CRITICAL THINKING: Discernment, Detachment, and Delineation

CRITICAL THINKING: Discernment Detachment Delineation

Clear thinking takes the ability, to as much as possible, striving to have discernment of and detachment from ideas and and then in a relatively removed as in not sacralized to where it gets no free pass from rigorous delineation to discern truth from its justification, quality and value. learns that distinctions or at least the careful architecture for detailed thought that adds in accuracy.

*Discernment is a valued part in critical thinking and is the ability to obtain sharp perceptions or to judge well (or the activity of so doing). In the case of judgment, discernment can be psychological or moral in nature. Within judgment, discernment involves going past the mere perception of something and making nuanced judgments about its properties or qualities. Discernment is considered as a virtue, as a discerning individual is considered to possess wisdom, and be of good judgement; especially so with regard to subject matter often overlooked by others. Ref

*Detachment is a valued part in critical thinking seen in how a willing reasoned and disciplined thinking, in general, requires some underlying, central theory of reasoned argument criticism with goals that stress a connection to empathy, which in this arena of thinking is the ability to constructively understand the other side’s point of view, and a critical detachment, which in this arena of thinking is the ability to detect bias, and thereby to avoid being too heavily partisan to attain a balanced perspective in or of an argument. Moreover, detachment in this arena of thinking is the ability the basic ability required is related to the recognition that every argument has two sides to be considered, the pro and con of argument. Hence the concept of open dialogue is often suggested or alluded to as the root notion. Ref

*Delineation is a valued part in critical thinking seen in the ability to analyze facts, generate and organize ideas, defend opinions, make comparisons, draw inferences, evaluate arguments and solve problems. a way of reasoning that demands adequate support for one’s beliefs and an unwillingness to be persuaded unless support is forthcoming. Delineation in this arena of thinking is the ability involving analytical thinking for the purpose of evaluating what is in offer with a conscious and deliberate process which is used to interpret or evaluate information and experiences with a set of reflective attitudes and abilities that guide thoughtful thinking, beliefs, disbeliefs and actions that inspires. Moreover, Delineation in this arena of thinking is the active, systematic process of understanding and evaluating arguments, reasoning or beliefs. Lastly, delineation in this arena of thinking is an intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication which espouses reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or not believe as well as what is better to do or not do. Ref

Truth Navigation: Techniques for Discussions or Debates

I do truth navigation, both inquiry questions as well as

strategic facts in a tag team of debate and motivational teaching.

Truth Navigation and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”

Compare ideas not people, attack thinking and not people. In this way, we have a higher chance to promote change because it’s the thinking we can help change if we address the thinking and don’t attack them.

My eclectic set of tools for my style I call “Truth Navigation” (Techniques for Discussions or Debates) which involves:

*REMS: reason (rationalism), evidence (empiricism), and methodological “truth-seeking” skepticism (Methodic doubt) (the basic or general approach)

*The Hammer of Truth: ontology, epistemology, and axiology (methodological use of philosophy)

*Dialectical Rhetoric = truth persuasion: use of facts and reasoning (motivational teaching)

*Utilizing Dignity: strategic dignity attacks or dignity enrichments (only used if confusion happens or resistance is present)

Asking the right questions at the right time with the right info can also change minds, you can’t just use facts all on their own. Denial likes consistency, the pattern of thinking cannot vary from a fixed standard of thinking, or the risk of truth could slip in. Helping people alter skewed thinking is indeed a large task but most definitely a worthy endeavor.

Error Crushing Force of the Dialectic Questions and the Hammer of Truth

Dialectical Rhetoric = truth persuasion: use of facts and reasoning (motivational teaching)

“Navigate Truth through reasoned arguments”

“Dialectic or dialectics, also known as the dialectical method, is a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments. In philosophy, dialectic or dialectical method implied a methodology used for examining and cognition of philosophical objects. Dialectical methods demands the users to examine the objects in relation to other objects and to the whole system, and examine the objects within a dynamic, evolutionary environment. Dialectical method is usually contrasted with metaphysical method, which examine the objects in a separated, isolated and static environment. Dialectical method has three main forms corresponding to three developmental stages. Naive dialectic, emerging in ancient history, mainly relied on intuition and personal experience with limited supporting scientific evidences. Idealistic dialectic, a product of classic German idealism and reaching its zenith in the works of Hegel, was the first systematic form of dialectical method. Materialistic dialectics, built mainly by Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin, adapted the Hegelian dialectic into traditional materialism. The term dialectic is not synonymous with the term debate. While in theory debaters are not necessarily emotionally invested in their point of view, in practice debaters frequently display an emotional commitment that may cloud rational judgment. Debates are won through a combination of persuading the opponent, proving one’s argument correct, and proving the opponent’s argument incorrect. Debates do not necessarily require promptly identifying a clear winner or loser; however, clear winners are frequently determined by a judge, a jury or group consensus. The term dialectics is also not synonymous with the term rhetoric, a method or art of discourse that seeks to persuade, inform, or motivate an audience. Concepts like “logos” or rational appeal, “pathos” or emotional appeal, and “ethos” or ethical appeal, are intentionally used by rhetoricians to persuade an audience. Socrates favoured truth as the highest value, proposing that it could be discovered through reason and logic in discussion: ergo, dialectic. Socrates valued rationality (appealing to logic, not emotion) as the proper means for persuasion, the discovery of truth, and the determinant for one’s actions. To Socrates, truth, not aretē (moral virtue), was the greater good, and each person should, above all else, seek truth to guide one’s life. Therefore, Socrates opposed the Sophists and their teaching of rhetoric as art and as emotional oratory requiring neither logic nor proof. Different forms of dialectical reasoning have emerged throughout history from the Indosphere (Greater India) and the West (Europe). These forms include the Socratic method, Hindu, Buddhist, Medieval, Hegelian, Marxist, Talmudic, and Neo-orthodoxy dialectics.” ref

“god is Nothing but a Factless Myth Held in an Invisible Box”

As I thought, YOU do not have an answer to what a “god” is?

I don’t really follow the Socratic method, as I feel it is limited for me, it mainly is a dialectical only approach, seeking truth without persuasion. Like most dialectical approaches, It is a form of cooperative dialogue to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions. But I add Rhetoric to my use of Dialectics, thus my “Dialectical Rhetoric.”

Religions have undialectical rhetoric = pseudo-truth persuasion (indoctrination of dogmatic propaganda)

I use a kind of Dialectical Rhetoric= truth persuasion (motivational teaching)

Here is a blog showing how I can “Navigate Truth through reasoned arguments” where I use a kind of Dialectical Rhetoric= truth persuasion (motivational teaching): Turning a Theist Attack into a Chance for Their New Learning: “an open dialog”

Hate the Dogmatic-Propaganda Not the People

Religion is a joke to rationality, that sadly, too many believe. I hate the Dogmatic-Propaganda that is religion, not the indoctrinated victims who believe it. Of course, that concession is only for the flawed belief. As I do hold people accountable for harmful behaviors and religion as it is today is not a reason for harm, it is a commonly used excuse employed by those who wish to harm.

Dogmatic-Propaganda Must not go Unchallenged

Religionists like to act as if it is they who are being persecuted when it is them forcing what and how they believe on others and asking stupid questions to atheists, such as, I do not understand why you cannot just let religion believers live and let live. I could say, I don’t understand why religious never has, nor ever will just live and let live. However, I already know why, they are Dogmatic-Propaganda that wishes self-replication and oppression of those who don’t fall in line and thus every ethical rational thinker must see this as the enemy to a civil humanity that it is, has been and will continue to be if left unchallenged.

Two Dogmatic-Propaganda Fallacies

Here are two favorite logical fallacies of religionists and fideists and their Dogmatic-Propaganda:

Complex Question Fallacy and Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy, which are often used in tandem kind of like this, the universe had a beginning, and if god was not the power before the beginning of the universe you must explain what was. So if you cannot prove that god was not the power before the beginning or that god is not needed or does not exist, that means god was the needed power to create the universe and god must exist.

The Complex Question Fallacy is roughly when someone asks a question that presupposes something (often with loaded language or questions) that is not proven. ref

The Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy is roughly acting that something must be true because it has not been, or cannot be, proven false even if it has not in any way ben demonstrated as true. ref

Dogmatic–Propaganda vs. Disciplined-Rationality

Religionists and fideists promote Dogmatic-Propaganda whereas atheists and antireligionists mostly promote Disciplined-Rationality.

Dogmatic–Propaganda commonly is a common motivator of flawed or irrational thinking but with over seventy belief biases identified in people, this is hardly limited to just the religious or faith inclined.

Let me illustrate what I am saying, to me all theists are believing lies or irrationally in that aspect of their lives relating to god belief. So the fact of any other common intellectual indexers where there may be right reason in beliefs can not remove the flawed god belief corruption being committed. What I am saying is like this if you kill one person you are a killer. If you believe one god you are a follower of Dogmatic-Propaganda and can not completely be a follower of Disciplined-Rationality.

However, I am not proclaiming all atheists are always rational as irrationally is revolving door many people believe or otherwise seem to stumble through. It’s just that god belief does this with intentionally.

Disciplined-Rationality is motivated by principles of correct reasoning with emphasis on valid and reliable methods or theories leading to a range of rational standpoints or conclusions understanding that concepts and beliefs often have consequences thus hold an imperative for truth or at least as close to truth as can be acquired rejecting untruth. Disciplined-Rationality can be seen as an aid in understanding the fundamentals for knowledge, sound evidence, justified true belief and involves things like decision theory and the concern with identifying the value(s), reasonableness, verification, certainties, uncertainties and other relevant issues resulting in the most clear optimal decision/conclusion and/or belief/disbelief. Disciplined-Rationality attempts to understand the justification or lack thereof in propositions and beliefs concerning its self with various epistemic features of belief, truth, and/or knowledge, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, reliability, validity, and probability. ref , ref

Dealing with Presuppositionalism, a school of Christian apologetics (Fascistic Fideism or “faith-ism”)

Aristotelian Rhetoric as Proof-Centered and Pertinent

“Aristotle joins Plato in criticizing contemporary manuals of rhetoric. But how does he manage to distinguish his own project from the criticized manuals? The general idea seems to be this: Previous theorists of rhetoric gave most of their attention to methods outside the subject; they taught how to slander, how to arouse emotions in the audience, or how to distract the attention of the hearers from the subject. This style of rhetoric promotes a situation in which juries and assemblies no longer form rational judgments about the given issues, but surrender to the litigants. Aristotelian rhetoric is different in this respect: it is centered on the rhetorical kind of proof, the enthymeme (see below §6), which is called the most important means of persuasion. Since people are most strongly convinced when they suppose that something has been proven (Rhet. I.1, 1355a5f.), there is no need for the orator to confuse or distract the audience by the use of emotional appeals, etc. In Aristotle’s view, an orator will be even more successful when he just picks up the convincing aspects of a given issue, thereby using commonly-held opinions as premises. Since people have a natural disposition for the true (Rhet. I.1, 1355a15f.) and every man has some contribution to make to the truth (Eudemian Ethics I.6, 1216b31,) there is no unbridgeable gap between the commonly-held opinions and what is true. This alleged affinity between the true and the persuasive justifies Aristotle’s project of a rhetoric that essentially relies on the persuasiveness of pertinent argumentation, and it is just this argumentative character of Aristotelian rhetoric that explains the close affinity between rhetoric and dialectic. Aristotle’s point of view: Even those who just try to establish what is just and true need the help of rhetoric when they are faced with a public audience. Aristotle tells us that it is impossible to teach such an audience, even if the speaker had the most exact knowledge of the subject. Obviously, he thinks that the audience of a public speech consists of ordinary people who are not able to follow an exact proof based on the principles of a science. Further, such an audience can easily be distracted by factors that do not pertain to the subject at all; sometimes they are receptive to flattery or just try to increase their own advantage. And this situation becomes even worse if the constitution, the laws, and the rhetorical habits in a city are bad. Finally, most of the topics that are usually discussed in public speeches do not allow of exact knowledge, but leave room for doubt; especially in such cases, it is important that the speaker seems to be a credible person and that the audience is in a sympathetic mood. For all those reasons, affecting the decisions of juries and assemblies is a matter of persuasiveness, not of knowledge. It is true that some people manage to be persuasive either at random or by habit, but it is rhetoric that gives us a method to discover all means of persuasion on any topic whatsoever.”ref

Religion vs. Science
Don’t Confuse Beliefs

Science is a system where justified true beliefs are derived from objective methodologies such as the scientific method and religion is a system of unjustified beliefs based on subjective faith or revelation. We must not confuse beliefs, religion is beliefs built from myths devoid of corroborating evidence. Science uses corroborating evidence to establish what is true and that offers something worthy to believe. Modern Science is not a thing, it’s a group of different specialties aiming to test (generally with the scientific method) and try to figure out the world as it presents itself in reality, which is devoid of supernatural magic.

We must not confuse beliefs, religion is beliefs from myths devoid of corroborating evidence or reason. Whereas, science uses as well as demands corroborating evidence and reason to establish what is true and that offers something worthy to believe in. Thus, we have a belief without valid and reliable warrant or justification, so it’s an issue involving religion believers violating the ethics of belief. Do you believe in god? What is a god? When someone asks me if I believe in gods I think, are you asking me if magic exists? Well my answer as an ignostic atheist is, first prove the actuality of simple magic before you try to ask anyone about the possibility of some supreme magic, i.e. the claims of gods. So, let’s recap, likely no religion follower is honestly going to stop belief because of lack of evidence or reason, or they would have already done so. Just as no science follower is honestly going to start believing something if it has a lack of evidence or reason. Remember, we honest thinkers need to adhere to beliefs in an ethical way, like exhibit good belief etiquette: reasoned belief-acquisitions, good belief-maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. I can’t stand when people try to say that atheism and religion use faith. We atheists, have archaeology that proves religion is a lie, so no faith is needed. Moreover, We atheists, have science which shows that every mystery has ever turned out to be nature and not magic. There is nothing that the only explanation is magic or supernatural anything, so for religion it has no evidence at all. All religion has is faith without any proof and do not try to say that atheism is anything like that. Promoting religion as real is mentally harmful to a flourishing humanity. To me, promoting religion as real is too often promote a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from who they are shaming them for being human. In addition, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from real history, real science or real morality to pseudohistory, pseudoscience and pseudomorality. Moreover, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from rational thought, critical thinking, or logic. Likewise, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from justice, universal ethics, equality, and liberty. Yes, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from loved ones, and religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from humanity. Therefore, to me, promoting religion as real is too often promote a toxic mental substance that should be rejected as not only false but harmful as well even if you believe it has some redeeming quality. To me, promoting religion as real is mentally harmful to a flourishing humanity. Religion may have once seemed great when all you had or needed was to believe. Science now seems great when we have facts and need to actually know. I proudly reject all gods and religions. It should be understood, that religion as well as its love of gods, must be seen for what they are, which beyond their pomp and circumstance are exposed as little more than indoctrinated cultural products, the conspiracy theories of reality no one should believe today in our world of science. Simply, religion and its gods are the leftovers of an ignorant age trying to explain and control a fearful world which seems now favored by the uninformed, misinformed, emotional/physical/social support seekers and conmen. To me, a rational mind values humanity and rejects religion and gods as real until valid and reliable reason and evidence that passes scientific consensus that what is being offered is as it is claimed, so no belief without proof. A truly rational mind sees the need for humanity, as they too live in the world and see themselves as they actually are an alone body in the world seeking comfort and safety. Thus, see the value of everyone around them as they too are the same and therefore rationally as well a humanistically we should work for this humanity we are part of and can either dwell in or help its flourishing as we are all in the hands of each other. You are Free to think as you like but REALITY is unchanged. While you personally may react, or think differently about our shared reality (the natural world devoid of magic anything), We can play with how we use it but there is still only one communal reality (a natural non-supernatural one), which we all share like it or not and you can’t justifiably claim there is a different reality. This is valid as the only one of warrant is the non-mystical natural world around us all, existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by superstitions like gods or other monsters to many sill fear irrationally.

Who knows what a “god-claim” really is?

Who knows a god rather they simply believe in a god claim they think they know on faith as if that is proof of anything but feelings. Be honest, who knows a what a god claim really is outside am empty claim, as it’s all make believe. I mean come on, you don’t know a god anything as you only remember the myths don’t you or you make up your own that are no better right? All I have ever hear are evidence lacking claims or misiturpraded nature claimed as being god or evidence of god but not one god claim ever is any more true than any others as they are all reality confused claims, yes most are quite domb outright as not once has magic ever been proven, not even in small ways. So claims of super magic gods are thus even more ridiculous claims to believe right? I know what all god claims are, which is they are flawed conspiracy theories of reality.

You will always fail to prove a specific god?

Religion is big on claims but small of real reasoning. Take the Abrahamic faiths they propose a very specific well-defined god but are fond of a very unspecified god of naturalistic inferred theistic creationism or intelligent design. In other words when pressed to demonstrate god in the world or as the reason for the big bang they can only at best try and surmise a magical power or unknown and unknowable possible something as the “creator” but how does that do a thing to prove any specific anything. So even if we were to concede for the sake of argument that some god phantom menace started things they still have to show it’s their very specific claimed god. But the issues don’t stop there, as they also would have to prove or give warrant as well as justification for every attribute and claimed character trait attached to their specific god using only nature arguments, not some holy book or otherworldly revelation. The truth is for all the appeals to nature for god they do, not one is valid in any way to confirm that their god and only their god is true, they must always leave the facts and return to faith. Thus they always will fail to show any naturalistic reasons for believing their special needs god. What they show instead is a belief not in the god of some myth or scriptures but belief in a projected somethingism god attributed to nature which is indistinguishable from a nothingism godless reality attributed by nature.

Do Beliefs Need justification?

Yes, it all requires a justification and if you think otherwise you should explain why but then you are still trying to employ a justification to challenge justification. So, I still say yes it all needs a justification and I know everything is reducible to feeling the substation of existence. I feel my body and thus I can start my justificationism standard right there and then build all logic inferences from that justified point and I don’t know a more core presupposition to start from. A presupposition is a core thinking stream that like how a tree of beliefs always has a set of assumed sets of presuppositions or a presupposition is relatively a thing/thinking assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of thinking point, belief projection, argument or course of action. And that as well as everything needs justification to be concluded as reasonable. Sure, you can believe all kinds of things with no justification at all but we can’t claim them as true, nor wish others to actually agree unless something is somehow and or in some way justified. When is something true that has no justification? If you still think so then offer an example, you know a justification. Sure, there can be many things that may be true but actually receiving rational agreement that they are intact true needs justification. Remembering my past, it all goes back to such troubles, which were so dark as was my mind, it was like being dead while alive. I had made my life unclean with excessive or even exclusive concern, for myself, my own advantage, and relatively my own pleasure regardless of the welfare of others or with little concern for them. Limited in caring I looked only for me, me, me getting what I could take from life not what I could give and was almost drowning in selfishness and pain. Trying to have fun no matter the cost. I was left feeling worthless. I needed something for my insides felt empty. I was like a screen smeared with darkness of selfness. My hearts tongueless words sang of my despair. My dark mind felt lost in a crowd. I needed to do something. It is as if my log lost empathy start to feel a call. Yes, I started to see past the mountain of me that strong and selfish tree. Something is changing. It’s as if my inner being has a mind of its own or it cries out for change. Bright life seems at hand by caring, to feel the connection not just with others but indeed a new and welcoming empathetic new me. I now seek that sweet day of caring connection and stop this night only selfishness bent on care of only me. My frozen shell shatters. It is hard to trust, but I must and seek others to help. I cried out, and listened to my need for change for the first time! I want to be more than my dark mind and self-limited life. I want to be my bright emotional wellbeing! Then joy spring forth in my every fiber mind and inner being. It’s as if I am on fire. Hope touch like a flame is was a soft breath that sets me free. I feel it, my bright inner thinking of love and care I now live in me adding to the freedom in the world. I may still have at times have a dark mind but have now created a bright life full of concern for the welfare of myself and others. I wish you to a bright life especially if you to suffer with a dark mind. However, when I was young I raged at the world, for abuse I received from my religious parents. Then I developed some, so I held my parents accountable, raging at them and the world; as so much was out there, like them. Then I fully developed and became an atheist, thus I started to see my parents were two different versions of christofascism (christian and fascism), as well as I saw that relatively all religions in some way are part of religiofascism (religion and fascism) especially how they often force hereditary religion of children by cursive force or oppression and I became an antireligionist atheist raging against religion as well as the lies of gods.

Religion and Science are Completely Different Epistemologies

Some try to say that science and religion ear not that different saying they both use faith. This is utter nonsense, not only does science not use faith as a method for anything, religion and science are completely different epistemologies. Scientists reason differently than most nonscientists because of a standardized focus on scientific based reasoning and scientific epistemology.

A basic outline of scientific epistemology:

Science: Hypotheses (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) + Testing (Empiricism/Systematic Observation) – Checking for errors (Skepticism/Fallibilism) + Interpret/Draw a Conclusion (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) *if valid* = Scientific Laws (describes observed phenomena) or Scientific Theory (substantiated and repeatedly tested explanation of phenomena) = Justified True Belief = Scientific Knowledge = Epistemic Certainty supportive of correctability

*being epistemic certainty is believing a truth has the highest epistemic status, often with warranted psychological certainty but it may not, neither is it a requirement*

A basic outline of religious epistemology:

Religion: Culture/Testimony/ Myths/Scriptures/Revelation/Prophecies (arbitrary and unjustified way of coming to ideas or Idealism) + Mysticism, Supernaturalism, Spirtualism, or Theology (arbitrary and unjustified to form explanations, Idealism or misuse of Rationalism; often self-justified or even believe they are beyond a need for justification) – Denial of Relevant Alternatives and Basis (Fideism/Dogmatic Foundationalism/Pseudo-Skepticism/Anti-Rationalism/Anti-Empiricism or Anti-Skepticism) + Superstition, Falsehood, Misconception, Fantasy, or Delusion (unsubstantiated ideas and unjustified way of coming to ideas or Idealism) = Religion Reality Theory = Unjustified Untrue Faith Belief = Religion Faith or Beliefs as Knowledge = Unwarranted Psychological Certainty supportive of incorrectability

*being psychologically certain believing a truth does not mean that something is not actually false*

The Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old, an estimate is that a terrestrial biosphere emerged as early as 4.1 billion years ago. Ref The earliest evidences for life on Earth is 3.7 billion years old from Greenland and 3.48 billion years old from Australia. Ref The earliest evidences for sexual reproduction first appears 1200 million years ago and may have increased the rate of evolution and kick started or probably contributed to the evolution of sexual dimorphism (two sexes), where organisms within a species adopted different strategies of parental investment and what would later involve a reliance on caregiver compassion. Most plants unlike most animals are hermaphroditic (both male and female sexes) but approximately 6% of plants have separate males and females or have what amounts to serial sexual dimorphism. Most animals unlike plants are not hermaphroditic but approximately 5% are as well as some are sequential hermaphrodites in which the individual is born as one sex, but can later change into the opposite sex. Ref Ref Ref

Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts

Moreover, we may never completely know when and why caregiver compassion in general or familial compassion specifically. However, the fossil record can, in principle, provide a glimpse and what we see is altruism and even levels of compassion are seen in a variety of species and Kin Selection (genetic), Familial (upbringing) or Familiars (chance) Compassion are the primary evolutionary mechanism. Ref The fossil record shows the arthropod “Kunmingella douvillei” 515 million years ago, arthropod “Waptia fieldensis” 508 million years ago, and arthropod “Ostracods” 450 million years ago to exhibit changes that played a key role in the early evolution of parental care. Ref 1.9 million years ago Homo habilis, the first of our genus Homo who appeared, with modest expansion of a language part of the brain and 1.8 million years ago Homo erectus appeared and had a larger expansion of brain beginning to be regulated as an emotion integrated with rational thought and seem to demonstrate forms of compassion such as caring of sick which represents an extensive compassionate investment. By 500,000 years ago Homo heidelbergensis developed language skills and intelligence and what seems to have been upward march in the commitments to the welfare of others. And evidence from 120,000 years ago demonstrates modern humans where involved in compassion which was extended to strangers, animals, objects and abstract concepts. Thus we cannot think of survival of the fittest without realizing that the aspects of altruism, compassion, empathy, and kindness are part of what assists in that survival. Ref Ref

In general, all social animals (which includes humans and their evolutionary ancestors) have had to modify or restrain their behaviors for group living which involves iinteractinghighly with other animals, usually of their own species. Social animals are cooperative animals adding to their evolutionary fitness in this solidarity and can roughly be said to exhibit one of more of these behaviors: cooperative sustenance, cooperative upbringing, cooperative generational living, cooperative defense, and cooperative learning. Ref

Kindness is in our genes, how desire to do good deeds is hard-wired into us by evolution

The Evolutionary Biology of Altruism, Compassion, cooperation, and community are key to our survival

What Price Kindness: Exposing the life and work of a visionary and troubled scientist opens a window onto the evolution of altruism.

The Evolution of Empathy by Frans de Waal We tend to think of empathy as a uniquely human trait. But it’s something apes and other animals demonstrate as well, says primatologist Frans de Waal. He shows how our evolutionary history suggests a deep-rooted propensity for feeling the emotions of others. Ref

Compassion: An Evolutionary Analysis: What is compassion? And how did it evolve? In this review, we integrate three evolutionary arguments that converge on the hypothesis that compassion evolved as a distinct affective experience whose primary function is to facilitate cooperation and protection of the weak and those who suffer. Our empirical review reveals compassion to have distinct appraisal processes attuned to undeserved suffering, distinct signaling behavior related to caregiving patterns of touch, posture, and vocalization, and a phenomenological experience and physiological response that orients the individual to social approach. This response profile of compassion differs from those of distress, sadness, and love, suggesting that compassion is indeed a distinct emotion. We conclude by considering how compassion shapes moral judgment and action, how it varies across different cultures, and how it may engage specific patterns of neural activation, as well as emerging directions of research. Ref Human inclinations are not primarily selfish: kindness and altruism have been evolutionarily valued in mates, and even the youngest children often try to be helpful. Ref

Endangered Bonobos Reveal Evolution of Human Kindness: Experiments show the great apes share with strangers and empathize.

The Homeless Scientist Who Tried to Prove Selflessness Doesn’t Exist.

Does evolution explain human nature.