tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3119816335163312523.post1602938598830559127..comments2023-04-27T04:39:45.647-04:00Comments on JT Thinks About Stuff: Book Review: Against EmpathyJThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12170062950345779215noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3119816335163312523.post-12097524840434604082017-02-28T10:56:20.987-05:002017-02-28T10:56:20.987-05:00And here is where we enter one of Bloom's defi...And here is where we enter one of Bloom's definitional quibbles. He's talking very specifically about empathy as the I-feel-your-pain reaction. I bang my finger with a hammer, you wince and cringe: that's Bloomian empathy. What you're describing he would label as "cognitive empathy" or "sympathy".<br /><br />I don't say that his distinction isn't valuable. It lets us discuss with more precision whether emotive empathy is a reliable guide to action (no). But it's a fine distinction, and one that I think ultimately doesn't fully account for empathy as a <i>continuum</i> of reactions.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12170062950345779215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3119816335163312523.post-50199234413613421852017-02-27T17:18:33.243-05:002017-02-27T17:18:33.243-05:00Interesting, I wouldn't call empathy an emotio...Interesting, I wouldn't call empathy an emotion at all, much less a strong one. Instead, I'd call it simply the _capability_ to imagine the "other" as like yourself. From there can come strong emotions, but it isn't one in itself. seanovanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00288825590780391411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3119816335163312523.post-17205791842177519372017-02-27T12:32:13.764-05:002017-02-27T12:32:13.764-05:00I do argue that compassion by its nature is not ra...I <b>do</b> argue that compassion by its nature is not rational.<br /><br />Paul Bloom would disagree with your more-empathy-rather-than-less argument. He'd say (I think) that empathy is like anger, or any other strong emotion. It's useful in its place. It exists for a reason. A wise person wouldn't eliminate it--but a wise person would also not put it in the driver's seat and let it take over the decision process.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12170062950345779215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3119816335163312523.post-13371271985660510532017-02-26T18:37:48.538-05:002017-02-26T18:37:48.538-05:00Pretty sure I see. You need empathy to even want t...Pretty sure I see. You need empathy to even want to use reason to want to be rationally compassionate. This kind of brings us back to our Lechter vs. Alda discussion. You could argue that compassion is by its nature not rational. <br /><br />I would argue that people need more empathy rather than less. And then follow that up with reason. WIthout empathy, we continue to think in terms of us vs. them. The "other" isn't like us, doesn't have our values. So we can choose to think of "them" as less than. That's how you get hate groups, wars, Trump rallies. seanovanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00288825590780391411noreply@blogger.com