Sure. But being completely without absolute statements in one's belief system doesn't work well for one either.
Agreed. And I am not sure 'we' can really do it either, to, again assume commonalities.
Some examples of such conflations....
[elided in the interests of focus.] Thank you for clear examples. Something rather horrifying for me reading that list. The only thing I would add is how much one can imply, rather than bluntly state, such things, and also conflate these various uses.
We communicate mostly to manipulate, not to inform - even though techincally, the way we speak tends to have the form of merely giving information.
You might find it interesting to talk to Swedes who have a, generally unstated, philosophy that verbal communication is to be used to inform. Other uses of language, especially between non-intimates, but not merely restricted to these, are seen as egotistical, excessive, selfish, confusing and/or wasteful. The grammar is very efficient and there is a dearth of synonyms. IOW it has a small vocabulary.
I presume your line of reasoning can be exemplified as something like "He can do that to me because he is better than me, but if someone else would do that to me, I would hit them in the face" -?
It was actually the opposite - though mirror - phenomenon....'forgive them Lord, they know not what they do' 'what can you expect from these primitives' (this second said to someone becoming embarrassingly upset at 'the help' or the colonized. And so on.
I understood Nagel's essay to be just about that - how potentially we are all so very different, and that the example with the bat was to point this out; that just as we can't adequately imagine what it is like to be a bat, one person cannot adequately imagine what it is like to be "in another person's shoes".
Oh, dear. I either misremembered or misread it. But good for him then.
I think I understand your point about self-trust, but I find the notion of self-trust very abstract. Because to have trust in oneself, one would have to know what this self is.
Animals seem to trust themselves, generally.
There is the concept of emotional contagion -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_contagion . I know you don't like the term, at least you didn't like it a while back.
Almost a past life.
The basic idea seems to be that we tend to take on and become like that which we are exposed to,
I've noticed that my in-person strategies in relation to this have run their course - people pleasing, being rebellious, withdrawal all feel constrained and unpleasant. I seem to be more able to not contort myself around non-intimates while also not confronting them. I do think this relates to NOT assuming they are the same as me. In some way I do not see being in the same space as being in relationship. I think I have always been overly intimate with everyone - not that they might experience it this way - even in my withdrawal.
