Empathy, a priori and expanded character

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
1

Empathy is the ability to identify with another person’s feelings. When people are able to empathise, they are able to make priori judgements. Empathy requires expanded character.

In order to understand someone you must be that person. In that, you need to have similar experiences to understand someone’s feelings. You need to have a character that is at least as inflated as the person you are trying to understand in order to understand him.

We all have awareness of the environment. The environment react to us and we react back to the environment, it is the going back and forth that produces our character.

But we must not ignore our psychological tendencies which are unique with every race. You are always at ease and at an understanding within proximity of your own race, and you feel aliented when come into contact with other races. It does not seem possible to have complete understanding with other races.

And given our racial differences and experience. We have a character. The ability for us to empathise with others depends on 1) physical (i.e racial, sexual) distance and 2) experiences of similar situations.

Having an expanded character allows me to make priori judgements. When it is snowing, and someone is outside naked. I can say that the person is cold. The truthfulness of the statement is dependent on 1) my experiences with coldness 2) my experience with snow 3) genetic proximity.

I really think racial differences play a big part in our ability to empathise. Because in order to empathise, you need to “be” in that person’s “shoes”.

2

I have been very criticized here for declaring my empathy towards the Jews who died during the Second World War. I have said that I can’t bear the thought of those people crying, begging help, dying and suffering…in vain. People here are just not sensitive enough to understand such things. Also you are not, Pinnacle of Reason. As a Christian you understand everything (you prefer to undertand) like “God’s will”. You don’t seem to know what is “empathy” because "your god blesses you with “intelligence” and “riches”. I’m surprise that you can talk about empathy, about being in other’s shoes. Talk is cheap. Men like you could never really understand “empathy”, so please don’t be hypocritical.

A child crying…in our utilitarian world, that means nothing. “Why is it crying? Hunger? Loneliness? O let us solve its problem by feeding and holding it”! But tomorrow the child will be still crying. It will be still feeling lonely and unprotected. An our hugs, our cheers and our “words of consolation” will not be enough. Because we can help children who are dying, but we can’t feel what they are feeling. We are taught to be utilitarian, to think only of “useful” things. What is the usefulness of a hungry or lonely child crying? Fuck it! Ours is a practical time. Fuck usefulness. Fuck utilitarianism. Empathy, humanity, love…such things are the only things that could really matter…but nobody give a damn to them. Nobody knows what is empathy because it is not “useful”. We don’t care about others and we are taught to be proud of that. That is what makes our world be a place so empty, so fucking empty.

3

empathy is a luxury…

-Imp

4

Empathy is just another form of communication. That’s the way it seems to me. People that understand other people can be masters and that is for the positive or the negative. Emapthy is powerful.

5

I define empathy as including compassion, not just the “understanding” of what another is experiencing. Because when we really understand another, really understand what they’re experiencing, we can’t remain indifferent.

If you can’t be all that much empathetic of another human race because you’re not “in their shoes”, I don’t want to imagine how you behave to birds.

I believe we’re all born with empathy for the whole of nature, let alone the HUMAN race. Then most kill it because it’s messy, it gets in the way up the ladder to power in relationships. Like the Amazons (supposedly) amputated their right breast so they could war more comfortably and therefore successfully.

The rarest and most valuable asset a person will ever hold is a relationship with someone who hasn’t killed their own empathy. The only hope for humanity is to rediscover the importance of keeping empathy alive. That won’t happen during this era of mass-production, there are some who will make sure. The less we get along, the more independent households there are, the more TVs and dishwashers; and the more alone/lonely a person is, the more they turn to - buying - material comforts.

6

Empathy is being able to recognise emotion in people on a primal level.
It has little to do with character, and everything to do with instinct.

7

Dr.Satanical

Empathy is not only being able to “feel” on an emotional level, but to also understand on an “intellectual” and “experience” level.

Empathy = Identification with and understanding of another’s situation, feelings, and motives.

are you suggesting we are all born with empathy? how do you explain why some people feel no remorse, while others do? and why do soilders feel less and less empathy as their campaign drags on? it is more about learning to identify, with human aspect of the victims, something you don’t get in a dehumanising war environment.

Character is the attributes of a person, EQ, IQ… kind, nasty, all those factors come from experience. character is a result of interaction with experience. people need to have the experience in order to empathise, and experience is built into character. so it has a lot to do with character and little to do with instinct.

8

Real empathy goes beyond just feeling. It takes brains and creativity. It’s like being an actor that is studying for a part. You have to think and imagine what that character is going through, or else your acting will suck.
If you can put this ability to the use of helping or connecting to others then you have good character.

9

deleted

10

That was well said!

11

PoR,

You speak as if there is a difference between these things. It is all brain soup, the lines of distinction are arbitrary.

With the capacity for it, yes. Empathy, like all other feelings, is the result of chemicals in the brain gettin jiggy with it.

Empathy and remorse have little to do with one another. Remorse is guilt, guilt is a result of ideology conflicting with reality.

What evidence do you have of this?

Ahh, I see you have solved the age old nature vs nurture argument. Have you collected your nobel prize yet?

12

That was well said!

13

Dr.Satanical

Emotional is anger, hate, love… and intellectual is rational. e.g 2+2 = 4 can you describe emotion using algebra?

we are born with the capacity for empathy not empathy itself. empathy is learnt. read the question.

they are both feelings in others pain. empathy is understanding the pain, remorse is understanding the pain and regret causing the pain.

see wartime attrocities.

I have indeed. But some such as yourself is incapable of appreciating the significance of my synthetic conclusion. Why do you always have to follow in others shadow, having a nobel prize means nothing. I have refuted John Rawls’ theory of justice, and he got a nobel prize. the whole nobel thingy is too status orientated. if you only care about what others say, and have no conviction in yourself, you must be very shallow and have no belief. did you know there are people who refuse nobel prizes… they are the true individuals. not following your herd mentality.

14

PoR,

They are aspects of the same thing. Yes you could use mathematics to explain emotion, in all probability. Give it time.

Just as we are born with the capacity for anger, love, hate, jelousy, et al.
These are natural human traits, that do not have to be ‘learned’

Loose connection at best Understanding how someone feels does not imply remorse over the situation, or even any direct involvement whatsoever.

This is not direct evidence of a lack of empathy, rather it is evidence of the power of brainwashing and propaganda.

How very arrogant. On what grounds have you reached this conclusion? perhaps if you presented some sort of rational case, or some sort of evidence, to support your idea that emotional responses have to be learned…maybe then I would take you seriously.
Till then I’ll trust the experts in genetics and psychology, who would tend to disagree with your conclusion.

Wait…what did that strawman do to you anyway?
No conviction in myself?
No belief?
Herd mentality? (addedly amusing coming from a follower of the ‘great sheppard’)
All of this because I don’t agree with you on an unsupported theory of which you have provided no evidence? Because I trust scientific data and don’t feel an urge to waste my time re-inventing the wheel?
Do you really think you are smart enough to justify your arrogance, PoR?
Many would disagree.

15

Hey Satanical and PoR, how about both, nature and nuture. My understanding of the word empathy is that it just means fealing pain in reaction or response to another’s pain. I think this occurs both as a result of instinct and being brought up to be that way, thus having that specific character trait. I am actually more skeptical about the instinctive mechanism. My understanding of the instinct is something like flinching when seeing another guy get hit in the balls, or having your eyes water when someone else has something going on with their eyes. That last one is a bitch. Whenever anyone is rubbing their eyes from pain or any unpleasentness goes on with anyone else’s eyes, my eyes just automaticly start to water. People all look at me like im some kind of caring person, and cant stand the pain of others, but in my head im like: “WTF… Stop it… I didnt tell you to water you bastards, what are you welling up with tears for!” Its uncontrollable, ive tried. I wonder, does anyone else get this reaction?

Now looking at an instinctive empathy from a darwinistic and evolutionary perspective, it can be easily explained in terms of natural selection. Its easy to see how empathy for the same species helps in the survival of the whole species. Its almost like evolution was introducing the concept of society, getting us instinctivly to care for one another. Anyways, this I think is what you speak of Dr. Satanical, instinctive empathy. But feeling pain in reaction to another’s pain can also be readily explained by associations created through life, or as PoR would like to put it, the build up of character. For example, a person that was brought up by parents who consistently tought the association of the suffering of others and negativity, and negativity almost inevitably is associated with pain, so its easy to see how just thinking about the pain of others for a person like this will cause them to become unhappy. Just like a Christian might become unhappy or angry when thinking about sinners because they ascociate it with negativity and consequently pain. And just as these associations can be made to go one way, they can go the other as well. One could be brought up that the suffering of others is positive, and they may associate it with pleasure. Now youve got a serial killer, or a sadist. Society ofcourse trys to encourage the empathetic association. What better way to prevent harming others than by convincing everyone to feel bad about it. This view easily explains cases like Fabiano, because from my experience and understanding of the instinctive empathy, it can not cause such large scale depression as Fabiano portrays. In my understanding, empathy is generally a weak instinctive response. Fabiano’s pain is much better explained by associations hes made in life about the pain of other’s. Its now part of his character to feel pain in response to other’s pain. But as ive tried to tell him, one can change one’s character by simply understanding the mechanics of association and how exactly character is built. People change how they view the world all the time, they change their character all the time. And its not deluding oneself, its not lying to oneself, its merely changing associations. A pessimist associates alot with negativity, and ive met plenty of people and im sure weve all heard plenty of stories of people just starting to see the world in a diffirent light, associating their views with the positive aspects, and thus becoming optimists. And im sure weve all heard the opposite happen as well.

Now, to my skepticism of instinctive empathy. I fail to see how evolution has acomplished this goal. Is their some sixth sense, some way the information of pain is transfered from the one getting hurt to the one having the empathetic response? Because, think about this: Do you all think my eyes would still water at the sight of the pain of another’s eyes if ive never felt the pain myself. If ive never associated the process one goes through in response to eye pain with the actuall eye pain, would my body automaticly respond the same way, even though ive never known what it feels like to have eye pain? Or is this response I call an instinctive mechanism also just a product of association? Ive learned and associate rubbing the eye in response to eye pain, so when someone else does it, the association is triggerd and my eye reacts to the association, it begins to do exactly what eyes do when threatend, they water. Im not sure. But empathy is definatly regarded as an evolutionary mechanism, an instinct with an evolutionary value, that being causing us to protect our own species.

16

Russiantank

what you wrote was amusing. empathy is a priori synthetic judgement. It is about linking experience mentally. it goes like this

you have the experience of crying. you cry because you are sad. someone is crying, which you reckon is the effect, and the cause you infer to be that they are sad. that is empathy.

Dr.Satanical

back to you.

do not make a claim until you have proof right now.

see definition of empathy above. can you empathise with someone crying when you have never cried yourself?

if you have actually read your quote of me. you’d see I wrote ‘and regret causing the pain.’

of which reduces empathy in soilders.

I have already told you I am for the triumph of individual over the herd. Public opinion is the worst of all opinion.

17

I have arived at the conclusion seriously debating you or even trying to hold a serious discussion is pretty much a waste of time.
So, with that just one parting question.

How, exactly, do you reconcile THAT with your fanatical christianity?

18

Wait a minute…

“someone is crying, which you reckon is the effect, and the cause you infer to be that they are sad.”

No no no, according to you, the effect of crying is caused by the free will, maybe its only influenced by being sad, but the will is the main cause for human action, was that not your belief?

“empathy is a priori synthetic judgement.”

Or… Dictionary.com:

“Direct identification with, understanding of, and vicarious experience of another person’s situation, feelings, and motives.”

What you described as “linking experience mentally” is bassicly what I said, only when you see someone cry, and understand through inductive reasoning that they cry because they are sad, you actually get sad or cry as well. You FEEL what they FEEL, you dont just understand.

19

Russiantank

good to see you finally got the point.

Dr.Satanical

waste of your time or mine? don’t concede so early, learn to argue, learn to make your point.

Christianity is a collection of spiritually mature individuals. Every Christian is a moral leader. For us, morality is absolute and our conscience is always clear, we are apart from the immoral herd who can’t think for themselves. We are the moral leaders for we are first and foremost individuals.

20

My own. You have demonstrated (don’t just take my word for it, ask around) to be incapable or unwilling to think logicly and employ reason into your arguments. There is simply no way to argue with someone that continually presents opinions as facts yet refuses to even attempt to support their case with logic, reason, or evidence.
I know quite well how to make a point clearly, however to understand any point I make one must first have at least an elementary grasp on logic and reason. This is why you waste my time, you live in a fantasy world.

ahahahahahahahaha
Ludicrous. Drink the kool-aide you nutbar.