—the improbable seldom exists—they think in images—feelings are very simple and exaggerated—the group knows neither doubt nor uncertainty—extremes are prevalent, antipathy becomes hate and suspicion becomes certainty.

Force is king—force is respected and obeyed without question—kindness is weakness—tradition is triumphant—words have a magical power—supernatural powers are easily accepted—groups never thirst for truth, they demand illusions—the unreal receives precedence over the real—the group is an obedient herd—prestige is a source for domination, however it “is also dependent upon success, and is lost in the event of failure”.

‘Why are groups so blind and stupid?’ Freud asked; and he replied that mankind lived by self delusion. They “constantly give what is unreal precedence over what is real.” The real world is too frightening to behold; delusion changes this by making sapiens seem important. This explains the terrible sadism we see in group activity.

I do not wish to admit it but Hitler’s Germany resulted from normal humans acting like normal humans.

Quotes are from Freud and his book “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego”. I discovered that Freud had turned to the Frenchman Gustave Le Bon for empirical data on group behavior.

Gustave Le Bon was a French social psychologist, sociologist, and amateur physicist. His work on crowd psychology became important in the first half of the twentieth century. Le Bon was one of the great popularizers of theories of the unconscious at a critical moment in the formation of new theories of sociology.

[Clodhopper]

Um. I really don't feel like trying to pull it all together into a coherent piece, but here are a few disorganised points:

Kaiser Wilhelm II was one of the last mediaeval monarchs in that he had near-absolute power, and with armies being the playthings of kings he used his army to try and compete with the British Empire by creating a German Empire in Europe. This was not unusual - it's much what Bonaparte tried to do. Europe had not seen a major war for 100 years by this time (the Franco-Prussian war of 1871 perhaps excepted).

There were efforts to stop the war happening, but all the militaries knew that the time it would take to mobilise their armies was a crucial factor, because the signs of mobilisation were obvious and if your potential enemy mobilised and you didn't the enemy would crush you before your army was in the field. There were, apparently, signs that the Kaiser tried to back down at the last minute, but it was too late - Germany, Russia, France and the Austo-Hungarian Empire all began mobilising and the process developed its own momentum.

Plus there were quite a few people on all sides who WANTED the war, ordinary people as well as monarchs. It was the first industrial war. No-one knew what that meant at the time. Virtually everyone (Douglas Haig was an exception) thought the war would last six months maximum....

Four years and 10,000,000 dead later the mood was generally one of vengeance, and the seeds were sown of WW2. Foch knew it: "This is not a peace, it is an armistice for 25 years," he is reported to have said of the Treaty of Versailles. Haig too wished defeated Germany treated leniently, but the politicians and angry people were in charge, and it took the millions of casualties of WW2 (loosely guesstimated at around 60,000,000) to teach us that it is best to treat a defeated enemy with consideration.

Strange little factoid: the postwar Volkswagen company was set up by the British Army!

So would empathy have stopped WW1? Probably not. Kaiser Bill was a juvenile fool.

But a little empathy at the end of WW1 might have prevented Germany's economic collapse and the rise of Hitler, and so prevented WW2.

[Oscar Namechange]

Accountable;1154112 wrote: The poster didn't offer an opinion, only asked a question, so there wasn't anyone to agree or disagree with. I offered my opinion, that I don't think it would have made a difference. Unless I'm mistaken, that would be your answer as well.



I don't deserve your crap. No? And we don't deserve yours.

I am pissed off with the problems you have caused on this forum and if no-one else will say it to you i will, so don't suddenly start like I shot Bambi and do the hurt act on me.

When i first joined FG, I saw absolutely no problem with the American and British posters, in fact the thought never even occured to me.

It got to a point some weeks back where evey time a British poster dared dis-agree with you, we were accussed of being Anti-American. You then posted a thread saying you were leaving the forum due to Anti-Americanism. Unless you were logging in and watching, you caused mega problems with that thread and as a result, members on here were at each others throats left, right and centre. Due to your thread, The British had to spend the next several weeks protesting that we were not Anti-American and i can tell you some British members were so pissed off with it they stopped posting on American threads. Typical of the Brits we then tried to ease the situation by joking about it and threads appeared such as 'Don't mention the war'. This went on for weeks and even myself who has a skin thicker than a Rhino got sick to death of it. Everything got back to normal recently and everyone was getting on fine. Then you re-appeared.

If you look back over this thread you will see that my argument was with Coberst along with others who consider him to be a spammer on this forum and others. You then came in to defend him because, OH excuse me, I happened to dis-agree with your 'Buddy' and then you post your 'Crap' at me.

All i asked you was 'If i take exception to the suggestion that we should have shown Germany empathy, would you have shown Japan empathy when they bombed Pearl Harbour?' If you can't deal with that and can't answer it, be man enough to say so and not accuse me of giving you crap because i can see your next card will be the Anti-American card that you have pulled so many times before when it doesn't suit you.

Although i've not commented on them, i have been reading posts going between you and Spot. I was of the opinion that Spot was being insensitive but now i can see that it's you and your defense again.

I am not going round this circle of Anti-Americanism by the British any more. It was insulting the last time and it will another insult again. After this post, i am not rising to your bait further and i hope the British do like-wise.

You don't know me, you don't know any of the Brits on here. You have no idea of my familys connection with America and I'm certainly not going to explain it you.

Jimbo was made to feel dreadful by your anti-american thread and your not doing it with me. If my fellow Brits can't see what your doing then they need to wake up.

No-one comes here to insult another Nation. That is all in your head. However, the thread posted by Coberst insulted me and he has not been man enough to come back and explain the question i put to him. You jumped in for him yourself. I shall continue to object if some-one insults me weather they are French, Irish, Chinese or American as they would do if i insulted them. I am not tip-toeing around this forum again to save you the 'I shot Bambi' act.

Just for the record....why don't you actually read my post in reply to Coberst in the beginning. I said that he had insulted million of ALLIED troops which unless your too sensitive to notice, includes America.