Hi everyone! I know this is off topic from our current discussion, but I had an interesting thought. Hayakawa makes the point that much of what we know about the world comes from what we have read in reports. Everything else we have learned has come from personal experiences in "our own extensional worlds."
Now here's what I find to be curious. Say you are watching the news one night, and you hear that John Dough had been killed in a horrible accident. Until that point you never knew John Dough existed. In fact, as far as you were concerned, he DID NOT exist. However, after hearing about his horrible accident, you feel deep remorse. Why? Had John Dough's story not been brought to your attention, you would have never known that it had happened. He never would have existed. Why then, do you feel sorry for John? You never met him. Had you not been told of his misfortune, his misfortune never would have existed (as far as you are concerned). At the same time though, you know thousands of people die everyday from disease, natural causes, etc. why do you not feel the same remorse for them? Isn't it true that they exist as much as John Dough? Is it the name? Is that what causes our grief? Why do such reports effect us in such different ways?
Kevin Trainer
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Well, I do feel remorse for people in poverty who suffer and die from diseases in remote countries.
But I guess that's not the point.
I think people (like me and you, an average American?) would feel more connected John because underneath their consciousness, they know that the same accident may happen to themselves. A death caused by an accident sounds more realistic than a death from starvation.
Also, I think the distance (physically and mentally) between a person and John Dough is an important factor that decides the depth of remorse.
Say you were John's neighbor and you talked to him several times, you would feel more grief than a person who lives 700 miles from John and who has never met him.
For people who get less affected by the news of African children dying from hunger than by the news of John Dough, I came up with an explanation (It's just my thought). I think some people just take it naturally that people in Africa die from starvation because they heard these types of tragedies over and over again. Some people became used to this fact and they turned indifferent.
However, accident like John Dough's happen less frequently and therefore people get more shocked and alarmed.
(Jennifer Park)
The way I see it, the John Dough scenario usually acts as a sort of (Latin students, sorry!) rhetorical device—emphasis to draw the attention of the audience. Obviously, a media outlet is trying to draw as many viewers as it can get. John Dough’s situation emphasizes a plight/situation of a generalized group of people.
Societal values demand that we express sympathy (or even empathy) for people that are suffering. In JK Rowling's 2008 Harvard commencement speech, she stated that "Imagination is not only the uniquely human capacity to envision that which is not, and therefore the fountain of all invention and innovation. In its arguably most transformative and revelatory capacity, it is the power that enables us to empathise with humans whose experiences we have never shared." We do not necessarily need to be John Dough's mother to know that what happened was a tragedy. This is also the idea that Hayakawa was expressing. We as humans are able to share experiences of others, and the lessons learned from them , without experiencing them ourselves.
Despite Hayakawa, Rowling & co.'s best efforts, humans are, in the end, endowed with various flaws. One is forgetfulness. However, just because we temporarily forget the plight of individuals such as John Dough DOES NOT mean that we lose our compassion for said individuals. The experience is still on our extensional map. It, however, may be in the form of a mountain when we are looking for a river. When you cover your eyes, the sun is still there, regardless of whether you can see it or not. (Does that make any sense? If not, sorry!)
By regularly involving oneself in exploring the unknowns of our extensional worlds/maps, we would feel the remorse etc. more regularly. That doesn't mean that those who choose not to do so are incapable of feeling the same degree of remorse.
(Grace Yuan)
"One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic" (Joseph Stalin)
J.K. Rowling is right in saying that imagination is an essential characteristic of mankind - one that provides for innovation and invention. It enables us to imagine the remorse that John Dough's family and friends are feeling, and in turn, we feel a small part of that remorse.
Thus, we can easily mourn the people that are "made human" - people who we can identify with. When we can see them as fellow human beings rather than an abstract number - a statistic - it is easier for us to feel remorse. Such reactions are based upon the fact that we know that society demands mourning of death and tragedy and that it is considered insensitive to speak ill of the dead or fail to pay your respects.
We also feel remorse over the plight of those who are sick or plagued by natural disasters or those caught in war zones. Yet our flag is not lowered for these people and their losses. We also have a tendency to forget about these people and their plights. We know of the situation, but after an initial interest (If anything) in helping the cause, we drop it and move on. It is almost as if humans have decided that it takes too much effort to mourn over or make an attempt to help everyone in this world.
In some ways, this is true - one person can only do so much. We all have our limitations, but this fact is often used as an excuse. Thus, just as imagination lifts us up, however, apathy brings us down.
It seems to me that the one death holds a greater significance only BECAUSE the story was brought to your attention. The fact that the news brings you details about the accident, his life and other details you would not find out about otherwise. Human nature causes us to grow attached to something or someone once we learn details about it/them.
(Steve Szumski)
Perhaps it is also that as we acknowledge our commonalities with John Doe (like the deer, not the baking ingredient just for future reference), we realize that the same tragedy could be brought upon us just as unexpectedly. Also, just as an antithesis to Jennifer's point, John Doe would not be a John Doe if he was in your neighborhood and you talked to him a few times. He'd simply be a distant aquaintance. I know that definitions are rather fruitless, but in this case I think that clarification is necessary.
It is also quite possible that your feelings of remorse towards John's plight will be heightened if your environments are similar. In fact, it is harder to distance oneself from the event when many of its factors are comparable to your lifestyle and habitat. For instance, the wealthy lawyer will feel threatened when he hears of the slaying of a man of his income and status, but will soon forget about the death of a poor factory worker.
(Taylor Burke)
First of all, who is to say that one would feel more grief for John Dough than for any of the other thousands of people who die every day? There is such an excess of reports like this in our world that a lot people have become desensitized.
That being said, I think there is a greater likelihood that one would feel more sadness because the victim is personalized. The death of nameless thousands is usually less profound than the death of one person who is somehow made into less of a statistic.
(Finally, a picky side note about the precision of language: I doubt that anyone would feel remorse for John Dough, unless they killed him themselves. Merriam-Webster defines remorse as a "gnawing distress arising from a sense of guilt for past wrongs". Perhaps we would feel upset about John's fate, but I doubt we'd feel guilty.)
Paige Walker
On Paige's last note, I think that someone can still feel remorse even though they did not kill the victim. Perhaps John is not the best example to use, but think back to a previous post about Africa. No one killed someone over there, and yet many people feel remorse because they feel that they might have been able to prevent such a thing from happening if they did something.
I also think that the feelings we have when we see this kind of thing can be traced back to our own personal experiences. Although we may not have had an experience of having a friend die, we are still able to understand the feelings of those who are.
Each and every day, humans strive to make connections between their extensional and intensional worlds, hoping to construct more territories on the blank spaces of their maps. Each individual has experienced some sort of remorse in their lifetime caused by the death of someone, whether it be their family member, their comrade, or simply their acquaintance. Thus, upon hearing of the death of John Doe, one is not prone to feel a personally disappointing feeling, but rather empathetic sentiments directed towards the family, comrades, and acquaintances of the late Mr. Doe.
Subconsciously, humans express this sympathy/empathy because they would most likely expect the same expression in return were they to be thrust into such a dilemma. As Sophocles once stated, "One who knows how to show and to accept kindness will be a friend better than any possession." If someone is capable of showing affection to another during a time of loss, a bond between the two will be undoubtedly formed. Automatically, both assume that in future times of loss, they will be unlimitedly available to one another for a source of comfort.
In Language in Thought and Action (underlined), Hayakawa summarizes in "Noises for Noise's Sake" that small talk, lacking any amount of substantial information, is what eases the tension between two people, allowing them the possible potential to form a kind of relationship or "communion." So now my question is to you: how would a man or woman feel compelled to mourn John Doe if they happen to be unfamiliar with any of his contacts? Are humans really that naturally good-hearted enough to spend energy on mourning the dead that they never knew? Something seems oddly fishy here (or maybe I have just gone off on an incomprehensible tangent). Let me know how all of you feel.
(Samantha Maliha)
"Are humans really that naturally good-hearted enough to spend energy on mourning the dead that they never knew?"
I'm not sure that they would spend 'every' moment, but I do think that human beings are naturally good-hearted enough that they would still feel some sort of sympathy towards such a situation, even though they may not know anyone related to the incident.
Also, I think that Sam brings up an important concept with 'noises for noise's sake.' As Hayakawa states, it is almost like a social error to prolong silence in a conversation. It's almost as if not feeling sympathy toward a situation similar to what Jon was in is also considered a sort of social error. Let me ask, do people not view you in a negative way when you don't feel sympathy towards a death? It's almost as if it has been drilled into our heads that people who are not as sympathetic are extremely insensitive, even if they have no connection with the person(s) involved. any thoughts?
Mary emphasizes my point yet again. Humans could possibly express this sympathy because of their true sentiments, but probably because it is the socially correct thing to do. The last thing they woudl like to be viewed as is a heartless member of society. This would only earn them a proper shunning from the rest of the community.
Thoughts?
(Samantha Maliha)
Sam and Mary suggested that humans feel sympathy or even remorse toward John Dough's death because humans are naturally somewhat good-hearted. Although I partially agree with the opinions, I think John Dough's DEATH is what they are mourning over, not over John Dough the actual person. The situation in which John Dough became famous is a bigger sympathy trigger than the actual person. John Dough was an average person who was unfortunately killed in an accident. People fear not only the social shunning but also the possibility of they themselves getting involved in that situation.
Also, I do not think that the social shunning and the whole 'right thing to do'attitude are the most significant factor for one's feeling sympathy for John Dough. Sam mentioned how people can bond by showing feelings/kindness to the other if the distance between them prevents them from communicating. I would like to suggest thinking reversely; how can one fear social shunning if no one is going to know that he did not show remorse for John Dough's death.
(Jennifer Park)
'how can one fear social shunning if no one is going to know that he did not show remorse for John Dough's death.'
I have to disagree with Jen's statement, especially in this sort of case, where the person may be a complete stranger. I believe that it connects to one's experiences. For example, I am sure that everyone has been in some sort of situation where there was a certain death that came up in conversations with others. If you do not express some sort of remorse, then you are committing a social error and others do tend to let you know that. It is because of a situation like this that you are going to take the chance of being viewed in that negative sort of way and feel remorse for someone you don't even know.
Also, I partially agree that sometimes, people express sympathy because of the situation. As Jen pointed out, John was just an average guy and got caught up in something unexpected and unfortunate. However, think about this. If a sort of celebrity, say George W Bush, were to be in the same sort of accident as John, wouldn't there be more feelings of sympathy (well, maybe not for some people) because of his popularity and status? In this case, is it not the person that is the bigger sympathy trigger?
A thought that I have concerning this whole John Dough/Doe topic...
I agree that people feel sympathy in some cases because its "the right thing to do", and I agree that people feel grief because they can see a scenario like that happening to someone that they know (or themselves). But... I also think that in some cases people are saddened by the news of a death because it is such an unkown-- it is as though the person has just... poof... disappeared, and there's no way to bring him/her back. It is such an odd thing for me, personally, to think about, and I would imagine others feel the same way. Even if I never knew John Dough/Doe existed, hearing about his death would still be striking. Another thing, maybe people grieve the death of an unfamiliar person simply because they value life...
It is clear that in this society where we hear about tragedies every day we become very numb, many times, to the sufferings of others. But, there is still something in human nature that brings us together when we know another of our kind is experiencing strong emotions of pain, sorrow, or, even, joy and happiness.
Any thoughts??
(Emily Thompson)
Emily stated that, "Another thing, maybe people grieve the death of an unfamiliar person simply because they value life..." Is she suggesting that we fear for the value of our own lives or that we fear for the lives around us? What is life, anyway, in such an instance? Is it a timeline of activities or a story of greatness (similarly to Pi's observation upon meeting the Japanese inspectors)? This all leads back to Hayakawa's lessons. Life is what me make of it and our intensional/extensional maps.
If a rather pessimistic person hears of John Doe's death, they may express that the man has been fortunate enough to "flee to a better place." Yet those who enjoy every bit of their unfolding days are the ones to most likely have wished an extended presence for Doe on this earth. How odd is it that even such a grave and universal thing like death appeals differently to each individual? Yet again, we are led to the difference between informative and affective utterances.
(Samantha Maliha)
Well, one reason we feel remorse for John Doe and not for the millions that die every day is that the human mind can only take so much abstraction. I feel that Tiffany's Stalin quote is very appropriate here.
Although millions of people are dying every day, they are on too high a level of human abstraction for most of us to truly care about them. We cannot picture these deaths and names as once belonging to actual people, and so we somewhat block them out. But of course, this abstraction process is also essential for daily life. How could you function in regular life if you were in constant grief for every single human being dying on the earth every day?
But once we distinguish an individual named "John Doe" out of the unknown masses, we have gone down a level of abstraction. Feelings of regret and grief can now be felt.
Now, many of you have wondered whether these displays of grief are genuine or merely required by society. I feel that grief is an inherent emotion of human nature, and that we do have the capability to feel remorse for someone we have just met. But...The lower on the abstraction level the death is, the more genuine grief we feel. If we went down another level, going from John Doe to one of your personal best friends, your ability to recognize the significance of the tragedy would be magnified, and undoubtedly, true sadness would well from your heart. If we went down even more, to perhaps a family member, your emotions would become even stronger.
As Grace pointed out earlier, human imagination does give us the ability to feel emotion for abstract things. But imagination is still no substitute for reality, and once that death become much less abstract and more personal to you, your emotions are magnified tremendously. Perhaps the level of genuine emotion is related to the level of abstraction?
Thoughts?
(Eric Wei)
Post a Comment