I'm not sure whether my question was understood.
What I am trying to point out is that if there was true empathy between people (through exchange of information - by which I don't mean just rational knowledge or reasoning, but also other subconscious factors that can be shared), in the long run, their motives and visions in life could converge and even coincide.
Let me try to over-simplify (perhaps the smoking example was not appropriate...) with the following model:
A believes in God.
B does not believe in God.
Both are similar ("humans"), yet have different beliefs.
A and B exchange information about why A believes and B doesn't.
The information may consist of:
- individual personal experiences
- the respective emotions
- knowledge, as in hard facts
- reasoning, as in debate and logic
- etc.
I think that if really 100% information is exchanged about each of them, there should be a common conclusion which both A and B will believe in, derived from the sum of all knowledge and personal experiences.
The conclusion may be even more ignorance! e.g. A has evidence of real life personal encounters with God, whereas B has a scientific proof against the existence of God. Which might lead to the conclusion that either/both subjective experience and the specific scientific proof are flawed.
Another reason I am asking this is because it is relevant in a wider context that has been bugging me for a while. For example, we often hear, "Change yourself before you change the world." etc. It somehow implies that the world cannot be changed and that the need to "try to change others" is a bad trait.
Why would you think it is bad to try changing others?
|