I have a great deal of empathy, but it’s for the people in my circle. I consider empathy the ability to feel the emotions of those you love. The feelings that are described her are not empathy, they are feelings of suffering with others solely for the purpose of being able to see yourself as more moral. I see this phenomenon often here in elite homeland of the Northeast. And it’s toxic only in its hypocrisy
It is common for people to see similar ends from different perspectives. This is not highly problematic to achieving good objectives.
Not having certain strict definitions within a logical framework, which makes sense to me, mostly ends up just being disturbing to my severely pedantic mind.
I argued with myself before posting this comment. It went something like this. Bob, you really love the things this woman posts. Don’t rock the boat. But then I had to go back to sticking with my love of focusing on that which is true to my understanding of the truth. And I found that the most intelligent and wise people do not mind being challenged.
For a very large part of my 63 years, I have understood the meaning of empathy to be that level of compassion and understanding which comes from having experienced something very close or exactly the same as the subject of the empathy. I think this is a very good definition. It has worked well for decades. It doesn’t need complication by addition or subtraction.
So, while I am glad that you challenged a new and perverse modification of the definition of empathy, I was disturbed to see that it involves you defining empathy by subsuming within it the definition of love. Empathy is a feeling which often leads to love. Love is all about action. Not feelings. Feelings can lead to love, and they can also follow love, but they are never actually love.
For the sake of proper understanding, we should not conflate the definitions of love with empathy or other feelings.
I definitely don’t mind being challenged, but I’m not sure I agree with your definition of empathy. I think it can be a demonstration of love. And I think the absence of it where it is necessary can be profoundly unloving.
In my mind, it's easy for me to understand the crusade against empathy, but I definitely feel the same way you do about it.
In my mind, the difference between empathy and whatever toxic empathy is can be discerned easily, if you know how. If someone in the situation is being squeamish about the input of another person, or using the Gentle Parenting Voice, it's probably not empathy.
We need more of this type of thinking. Thank you
Outstanding article Kaeley
Thank you!
and here you thought you had writer's block hahaha.
So exhausting, all this. Great piece.
Great piece, and good thinking.
This is excellent.
I have a great deal of empathy, but it’s for the people in my circle. I consider empathy the ability to feel the emotions of those you love. The feelings that are described her are not empathy, they are feelings of suffering with others solely for the purpose of being able to see yourself as more moral. I see this phenomenon often here in elite homeland of the Northeast. And it’s toxic only in its hypocrisy
It is common for people to see similar ends from different perspectives. This is not highly problematic to achieving good objectives.
Not having certain strict definitions within a logical framework, which makes sense to me, mostly ends up just being disturbing to my severely pedantic mind.
I argued with myself before posting this comment. It went something like this. Bob, you really love the things this woman posts. Don’t rock the boat. But then I had to go back to sticking with my love of focusing on that which is true to my understanding of the truth. And I found that the most intelligent and wise people do not mind being challenged.
For a very large part of my 63 years, I have understood the meaning of empathy to be that level of compassion and understanding which comes from having experienced something very close or exactly the same as the subject of the empathy. I think this is a very good definition. It has worked well for decades. It doesn’t need complication by addition or subtraction.
So, while I am glad that you challenged a new and perverse modification of the definition of empathy, I was disturbed to see that it involves you defining empathy by subsuming within it the definition of love. Empathy is a feeling which often leads to love. Love is all about action. Not feelings. Feelings can lead to love, and they can also follow love, but they are never actually love.
For the sake of proper understanding, we should not conflate the definitions of love with empathy or other feelings.
I definitely don’t mind being challenged, but I’m not sure I agree with your definition of empathy. I think it can be a demonstration of love. And I think the absence of it where it is necessary can be profoundly unloving.
In my mind, it's easy for me to understand the crusade against empathy, but I definitely feel the same way you do about it.
In my mind, the difference between empathy and whatever toxic empathy is can be discerned easily, if you know how. If someone in the situation is being squeamish about the input of another person, or using the Gentle Parenting Voice, it's probably not empathy.