Soviet Russia is a pretty broad topic, so I'm not sure what specifically you're preferring to.
The Soviets--or at least some of them--honestly believed that they were bringing on the worker's paradise. A totalitarian regime that oppressed hundreds of millions of people was regrettable, but necessary. If they had listened to their empathy more, maybe that wouldn't have happened.
I'm just saying that when empathy is warning you against an action, it's a sign that what you're trying to accomplish is probably wrong (morally).
As for human nature, I was arguing about one aspect of it that I find is true.
Of course humans are selfish. They are also selfless, and both, and neither. Humans are complex, which is why I find it pointless to debate what human nature "actually is." Either there is no human nature, or human nature is a bunch of contradictory things.
I suppose it was wrong of me to assume you prefer the protagonist that corresponds to your beliefs, but I honestly thought it was a given.
Obviously it's not a given. Actually, I usually find it more boring the more a protagonist corresponds to my beliefs. Why?
Because one of the things I find most valuable in fiction is trying to understand and, well, empathize with, people much different from myself. Understanding someone who corresponds to my beliefs is easy and thus boring. Understanding someone whose beliefs are much different from mine is harder, and thus more interesting.
Well, that's my attempt to psychoanalyze myself at least. Probably the truth is something else.
By now, we've both made our stances about as clear as possible and there isn't much more to be said without going off-topic.
Honestly, I'm still not 100% sure what your position is.
At this point you seem to be claiming that people shouldn't be entirely selfless. But, um...almost everyone believes that, including me. You also say that we should sometimes ignore our empathy in order to achieve important goals, but I even agree with that (though as I said, you shouldn't turn it off completely to make sure you stop from going completely off the rails). So it seems our disagreement is one of degree, not kind, but I don't know how much that degree is, if that makes sense.
no subject
Soviet Russia is a pretty broad topic, so I'm not sure what specifically you're preferring to.
The Soviets--or at least some of them--honestly believed that they were bringing on the worker's paradise. A totalitarian regime that oppressed hundreds of millions of people was regrettable, but necessary. If they had listened to their empathy more, maybe that wouldn't have happened.
I'm just saying that when empathy is warning you against an action, it's a sign that what you're trying to accomplish is probably wrong (morally).
As for human nature, I was arguing about one aspect of it that I find is true.
Of course humans are selfish. They are also selfless, and both, and neither. Humans are complex, which is why I find it pointless to debate what human nature "actually is." Either there is no human nature, or human nature is a bunch of contradictory things.
I suppose it was wrong of me to assume you prefer the protagonist that corresponds to your beliefs, but I honestly thought it was a given.
Obviously it's not a given. Actually, I usually find it more boring the more a protagonist corresponds to my beliefs. Why?
Because one of the things I find most valuable in fiction is trying to understand and, well, empathize with, people much different from myself. Understanding someone who corresponds to my beliefs is easy and thus boring. Understanding someone whose beliefs are much different from mine is harder, and thus more interesting.
Well, that's my attempt to psychoanalyze myself at least. Probably the truth is something else.
By now, we've both made our stances about as clear as possible and there isn't much more to be said without going off-topic.
Honestly, I'm still not 100% sure what your position is.
At this point you seem to be claiming that people shouldn't be entirely selfless. But, um...almost everyone believes that, including me. You also say that we should sometimes ignore our empathy in order to achieve important goals, but I even agree with that (though as I said, you shouldn't turn it off completely to make sure you stop from going completely off the rails). So it seems our disagreement is one of degree, not kind, but I don't know how much that degree is, if that makes sense.