| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Food Dance Gets New Life When Bees Get Cocaine | Main | Tuesday Poem »

January 06, 2009

Love thy neighbour: Kindness has gone out of fashion.

From The Guardian:

St-Lawrence-distributing--001 Kindness was mankind's "greatest delight", the Roman philosopher-emperor Marcus Aurelius declared, and thinkers and writers have echoed him down the centuries. But today many people find these pleasures literally incredible, or at least highly suspect. An image of the self has been created that is utterly lacking in natural generosity. Most people appear to believe that deep down they (and other people) are mad, bad and dangerous to know; that as a species - apparently unlike other species of animal - we are deeply and fundamentally antagonistic to each other, that our motives are utterly self-seeking and that our sympathies are forms of self-protectiveness.

Kindness - not sexuality, not violence, not money - has become our forbidden pleasure. In one sense kindness is always hazardous because it is based on a susceptibility to others, a capacity to identify with their pleasures and sufferings. Putting oneself in someone else's shoes, as the saying goes, can be very uncomfortable. But if the pleasures of kindness - like all the greatest human pleasures - are inherently perilous, they are none the less some of the most satisfying we possess.

In 1741 the Scottish philosopher David Hume, confronted by a school of philosophy that held mankind to be irredeemably selfish, lost patience. Any person foolish enough to deny the existence of human kindness had simply lost touch with emotional reality, Hume insisted: "He has forgotten the movements of his heart." For nearly all of human history - up to and beyond Hume's day, the so-called dawn of modernity - people have perceived themselves as naturally kind. In giving up on kindness - and especially our own acts of kindness - we deprive ourselves of a pleasure that is fundamental to our sense of well-being.

More here.

Posted by Azra Raza at 06:08 AM | Permalink

Comments

A daunting task, represents that of exploring human moral and lofty sentiments no matter whatever the approach being used. Dawkins and, before him, Darwin have tried to use an evolutionary/cum sociobiological approach to explain it. Their findings are not very convincing, even with the analogy of the existence of a "selfish gene".
How can we have, in the same brain, next to each other giving to help others and the genocide of Palestine people?
A good read: The Ant and the Peacock by Helena Cronin

Posted by: Felix E F Larocca MD | Jan 6, 2009 10:05:14 AM

A beautiful article that reminds us just how appallingly selfish individualistic western man has become. I have noticed that the greatest works of art all take the conflict between selfishness and kindness or compassion as their underlying theme. From Shakespeare's King Lear to Mozart's Magic Flute to Mizoguchi's Ugetsu and Sansho the Bailiff, all express in art the same universal truth that compassion is the only thing that makes us human and the only thing that makes human life worth living.

Posted by: Jared | Jan 6, 2009 11:05:59 AM

I have myself experienced the suspicions generated by acts of kindness, heard and seen the wariness that, really, it's not an act of generousity at all, but a veiled "roping" into some kind of obligation to reciprocate. It is bizarre, I think. And, that bastion of "brotherly" love, Christianity, has likewise followed the capitalist industrialization of such ideals, since now the word is, one cannot enter heaven on good works, but on faith alone. (That definitely raises MY suspicions!) And yet, here we are, faced with the realities of globalization--which does, among other things, really emphasize dependence among all.

There is, I believe, a relationship dynamic afoot here, a self/other that cannot be truly disassociated, which is why the "selfish gene" theories don't explain very much for me. You can take one out of the equation as impossibly as the other. When you do, you succeed in explaining very little indeed. My experience is that selfishness is a symptom of hunger. I think the hunger can be fed by such intimacy as the author suggests is bred from kindness. One must open wide, in order to get the food inside, in a manner of speaking.

Posted by: Lambness | Jan 6, 2009 1:15:57 PM

Is it really a pitiable weakness to admit one needs to eat?

(Sorry--last sentence lost on the first go.)

Posted by: Lambness | Jan 6, 2009 1:18:12 PM

Lambness,

I agree. Selfishness is a kind of hunger, and the more you feed it, the hungrier you get. You could have 50 million dollars and be unhappy because others you know have 100 million. It's a black hole, leading nowhere. Tribalism is just a kind of collective selfishness applied to "your people" and used to justify all sorts of atrocities. Cultivating compassion is the answer, but it does tend to sound preachy or wishy washy. A great artist can demonstrate the moral effects of selfishness and compassion without sounding preachy, which is why I like the fims of Mizoguchi. My favorite quotation from this article is this - "People think that they envy other people for their success, money, fame, when in fact it is kindness that is most envied, because it is the strongest indicator of people's well-being, their pleasure in existence". And what is kindness but a form of love without which people are bound to be miserable?

Posted by: Jared | Jan 6, 2009 2:47:54 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Usha Alexander on Race Is Not Biology

jo smith on Mohsin Hamid: 'Islam is not a monolith'

araldo on Mohsin Hamid: 'Islam is not a monolith'

Dr. X, Ph.D. on Race Is Not Biology

jo smith on Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist at the Same Time

jo smith on Mohsin Hamid: 'Islam is not a monolith'

Dr. Smith on Race Is Not Biology

Sundar on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Sundar on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Sundar on Why race as a biological construct matters

Sundar on Race Is Not Biology

Joel Grant on Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories

khaled on Evolution shapes new rules for ant behavior

musafir on Mohsin Hamid: 'Islam is not a monolith'

araldo on Mohsin Hamid: 'Islam is not a monolith'

JM on Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist at the Same Time

SteveRR on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

jo smith on Mohsin Hamid: 'Islam is not a monolith'

Grace on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Elatia Harris on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Abbas Raza on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Jonathan on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Bill on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Louise Gordon on The need for critical science journalism

omar on Mohsin Hamid: 'Islam is not a monolith'

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed