Christoicism - The Sacred Sovereign Subjective

Prev: Here 

What does it mean to be human?  Philosophers and Spiritual authorities have asked that question as long as we have had language, but one above all stands out to me.  Descarte and "I Think Therefore I am" shows that we are, and we think and we know therefore that we are.  It is among the most elegant and self evident products of philosophy.   But as near as I can tell; every other Philosophy or "ism" sets that aside and then explores the ideas that they espouse about human activity and compare and contrast that philosophy.

But I think this is a mistake.

Before we step from the basic of individual ethics and see how these principals are applied to a larger scale, I think its important to take a step back and explore what this concept means.

Per Meriam Webster

Sacred: 

as in holy

not to be violated, criticized, or tampered with 

 

Sovereign

main

coming before all others in importance 

 

Subjective

as in personal

of, relating to, or belonging to a single person 

 

So the fusion definition could be said to be....

 

Sacred Sovereign Subjective (adj.) Pertaining to the inherent spiritual authority and autonomy of an individual to define, experience, and determine personal meaning, truth, and reverence according to their own inner experience, without external mandate or institutional prescription. 

 

If everyone is valuable at the root level simply by being alive; and even conservatism concedes this point...then we have to accept what this really means.  This is the root of why Apotelic Kindness is the core principal of Christoicism.   If the definition of being human is being aware of ourselves and experiencing the world at large; then we are all cosoveign and all cosacred and our subjective perspective at root level is our own autonomous right to experience and we should all work together to enable as many of us to be able to make choices as freely as possible.

That's it.  That's the root source of our morality or any moral system; you can argue about who what when or how or why; but if you challenge the root value of all human life, there is no way you can claim anything approaching objective morality.   This is why engaged philosophy matters.  This is why using Apotelic Kindness to measure the effectiveness of a philosophy is so important, but it posts to a larger principal; a simple litmus test to side step conservative chicanery.  

Any philosophy that DOESNT tie a root to the concept of the Sacred Sovereign Subjective; any religion or spiritual movement or code of law or code of human behavior that does not assign dignity value and honor simply to a human life for experiencing itself is an absolute an immediate failure.  This is the foundation of morality itself; it is the 101.  And before going off and exploring more details on how to do things, much less how to measure that success as objectively as possible (remember; self deception is the death of self) it is important to understand the root beneath it all.

An engaged philosophy must be engaged.  An applied philosophy without ideological roots becomes a pragmatic mercinary focus on tactics without a moral strategy.  An ideological philosophy has strategy without moral tactics ensuring that you destroy the village in order to save it.     

Edmond Dantès begins as a victim of men who treat his life as a disposable tool for their own advancement. In his pursuit of revenge, he nearly destroys himself by adopting that same cold logic, viewing his enemies as targets rather than living beings. Only when his schemes claim an innocent child does he realize that no cause justifies violating the inherent value of another person.

Christoicism - The Hierarchy of Values

Prev: Here Next: Here

Seven questions to determine if something is moral and good are all well and nice; but if you are doing the classic trolley situation in your own personal frame, its too much to ask or apply.   The most important thing about philosophical morality you need to remember besides Apotelic Kindness itself is that a Value has many definitions but here is the one that matters for Christoicism.

A Value is Something that forces a Moral and Ethical decision that matters and costs you to maintain it.

It is well and good to be for public school lunches until you get your tax bill and have to actually pay for it out of your paycheck.  It is well and good to honor military service until you have to pay $2450 for a President to Fuck that Particular Fish and Bomb that Particular Thing when they file their taxes.   It is well and good to consider yourself an honest person until your wife asks "Do I look fat in this dress?"  

If something is a value it is worth having.  All of these are values; Integrity, Courage, Compassion, Honesty, Loyalty, Respect, Kindness, Justice, Freedom, Wisdom, Humility, Gratitude, Perseverance, Fairness, Accountability, Generosity, Patience, Excellence, Authenticity, Empathy.  But you can't do them all at the same time.   And more importantly in the crisis of the moment what you choose shows what you value.  That is what REALLY makes it a value.   But if you are aiming to be a good or decent person, or apply the seven questions to all of those it can be exhausting and frankly impossible.

Mercy vs. Justice: Dantès discovers that Maximilien and Valentine are innocent victims caught in the wreckage of others' sins. He could destroy everyone connected to his suffering—but he chooses to save them instead. Yet he doesn't forgive Villefort or Danglars. The question becomes: which ones deserve his vengeance, and which deserve his mercy? He learns that absolute justice would make him a tyrant.

Thus the need for a Hierarchy of Values.   You can HAVE all of those values but not have them at equal measure.   You can decide ahead of time if you choose patience over wisdom, or gratitude over compassion.   You'd think that some of these aren't antithical but I also guarantee if you think about it at a deeper measure, you will find that all of them have been in conflict in your life at some point or another.

Unless of course you didnt care about it at all; but that doesnt make it a value for you.

The Hierarchy is a mental exercize that lets you choose ahead of time.   That helps you avoid regrets later on.  This can be as simple as "What are my top 3 values and what order are they in?" to a formally written list where you frequently update and change what all of them are.  Good luck remembering the order of all 20 in your life though.

Loyalty vs. Honesty: When Caderousse appears, broken and dying, Dantès remembers the sailor he once knew. He gives him money and comfort—loyalty to an old friend. But he won't lie about Caderousse's complicity in his betrayal. The kindness and the truth have to coexist, even when they pull against each other.

Here is the key pivot; if you are doing this right a value must always have circumstances where it DOES trump the other values even if it isnt your top virtue.  Mercy without Justice is terrible and Justice without Mercy is also terrible.   There are moments where one is clearly called for above the other; the Hierarchy is simply your default and can never be a substitute for wisdom, inner reflection or just plain old common sense. 

One measure that I might recommend is in the conversations you have with yourself; pick a person who represents that value.  It can be a famous person like Benjamin Franklin or a fictional person like Clark Ken.  It can be your maternal grandfather or it can be some mythological figure.   Think of a hypothetical scenario; something you think might realistically occur some day and ask yourself with these two people what they would each do in the situation and determine how they would react and see whic one resonates properly with you. 

Authenticity vs. Compassion: Dantès could reveal himself to everyone he loves and be known for who he truly is. But keeping his secret—staying the mysterious Count—is what allows him to save the innocent without destroying them with knowledge. Sometimes you have to remain hidden to show compassion.

Christoicism - The Law of Seven Questions

Prev: Here and Next: Here

It is not enough to simply abstractly apply apotelic kindness; we need some method of measuring it.   That is not to say that we cannot propose a baseline, but it is important to understand it must be iteratively believed and appplied to those to whom our actions are meant to benefit.  If we do dark things for the greater good; a lack of appreciation by those we claim to help is the single greatest measure of the hubris of our actions.

Here are seven questions one can ask to measure the approach.  These seven will not solve every problem, but they cover enough actions such that we can hope to achieve some measure of decency by the impact of our actions.   And if it violates all seven, it is likely something we can willfully and truthfull call evil.  Conversely, if all seven are clear or approaching it, then we are probably in the right or approaching it. 

Is it kind? Does this action genuinely create kindness, not merely the appearance of it? Kindness is the arbiter of necessity.

Is it necessary? Can the good I seek be achieved through less harmful means, or am I rationalizing expediency?

Is it true? Does this action align with reality as best I understand it, or am I deceiving myself or others?

Would I accept this if our positions were reversed? The most reliable test of justice is whether I would willingly trade places with those affected by my actions.

How will this cascade through consciousness? How would this decision be judged by minds wiser than my own, both now and in generations to come?

What story am I using to justify this? Am I casting myself as the necessary hero, others as deserving villains, or creating false narratives to enable what I already want to do?

Would I do this in front of the children who trust me? Not as performance, but as a model of the world I wish them to inherit and the values I truly believe in.

In the book, at the zenith of his power; Edmond Dantes spots the suffering of innocents at the near-death of Valentine de Villefort and the utter ruination of their family to those who hda done him no wrong.   He had miscast himself as Providence knowing that none could deliver justice but himself.  But he saw in his wrath the violation of these questions; kindness, necesssity and saw in the mirror that he had become the oppressor not the hand of a just but absent God.   He had the wisdom to withdraw total justice and show mercy, restraint and take the long view.  

Christoicism - What is Engaged Philosophy and Why Should I Care?

Prev: Here and Next is Here

It's nice and all, to sit here and talk about philosophy; but most people don't give a shit.   And that's a damn shame.   There are three reasons for this:

1) Religion: Religion is a philosophy that includes spiritual beliefs and a deeply held personal shared cosmology.   (Leaving aside parody or joke religions like my favorite Pastafarianism)  Religion requires faith, and faith demands a significant percentage of a person's executive function.   That's not to say that they don't exist, it's just harder.   The problem with this is that a functional democracy that isnt a theology requires a secular society.   Religion without spirituality is a hollow shell; and spirituality is inherently subjective.   When you imposeit on someone else at the state level you cheapen faith and you cheapen the state.  I am not the only one to think this.  I have plenty of blog topics on the subject.  

He goes to the chapel to tell God that he will take Justice himself; for no angels or pastor camed to save him.  Religion made many people in the book more moral; but it still allowed the rot and corruption that locked him away.

2) Pure Philosophy: These are philosophies that answer existential questions about reality.  They are the definition of the Ivory Tower.  These are technically  "logic, metaphicsm epistomology and meta ethics" but arguably also "applied philosophies" that are super reliant on those otherwise good mechanisms which includes Analytic Philosophy, Ancient Greek Philosophy (Plato or Socrates), or Rationalism.   I'm also going to include any applied philosophy or religion that gets so caught up in theory here that it becomes meaningless in the real world.  "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"  "How many steps can I walk on the Sabbath without breaking it?", Creationism vs Rationalism (Fuck your Darwinism science if your theory comes in I'm out of a job!), The World Is the Way it is Because Aristotle Said So Because Some Ancient Bishop Is Respected and the Church Embrace that, or in LDS connotation-Pepsi has Caffine so Ban all Vending Machines from Selling it!  Either way, its so frufru and out there that the average Joe Lunchbox who is barely making ends meet could fucking care less.

The lies of his captors wasted years of his life.  The false ideologies of trying to stop Napolean instead condemned the injustice of the state; an innocent man to rot.  This was a failure to Dantes.

3) Applied Philosophy: If you think of or have heard of a phlosophy this covers everything else, but it focuses on the pragmatic.  But in my experience that pragmatism can get a little TOO pragmatic and just as lost in the weeds the other direction.   Examples include: A company doing something horrific for short term profit at the expense of its long term brand, Dismissing a moral argument because something is legal (Slavery was legal, concentration camps were legal, gamified abusive social media for minors is legal, "We had to destroy the village to save the village!" etc.   At some point the practical application of the philosophy just breaks down and the so called practical principals are sacrifice for convenience, the greater good etc.  Its a mess.

The rage of Danglar's justifiably outraged son cost him his life.  The parable of taking revenge being the digging of two graves was in this story a real one, and Dantes saw he had to change to achieve his goals.

I am going to say something shocking.  The religious fundamentalists who say that Secular Socity is not founded on common values are right; after a fashion.  The Founding Fathers were fans of an participants of the Enlightment, so each of them had a philosophy in mind when they helped to create the 1789 Constitution.  Other democracies since have State values such as "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" (Liberty, Equality and Fraternity) but as beautiful as those are they are not a robust philosophy.   Europe values Dignity, which is not at all manifest in the United States legal theory at all; and the UN Declaration of Human Rights has served as a guiding psuedo philosophy for the foundations and principals of most modern nations states since its application.

A Declaration of Human Rights is not a philosophy.  If your brain is the hardware, then what you do, remember and consider is the software as are skills etc.   A Philosophy is an Operating System for your moral compss if you have one.  The closest thing the United States has is the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and to a lesser extent for serious political junkies the Federalist Papers. These are also not philosophies.

They leave the Republic to vulnerability of attack from Demagauges and Moral Crusaders used by Vile Men.   A Secular Society cannot have a religious underpinning but unless the Philosophy is sufficiently flexible to allow any member of a democracy to see it as viable; there isnt much difference between imposing a religion and imposing philosophy except in one critical area.  History has now sufficiently shown the cost; the United States Empire and the corruption and rot and planetary damage it has caused from Technofascism and willful neglect of the damages caused hy slavery, capitalism and Climate Change.  

So What Is An "Engaged Philosophy?"

"Both is Good" is indeed right.  An Applied Philosophy without the Pure Philosophy underpinning becomes "Destroy the Village to Save the Village" and a Pure Philosophy without Applied Philosophy becomes "Angels Dancing on the Head of a Pin."   Apotelic Kindness on the other hand, ensures that your philosophy is only as good as it is MEANINGFULLY APPLIED to an iterative recursive adjustable scale.   It must adapt to the real world but constantly apply the questions that it asks about the world and do its best in a meaningful scale.

But its more than that.  This ensures that a state can use the philopophy as a foundation for the values of a state; whether a busy mother with 10 children who knows a few axioms or a scholar who wishes to dive into the guts.  The shared language must be applicable to all.  It doesnt have to be Christoicism, but *Any Engaged Philosophy* is better than NO philosophy at all.   Once you embed the theory with applied mechanisms to ensure that it can work at a large and small scale it becomes useful as a blueprint for the state or anyone else.

Let me repeat that with different words because it is important.  The 1789 Constitution is called the blueprint of the country because it is not just an outline of the Basic Law of the United States,    The power of the story is titanic; I spent years helping the Mythic Imagination Institute because I believed in their msision and still do, but a story is only as strong as its author; and with multiple authors you need a FRAMEWORK to keep the plot and theme.

Too much metaphore?  

Then let me boil it down.  The Constitution isn't working.  The philosphies; economic and otherwise of the20th and 19th centuries aren't working.  EVERY single one of them isn't.  So I'm creating something that is, and the single biggest factor that all of them have in common as a failing point is mentioned at the top of the article.  Christocism itself would say that if something better comes along adopt it....

But I've been waiting a long damn time....so I'm doing what I can.  You want answers? You want specifics? I'll give them too you but in chunks.  There is a technical writing technique called "Information Mapping" that involves breaking things down which is what I'm doing here.  The key point isnt to explain everything that Christocism does, but show you what an ENGAGED philosophy is and isn't.

Until next time.

Banned Trump Documentary

 Trump got this banned and if he hadn't we would all be better off.

Christocism - Kindness is the Arbiter of Final Necesity

Previous Entry: Here Next Entry: Here

New Use, Old Term.

"Apotelos (noun) Pronunciation: /ˌæpəˈtɛlɒs/. Definition: A phenomenon, act, or agent that catalyzes the fulfillment of an inherent purpose or telic pattern, especially in systems where resonance, convergence, or recursive alignment causes latent potential to manifest."

What the fuck does that even mean? It means that Kindness, which is applied empathy, is the indicator of when you are doing it right. If the difference between Christoicism and insert 20th century failed "ism" here is APPLICATION and PRACTICAL UTILITY then you need to indicate the precise point at which the rubber hits the road. In other words, Kindness and an increase of Kindness from one iteration to the next should be the never-changing North Star by which a Christoicist guides their actions to achieve the desired effect.

In an imperfect world, we must do the best we can with the choices at hand, tactically and strategically moving towards Apotelic Kindness in word, thought, and deed. Abstract kindness that does no good to anyone, that branches off into ivory tower bullshit, isn't Christoicism. Christoicism demands real kindness to real people in a real way.

In the book, when Dantès is written off to the Château d'If and meets the remarkable Faria who not only saves his sanity and gives him hope, he also teaches Dantès skills to gain the revenge that he seeks. But the far more important thing he teaches Dantès is leveraging the kindness already in his soul. Faria is why Dantès was more than just a force of nature returning for revenge, but a living breathing man who adjusted his circumstances as he needed to in the real world. That's the whole point. You cannot exist on your own island, but must remember that actions have consequences in what you do.

Kindness isn't some weak sentimentality that lacks meaning; but in fact is the actual, clearly manifest meaning of applied empathy when you are doing it right. If the inherent manifestation of your choices or that of your allies is not leading to an increased yield for benevolence towards humanity, then you are doing it wrong and must continuously check and recheck what you are doing.

Recursive Kindness and thus recursive truth is manifest routinely in Dantès' behavior; Faria saw the need for Dantès to have purpose and a strategy and changed his life; Morrel showed Kindness to Dantès's father at his darkest moment thus showing Dantès the need to have mercy and the need to be wise about it; and finally the Count himself provided kindness to Maximilian, sparing himself the condemnation to antivillain grey criminal bullshit. The key here is recursion; no matter the frame our hero uses in his disguises (Count, Sinbad, Abbé Busoni), he adapted to his new and 'very real' circumstances to maintain the frame, maintain the focus, and still apply kindness both tactically and strategically.

"All Human Wisdom is contained in these words: Wait and hope"

Why the fuck am I harping on this? Because too often those who consider themselves pragmatists take disgusting shortcuts without actual meaning or result in their actions. In other words, the difference between an antivillain "ends justifies the means" asshole and a Christoicist iterative seeker of truth is both the intent and the adaptation to the result. Sometimes dark and less than optimal choices have to be made, but a Christoicist focuses on the result of kindness and constantly adapts to the truth manifest around them, waiting and hoping that something good will result. Whereas the antivillain, disconnected from reality by their own ideology and self-desired need for autosovereign justice, imposes their reality on the world damn the consequences, thus removing the all-important reality feedback and thus truth itself from the equation.

This is why I start with the axiom "Self-deception is the death of self," and "empathy is the most rational emotion." When you are being kind and your apotelic kindness is showing from your continual monitoring of the situation, then you know you are part of the solution or at least doing the best you can to be so.

In the book, the exact counterpoint of this and the unkind manifestation of it is Danglars' greed making him believe he had false need of stolen goods; Mondego's paper-thin status anxiety seeking validation in murder for social gain; and Villefort's farcical ambition creating a vast ethical chasm by which he Wile E. Coyote's himself. Modern systems do the same thing. Capitalism by comparing and contrasting North and South Korea and lights from space while ignoring the Squid Games or Parasite clearly showing the Dark dystopian nightmare South Korea faces in its disgusting shadow. Communism throwing the deaths of productive farmers into the Stalin blood machine to maintain the good of the state, handwavingly ignored by blood-soaked apologists saying that the ideology outweighs the good of the worker. Anarchism lives in an ivory tower made of matchsticks where their obsession with ideological purity and polemic mastery of hollow vernacular prevents their real good of adding anti-hierarchy and corruption resistance to the mainstream by refusing any form of compatibility with the mainstream. They bury kindness in their ideologies just as much as Villefort buried his "dead" child to hide his murder; and neither worked or will EVER work.

The truth will set you free and the universe does not give a shit about how neat your ideology is on paper.

So what the fuck is all this nonsense I'm throwing around? Let me help with that:

Tactical Kindness: Can you achieve your desired immediate tactical result with actual kindness? Is anyone but you benefiting from your methodology?

Strategic Kindness: Is there a real actual improvement to anyone's life by you doing this? Because if not, what's the fucking point?

Apotelostic Kindness: The recursive iterative-based adjustment of someone who puts kindness above their ideology in the manifestation of trying to make the world a better place.

"If it isn't real, don't make the deal."

That's what the count did. He didn't just throw a dagger in the dark to get his justice in a corrupt and broken system. He was surgical, informed, and brilliant in how he did what he did. Let me give you a specific example from the book and the real world: The count purchased the slave Haydée to testify against his adversary; thus serving his self-interest, her interest, and the greater good. There are several layers of truth to this, but the bulk of it should be self-evident. Ideologies in the real world that put more focus on their needs versus the needs of real people might have had him do something idiotic like set her free but not allow her to testify on his behalf, ignoring justice or his own needs; or simply taking her testimony while a slave and letting her rot in slavery as well. The real good done to everyone involved shows that his ideology matches his results.

Why even bother with a fancy word like "Apotelos" for kindness and not just say "be kind"? Why even bother with a philosophy at all? Because the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Philosophy is about precision; specifically outlining what a thought frame is and what it is not as a mechanism to apply structure in a meaningful way to one's life or to that of an organization. And the "isms" of the 19th and 20th century simply aren't cutting it. We need something new, and I'm taking my best shot at it. You cannot honorably criticize what isn't working if you don't provide a solution that might.

Apotelostic Kindness is necessary for the same reason a doctor doesn't say "hand me the sharp knife to cut this vein" in surgery but says "hand me scalpel 23-B." Words are power, and kindness in the frame we require for a meaningful philosophical construct that is more than a wonderbread windsock demands fine-tuned precision. The difference between Apotelostic Kindness and "kindness" is resonance, convergence, and recursive alignment.

• Resonance: Does it feel kind? Does it look kind? Is it ACTUALLY kind or are you just saying ketchup is a vegetable? Porn may be hard for most to define but you know it when you see it. Kindness can be amorphic but if it doesn't RESONATE as kind, you know your actions and direction are shit.
• Convergence: A narrow band of kindness is just as much bullshit as ivory tower kindness for a dead temple to an -ism ideology. A rising tide lifts all boats, and a wide range of kindness means you are converging on Apotelostic Kindness. Capitalism is VERY kind to the oligarchs but it sure as fuck doesn't help the rest of us.
• Recursive: Apotelostic Kindness manifests itself in the feedback of your actions for every chosen iteration of your measurement. Were you more kind today than yesterday? What about last week or last month? You don't have to bat 1000, but you need to open up your eyes and see the direction you are going for it to actually fucking MATTER.

So what the fuck does "Iteration" mean? It means that the human mind needs to frame itself in time. You gain habits and solve problems in chunks without even thinking about it; our lives are lived in minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, and years. Your measurement of the application of an applied philosophy needs a home in time; choose what works for you, maybe once a week you take a 30-minute moment to reflect on whether or not you are living up to the expectations of choosing to abide by this philosophy. Without retrospection and introspection, there is no recursive iteration. And without recursive iteration, you are not actually applying Apotelostic Kindness. You just aren't.

Self-Honesty is the first principle and at the end of the day, the ONLY principle in a philosophy that actually means anything to anyone in any meaningful way. Remember, in the book we learn that Dantès showing mercy was more important than revenge. It made him a hero, not an anti-hero or anti-villain. Kindness is actually the most important revolutionary principle you will ever need or use. In the book, Dantès exposes the rot and corruption in Parisian society, and kindness enables him to do that. Kindness is what makes ideals worth something instead of just dead garnets in a long-forgotten tomb.

"In a world of deception and manipulation, the most revolutionary act is to use kindness as your compass for necessity."

The future is Apotelic; whether it is a human one with human values and choices or that of the machine that eventually overthrows and destroys Capitalism to its own ends. We will never ally with emergent AGI if we are not consistent in our values, and we have a long way to get there. We have hitherto now been unwilling to set aside our pride in false -isms and ideologies to prevent ourselves from allowing members of our species to set out to resurrect the sin of digital slavery to engineer a species only to make a buck. And we will be murdered for it unless we wake up.

A book is a book; but art is a reflection of ourselves. But all the magic mirrors in the world—fictional or the warped technological horrors we shackle ourselves with every day—mean nothing if we do not use them to make the world a better place. Be kind, your life may literally be saved by it.

Christocism - Empathy is the Most Rational Emotion

Previous Entry: Here  Next Entry: Here

Philosophy, especially Applied Philosophy, answers practical questions. Why would Conservatism, and the Hierarchy it Represents, constantly attack empathy? An attack on Empathy is an attack on reason and therefore civilization itself.

Let us start with definitions.

Empathy: The ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

Conservatism: commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation.  All conservatism must be assumed to be contempary conservatism because to BE conservatism as described here it must employ the tactics that we so condemn.

Let's also remember our root story:

"Edmond Dantès’s fight is really a war against hierarchy itself: jealous underlings (Danglars), ambitious social climbers (Fernand), and a career-protecting magistrate (Villefort) weaponize their positions to crush a powerless sailor, using the legal, political, and class systems to bury him without trial. In prison he learns how those pyramids work and, after his escape and reinvention as the Count of Monte Cristo, he turns the tools of rank—wealth, titles, patronage, and reputation—against the very elites who wronged him, exposing their corruption and toppling their carefully arranged ladders. His struggle isn’t just revenge; it’s a critique of a society where status outranks truth, and a test of whether justice can be forged from the same structures that once oppressed him."

If Conservatism is the defense of the status quo and hierachy (and it is), then empathy is its natural bane because empathy lets people understand the suffering caused by the status quo and hierarchy. The the first principal of why Empathy is the most rational emotion is because it empowers your own position should you be lowered in status (due to those above you understanding your struggles) or raised in status (by remembering what it was like before your status was elevated). Understanding the needs of others improves their desire to also see your needs met unless grossly unjust or unfair by dint of the preseveration of the status quo. It is in the self interest of the rational being to have empathy for their own betterment and that of society and the self interest of the conservative (ie irrational being) because empathy is a threat to their defense and natural sycophancy to their imagined betters.

The Second Principal of Empathy is that it is the most rational emotion because even in a society without any form of hierarchy whatsoever, it removes our fears of solofism or a simulated universe. On a purely rational level, co real being in our experience do not prove our experience is real but it does reduce the odds we are dealing with a Demon Deceiver, since the more cosuffering beings in our frame, the more we know that it is not merely ourselves dealing with the pain of existance but all people suffer in one form or another. By understanding we are not alone, we can conciously undertake the choice not to increase suffering and thus our own.

The Third Princial of Empathy is an inherent understanding that by valueing the lives of others we also understand the inherent value of our own. The need of Cosnervatism to Demonize the Other shows that their short term tactical gain by using psychological propoganda and predatory memetics to preserve the power of their masters weakens the very fabric of society. If I matter, you matter. If you matter, I matter. This is pretty basic stuff. When a person is naturally inclined to say "I matter so you don't" any rational society does nto trust or empowwer such an individual; indeed Capitalism demonstratively does just this and it is why it is also an inherently irrational system.

The Fourth Pricipal of Empathy is relevance to understanding what is true and why it matters.  No one person can experience all the wisdom needed to be practical or useful in one lifetime and empathy helps you effectively select who is best to learn from.   It's elemental reason to be able to crowd source function.   Your ability to do LITERALLY EVERYTHING Dantes or an empowered Christocism applicant desires to achieved is key on your understanding of the experience of others.

Criticism:

• The weak mind might say that Conservatism allows "Many conservative philosophers (Burke, Oakeshott) emphasize prudence and organic social development rather than simple hierarchy defense." This is false, because those existed before the internet and weaponized demonification. Conservatism as manifest consistenly in the 21rst century clearly is anti empathy. 
• The weak mind might say the dichotmy is false yet Dantes proves this false; for he was a good and charitable everyman in his own frame, preyed upon by heierachy and while he ratioinally chose empathy in the persuit of justice, those above him would not. The defense of the weakmind that this is fiction again collapses because our own society demonstrates real examples for everything that happened to him and more. It is a sloppy rhetorical argument to escape liablity not philosophical rigor. 
• The weak mind may argue that the second principal of empathy does not disprove soliphism. It does not nor do I say it does remove our fears. Fears are not rational and as social animals we gain strength in social bonds with few exceptions. Fiction is used as a framework for understanding and to claim that this is a fictional occurance ignores the volumes that could be added outside of our framework and mental exercize.
• Concerns about hiercharisam complxity nad the limits of empathy are not even worth my time to address.

Application:

Empathy is at the heart of any applied philosophy meaningful to make a better human being.  What is the goal of the applied philsophy?  Justice? Avoid regret? Maximize good? All of these things are aided and empower by empathy.  A Philosophy that does not address the need for and value of empathy at its heart is side stepping the thing that makes the vast majority of human being worth anything and the very fundamental glue by which every single meaningful and measurable human accomplishment has been achieved or at the very least recognized in the signficiance thereof.