What is your stance on unconscious processes?

Thanks for the replies so far. =)

>I think that the cognitive/perceptual basis of empathy doesn't need propositional content

I would say this depends on the emotions involved. For emotions that dont need content, i agree. Or at least i can't imagine Fear without any object of fear, else it would be anxiety ("I fear" alone feels more like "I fear, ..."). And if i understood correctly the question arises if the basis of empathy lets me feel anxiety and fear differently or if it lets me feel both as anxiety , but in one case i later give one the attribute of a certain fear.

What about empathy? Doesn't that make it possible to have such propositional attitudes without any capacity for linguistic practices?

I mean this is just my surface level understanding. I feel like emotional connection is kinda "below!" tasks of higher cognition, as it does also involve the limbic system.

Does that mean that without language there would be no mindreading?

You can't expect everyone to be as solitary as you wish to you, nor can't you expect everyone to know themselves. We are a species that evolved through cooperation and continues to need to cooperate with each other.

Our whole culture is based on hegemonic power structures. We are way too far from establishing something else in our ways of thinking and in our culture (if that is even possible). What we currently can do is to question the hegemonic opinion more often than before.

Advertisements do work on most people, since they are constructed to work on most people (our knowledge on psychology is scary!). Lucky you, that you are beyond consumerism. But think of the children and how many are taught to "not be consumers"

It is a shame that some people think that the "need to fit in" is the root of evil here. The contrarian position of the "need to be solitary" can be just as evil. Both needs are not evil themselves. It depends on how they are used and in what harmony they are used together. I am certain that we need this need to fit, so that humankind has an inclination of cooperation instead of an inclination of isolation. A general tendency towards trust to others is what made humankind humankind. Never forget that.

Yes we do.

Being able to do what i want beween waking up and sleeping is not my definition of freedom. "Wanting" itself can be free or not free. Just look at our current advertisment. It is eager to create desires. And it is succesfull in creating illusions of what we "want". So we need to be able to differentiate between the those " wants"

>Anyway, you retain the Great Man approach her too.

Please dont lay words in my motuh? I accept it as one of many tools. I say that a nail needs a hammer. But different things need different tools.

​

>You think the story of London’s world-changing sewage system is most effectively told through the lens of a guy digging the hole?

No. I never proposed that. Depending on what you goal is and what you want to tell your lens should vary. So if you want to tell people about innovation and how to deal with limited space/resources then its most effective to tell a problem/solution orientated story. For example it will begin with the Problem, how they perceive that problem, what resources they had, what was tried and what worked. The process of all those decisions is what matters. It really does not matter that one big guy that politically supported it despite public opinion. Such Drama only distracts from the problem solving aspect that the story want to effectivly tell.

On the other hand if you want to educate people about holding on to good ideas, then it is a good way to tell the story like that. Because then the goal changes. The actually process of finding the right solution matters less, because the goal is not one of an engineer but one of an activist.

>The alternative is boring, dry history with unfocused stories that no one really remembers or cares about

That is not true. There are many alternatives and each one has their pros and cons. Problem or solution orientated history is much more interesting than hearing what charles Dick the 5th has done in his life. I would rather read about how London solved their wastewater issue than hearing about the deeds of some random dude who played some part in it. Chronological history can sometimes be very boring, as there is no inherent storytelling involved. But luckily you are able to combine several approaches.

>But nowadays, if you question the narrative, some people like to demonize you

Nowadays? I think its the basic reaction since always.