Phoebe Felix wrote: ↑February 18th, 2023, 6:14 am
However, I believe it would have been better put in way that accommodates the reality we face in our world today.
"But we are not all psychopaths." is a better way of putting it.
What do you think?
That's perhaps subjective, but in any case even if it's better worded that way, we can still agree the original wording is true.
However, the book as much as possible was written in the second person, so when I wrote, "We are not psychopaths", I meant specifically you and I are not psychopaths.
Thus, the truth of that statement would vary from reader to reader depending on whether that one individual reader was a psychopath.
For a reader who is either a psychopath and/or a philosophical zombie, there are many statements in the book that will be inapplicable or simply incorrect in relation to that reader. I don't think a literal psychopath and/or philosophical zombie would enjoy or even understand the book.
For instance, a psychopath presumably wouldn't and perhaps couldn't feel united with (i.e. truly love) their others in time, namely their future self, which is presumably why psychopaths seem to behave relatively fearlessly. They seem to lack the capacity for empathy and love for their so-called future self. Thus, the whole section about temporal unification of selves
would be inapplicable to them.
Long story short, there would a lot of sentences in the book that would be rendered 'untrue' for a psychopathic reader, due to it being written in the second person and under the assumption the reader is not a psychopath.