<p>
</p>
<p>Could care also be an evolutionary response that increases one’s evolutionary fitness?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lol. </p>
<p>I’m the biggest biology nerd in history. </p>
<p>You have no clue :).</p>
<p>Evolutionary fitness, as you know, is the ability of an organism to pass on its genes by reproducing offspring. So, can care help someone reproduce children? I suppose it could. Certain females are attracted to men who care and vice versa. This attraction could lead to an increase in one’s individual fitness. However, I don’t think care is an evolutionary response that targets this increase. It makes more sense that care evolved as a part of kin selection, which favors the reproductive fitness of the community (not the individual). A potential sexual partner’s attraction to someone’s having care could be an emergent trait of this evolutionary response, though.</p>
<p>mm i think what iceQube said is okay. characteristics of the human species are things which were helpful to humans in their ancestral environment. that seems strongly true.</p>
<p>and, sure, they could be framed as arising as a response to changing conditions. </p>
<p>the observation of kin selection seems to have to do more with empathy than care to me. I don’t know, i associate more complexity to ‘care’ than i do to ‘empathy’. maybe a mother belonging to a group of social mammals cares for her young, but the thing that makes more closely related social mammals help each other out more? that is more like hardwired increased empathy for your families’ problems. </p>
<p>and anyway kin selection was just like an emergent evolutionary strategy that miraculously arose in species of prey the face of carnivorous predators or whatever the conditions were that made empathy a plus. it helps reproductive fitness in the species it exists in, just like other things observed about social mammals do. (and not just for your family of course, but on average for you too).</p>
<p>Siriuss, your post is magnificent. Don’t think otherwise :). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. Humans have an unfounded sense of optimism. Tomorrow is always brighter. When God closes a door, he opens another one. There is always a silver lining. These eternal sayings, these figments of our culture, these memes, embody what you are expressing (so elegantly). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Self-centeredness. Ahh. The entire intellectual trend of the last 500 years has been emphasizing the individual. The Renaissance, to classical liberalism, to transcendentalism, to existentialism. </p>
<p>We’re attention-seekers, and I’ve but skimmed the surface of this facet of the human condition in my essay titled *<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/high-school-life/1356173-stage.html[/url][/i]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/high-school-life/1356173-stage.html*</a>. We all seek attention in our own ways. From a baby’s wails for his or her mother. To an adolescent’s displays of affection in the movie theater. To an adult’s striving to be at the top of the hierarchy at work. To the elderly person’s funeral. No one wants to be forgotten; instead, people want ceremonies, even for their deaths. From the beginning to the end, the human condition is one of a desperate search for attention. As you’ve iterated, we want to feel important; we want to be more than just another one of 7 billion or so, wandering this world. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I view this fact optimistically. Sure, we’ll be forgotten. </p>
<p>Our ephemeral lives mean nothing in geologic time. How many of you know the details of your grandfather’s exploits? His chasing of girls in high school? His first experience holding someone’s hand, his first kiss? I’m sure that if he would subconsciously want you to know, especially if you weren’t so closely related. Bystanders and witnesses provide him validation. We don’t want experience in a vacuum. </p>
<p>In that we will be forgotten, nothing really matters. Why hold back? Take a few missteps. Be bold. Say the things you’ve wanted to say. Reach out to that person. Be whom you really are. Relish the zeniths.</p>
<p>Does your platitudinous verbosity have a toggle-switch? Pretentious thread is pretentious, and demonstrates philosophical ineptitude.</p>
<p>Certain terms and their negations (especially “rational,” “logical,” “reasonable,” and the like, in the context of this discussion) have dissimilar, or sometimes even disparate meanings when one makes the transition from casual speech to philosophical discourse (one could draw an analogy from the different meanings of the word “diagnosis” in biology and medicine). Please try to avoid muddling these in the future.</p>
<p>Now, for my thoughts on your original question:<br>
If one can do nothing to alter unfavorable circumstances, then caring about them squarely falls into the nonsensical category. However, this transgression is customarily forgiven in our culture, and for good reason. Reprimanding someone for grieving over such circumstances would accomplish nothing, and would, in fact, be a fantastic way to alienate yourself from them. </p>
<p>The question you have raised is one of the most vacuous questions you could ask about human compassion, I hope you feel good about yourself. Your perfervid “compassion” is of no consequence until it has some external impact.</p>
<p>And for the record, “Mensa-level intellect” is nothing special. I have an IQ of 136 on the Stanford-Binet intelligence scale, I could be in Mensa.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A vainglorious rhetorical flourish preceding a middling argument. </p>
<p>Tell me: does condescension bolster the equivalent of a house of cards?</p>
<p>woah where do you guys learn these words from. </p>
<p>I am calling it 1-1. atheos gets a point for perfervid and iceqube gets one for vainglorious.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No consequence to whom? Please be more precise. I actually delineated two cases in my original piece. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why must something be nonsensical if it has no impact on the external world? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How humble of you ;). I love the implication of your statement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alas, if you keep score this way, I’ll lose; I’m really no match for Thesaurus.com.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually just mean “no consequence.” It’s not even an idiomatic expression that needs dissecting. I didn’t say “no consequence” while really meaning “insignificant,” or “trivial.” It means, very literally, “no result.” I hope it is now clear that your question is entirely incoherent. Something does not fail to exact a change in the state of the universe “to” anyone, it simply fails to exact change. </p>
<p>By referring to the two cases that you “delineated,” you are implying that your compassion was, in fact, of consequence, having an “external impact” in both of these cases. Please, tell me, just how were you involved in the Aurora shooting and the conflict in Syria?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is nonsensical precisely because it has no impact, in the same way that it is nonsensical to try to phase your hand through a bank vault door. I don’t understand what is confusing you here. That you take issue with such simple concepts is alarming.</p>
<p>Also, you posed the question incorrectly. It should have began as “How could something…” instead of “Why must something…”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m nothing special. Neither are you. Not humble, just honest.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You get your words from English language reference literature? What a peasant!</p>
<p>That’s adorable. If you will, recall this gem:
</p>
<p>I don’t think you’re in any position to launch criticism of this flavor. And I don’t even use a thesaurus.</p>
<p>2-1, atheos. </p>
<p>i kind of think saying caring about things can can’t do anything about is nonsensical is a little harsh. maybe generally not a good investment of care would be better. 'cause what if it changes how you live your life? then it would be having those precious affects on the external world. and this happens for people who find caring about death (contemplating it or whatever) motivating. also, what you can’t do anything about right now might not be something you can’t do anything about in the future. so caring about it could prepare you for acting swiftly when the time comes.</p>
<p>This thread has mostly focused on events that one could do nothing to change, because they have already occurred. It becomes an entirely different question when it involves things we can or will be able to change, or things we may possibly be able to change in the future.</p>
<p>oh yeah the focus is on like missed opportunities or something.</p>
<p>philosophyforums</p>
<p>I guess this thread no longer tickles IceQube’s fancy. What a shame.</p>