Empathy

[eleos1954]

A quote from Chuck Kirk.


Now I look at this quote and I get seriously confused. I cannot understand why a person would have a problem with empathy.

How would the Good Samaritan Help someone that thinks their terrible without it?

How can Jesus heal someone without it?

In my view, empathy connects us and allow people sympathy to flow more greatly. It creates stronger bonds between strangers.

So help me understand how and WHY empathy is bad.

The concern raised by some conservative Christians is that "empathy" can be misconstrued to mean validating or celebrating sinful actions. Empathy should not be confused with condoning sin or excusing unrighteous behavior.

 

[Servus]

I don't feel empathy for Charlie cause he's dead.

I did clearly expressed empathy for his family because that was awful for them to be there.

But frankly I don't idol worship our political figures like the right so I can't really be the kind of empathetic you may need.

I'm sorry i let you down like that.

That's you. What about the rest?

 

[rambot]

The concern raised by some conservative Christians is that "empathy" can be misconstrued to mean validating or celebrating sinful actions. Empathy should not be confused with condoning sin or excusing unrighteous behavior.

YES! Thank you. I agree 100%.

Also, the idea of feeling empathy for "Being repressed"....Christians could ACTUALLY feel empathy for gay folks on this front.

A true Christian call is antithetical to quite a few American cultural constructs; and gay people get repressed.

We can find way to be empathetic with people; even people we disagree with, without condoning sin.

 

[eleos1954]

YES! Thank you. I agree 100%.

Also, the idea of feeling empathy for "Being repressed"....Christians could ACTUALLY feel empathy for gay folks on this front.

A true Christian call is antithetical to antithetical to quite a few American cultural constructs; and gay people get repressed.

We can find way to be empathetic with people; even people we disagree with, without condoning sin.

We continuously point people to Jesus .... He is the only way.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So much is tied up in warring definitions and contrasts with empathy and sympathy, it may be better to just talk about caring or compassion or understanding.

I care that you've left your country for a better life here. I understand that; everyone should understand that, but there are rules, and we're shipping you back.

Obviously, there is plenty of rhetoric about invaders (or worse) that suggests some people don't care about people in this situation.

 

[o_mlly]

I think it is important to separate between the person and the actions.

I agree. We can never know the sin of another as sin is in the will, subjective. We can judge objectively the act as good or evil.

 

[Servus]

The concern raised by some conservative Christians is that "empathy" can be misconstrued to mean validating or celebrating sinful actions. Empathy should not be confused with condoning sin or excusing unrighteous behavior.

When we're told to have empathy, it's way of trying to get us to stop speaking out against a culture of sin. It's just the latest tactic.

 

[bèlla]

That's you. What about the rest?

He’s not the only one. I have a similar opinion and don’t admire anyone on either side. But I wouldn’t wish them harm.

~bella

 

[rambot]

When we're told to have empathy, it's way of trying to get us to stop speaking out against a culture of sin. It's just the latest tactic.

No it's not. The last several posts cleared that up.

 

[o_mlly]

The concern raised by some conservative Christians is that "empathy" can be misconstrued to mean validating or celebrating sinful actions. Empathy should not be confused with condoning sin or excusing unrighteous behavior.

On its own the feeling of empathy is neither good nor evil as it un-willed. However, if the feeling moves us to commit an evil act the then act and the feeling that preceded the act are both evil.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thank you for your in-depth response.

empathy(n.)​

1908, modeled on German Einfühlung (from ein "in" + Fühlung "feeling"), which was coined 1858 by German philosopher Rudolf Lotze (1817-1881) as a translation of Greek empatheia "passion, state of emotion," from assimilated form of en "in" (see en- (2)) + pathos "feeling" (from PIE root *kwent(h)- "to suffer").

Empathy - Etymology, Origin & Meaning

Originating in 1908 from German Einfühlung (ein "in" + Fühlung "feeling"), derived from Greek empatheia meaning "passion, state of emotion," it denotes art apprec...

www.etymonline.com

So, is empathy a passion? Yes, it is.

Oh great, an entomologist. Such people bug me.

 

[o_mlly]

Oh great, an entomologist. Such people bug me.

A biologist bugged by one of his own pests? There's hope.

 

[Ophiolite]

When we're told to have empathy, it's way of trying to get us to stop speaking out against a culture of sin. It's just the latest tactic.

That does not seem to be a constructive way of looking at things. If there are issues of disagreement these are most likely to be solved by seeking to consider the matter from the other side, not by adopting a wholly dismissive attitude and position. Surely attempts to solve differences are more valuable than endless, entrenched bickering.

Thus I am seeking to understand the concerns that led you to make the above post. It seems you fear that demands of empathy are an invidious trick, a subterfuge, to enable the sinners to continue sinning. If my understanding is accurate, it does not solve the differences of our position, but at least it clarifies the problem. The alternative would have been a reactive attack on your position, which would have only deepened the rift.

So, I vote for empathy. I'd like to think you would give it serious consideration.

 

[linux.poet]

I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage.

A quote from Chuck Kirk.

Now I look at this quote and I get seriously confused. I cannot understand why a person would have a problem with empathy.

In some contexts, particularly that of “woke” subculture rhetoric, empathy is just a fancy code word for narcissistic behavior and demanding that other people cater to your personal feelings at the expense of logic and truth.

The New Age movement is about humans “finding God” inside of themselves in order to become God (or at least, some kind of deity) so that movement would definitely seem to be in line with this type of empathetic narcissism.

See: Christian nationalist pastor McPherson: "Empathy is aligned with hell."

Therefore, empathy is a demand that I worship your emotions as God. It is idolatry. I will have none of it.

You could also go with “Some female parents and LGTBQ individuals don’t properly understand what empathy is and confuse empathy with narcissistic demands. This has led some pastors to distance themselves from the term “empathy” in order to avoid enabling these groups’ sin and supporting LGTBQ positions.” Now we have an objective thesis that can be argued in academic circles and justify paying theologians overpriced salaries for at least another year.

I spent some too-long posts processing my overpriced rage at empathetic narcissists already, so I don't see the need to repeat myself. Basically, a somewhat legitimate human attribute is being weaponized by narcs, which then reflects badly on the word. Political rhetoric is typically concise and doesn't really go into nuance.

So help me understand how and WHY empathy is bad.

The other problem with empathy is that it's passive. You didn't choose to feel what the other person felt and respond with kindness or compassion. You just did, and it's the other person taking advantage of your subconscious/unconscious mind. That's why empathy is bad, because it's out of your control, and it either indicates that you are being manipulated or you have a disorder. You have to push back against the mirror-neuron-downloaded emotion in order to think clearly and act from your own beliefs again.

That's a good point. Let's ask: What is the difference between Empathy and Compassion? I'll let everyone else here work on finding out what they think the answer is.

Empathy is passive; compassion is active. Empathy is something that you experience; compassion is something that you DO, and it requires thought because you need to think about what the best course of action is.

Let's say I have a homeless friend. Empathy is feeling sorry for them every night as I think about their miserable sleeping conditions while I sleep in my comfortable bed in my house. It's useless. Compassion is taking them to Costco and buying them a chicken for them to eat, and helping them with their resume so they can find a job.

Speaking of victims, many of them need compassion instead of empathy. Even praying for them is an act of compassion.

 

[Servus]

That does not seem to be a constructive way of looking at things. If there are issues of disagreement these are most likely to be solved by seeking to consider the matter from the other side, not by adopting a wholly dismissive attitude and position. Surely attempts to solve differences are more valuable than endless, entrenched bickering.

Thus I am seeking to understand the concerns that led you to make the above post. It seems you fear that demands of empathy are an invidious trick, a subterfuge, to enable the sinners to continue sinning. If my understanding is accurate, it does not solve the differences of our position, but at least it clarifies the problem. The alternative would have been a reactive attack on your position, which would have only deepened the rift.

So, I vote for empathy. I'd like to think you would give it serious consideration.

The word empathy is just simply a replacement for the word tolerance.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Possibly relevant or informative, from this month's SciAm.

How a Tiny Brain Region Guides Generosity​

The decision to help a friend or stranger—and the amount of help that one chooses to give—may be powerfully shaped by the brain’s basolateral amygdala

...why are some people more generous to socially distant individuals than others are? In recent research, my colleagues and I gained new insight into these questions by examining a rare population of individuals with selective damage to a part of the brain called the basolateral amygdala. Our findings suggest that this small but important structure may be essential for calibrating our generosity based on how close or distant others feel to us.

Across species, this region has been shown to participate in evaluating social rewards, empathic responses and decisions involving others. In rodents and monkeys, neurons in the basolateral amygdala encode the value of not just rewards for oneself but also the rewards received by others. And in humans, the structure has been linked to traits such as trust, empathy, moral decision-making and extraordinary altruism. Human amygdala volume also correlates with the size and complexity of a person’s social network. And some evidence suggests that psychopathy and aggression are associated with a smaller, less functional amygdala.

To test this idea, my colleagues and I turned to a remarkable group of people in South Africa who have Urbach-Wiethe disease, a very rare genetic condition that causes selective bilateral damage to the basolateral amygdala while leaving the rest of the brain intact. In our study, we invited five women with this condition and 16 women without it to take part in a social discounting task. Each participant listed eight people from her own social network, ranging from her emotionally closest person (ranked as having a social distance of 1) to someone she barely knew (50) or a complete stranger (100). We then asked them to make decisions about how to split money. In each of several rounds, they received a fixed monetary amount and decided how much to share with each of their eight listed contacts.

As expected, the participants gave more to people they were close to than they gave to others who were more distant. That is, generosity declined as social distance increased. We found it interesting, however, that participants with damage to the basolateral amygdala were less generous overall than others, and their generosity decreased more sharply as social distance increased. They showed what we call steeper social discounting: they were still willing to help those they were emotionally closest to, but their willingness to give dropped off markedly for more distant individuals.

--

Social distance is, in my mind, a fairly subjective measurement. Once we get beyond people we personally know, some have opined that there is an ordo amoris, an order of caring among different groups, while others have opined that we inhabitants of earth are all sistren and brethren.

 

[FreeinChrist]

A quote from Chuck Kirk.


Now I look at this quote and I get seriously confused. I cannot understand why a person would have a problem with empathy.

How would the Good Samaritan Help someone that thinks their terrible without it?

How can Jesus heal someone without it?

In my view, empathy connects us and allow people sympathy to flow more greatly. It creates stronger bonds between strangers.

So help me understand how and WHY empathy is bad.

Empathy is not bad. It is one of the most positive words in the English language. As a Christian, I consider empathy one of the fruits of the Spirit. The New Testament in the Bible and the life of Jesus is full of empathy.

Examples:
Rom 12:15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.

1Pe 3:8 ¶ [fn]To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit;

Phl 2:4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.

Gal 6:2 Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.

Hebrews 4:15 states that Jesus can "sympathize with our weaknesses" because He was "tempted in every way".

God the Spirit shows empathy

Rom 8:26
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.

I don't believe one can truly live a Chrisitian life if there is no empathy.

I added this to my signature:

"In my work with the defendants (at the Nuremberg Trails 1945-1949) I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy."​

Captain G. M. Gilbert, the Army psychologist assigned to watching the defendants at the Nuremberg trials​

​

Some will whine that the Godwin rule is in play, but with the quality of empathy is under attack, and by Christians too, it badly needs to be remembered.

 

[MehGuy]

Perhaps I am missing your point but it seems that you propose that one with a disordered attitude on human relations is at an advantage to be empathetic. I would argue the contrary; they have a propensity to be narcissistic.

I think it helps to look at what I am saying through an evolutionary framework.

While the dictionary definition of empathy might go along the lines of being able to put yourself in the shoes of another, the reality of this might present some problems.

To actually empathize with another in pain in a literal sense you are subjecting yourself to emotional pain. Engaging in empathy in such a raw way is unpleasant and a turn off, so much so that people will be less willing to engage in empathy.

To incentivize empathy, our brains evolved to layer the empathetic experience with sadomasochism. Where the suffering of another isn't so raw, but instead sweetened.

Everyone is on the spectrum, and the sweetening of empathy is normal and healthy in moderate levels. With disorders being more likely on the lower and higher ends of the spectrum.

When a religious person talks about pain and suffering being beautiful, they are probably referring largely to this sweeting process from emotional empathy, and even other theory of mind processes like sympathy.

 

[Godcrazy]

I agree. We can never know the sin of another as sin is in the will, subjective. We can judge objectively the act as good or evil.

yes love the sinner not the sin. while not falling yourself or compromise. Just lovingly warn them and be a light

 

[Robban]

I think it helps to look at what I am saying through an evolutionary framework.

While the dictionary definition of empathy might go along the lines of being able to put yourself in the shoes of another, the reality of this might present some problems.

To actually empathize with another in pain in a literal sense you are subjecting yourself to emotional pain. Engaging in empathy in such a raw way is unpleasant and a turn off, so much so that people will be less willing to engage in empathy.

To incentivize empathy, our brains evolved to layer the empathetic experience with sadomasochism. Where the suffering of another isn't so raw, but instead sweetened.

Everyone is on the spectrum, and the sweetening of empathy is normal and healthy in moderate levels. With disorders being more likely on the lower and higher ends of the spectrum.

When a religious person talks about pain and suffering being beautiful, they are probably referring largely to this sweeting process from emotional empathy, and even other theory of mind processes like sympathy.

Empathyy is not something you turn on and off.

The reason some do not feel empathy is because they are dead, stone dead.

As a corpse, cold and hard hearted.

It is not pleasant to feel empathy,