"People often say that this or that person has not yet found himself. But the self is not something one finds, it is something one creates."Thomas Szasz
(Cameron is riding with her foot draped out the window)Like Bladerunner, the show promises more exploration of what it means to be human via exploring what it means to be a machine.
John: What are you doing?
Cameron: Feeling what it's like to get away from it all.
John: I don't think you are.
Cameron: What do you mean?
John: If by feelings you mean emotions, I'm pretty sure you still don't have any of those. And if by feeling you mean what it feels like to have the wind blow through your toes or your hair, (sighs) I'm pretty sure you can't feel that either.
Cameron: I don't think you understand how we work. I have sensation. I feel. I wouldn't be worth much if I couldn't feel.
Cameron: There are many things I don't understand.
John: Like what?
Cameron: The tortoise.
John: What tortoise?
Cameron: It was on its back by the side of the road in Mexico. Your mother turned it over.
John: She was helping it.
Cameron: I know. But why?
John: 'cause that's what we do. When we, uh... When we see something that's, uh, in pain, or in trouble, or whatever, we try and help it.
Cameron: Empathy.
John: Something like that.
Cameron: But not everyone would turn the tortoise over.
John: No. Some would just leave it there.
Cameron: Some would probably drive over it and crush it.
John: Yeah, I guess they would. Is that what you'd do?
Cameron: It didn't seem like much of a threat. We're not built to be cruel.
John: Yeah, that's one for cyborgs.
Cameron: Yes.
Here are some questions from a reader and my responses in regards to this post:i'm curious why you didn't say 'I love you too' to your sister. I for one have always had trouble saying it to my family, but not to anyone else. The only conclusion I've come to is that I know my family knows who I really am, they see past the superficial, and know that I don't really get what it even means to love someone. With girlfriends it's easier, they start out as strangers so it's easy for me to create that role since they will take it as truth.Ha, I'm glad you picked up on that. I purposefully didn't say "I love you too" because I didn't want to be disingenuous with my sister. I lie or pretend with strangers much more than with family. I guess part of it is because I know they won't believe certain false emotions. But more than that, I don't want to have to put on a show for them. It's exhausting to always pretend to be someone you're not. And I don't think being a sociopath should mean you have to live in the shadows. I mean, fine for those who want to live in the shadows all their lives and be what a friend termed "shadow players," but we should at least have a choice. I think sociopaths should have the same legitimacy that other empathy-challenged people enjoy: aspies, ADHD, etc. I don't want to have to pretend around my family because I don't want to feel like I always have to pretend. I actually want some people to know and like me for who I really am. And that is what family is there for -- unconditional love and/or acceptance. Or at least that is the bargain that my own family has worked out amongst ourselves.
Is there a reason you left it out?
How do you categorize sociopaths who are willing to be open about it? Does that willingness mean they're not fully sociopathic? Maybe its the inherent narcissism (everyone has at least some) coming out, wanting others to fear and respect? I know my goal was to purposefully create fear when I was open about it. What's your purpose?Like I said in response to the last question, I'm open about being a sociopath sometimes because I don't want to feel like I can never be open about it. I don't see how that would make someone not sociopathic. I mean, I don't shout it form the rooftops or anything, of course. but if I always have to pretend, then I am the powerless one -- I am the sheep subject to other people's whims, not the empaths.
On the topic of whether sociopaths are born or created, I just heard about the Japanese movie Battle Royale, in which a class of high school students is sent to an island to kill or be killed until there is one left standing. According to an imdb synopsis:At the dawn of the new millennium, Japan is in a a state of near-collapse. Unemployment is at an all-time high, and violence among the nation's youth is spiraling out of control. With schoolchildren boycotting their classes and physically abusing their teachers, a beleaguered and near-defeated government decides to introduce a radical new measure: the Battle Royale Act Overseen by their former teacher Kitano and requiring that a randomly chosen school class is taken to a deserted island and forced to fight each other to the death, the Act dictates that only one pupil is allowed to survive the punishment. He or she will return, not as the victor, but as the ultimate proof of the lengths to which the government is prepared to go to curb the tide of juvenile disobedience.The students have varied reactions:
Some of the kids immediately embrace the carnage, others reluctantly join in for self-preservation, others gather together into smaller groups that war with each other, still others seduce allies in, only to kill them in short order, and still others kill themselves in refusal to participate in the violence. The problems arise even in the groups of trusted souls as a greedy suspicion grasps them all. Those that don't succumb to this violent infidelity, surely risk falling victim to their external classmates' hunts.When I first heard about the plot of the movie, I thought the island was meant to serve as an accelerant for natural selection. Of course if you are putting high school students on an island with weapons, the only thing you would be naturally selecting for is sociopaths. Under my revised-per-imdb understanding of the film, the island is not just naturally selecting out sociopaths, it is actually creating them out of normal empaths. Do I think this actually happens in war and other times of exigency? Yes, I do.
There is nothing very odd about lambs disliking birds of prey, but this is no reason for holding it against large birds of prey that they carry off lambs. And when the lambs whisper among themselves, "These birds of prey are evil, and does this not give us a right to say that whatever is the opposite of a bird of prey must be good," there is nothing intrinsically wrong with such an argument--though the birds of prey will look somewhat quizzically and say, We have nothing against these good lambs; in fact, we love them; nothing tastes better than a tender lamb."