4 ms·

I posit that paying money only buys the appearance of caring, not the actual caring. That is the reason celebrities get (got? Not up to date) doctors who prescr

I posit that paying money only buys the appearance of caring, not the actual caring. That is the reason celebrities get (got? Not up to date) doctors who prescribed addictive drugs, because they just gave the client what they wanted, not what they needed. You really want someone who speaks truth to power, not just pleasing nonsense. And the power must be able to discern the two.

Radim 5y ago
This is true prima facie, as a snapshot of "caring". But prolonged exposition and mutual relationships (even ones kickstarted by selfish, careless objectives such as "Pay me!" or "Go to war for me!") necessarily lead to intertwining of identities. And once you consider something (or someone) a part / extension of yourself, caring follows. In other words, given enough time and substantial interaction, the lines between "you" and "me" blur. That's just a biological (physical?) observation; cf. parasites and symbionts, nation building, product marketing, leadership… Of course it's a scale, not a binary care / don't care. A doctor may care very little about a celebrity he knows he'll be interacting with for a year or two, max. But family doctors still exist, too.
- RealityVoid 5y ago
  Very good points, I agree with the gist of your post, I just want to say, that, still you're not really buying it, but building it, through repeated interactions.
  - Radim 5y ago
    Yes, but you can buy repeated interactions. What's the actual difference then? IMO it's down to arguing semantics about how "tight" is the causal chain between the cause and effect. Do you perceive the cause (repeat buying) and its inevitable effect (caring) as sufficiently distinct in time and space? Then I guess you didn't buy the caring, you "built it through repeated interactions". I personally see that boundary as mostly linguistic, and tend to not draw the distinction.

Radim 5y ago

This is true prima facie, as a snapshot of "caring". But prolonged exposition and mutual relationships (even ones kickstarted by selfish, careless objectives such as "Pay me!" or "Go to war for me!") necessarily lead to intertwining of identities. And once you consider something (or someone) a part / extension of yourself, caring follows. In other words, given enough time and substantial interaction, the lines between "you" and "me" blur. That's just a biological (physical?) observation; cf. parasites and symbionts, nation building, product marketing, leadership… Of course it's a scale, not a binary care / don't care. A doctor may care very little about a celebrity he knows he'll be interacting with for a year or two, max. But family doctors still exist, too.

RealityVoid 5y ago
Very good points, I agree with the gist of your post, I just want to say, that, still you're not really buying it, but building it, through repeated interactions.
- Radim 5y ago
  Yes, but you can buy repeated interactions. What's the actual difference then? IMO it's down to arguing semantics about how "tight" is the causal chain between the cause and effect. Do you perceive the cause (repeat buying) and its inevitable effect (caring) as sufficiently distinct in time and space? Then I guess you didn't buy the caring, you "built it through repeated interactions". I personally see that boundary as mostly linguistic, and tend to not draw the distinction.