Compassion is virtuous.
Visiting the sick is one of the most value-creating activities a person can do.
Someone who has never been sick without parents to care for him might not notice, but once one has the experience, one can appreciate it and pay the debt back (or forward).
First of all, it's not up to you to define compassion for others. Neither is virtue.
Secondly compassion, virtue...all that has no inherent value other than the value you decide to give it.
Thirdly, did you ever question your own behaviour? I don't agree that visiting the sick has any positive purpose at all.
What exactly does a visit do? You could argue that a slight improvement in mental wellbeing may or may not happen and it may or may not speed up recovery. So you would call that slight possibility a "most value-creating activity a person can do"? I sure hope not.
A person doesn't get better from a visit, they get better by being left alone with medicine.
Your view on society is adorable, but remember that it has no roots in reality.
> A person doesn't get better from a visit, they get better by being left alone with medicine.
A possible rephrasing of the sentence above would be that, putting someone suffering from a protracted disease into a solitary confinement with medicine is the path to betterment. I don't think it works that way. There is a reason why even otherwise healthy person are not held in solitary confinement unless as an act of (sometimes disguised) punishment.
You mentioned that emotional health is an elusive concept. It is not, it can be measured, and the measure stands up to a quality that is acceptable to the disciplines of empirical sciences. I think your hesitation to acknowledge it, stems from the fact that it can be defined significantly by the person/patient, while that is true, it does not make it elusive. Many people can voluntarily control waves emitted by the brain. The fact, that brain signals can be so controlled, does not make epilepsy a fictitious condition.
>Depending on others to feel good is not the sign of a mentally healthy person.
EDIT: Responding here to prevent deeply nested threads. By your standards most humans would be unhealthy. The need for social interaction is well documented, and not only among humans. I am an introvert so I get by fine with a level of interaction low enough that it might bother someone else, but that does not mean that those who need it are unhealthy. There is a full spectrum and both extremes are considered deviant.
>I thought it was apparent that social interaction shouldn't be necessary to get better.
EDIT2: I think that's the crux of the argument/disagreement.
Social interaction has been deemed a necessity to well being. Can someone not recover from a disease without interaction, sure some can if it can be cured in a short enough duration, no otherwise. Does everybody need the social interaction to get better (stay well)? No, a percentage can do without it. In fact some spiritual school of thought see that to be the ultimate and difficult to attain target frame of mind.
Your emotional state is yours to control and change. Depending on others to feel good is not the sign of a mentally healthy person.
Editing aswell: I'm sorry, I should have been clearer but it's quite lengthy to always be precise and include the necessary disclaimers:
Of course everything has its limitations. Humans are social beings, so we like social interactions. During the limited time of sickness, I thought it was apparent that social interaction shouldn't be necessary to get better.
Example: I think it's possible to feel good when doing a walk alone in the park. I think it's possible to feel good when being alone sick. Suffering is often a distinct choice: Do I pity myself for standing in the rain or do I love the feel of fresh, wet water?
Edit2:
Can someone not recover from a disease without interaction, sure you can if it can be cured in a short duration, no otherwise
I think you are giving humans too little credit. Social interaction is very important, but it's quite possible to live alone. People don't actually go mad when you leave them alone - given that they are adults and they have sufficient other sensory and mental stimulation. People get used to a lot.
Example: Someone living completely alone at home, getting his meals delivered because he is too fat to leave. I'm not saying his life is awesome, but if he gets sick, there is no reason his recovery should in any way be significantly slower than the one of social people.
It's all a matter of getting used to things, self pity is usually the only culprit of an unhappy life.
It's certainly possible to live alone, but honestly, would you want to? How would you feel if Hacker News spamblocked you, so that nobody ever responded to your posts? How would you feel if that extended to every single aspect of your life, such that not a single person ever acknowledged your existence?
(Side note: a friend and I tried this on my sister when we were 8 and she was 7. She was being a nosy tag-along in the way that little sisters often are, and so we just literally pretended that she didn't exist. She was in tears within an hour, and my mom told us to either acknowledge her existence or my friend was going home.)
Just because healthy people can be alone doesn't mean they should. Over long periods of time, it causes marked social atrophy and can become really difficult to rejoin society.
"limited time of sickness?" We're not talking about a cold here, amigo. We're talking serious illness like cancer. It may very well last years, or even take the person's life eventually.
Science proves you wrong, of course. Visits with people and animals speed recovery. Friendly doctors have a better recovery rate. People without tightknit social networks are vastly more likely to die immediately after a spouse, than those with. Men married to American black women, for example, have the best survival rate after being widowed, due to their wives' tightknit social networks.
Why on earth would you claim otherwise? What basis do you have?
