A philosophy that popped into my head

Post Reply New Topic

I think this plays a big part in how a person with AS is percieved by others. But how do we measure egocentricity? If I always measure myself by others' perceptions of me, then I will surely never overcome my "egocentricity." The normal and acceptable way of relating to people remains a mystery of neurology in my opinion.
I will always maintain that the truth is in one's intentions, regardless of how the actions are percieved by others.

<i>"But how do we measure egocentricity?"</i>

I'm not sure if we'll ever be able to "scienfically" measure egocentricity... but that dosen't make it any less important.

<i>"If I always measure myself by others' perceptions of me, then I will surely never overcome my "egocentricity.""</i>

Simply perceiving other people dosen't make you any less egocentric, I'd say. You could be 100 percent percpetive of what others think of you (which is impossible) and still be perfectly egocentric.

From my personal experiences, I think one possible "path" to becomming less egocentric is to share misery with someone else. Or, more specifically, to feel empathy towards someone else's suffering.

I couldn't agree more. Still what bothers me is this idea that persons on the autistic spectrum are egocentric. I think it is an aire of egocentricity.



This is of course the idea of religion, but this sort of empathy is very different from the empathy spoken of in reference to the autistic specturm. What they are reffering to is more kin to social reciprocity, or the hierarchy of pack animals. This to me is a neurological element that I will always lack. Surely this does not mean I fail to realize that others suffer just as much as myself. Or that they do not have a mind as I do.

<i>"I think it is an aire of egocentricity"</i>

No, I think it really is egocenticity. It's written right in the DSM description.

<i>"but this sort of empathy is very different from the empathy spoken of in reference to the autistic specturm. What they are reffering to is more kin to social reciprocity, or the hierarchy of pack animals."</i>

Well, there's plenty of religions out there... But, from what I've seen of Christianity, you are supposed to truly feel the suffering of Jesus (ie, that mel gibson movie). In Buddism, there's a common excersise where you're supposed to imagine loved ones in great suffering, and to exerience their suffering as if it were your own.
This dosen't sound like simple social reciprocity or heirarcy to me.

Unfortunately I don't have much faith in the DSM
And it is always a work in progress.



You are absolutely right. That was my point, though I must have worded it poorly. It is the type of empathy descibed in AS literature that I was referring to as social reciprocity.

I just don't think that folks on the spectrum are lacking in the kind of empathy that religion is concerned with. We must simply disagree on this I suppose.

On what you had said earlier about "who we consider human", I have some further thoughts. That is so right on and that is exactly what I have been talking about I think. I'm currently reading a book on evolution in which they talk about how the idea of kin selection must have set up very early on (i.e. not digesting yourself or your offspring accidentally.) Ego and ethnocentrism are the same principle on different scales. A humanitarian transcends ethnocentrism. I would argue that altruism goes even further and that is where we find what is called the "good" Or rather anything leading in that direction can be considered good.

I find it interesting that persons on the spectrum are reffered to in some places as altruistic and in others as egocentric. Is this not a paradox?

<i>"is so right on and that is exactly what I have been talking about I think. I'm currently reading a book on evolution in which they talk about how the idea of kin selection must have set up very early on (i.e. not digesting yourself or your offspring accidentally.)"</i>

I think you'd dig this book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... X?v=glance

<i>"I find it interesting that persons on the spectrum are reffered to in some places as altruistic and in others as egocentric. Is this not a paradox?"</i>

I'm not sure what you're refering to.. :S

Thanks for the link. I will definitely try to get that one.
Next on my list is Teilhard de Chardin
I ordered this one last night. Found him on a reading list for Transpersonal Psychology.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ce&s=books

The one I'm reading right now is "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors"
by Carl Sagan and someone else. I'm in a very small town and this is just something
they happened to have at the library.

The book has the idea that societies don’t have to be destructive (or self-destructive) because that’s “human nature”. And one thing he points out is de-humanization. You can only really do acts of “evil” towards someone who is not your kin, or less than human.

The illogical thing with Philosophy is the term 'thought'. Many people don't understand how complex the word is, and because of this, we simply are ignorant about Philosophy, and believe there is no way for it to breach or compromise understanding. The irony is, that we are using more than the term 'thought' when we philosophize. The requirement of Philosophy is to shed idealism, and contemplate more materialiastic approaches to understanding all the intricate parts of human-understanding. It's simple to use the term 'thought', but the materials behind thinking are the parts which are either sensitive or non-sensitive, which is the approach of the Empirical school of Philosophy, to stipulate all human experiences down to one definition. So in a way, with all of the complexities of thinking, we still have to focus on language, imagination and mathematics, otherwise we are not learning anything. This is where values come into place. A value is something which stands ambiguous to something that it relates to, only because it is a principle. Principles ofcourse are the levers of basic ideals and materials. So first off, principles are by value, ambiguous, only until they are used as principles for human-understanding. In a way, when we refer to thinking we are automatically assuming more than what we are actually rationally or even mentally aware of. This is why people are ignorant, because they are pre-sumptive of what is actually valuable or principled. So now we see there is alot more to thinking, as it is a Philosophical requirement and describes Logic as a system.