Discuss:Mathematics, Logic, Philosophy:Empathy - Transparent and Opaque Forms
From da Vinci Concept
Contents |
Empathy - Transparent and Opaque Forms
macrocosm - Tue Dec 21 20:09:53 2004
A most basic question to begin this thread pertaining to the definition and utility in the conception of empathy. Let us look first toward Merriam Webster for a satisfactory definition:
the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this
This seems to be well suited to the realities of human interaction so I will proceed with this definition.
Part 1: "the action of understanding, ... the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another"
What does it mean to be "understanding":
a. to show a sympathetic or tolerant attitude toward something
b. to accept as a fact or truth or regard as plausible without utter certainty
c. to grasp the reasonableness of
d. to grasp the meaning of
Here I have pulled the most relevant definitions from M-W. Note that these are not listed in any intended order.
All of these seem to be applicable, but definitions A and C seem to be particularly relevant with the others seeming to be necessary prerequites to A and C. B can apply in so far as it serves to satisfy A. D seems to be a necessary (though not sufficient [TNS]) condition for C, and C seems to be a necessary (TNS) condition for A.
Will add the remaining respective parts later...TTFN
At Sunny's partial request, I shall make clear that TTFN = Ta Ta For Now
[ Edited ]
--macrocosm Tue Dec 21 20:09:53 2004
Sunny - Fri Sept 15 09:01:00 2006
I think that a discussion of empathy is pertinent. Your initial analysis of the meaning identifies some of the possible pitfalls of the concept of 'empathy'. Your second set of definitions takes concepts from the first definition and twists their meaning. The sympathy and tolerance implied within the concept of 'to understand' are definitely related to the concept of empathy, as you pointed out, but it is not necessary to disregard truth or accept unreasonable claims in order to empathize with another.
I think that it is a dangerous proposition to state that to understand or sympathize with another's views is the same as accepting those views for oneself. Just like the idea of tolerance, there is no requirement to agree with the views or accept the proposed truths of another individual or group. To do so would be both self-compromising and possibly defeat any new or original insight that you may have into the lifestyle, beliefs, or problems of another.
Further, there are some ideas or emotions that are simply not understandable in any sense, meaning that the whole structure on which they are based is broken. In the case of a murderer or rapist I would either refuse to empathasize or simple be unable to for lack of a coherent or logical structure to their emotions or beliefs.
References: South Park Episode 614 The Death Camp of Tolerance ---
TheLiberal - Fri Sep 28 10:31:00 2007
I find the discussion of empathy fascinating, as I have had conversations in which the person with which I was conversing with notes my complete lack of empathy. Sadly, I must concur. Certainly, I can fake empathy, but I do not experience it in reality. As a result, I often come off as arrogant or selfish. I certainly have learned to identify with those labels, to the point in which I readily answer to them. But If I were to truly think on it, I am just impatient with the sorrows of others. Interestingly enough, empathy is a fractal type formation of chemicals in the brain. Because this is true, I would like to discuss the evolutionary consequences of discussing empathy. For example, what type of environmental conditions could have led to the concepts rise in early man? What type of conditions could result in a lack of empathy?
Interesting,
- --TheLiberal See above date.
