Empathy

[Akita Suggagaki]

I've often wondered whether the opposite is true, not specifically that the bible brainwashes people into not loving their neighbor, but rather that bible thumping followers of the bible brainwash people into not loving their neighbor.

But then again, I've never really figured out why people do what they do, so I can't lay the blame at anybody's feet... unless it's God's.

I guess they believe in “tough love” as long as it is directed at someone else

 

[partinobodycular]

I guess they believe in “tough love” as long as it is directed at someone else

I love my older brother dearly, but forty years ago his wife decided that what I needed was tough love, so I've only seen him a few times since.

The saddest part is... she's an ordained minister.

 

[zippy2006]

This isn't a redefining of empathy.

Yes it is. Time to stop lying. "X just means Y" is a definition-statement. None of your backpedaling or obfuscation changes this.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes it is. Time to stop lying. "X just means Y" is a definition-statement. None of your backpedaling or obfuscation changes this.

Find someone else to manufacture a fight with. I'm not interested.

 

[zippy2006]

Find someone else to manufacture a fight with. I'm not interested.

Start being honest. Start engaging topics in a serious way. Start using words correctly. Until you do that no one is interested.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Find someone else to manufacture a fight with. I'm not interested.

I think they are trying to do so with me. I feel your pain. Cheers.

 

[zippy2006]

Who’s been limiting it that?

See:

What's crazy to me is that being empathetic just means understanding and recognizing another person is really human, in all the same weird ways I am.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I think, perhaps, the concern arises because we may feel that empathy asks us to validate others' feelings and opinions, whether or not we agree with those feelings or whether or not they are true.

According to Rogers (1977), three characteristics, or attributes, of thetherapist form the core part of the therapeutic relationship - congruence,unconditional positive regard (UPR) and accurate empathic understanding.

Congruence: Congruence is the most important attribute, according to Rogers.This implies that the therapist is real and/or genuine, open, integrated andauthentic during their interactions with the client. The therapist does not havea facade, that is, the therapist's internal and external experiences are one inthe same. In short, the therapist is authentic. This authenticity functions as amodel of a human being struggling toward greater realness. However, Rogers'concept of congruence does not imply that only a fullyself-actualizedtherapist can be effective incounseling (Corey, 1986). Since therapists are also human, they cannot beexpected to be fully authentic. Instead, the person-centered model assumes that,if therapists are congruent in the relationship with the client, then theprocess of therapy will get under way...Congruence exists on a continuum ratherthan on an all-or-nothing basis (Corey, 1986).

https://web.cortland.edu/andersmd/rogers/char-a.html#:~:text=According%20to%20Rogers%20(1977)%2C,UPR)%20and%20accurate%20empathic%20understanding.

 

[zippy2006]

According to Rogers

Rogerian psychology would strongly support the "empathy ethic." Indeed, it forms the psychological basis for such an idea. But there is little evidence that Rogerian psychology is any more effective than more traditional approaches, and although the popular culture embraces those sorts of ideas, the field of psychology has largely moved on (with more constructive approaches, such as CBT or IFS).

After the sexual revolution we saw feminism flow, and now we are seeing feminism ebb. The "empathy" ethic is a characteristically feminine ethic, where what matters above all else is connection and a kind of Rogerian "unconditional positive regard." It is not actually about empathy per se, but rather affirmation. The problem is that not everything ought to be affirmed, including every possible object of empathy. Or more simply, one ought not empathize with every affective state of every individual. Oftentimes it would be incorrect to empathize. But even those who propose "empathy" know this if they are being honest, for they obviously fail to empathize all the time, such as when they dismiss those who disagree with them, thus deeming certain forms of affectivity unworthy of empathy. There is simply nothing coherent about the "empathy" ethic. It is little more than a bundle of fashionable platitudes.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Rogerian psychology would strongly support the "empathy ethic." Indeed, it forms the psychological basis for such an idea. But there is little evidence that Rogerian psychology is any more effective than more traditional approaches, and although the popular culture embraces those sorts of ideas, the field of psychology has largely moved on (with more constructive approaches, such as CBT or IFS).

After the sexual revolution we saw feminism flow, and now we are seeing feminism ebb. The "empathy" ethic is a characteristically feminine ethic, where what matters above all else is connection and a kind of Rogerian "unconditional positive regard." It is not actually about empathy per se, but rather affirmation. The problem is that not everything ought to be affirmed, including every possible object of empathy. Or more simply, one ought not empathize with every affective state of every individual. Oftentimes it would be incorrect to empathize. But even those who propose "empathy" know this if they are being honest, for they obviously fail to empathize all the time, such as when they dismiss those who disagree with them, thus deeming certain forms of affectivity unworthy of empathy. There is simply nothing coherent about the "empathy" ethic. It is little more than a bundle of fashionable platitudes.

Personally, I'm all for replacing Toxic Empathy with Biblical Compassion.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Personally, I'm all for replacing Toxic Empathy with Biblical Compassion.

Pass.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Pass.

To my mind, compassion transcends mere empathy. Of course, not many non-Christian folks know this these days because we have so very many paragons of Christian virtue going around, dismantling toxic empathy with a sledgehammer.

 

[partinobodycular]

Personally, I'm all for replacing Toxic Empathy with Biblical Compassion.

I'm curious as to what benefit you think the qualifier 'Biblical' added to that? Because to my mind that's an immediate red flag, meant specifically to differentiate your 'proper' compassion from everyone else's 'improper' compassion.

Even the term 'Toxic' is fraught with subjective land mines, such that I find it difficult to discern exactly what that sentence is implying.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm curious as to what benefit you think the qualifier 'Biblical' added to that? Because to my mind that's an immediate red flag, meant specifically to differentiate your 'proper' compassion from everyone else's 'improper' compassion.

Even the term 'Toxic' is fraught with subjective land mines, such that I find it difficult to discern exactly what that sentence is implying.

Well, look at the context of 'who' it is that I was writing my post to in that particular instance. Sometimes, I think folks need to be reminded that certain things like compassion are actually expressed by Jesus.

Truth is: I don't actually think there is such a thing as toxic empathy. There's only care, love, compassion, sympathy and empathy and....the opposite of these things. I lean toward advocating those former things and not their opposites. But then again, I might be a bad Christian.

 

[Hans Blaster]

To my mind, compassion transcends mere empathy.

I agree. It is the notion of "biblical compassion" I find far fetched.

Of course, not many non-Christian folks know this these days because we have so very many paragons of Christian virtue going around, dismantling toxic empathy with a sledgehammer.

I think they have me on ignore. To which I would to them echo your:

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree. It is the notion of "biblical compassion" I find far fetched.

Don't read too much into my nomenclature. All that should be read by it is that compassion is a biblical concept and can be found in the Bible. In fact, for the Christian, the expression of compassion isn't an option. And that's really all I was attempting to insinuate by the term.

I think they have me on ignore. To which I would to them echo your:

Yes, they may. But some of us don't, even if we don't swing by that often.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Don't read too much into my nomenclature. All that should be read by it is that compassion is a biblical concept and can be found in the Bible.

OK

In fact, for the Christian, the expression of compassion isn't an option. And that's really all I was attempting to insinuate by the term.

I can think of a dozen posters, easy, that could use this lesson

Yes, they may. But some of us don't, even if we don't swing by that often.

 

[zippy2006]

Personally, I'm all for replacing Toxic Empathy with Biblical Compassion.

I'm for forms of moral philosophy which do not exclude judgment. The key reason our age likes empathy is because it excludes judgment: on the empathy ethic one does not ask whether the thing in question is good or bad, one is simply expected to "empathize" with it without judging. "Empathy" is the trojan horse for the increasingly popular forms of moral anti-realism and moral subjectivism.

There's only care, love, compassion, sympathy and empathy and....the opposite of these things.

So then do you think that care, love, compassion, sympathy, and empathy are all the same thing?

A very simple way to understand what I am saying is to realize that there is such a thing as "tough love" but there is no such thing as "tough empathy." This is by design. Empathy is designed to differ from love and compassion in this way. Love can be tough because there is judgment involved (i.e. a telological ordering to what is good for the person). Compassion is not always appropriate because there is a judgment that is supposed to precede compassion (i.e. whether misericordia is appropriate given the circumstances). The premise of the empathy ethic is to do away with all such judgments. This makes it opposed to Christianity, but also to any philosophy which holds that judgment is a necessary part of moral and human action.

So for example, if someone has sexual feelings towards someone of the same sex, to tell them not to act on such feelings is to "lack empathy." The person who does not encourage them to indulge their sexual feelings is "deficient in empathy." Empathy is the neologism created for feeling-resonance, and it has now been transformed into a word for feeling-normativity. Similarly, to tell the person with gender dysphoria that they are confused is to "lack empathy," as is telling the pedophile that his desires are disordered (and even this latter move was explicitly rejected after the sexual revolution in many parts of Europe, which is part of why the culture struggles so much with this sin).

The oddity here is not that someone would advise caution and restraint with regard to empathy, or even be "against" empathy, but rather that the forerunner of that view—to which the person is reacting—is the idea that we should be "for" empathy, or that we should empathize indiscriminately. This is what is truly odd, and this is what folks like Kirk are reacting against. Someone who is "for" empathy is very much like someone who is "for" affirmation, or inclusivity, or openness, or borderlessness. It is the same problem underlying all of these ideas. Whether one should empathize, affirm, include, be open to, or tear down a border/boundary, depends on what is being empathized/affirmed/included/opened/bounded. It is entirely confused to be "for" such things without any reference to the object in question. One may as well be "for" shooting without specifying what sort of objects ought to be shot. Or "for" consuming without specifying which sort of things ought to be consumed.

 

[partinobodycular]

The key reason our age likes empathy is because it excludes judgment:

I'm sorry, but empathy doesn't prohibit judgment, it merely tempers it with compassion, which when properly applied leads to mercy, not absolution.

So then do you think that care, love, compassion, sympathy, and empathy are all the same thing?

They're not the same, but it's an extraordinary person indeed who can lose one of them, and not be at risk of losing them all under the guise of justice.

The premise of the empathy ethic is to do away with all such judgments.

It seems to me that you've created a straw man and called it an 'empathy ethic'. But in doing so you've condemned something that Christianity would be heartless without. Take away empathy, and compassion goes with it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm for forms of moral philosophy which do not exclude judgment. The key reason our age likes empathy is because it excludes judgment: on the empathy ethic one does not ask whether the thing in question is good or bad, one is simply expected to "empathize" with it without judging. "Empathy" is the trojan horse for the increasingly popular forms of moral anti-realism and moral subjectivism.

Same here. I'm not an 'empathy only' moralist. Rather, I'm a 'compassion first' existentialist. Judgment is still on the menu, but it's in the dessert section, and people might call me conventional, but I think just dessert should come last and not spoil the dinner folks are being invited to.

So then do you think that care, love, compassion, sympathy, and empathy are all the same thing?

Nope. Absolutely not. But to my mind, they are part of a package, sort of like the Fruit of the Spirit (which granted, I've always had a difficult time consistently showing in my life. [ugh!] )

A very simple way to understand what I am saying is to realize that there is such a thing as "tough love" but there is no such thing as "tough empathy." This is by design. Empathy is designed to differ from love and compassion in this way. Love can be tough because there is judgment involved (i.e. a telological ordering to what is good for the person). Compassion is not always appropriate because there is a judgment that is supposed to precede compassion (i.e. whether misericordia is appropriate given the circumstances). The premise of the empathy ethic is to do away with all such judgments. This makes it opposed to Christianity, but also to any philosophy which holds that judgment is a necessary part of moral and human action.

Yeah, I don't like Tough Love. My dad used to use that on me-------------and by 'his own authority.' Let's just say, it didn't take.

So for example, if someone has sexual feelings towards someone of the same sex, to tell them not to act on such feelings is to "lack empathy." The person who does not encourage them to indulge their sexual feelings is "deficient in empathy." Empathy is the neologism created for feeling-resonance, and it has now been transformed into a word for feeling-normativity. Similarly, to tell the person with gender dysphoria that they are confused is to "lack empathy," as is telling the pedophile that his desires are disordered (and even this latter move was explicitly rejected after the sexual revolution in many parts of Europe, which is part of why the culture struggles so much with this sin).

Nothing I'm talking about has anything to do with affirmation of sins, especially not of any that are symptomatic of a Hefnerian Philosophy. This is why I focus more on biblical compassion than I do empathy, but as a general concept, empathy is still (and should be seen as) valuable. It just shouldn't be used as a singular principle within some plural choice of 'ethics.'

I understand very well that those on the Left have redefined and/or commandeered certain moral notions and reapplied them as normative, usually without explanation other than that these 'newer' definitions push along 'the plan.' Still, my recognition of their moral confusion or obstinancy doesn't alleviate me from the burden of saying to them, as I'd want it said to me, "Go, you are forgiven, and sin no more."

The oddity here is not that someone would advise caution and restraint with regard to empathy, or even be "against" empathy, but rather that the forerunner of that view—to which the person is reacting—is the idea that we should be "for" empathy, or that we should empathize indiscriminately. This is what is truly odd, and this is what folks like Kirk are reacting against. Someone who is "for" empathy is very much like someone who is "for" affirmation, or inclusivity, or openness, or borderlessness. It is the same problem underlying all of these ideas. Whether one should empathize, affirm, include, be open to, or tear down a border/boundary, depends on what is being empathized/affirmed/included/opened/bounded. It is entirely confused to be "for" such things without any reference to the object in question. One may as well be "for" shooting without specifying what sort of objects ought to be shot. Or "for" consuming without specifying which sort of things ought to be consumed.

What's usually easier in all of this is to simply ask your interlocutor (me, in this case) what influences have gone into his composition of Ethics. In all that you say above, it sort of feels like you're trying to describe what a horse is to a jockey. I'm that jockey.

But again, I get that you're more of an 'enforcer' type who thinks 'tough love' is the main way to order society. Tough love just doesn't do it for me, and I don't see empathy and affirmation as either synonymous or requiring a necessary conceptual fusion.