Empathy

[partinobodycular]

I'm not an 'empathy only' moralist. Rather, I'm a 'compassion first' existentialist.

I've always had a hard time figuring out which philosophical box I fit into, but 'compassion first' existentialism would seem to suit me quite nicely... then again I'm probably too dim-witted to even know what 'compassion first' existentialism means. Still, I think that I'll add it to my checklist of philosophical boxes, along with Stoicism and Pyrrhonism. I'd add Christian to the list except that I don't think that I'd be very welcome there.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've always had a hard time figuring out which philosophical box I fit into, but 'compassion first' existentialism would seem to suit me quite nicely... then again I'm probably too dim-witted to even know what 'compassion first' existentialism means. Still, I think that I'll add it to my checklist of philosophical boxes, along with Stoicism and Pyrrhonism. I'd add Christian to the list except that I don't think that I'd be very welcome there.

No, you're not dim-witted and I think you get the gist of what I generally mean by 'compassion first existentialism.' By it, I essentially mean that on a merely human level, I see other people as being like myself---a struggling human being who has legitimate needs and wants to be understood. And this is well before I later bring in Jesus to also tell me, "Love others in truth and compassion as I do, first and foremost."

 

[partinobodycular]

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.

To be completely honest, your problem wouldn't seem to be with empathy, your problem would seem to be with people using empathy as a cover for immorality. Which leads me to wonder, what lesson are we to learn from the story of Christ and the woman caught in adultery?

It seems to me that people will always use the compassion of others as a sort of 'get out of jail free card', but does that mean that that compassion shouldn't be given?

 

[zippy2006]

Take away empathy, and compassion goes with it.

Given that the word "empathy" is a neologism, I don't think that's true. How did we manage without it for thousands of years?

It seems to me that people will always use the compassion of others as a sort of 'get out of jail free card', but does that mean that that compassion shouldn't be given?

So the reason why I asked whether those words are all the same is because folk around here keep conflating them. For example, you've just switched from talking about empathy to talking about compassion. As I explained in some detail, it is much harder to err on account of compassion or love than on account of empathy. This is because compassion and love are more robust, older, judgment-infused notions.

To be completely honest, your problem wouldn't seem to be with empathy, your problem would seem to be with people using empathy as a cover for immorality. Which leads me to wonder, what lesson are we to learn from the story of Christ and the woman caught in adultery?

The story never departs from judgment. That's why conservatives always have to remind liberals of the final word, "Sin no more."

The problem is not that empathy is a cover for immorality, but rather that empathy can't discern immorality. Indeed, empathy is not a historical moral category at all, so the onus is on the one who promotes an empathy ethic to explain how that is supposed to work, what it is supposed to effect, etc. In my experience such people are very tight-lipped when it comes to actual moral philosophy, and it doesn't strike me as a coincidence that no one in this thread has attempted to defend the moral worth of empathy.

Still, my recognition of their moral confusion or obstinancy

If you reject the notion of "tough love" then I don't think you can recognize their moral confusion. If your moral approach includes nothing contrary to empathy, then you have no way to critique someone who relies solely upon an empathy ethic.

I'm that jockey.

If you think so you are welcome to explain your morality, how empathy fits into that, etc. That would be constructive, in my opinion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you think so you are welcome to explain your morality, how empathy fits into that, etc. That would be constructive, in my opinion.

I think I already did, Brother Zippy, but here it is again..... Empathy is more or less a sub-species of Compassion, particulary by Christian compassion, and is entailed by it. We don't need to rely upon it solely because we have the more expansive, more applicable tenents of the Christian faith by which to apply love, mercy, grace, charity and just general, genuine concern for the overall well-being for other people, regardless of who they are.

However, I do agree that if and when empathy is used as a prioritized principle over and above all else where social inequities and inequalities are measured within only more Marxian lines (or other early 20th century German terms and neologisms), then it becomes something of a wax-nose.

But regardless, we have the figure of Christ to follow, whose words and examples of Compassion overshadow any mis-prioritized concepts that either secularists or some Christians put in place of the obligatory directives that Jesus and His Apostles gave us to live by.

In other words, we should be able, without too many qualms, to genuinely and without hesitancy affirm the full humanity of other people, regardless of their sins, without at the same time affirming those very sins. Again, the Compassion of Christ overshadows and overrules, although entails some nuances of today's ideas about empathy. We need to realize this without resorting to a bunch of militant verbiage that insinuates that Christ's example is somehow ineffective in nudging reform and that only a 'tough love' approach akin to Theodore Roosevelt's soft spoken use of a big stick will somehow bring that reform.

In other words, the choice we make for dealing with 'empathy' isn't delineated clearly by either the Left or the Right. But rather, from Above and will (or should) usually look and sound more or less like what is depicted in the following scene (however imperfectly it reflects the way it actually happened on that fateful day that Jesus crossed the Samaritan women's path......).

We all know that personal reform was later brought into her life, even if the scene (or the Gospel of John) itself doesn't explicitely say so.

 

[partinobodycular]

For example, you've just switched from talking about empathy to talking about compassion.

Because the latter is born of the former. We all accept that the Samaritan had compassion upon the traveler, but if not out of empathy then why? You seem to be afraid that if you give in to empathy you'll somehow be less of a Christian... too compassionate, too forgiving, too merciful. So instead you advocate for tough love, as if it wasn't sinners, tax collectors, and prostitutes that Jesus chose to dine with. I wonder, do you have it within yourself to do the same? Or is tough love your only answer?

The story never departs from judgment. That's why conservatives always have to remind liberals of the final word, "Sin no more."

And the same admonition probably went unspoken to every one of her accusers that walked away that day. Neither you nor I are better than her, the problem comes when we begin to think that we are. As if they're the ones who should feel blessed to be dining with us, and not us with them.

The problem is not that empathy is a cover for immorality, but rather that empathy can't discern immorality.

You're right, in a sense empathy doesn't see immorality. It sees people... wounded people. It doesn't matter whether the wounds that it perceives are physical, or psychological, or spiritual... if we're lucky, it sees them all... and it empathizes with them all. But having empathy for them doesn't equate to being blind to them, far from it.

Who knows what the priest, the Levite, and the Samaritan saw lying on the side of the road that day, but which one did Jesus say was his brother?

 

[zippy2006]

We all accept that the Samaritan had compassion upon the traveler, but if not out of empathy then why?

What does that even mean? "He acted out of empathy"?

You seem to be afraid...

Lol, the CF ad hominem never ends. But I guess there's little other option when the arguments are non-existent.

Neither you nor I are better than her, the problem comes when we begin to think that we are.

There you go. There's the egalitarianism that your empathy ethic is devised to support.

You're right, in a sense empathy doesn't see immorality. It sees people... wounded people.

This is another false statement. Empathy is about resonating with another's feelings, not merely feelings of woundedness. Nor does it mean seeing woundedness. It just means resonating with feelings of others. You are equivocating in order to try to draw out your personal beliefs.

But of course the "empathy ethicists" don't just see people. They don't think pedophiles are just "wounded people." They don't think MAGA supporters are just "wounded people." They don't think the people they continually attempt to undermine with ad hominem nonsense are just "wounded people."

And as good philosophers such as Rowan Williams have pointed out, in the end the empathy ethic is deeply conceited and arrogant. It treats people as pets, trapped by their feelings and woundedness, while in the process placing oneself over and above the "wounded" who must be condescended to and accommodated.

 

[zippy2006]

I think I already did, Brother Zippy

I don't think you did at all. Statements like these don't actually say much at all:

Empathy is more or less a sub-species of Compassion, particulary by Christian compassion, and is entailed by it.

This is wholly vague. It says that empathy shares something in common with compassion, and that if one has compassion then one has empathy. It gives us no understanding of what you specifically are referring to with the word "empathy."

However, I do agree that if and when empathy is used as a prioritized principle over and above all else where social inequities and inequalities are measured within only more Marxian lines

What does that look like? If empathy can go wrong, then how can it go wrong and when does it go wrong? What are specific examples?

But regardless, we have the figure of Christ to follow

If you think Jesus speaks about empathy, then you would have to point to the place. You need to do more than insinuate.

Again, the Compassion of Christ overshadows and overrules, although entails some nuances of today's ideas about empathy.

What are the nuances?

Why do you think the Woman at the Well is a case of empathy? If you want to be the jockey you have to be willing to give some concrete rationale for your views.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think you did at all. Statements like these don't actually say much at all:

.... my insinuation was that I had other posts which, both here in this thread and in other threads, that give the gist of my analytic position on empathy, and it was my understanding that you had already seen or read some of them in the past, whether recently or not.

This is wholly vague. It says that empathy shares something in common with compassion, and that if one has compassion then one has empathy. It gives us no understanding of what you specifically are referring to with the word "empathy."

You're missing the point------------for the Christian, it's not an issue of whether to have empathy or not for other people. My point, however unfortunately "vague" it may be for some people, is that on a practical, even theological level, empathy is superfluous and lesser in function and quality to Christian Compassion.

And what I see just about everywhere these days among so-called brethren in my own nation are theologies that basically leave Christ like compassion either out of the overall Christian moral framework OR require people to jump through specific doctrinal hoops (often denominationally or eschatologiclaly arbitrated) before a person in need of compassion will ................. ever even begin to get it from so-called "mature, righteous, knowledgeable" Christians.

What does that look like? If empathy can go wrong, then how can it go wrong and when does it go wrong? What are specific examples?

As I already insinuated, empathy goes wrong when placed into the hands of those who lean toward a more Marxist line of thinking. I've already stated that. Empathy doesn't require the affirmation of a person's moral wrong-doing, and I don't see why it would from either a secularist viewpoint, let alone a Christian viewpoint. But of course, there are those out there in society who will insist that empathy be a form of ideological pandering rather than emotional support.

.... I see. You want me to take a stand and jump through the hoop that you think is required for me to CLEARLY set myself in either the camp of the Left or of the Right. I think both camps are wrong headed, and regardless of whether or not we like to use the term 'empathy' when interacting or facing our enemies, Christian Compassion, along with all of the other mandatory moral characteristics of the Spirit, isn't optional, no matter how a person gerrymanders his or her theological lines of thought.

If you think Jesus speaks about empathy, then you would have to point to the place. You need to do more than insinuate.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that Jesus went WELL BEYOND what mere empathy does in its more acceptable usage. We who are Christian don't worry about empathy because we already have COMPASSION, along with an assortment of other God given mandates, that clearly go well beyond anything Secularists or Marxist do or have ever done on a global scale.

What are the nuances?

None needs to be given...............again.

Why do you think the Woman at the Well is a case of empathy? If you want to be the jockey you have to be willing to give some concrete rationale for your views.

I didn't say that the Woman at the Well is a case of mere empathy. The implication should have been clear to most others here that I was referring to what Christian, Christ-like COMPASSION should look like. And, that if all goes well, it would help direct those who receive it to make a decision toward reform (repentance).

If you want me to hammer down on Secularists, then fine: my example of doing so would be the one that William F. Buckley Jr. expressed when he sat down with Hugh Hefner for an hour long chat on the t.v. show, Firing Line, in 1966. I would sound very much like him, and I could even roll in Romans chapter 1 just for good measure if someone wants me too. However, the difference in my approach from that of William F. Buckley Jr. is that in addressing the egregious modes of thought that Hefner carried with him, I would also show compassion for Hugh Hefner by studying his biographical details and by understanding as best I can his mindset and his life challenges from birth to the point that made him decide to go spiritually awol and become a purveyor and entrepreneur of a Playboy Philosophy and Lifestyle.

Does any of this make sense to you? I know how those on the Left try to define and use 'empathy.' What should be obvious without spelling it out is that I, philosopher or not, have more than one reason for not relying on their definition of interpersonal, social conduct. But I would want them to know that I'm more than happy to treat them the way that Jesus treated the Samaritan Woman at the Well. The clincher is that I also expect every other Christian to be able to do so as well without but a small modicum of excuses, political or otherwise.

And holding to some form of Post-Millennialism as a political ideology and agenda ISN'T an excuse.