Is Empathy Necessary For Morality? [excerpts from the paper]

[eye2i2hear]

["it's all information..."]

Quote:“Is Empathy Necessary For Morality?” [pdf] (philpapers) by Jesse Prinz (WP) of CUNY; recently linked in a David Brooks New York Times column, “The Limits of Empathy”.
1 Introduction
2 Is Empathy Necessary for Moral Judgment?
3 Is Empathy Necessary for Moral Development?
4 Is Empathy Necessary for Moral Conduct?
5 Should we Cultivate An Empathy Based Morality?
...
Prinz, J. J. (2007). The Emotional Construction of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hoffman, M. (2000). Empathy and moral development: The implications for caring and justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T.L., and Sadovsky, A. (2006). Empathy‐related responding in children. In M. Killen and J. G. Smetana (Eds); Handbook of Moral Development (pp. 517‐549). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Eisenberg‐Berg, N. (1979). The development of children’s prosocial moral judgment. Developmental Psychology, 15, 128‐137

Blair, R. J. R. (1995). A cognitive developmental approach to morality: Investigating the psychopath. Cognition, 57, 1‐29

Smetana, J. and Braeges, J. (1990). The development of toddlers’ moral and conventional judgments. Merrill­Palmer Quarterly, 36, 329‐346

Blair, R. J. R., Mitchell, D. G. V., Richell, R. A., Kelly, S., Leonard, A., Newman, C., and Scott, S. K. (2002). Turning a deaf ear to fear: Impaired recognition of vocal affect in psychopathic individuals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 682– 686

Prinz, J. J. (2004). Gut Reactions: A Perceptual Theory of Emotion. New York: Oxford University Press

Underwood, B., and Moore, B. (1982). Perspective‐taking and altruism. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 143‐173

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Miller, P. A., Fultz, J., Shell, R., Mathy, R. M., and Reno, R. R. Relation of sympathy and personal distress to prosocial behavior: a multimethod study. Journal of personality and social psychology, 57, 55‐66

Neuberg, S. L., Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Luce, C., Sagarin, B. J., and Lewis, B. P. (1997). Does empathy lead to anything more than superficial helping? Comment on Batson et al (1997). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 510‐516

Carlson, M., Charlin, V., and Miller, N. (1988). Positive mood and helping behavior: A test of six hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 211–229

Isen, A. M. and Levin, P. F. (1972). The effect of feeling good on helping: Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 384‐388

Weyant, J. M. (1978). Effects of mood states, costs, and benefits on helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1169–1176

Lerner, J., and Tiedens, L. (2006). Portrait of The Angry Decision Maker: How Appraisal Tendencies Shape Anger’s Influence on Cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 115‐137

Fehr, E., and Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137‐140

Carlsmith, J. M., and Gross, A. E. (1969). Some Effects of Guilt on Compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 232‐9

Batson, C. D., Klein, T. R., Highberger, L., and Shaw, L. L. (1995). Immorality from empathy‐induced altruism: When compassion and justice conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1042‐1054

Batson, C., Lishner, D., Cook, J., and Sawyer, S. (2005). Similarity and Nurturance: Two Possible Sources of Empathy for Strangers. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 15‐25

Ickkes, W., Stinson, L., Bissonnette, V., and Garcia, S. (1990). Naturalistic social cognition: Empathic accuracy in mixed‐sex dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 730‐742

Brown, L., Bradley, M., and Lang, P. (2006). Affective reactions to pictures of ingroup and outgroup members. Biological Psychology, 71, 303‐311

Stürmer, S., Snyder, M., and Omoto, A. (2005). Prosocial Emotions and Helping: The Moderating Role of Group Membership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 532‐546

excerpts from the paper posted on LessWrong.com
(as typical, the Comments highly recommended)

[zonsb]

I found it difficult to read the primary document and the blog entry at lesswrong because the question of "what is morality?" was at the forefront of my mind.

I know what is immoral. That's easy. But to define what is immoral it seems necessary to first define moral.

What to make of moral judgement? Determining whether an action is good or bad for an individual is a matter of self-interest. For which only the self-interested individual can determine for himself and herself.

I see no requirement for empathy to enter the process.

The following quote is where the above was derived:

Quote:Independent of opinion there is the instinct of self preservation seen throughout nature. Self preservation isn't a product of reason. A product of reason is the acknowledgement of self preservation beyond oneself.

Moral and immoral are a concept or construct created by the conscious mind. Which I think originated as a means to control the minds and thus acts of other people to help those wielding the moral construct to get other humans to assist in preserving their lives -- preserve the lives of the ruling class.

Man has the capacity to increasingly understand nature and thus control nature to increasingly ensure the preservation of self, and with his combined capacity to create and produce more than he consumes man reasons that to voluntarily assist in the preservation of humans other than oneself is a benefit to oneself.

Preservation of human life is for the sake of oneself, not the species. Thus, achieving greater understanding of nature, man will cure human death to preserve the individual. Preserving the individual has a secondary benefit of preserving the species.

The ruling class doesn't want the suppressed class to know this. For the ruling class' public relations scheme is that preservation of the species has priority above the preservation of self. The ruling class construct defeats the nature of self preservation in favor of an alleged greater good. Which in and of itself is their intent to preserve the status quo wherein the suppressed class is to serve the needs of the ruling class.

The ruling class has no lofty or higher goal to preserve the species. It's just a ruse to get the suppressed class -- that they have suppressed via their public relations scheme in which they define what acts are good/moral and what acts are bad/immoral -- to server their need for self preservation.

They also don't want the suppressed class to know that they -- the ruling class -- couldn't survive without the creativity and productivity of the suppressed class. For the alleged greater good of the group they define what is good/immoral and what is bad/immoral. When in reality whatever any individual determines is good or bad for oneself is for the preservation of self.

Resorting to rule of the jungle is to abandon reason and puts oneself at high risk of defeating self-preservation. That is why the vast majority of the suppressed class honor reason and voluntary association over might-makes right and coercion. It is based on self preservation, not the ruling class good-bad/moral-immoral construct.

Whatever a human organism determines is of value to self is a benefit to self. Whatever a human organism determines is not of value to self is not a benefit to self. If an individual determines that another person threatening their life is bad for themselves they will defend their life. In the anticivilization that may include complying with the demands of a ruling-class minion (a cop for example) because the individual knows that the cop will not accept a decline of his "offer" and let the person go about their way unmolested.

The nonaggression principle comports with natural law. While reading I came upon the term/phrase, "the social contract". The term was new to me so I had to pause and put meaning to it. It was immediately clear to me that "the social contract" is the non aggression principle. Sometime latter I learned the term, "social contract", as it is typically used had little if anything to do with the nonaggression principle.

All acts that violate the non aggression principle, for the person committing said act risks diminishment and or defeat of self-preservation. All violations of the nonaggression principle have a liability attached. The "social contract" as it's typically espoused gives it primacy over the nonaggression principle.

None the less, the nonaggression principle is the social contract. They're one and the same. The new world order is order out of anarchy honoring the social contract for self preservation. In short, a voluntary society/civilization. A moral-immoral/good-bad concept/construct is superfluous.

Live and let Live.

Conversely, the moral-immoral concept/construct is only important to the ruling class homogenization of Nation States so the ruling class can continue to rule over the suppressed class. Nonaggression principle and preservation of the individual be damned.

The ruling class with its minions argue the primacy of the good-bad/moral-immoral construct for the alleged greater good at the expense of the nonaggression principle of self preservation of the individual.

It's not surprising that after a hundred generations people still argue or debate over the superfluous since they have been encouraged to do so by the ruling class and their minions.

[NonEntity]

(10-06-2011 01:53 PM)zonsb Wrote:  I found it difficult to read the primary document and the blog entry at lesswrong because the question of "what is morality?" was at the forefront of my mind.

I know what is immoral. That's easy. But to define what is immoral it seems necessary to first define moral.

What to make of moral judgement? Determining whether an action is good or bad for an individual is a matter of self-interest. For which only the self-interested individual can determine for himself and herself.

Jeffrey Dahmer comes to mind.

I see no requirement for empathy to enter the process.

See above comment.

[zonsb]

(10-06-2011 02:15 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(10-06-2011 01:53 PM)zonsb Wrote:  I found it difficult to read the primary document and the blog entry at lesswrong because the question of "what is morality?" was at the forefront of my mind.

I know what is immoral. That's easy. But to define what is immoral it seems necessary to first define moral.

What to make of moral judgement? Determining whether an action is good or bad for an individual is a matter of self-interest. For which only the self-interested individual can determine for himself and herself.

Jeffrey Dahmer comes to mind.

I see no requirement for empathy to enter the process.

See above comment.

What about Jeffrey Dahmer? What's the purpose of the ambiguity your post?

[NonEntity]

(10-06-2011 02:33 PM)zonsb Wrote:  What about Jeffrey Dahmer? What's the purpose of the ambiguity your post?

Seriously??? Ambiguity??? <shakes head and backs slowly from the room>

- NonE

[zonsb]

(10-06-2011 04:31 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(10-06-2011 02:33 PM)zonsb Wrote:  What about Jeffrey Dahmer? What's the purpose of the ambiguity your post?

Seriously??? Ambiguity??? <shakes head and backs slowly from the room>

Yes seriously!!! Yes ambiguity!!! Who is Jeffry Dahmer? Apparently you're incapable of making a coherent comment or argument. I asked two inquisitive question and you demonstrate no empathy for my plight -- just ridicule. Is that what empathy is for you -- a club?

[NonEntity]

Sorry. Here, let me help CLICK HERE

- NonE

[zonsb]

(10-06-2011 02:15 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(10-06-2011 01:53 PM)zonsb Wrote:  I found it difficult to read the primary document and the blog entry at lesswrong because the question of "what is morality?" was at the forefront of my mind.

I know what is immoral. That's easy. But to define what is immoral it seems necessary to first define moral.

What to make of moral judgement? Determining whether an action is good or bad for an individual is a matter of self-interest. For which only the self-interested individual can determine for himself and herself.

Jeffrey Dahmer comes to mind.

I see no requirement for empathy to enter the process.

See above comment.

On this forum of all places I didn't think it necessary for me to define what is immoral. I thought the old-timers were up to speed on that. But in your case, I see it is necessary. The initiation of force, threat of force or fraud by one person, group or government against any individual's self, property or contract is immoral. Because it denies a person the ability to act in ones own self-interest.

One look at NonEntity and the empathic masochist is drilling NonE's ass with all his might. The masochist is simply doing unto others as he wants others to do to him.

[eye2i2hear]

(10-06-2011 01:53 PM)zonsb Wrote:  I know what is immoral. That's easy. But to define what is immoral it seems necessary to first define moral.

I have to admit, I could only find myself saying "wow" when I read this. With interludes of "It must be nice" swimming through my cranial tossed waves (being whispered by one of my selves -not sure if it was Id, or ego, or Mr. Meme). One of those voices within keeps asking: how do you know...? (much less, easily?!) But we can leave that as is for now.

First, I find both words to be interlocked, so I don't see how one could "know" one apart from inherently/equally knowing the other -particular if one considers the option of normal (which arguably, all 'other' actions are?) instead of moral. But that's an aside anyway... [isn't the notion of being moral a totally divine one ie heavenly points earning?]

I could easily enough see that moral/immoral comes from or is rooted in self-interest; hence, but another way of expressing mind/brain; but even moreso, seeing such from self-focus.

The real crux of the matter (or lack thereof) seems to me to be that 'moral' has about as much factual about it as does the likes of 'right(s)' and 'State'. All that is -and isn't- immoral is in the head. More specifically, the mind/brain.

Ultimately, what matters here, is that when one concludes some action to be immoral, one will react (response action), then act upon. And feel "justified" in so doing. That course runs the gauntlet from emotional fuming/feeling disgust, to verbalizing it, to inciting others of (or to) a like mind, and ultimately, to physical violence.

The key then seems to me to hinge on the word: concludes. Otherwise, how does one prove, factually, to another -not sensing it- 'moral outrage' instead of jealousy, rage, or temper based upon belief?

How does one (or more) conclude about morality immorality?
Emotion (including the emotion of empathy?)?
Instinct? Intuition? (if such aren't but emotions?)?
Instruction (including indoctrination/memes)?
Reasoning?
Some combination of all these (and perhaps more I'm overlooking)?

Take a couple of historical (if not hysterical?) --and for some (who know still!?), contemporary examples of 'immoral' bits: homosexuality, and chattel (including gender) slavery.
Certainly both have been quite emotional issues. And just as certainly, both have been instructed/learned/memes (taught/culturally transferred/etc).
And to some extent, both have been reasoned. So where does such get Us? [await here, for the smoke to clear and the blood to wash away]

Isn't it only reason(ing) that ultimately presents the best potential for/eventual non-violence? Surely it seems obvious enough, that from 'sound' reasoning, instruction and memes are addressed and changed, no?

In arguing that to indeed be the case (and with these two specifics, to date, offered as evidence in support), we then come to sound reasoning versus any other reasoning (just as is the case with moral versus immoral?). And what is sound reasoning but the most knowable logically consistent and rational evaluating? And what word easily flows from evaluation, but values? [and hopefully, over the ages, this mental association might keep the word 'values' from being confusing, to tainted, like the word 'immoral' has become; also with the position of values, there's a.) the aspect of personal, rather than divine, and b.) less black/white, and more a sliding scale ie value/devalue?]

Thus, rather than miring down in debates with Humpty Dumpty with the likes of glory immoral and something between bellowing and whistling, with a kind of sneeze in the middle moral, one can simply inquire about any others evaluations. We can even evaluate/re-evaluate our emotions, instructions, and memes.

And in fact, again with homosexuality/gay and chattel slavery as material proofs, sound (logically consistent) reasoning was ultimately what shifted what was once 'moral' to being 'immoral'. [arguably, for some if not many, some degree of emotion played in as well, imho]

If for no other reason, I'm for tossing the words immoral/moral aside, because they're just too tainted now (e.g. Authoritarian). I find them devalued (aka FRNs worthless). I hope your evaluation results in your finding the same of value?! I find way greater value in living among folks valuing logical consistency in their reasoning over living by their "just easily knowing"/emotions/gut feeling/intuition/Eternal Morality.

We're doing it already anyways, are we not? Unless we're indoctrinated? Or primal (emotive/instinctual)? [e.g. "paying taxes is moral" to most presently; so does one (naturally) appeal to their "gut hunch", their "knowing"? or to their logically inconsistent reasoning?]

[zonsb]

zonsb Wrote:What about Jeffrey Dahmer? What's the purpose of the ambiguity your post?

NonEntity Wrote:Seriously??? Ambiguity??? <shakes head and backs slowly from the room>

zonsb Wrote:Yes seriously!!! Yes ambiguity!!! Who is Jeffry Dahmer? Apparently you're incapable of making a coherent comment or argument. I asked two inquisitive question and you demonstrate no empathy for my plight -- just ridicule. Is that what empathy is for you -- a club?

NonEntity Wrote:Sorry. Here, let me help CLICK HERE

Is that to say it's my fault for your lack of clarity in your writing and my fault for your ambiguity in your writing? You've been anything but helpful so far, why should I believe you now? I see the link you gave was to a Google search for "Jeffery Dahmer". I take that to be you're way of ridiculing me as if to say, zonsb, you could have done the search yourself. More important, if you were truly sincere in trying to help you would have posted a link to Jeffery Dahmer on Wikipieda.

Most important/revealing; you still haven't made a coherent argument.

Addendum 11/12/2011: NonEntity's last post to the thread was on "10-07-2011, 01:01 AM" -- probably because he imagined he was being victimized -- and as of today 11/12/2011 @ 4:07pm, he hasn't posted. The following quote can be read below on this thread.

zonsb Wrote:As I had already committed myself to not playing along with NonE's childish (trollish) game by responding with an argument to his non-argument as though he had made an argument.

--

[eye2i2hear]

(10-06-2011 05:10 PM)zonsb Wrote:  One look at NonEntity and the empathic masochist is drilling NonE's ass with all his might. The masochist is simply doing unto others as he wants others to do to him.

I find this evaluation logically inconsistent.

The masochist is NOT doing unto others as he wants done to him*. He's not giving the other the very same foundational choice (equally first). He wanted to choose his [particular] action, but he's not granting that choice to the other --who'd either choose to go along with his choice, or reject it, with that being their equal (first level) choice. He's usurping first choice, thus not granting it, thus inherently violating his claim of keeping The G Rule, no? For if he wants that specific choice granted unto himself, he must conversely be willing to accept whatever any other chooses --oh say, maybe the other wants to cut his junk off... Thus the Rule isn't just about the specifics, but also the underlying premises (choice), no?

*and we'd have to get into whether or not, as stated, this is the more accurate phrasing of said golden rule... but with it, the Xtian version isn't do unto one as you'd have that one do unto you, but rather, do unto others -plural- as you would have them -plural- do unto you [granted, NonE Stated it as such]

[zonsb]

(10-06-2011 06:15 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  

(10-06-2011 01:53 PM)zonsb Wrote:  I know what is immoral. That's easy. But to define what is immoral it seems necessary to first define moral.

I have to admit, I could only find myself saying "wow" when I read this. With interludes of "It must be nice" swimming through my cranial tossed waves (being whispered by one of my selves -not sure if it was Id, or ego, or Mr. Meme). One of those voices within keeps asking: how do you know...? (much less, easily?!) But we can leave that as is for now.

Rational self-interest tells me that to initiate force tends toward defeating self-preservation due to heightened risk of force being applied against me in self-defense. Thus I consider the moral-immoral concept/construct superfluous as explained in greater detail above.

Quote:The real crux of the matter (or lack thereof) seems to me to be that 'moral' has about as much factual about it as does the likes of 'right(s)' and 'State'. All that is -and isn't- immoral is in the head. More specifically, the mind/brain.

I think because 'moral' is subjective -- like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall --the ruling class elites use it against people by installing enemy outposts in people's minds. Moral and immoral is whatever flavor-of-the-day the rulers deem it to be.

Quote:Ultimately, what matters here, is that when one concludes some action to be immoral, one will react (response action), then act upon. And feel "justified" in so doing. That course runs the gauntlet from emotional fuming/feeling disgust, to verbalizing it, to inciting others of (or to) a like mind, and ultimately, to physical violence.

Like a false-flag is intended to incite moral outrage. Problem, reaction, solution.

Quote:The key then seems to me to hinge on the word: concludes. Otherwise, how does one prove, factually, to another -not sensing it- 'moral outrage' instead of jealousy, rage, or temper based upon belief?

Hey, look what he is doing to that guy -- he's not letting him be moral. Moral outrage experienced by the sight of Bob initiating force against Gary; Gary is denied acting in his self-interest. Which that in and of itself can only be sensed -- as all external things are -- by electrical input signal to the brain. I'll make a wild-ass guess the moral-immoral construct is rooted in religious doctrine. Who was it then that concluded what is moral and what is immoral then went about shoving it in people's minds? Who does that now?

Quote:How does one (or more) conclude about morality immorality?
Emotion (including the emotion of empathy?)?
Instinct? Intuition? (if such aren't but emotions?)?
Instruction (including indoctrination/memes)?
Reasoning?
Some combination of all these (and perhaps more I'm overlooking)?

Those things separately are either present or they are not. What to make of them should be acts of self-interest.

Quote:Take a couple of historical (if not hysterical?) --and for some (who know still!?), contemporary examples of 'immoral' bits: homosexuality, and chattel (including gender) slavery.
Certainly both have been quite emotional issues. And just as certainly, both have been instructed/learned/memes (taught/culturally transferred/etc).
And to some extent, both have been reasoned. So where does such get Us? [await here, for the smoke to clear and the blood to wash away]

Stupid human tricks? I don't know where it gets us. It would be stupendous if it could get us to end economic slavery. Perhaps via self-issued credit with full disclosure such as would be the case with the Digital Coin system. (not to be confused with the undisclosed theft of self-issued credit loaned back at interest)

Quote:Isn't it only reason(ing) that ultimately presents the best potential for/eventual non-violence? Surely it seems obvious enough, that from 'sound' reasoning, instruction and memes are addressed and changed, no?

That works for me. The more consciously aware a person is the less reactionary they are and thus more self-directed.

Quote:In arguing that to indeed be the case (and with these two specifics, to date, offered as evidence in support), we then come to sound reasoning versus any other reasoning (just as is the case with moral versus immoral?). And what is sound reasoning but the most knowable logically consistent and rational evaluating? And what word easily flows from evaluation, but values? [and hopefully, over the ages, this mental association might keep the word 'values' from being confusing, to tainted, like the word 'immoral' has become; also with the position of values, there's a.) the aspect of personal, rather than divine, and b.) less black/white, and more a sliding scale ie value/devalue?]

I think of how to restructure value destruction so the energy put forth is value production. Produce/create goods and services. Make love not war.

Quote:Thus, rather than miring down in debates with Humpty Dumpty with the likes of glory immoral and something between bellowing and whistling, with a kind of sneeze in the middle moral, one can simply inquire about any others evaluations. We can even evaluate/re-evaluate our emotions, instructions, and memes.

As if to say to prospects, is you or is you not someone that has like-minded interest in co-creating X?. More familiar would be to encourage people to evaluate taxation factually.

Quote:And in fact, again with homosexuality/gay and chattel slavery as material proofs, sound (logically consistent) reasoning was ultimately what shifted what was once 'moral' to being 'immoral'. [arguably, for some if not many, some degree of emotion played in as well, imho]

It was and still is all so collectivism orientated. The programming is to perform external evaluation of other people's non-violent actions as having relevant meaning to onlookers lives. When the real value is with, are you a like-minded person I can co-create values with.

Quote:If for no other reason, I'm for tossing the words immoral/moral aside, because they're just too tainted now (e.g. Authoritarian). I find them devalued (aka FRNs worthless). I hope your evaluation results in your finding the same of value?! I find way greater value in living among folks valuing logical consistency in their reasoning over living by their "just easily knowing"/emotions/gut feeling/intuition/Eternal Morality.

What is immoral for me not to do is patently clear to me -- abide the non-aggression principle. If I were to make that my only criteria for identifying like-minded individuals to co-create values with I think 98% of the populace are qualified prospects. I agree with losing consciousness of the words "moral" and "immoral". I think the moral-immoral concept/construct was divisive from the get-go. Intended to separate the individual from identifying with thy true self.

Quote:We're doing it already anyways, are we not? Unless we're indoctrinated? Or primal (emotive/instinctual)? [e.g. "paying taxes is moral" to most presently; so does one (naturally) appeal to their "gut hunch", their "knowing"? or to their logically inconsistent reasoning?]

Since immoral actions are off the table there's really no need to concern myself with talking about what would be considered moral issues when I'm much more inclined to get on with my self-interests. Which is where most people are at (from my social experiences I've learned). Albeit, weighted down (suppressed) with enemy outpost programing/baggage in their heads.

[zonsb]

(10-06-2011 06:44 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  

(10-06-2011 05:10 PM)zonsb Wrote:  One look at NonEntity and the empathic masochist is drilling NonE's ass with all his might. The masochist is simply doing unto others as he wants others to do to him.

I find this evaluation logically inconsistent.

That's why you used the cool smiley/emoticon; because you think it's ? Thus your commentary seems logically inconsistent. BTW, I generally agree with what you wrote.

I was a bit peeved at NonE resorting to his usual self being a pest. I could have, and should have, not made the commentary you quoted. As I had already committed myself to not playing along with NonE's childish (trollish) game by responding with an argument to his non-argument as though he had made an argument.

He was more fun when he used the ignore button on me. Him lurking in the shadows riding on the "coattails" of other members -- replying to their posts but not mine -- whom quoted my comments within their replies, wherein he would make derogatory commentary toward me yet without replying to my post directly because he couldn't see them due to him having put me on his ignore list. Obviously he didn't want to ignore my comments. I suppose he thought he could use the ignore button to talk about me behind my back. Reminiscent of a toddler that covers his eyes with his hands and says, "you can't see me."

[eye2i2hear]

(10-07-2011 04:58 AM)zonsb Wrote:  That's why you used the cool smiley/emoticon; because you think it's ? Thus your commentary seems logically inconsistent.

[total sidebar here]

...because i think it's bright (& sunny)...?

How (potentially) revealing this is! My first thought was: OF COURSE by i meant What else could I mean?! Where of course, the crucial point is: do you mean by what eye mean...?! [sing along option: do you see what i see... let it snow, let it snow, let it snow...]
Or, do i know what you mean by such?! Significant/revealing/mandating to consider that the smilie has letters (Code) assigned to it as well? i.e.

Code:

:cool:

just as words have; cool being a relevant one here.
What does 'cool' mean? Oh, what can it mean (to a, daydream believer...)?

Yet, how does one know what another sees and hears via such? R'we talkin' mostly 2 our selves with such?
(the future's so bright, eye gotta wear shades...?)

Is that smilie aptly named? defined? :kewel:? (1 might have named it :shadey: --the eyes have it)

[/sidebar]