Why people shed tears of empathy: Evolution
It’s true that many mammals shed tears, especially in response to pain. Tears protect the eye by keeping it moist, and they contain antimicrobial proteins. But crying as an embodiment of empathy is, I maintain, unique to humans and has played an essential role in human evolution and the development of human cultures.
Within two days an infant can imitate sad and happy faces. If a newborn mammal does not cry out (typically, in the first few weeks of life, without tears) it is unlikely to get the attention it needs to survive. Around three to four months, the relationship between the human infant and its environment takes on a more organized communicative role, and tearful crying begins to serve interpersonal purposes: the search for comfort and pacification. As we get older, crying becomes a tool of our social repertory: grief and joy, shame and pride, fear and manipulation.
Tears are as universal (but less culturally contingent) as laughter, and tragedy is more complex than joy — an insight Tolstoy and many others have offered. But although we all cry, we do so in different ways.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
A debate, you blockhead. You know, where two people stand in the same room and discuss differing points?
Hey, why don’t you debate Craig. I know you’d be “Good.”
davidk on November 12, 2012 at 8:20 PM
Creationism is not science.
Since creationism would be ‘presented’ as an alternative to an actual scientific theory in such a debate, it would necessitate that creatinism rise to the level of basic science to be considered. There is nothing ‘scientific’ to debate about here.
Craig is talking about the mystical, the supernatural, the unknowable, religion, and magic, and the other is talking science.
Craig has no scientific argument to make. His argument is GODDIDIT.
Good Lt on November 12, 2012 at 8:22 PM
As I amply demonstrated to you, Craig has nothing worth presenting in the face of the scientific evidence for evolution.
He is not making a scientific argument. He’s making a religious argument.
There is nothing to debate about.
Good Lt on November 12, 2012 at 8:24 PM
What does that have to do with evolution?
You’re again trying to bring a discussion of your religious moral teachings into a discussion about science and evolution.
Why doesn’t William Lane Craig publish a scientific paper on evolution and show the scientific community his magical wizard powers?
Good Lt on November 12, 2012 at 8:29 PM
Why would Richard Dawkins give a megaphone to a fool like William Lane Craig? Creationists are not interested in debate,btw….they only want to be seen with real scientists to give themselves the illusion of credibility.
These people are best dismissed as the fools they are.
Pablo Honey on November 12, 2012 at 9:21 PM
OK. Run around with your fingers in your ears singing, “Lalalalalalala.
davidk on November 12, 2012 at 9:23 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2